Stop Marine Le Pen — And Hang the Expense!

Some background information is required before you watch the following report from French television.

France is in the midst of a presidential election campaign. Under ordinary circumstances, the Socialists face off against the Republicans (formerly the UMP, the party of Nicolas Sarkozy), and the candidate for one or the other party wins and moves into the Élysée Palace, the residence of the French president.

But France has a multiparty system, and as often as not no candidate gets a clear majority in the first round of voting. The two candidates with the largest pluralities then face each other in the run-off, and the winner becomes president.

Sometimes the French electorate forgets that it is not allowed to vote for “racist” and “xenophobic” candidates, and a significant number cast their ballots for a “right-wing extremist” candidate — these days, usually Marine Le Pen of the Front National, who opposes mass immigration, the EU, and Islamization. Typically, if Ms. Le Pen makes it to the run-off, the losing party urges its voters to turn out and vote for the “non-racist” candidate — the Republicans vote for the Socialist candidate, or vice versa. All in order to keep the dreaded “neo-fascists” of the Front National from gaining power.

For a while it looked like this year’s election was going to see the Socialists voting for the Republicans’ candidate in the run-off. François Hollande, the current Socialist president, had driven his party’s brand so deep into the mud that there was no chance a Socialist could win the election. That left François Fillon — who beat out Sarkozy in the Republicans’ primaries — to face Marine Le Pen after the inevitable failure of the Socialists in the first round of the elections.

However, a few weeks ago Mr. Fillon also self-destructed. It’s too complicated to go into the details, but the scandal involved a well-paying public job for his wife that required her to do little or no work. He did his best to contain the media uproar, but it didn’t work. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the reviled and forbidden right-wing nationalist party, became the clear front-runner with a credible chance of winning the presidency.

From the point of view of the transnational globalists who manage political affairs in France and elsewhere in the West, the result was unthinkable. Marine Le Pen must be stopped at any cost! So the deep-pockets financiers have picked an alternative candidate, a Socialist apparatchik named Emmanuel Macron, to make a last-minute run for the presidency. Mr. Macron — like Justin “Baby Doc” Trudeau in Canada — is young, pretty, and reliably left-wing and multicultural on the issues that count. Money is pouring in and top-notch political consultants have been hired to promote the Macron Brand.

The process is very much like the one that aimed to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. And, just as with #NeverTrump, familiar globalist players are active in the campaign — note the prominent appearance of George Soros in this report.

No expense will be spared to keep Marine Le Pen out of the Élysée.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


02:01   News from the election campaign
02:09   Direction Élysée [presidential residence]
02:13   Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Direction Élysée!
02:17   Is the mega-fraud [Emmanuel] Macron being unmasked?
02:21   Lack of program… money fallen from the sky and well-ordered meetings.
02:25   The Macron bubble seems more and more to the general public
02:29   like a marketing product manufactured from scratch.
02:33   Is Macron-mania calming down? According to the recent numbers,
02:37   the quick rise in the polls of the former Rothschild banker stalled for the last couple of days,
02:41   still in second place behind Marine Le Pen.
02:45   The erstwhile Economy Minister follows his route and his collusion with the media.
02:49   The magazines keep giving him their covers, following
02:53   a very well-thought-out strategy, under which the more he is in the media,
02:57   the more he is believed to be popular, and the more media coverage he gets.
03:01   A display of the reflexivity theory, conveyed by George Soros
03:05   and his Open Society Foundation. This method
03:09   is also used in the slogan of the En Marche Movement [Let’s go! Or, It’s working].
03:13   In this manner, on their site they bang on an open door with sentences such as “Take wing
03:17   from reality to find new answers”, “Everything begins with the renewal of political engagement”,
03:21   or the best one: “Let’s get moving to get France moving!”
03:25   Be careful if you ask why or how!
03:30   Those master-key incantations have an advantage: they can make anyone win —
03:34   no divisions, no opinion, no solution. This reminds one a little
03:38   of the pipotron [essay-composing site]. Let’s try it randomly!
03:42   “Given the fragility of the current period, it’s very important to take into consideration
03:46   the principal problems that we are experiencing, with hindsight.”
03:50   Voilà, a great sentence to integrate into Emmanuel Macron’s program!
03:54   Come on! For the fun of it, we will try one more time:
03:58   “Despite the volatility of the current period, one shouldn’t forbid oneself from precisely
04:02   characterizing the possible hypotheses, even if it’s not easy.”
04:06   There! and… at that speed, we don’t grasp that En Marche hasn’t published
04:10   its program yet! Beyond his “perfect son-in-law” speeches, the meetings
04:14   of Emmanuel Macron are also full of half truths, the audience “warmer”, audience placement,
04:18   colorful t-shirts with logos and lights pointing at the fans:
04:22   the techniques to maintain the image, aren’t random; everything
04:26   has been thought of down to the tiniest detail to give impression of a real dynamic.
04:30   There are numerous service providers insuring the communications of Emmanuel Macron:
04:34   First the innovative company Proxem whose skills allow for
04:38   designing speeches fitting the expectations of a target demographic:
04:42   a kind of powerful pipotron with a little icing.
04:46   Emmanuel Macron equally relies on “Jesus and Gabriel” a communication agency
04:50   originally specializing in food; so they
04:54   promoted Milka Chocolat, Clan Campbell whisky or Mikado [pretzel sticks] —
04:58   “the little weakness that will be your demise” — among others. The agency
05:02   produced the campaign clip for Emmanuel Macron, the pictures in which were taken from
05:06   Bernie Sanders’ clip from his American campaign.
05:10   The digital communication strategy isn’t left to chance; this task
05:14   is performed by Little Wing with a slogan
05:18   that works well with the En Marche movement: “Create ideas in the wind,
05:22   give a breeze to your projects, and make your ambitions take off.”
05:27   Macron also has close-ups, met gradually during his missions by Rothschild
05:31   in the Élysée or Bercy [Ministry of Finance]. Faced with this large team, one asks oneself
05:35   where all the money comes from. According to the entourage of the candidate,
05:39   the fundraisers helped raise €5.1 million, with 18,700 donors.
05:43   According to the records, two thirds of the donations
05:47   are allegedly under €60; only 3% are allegedly over
05:51   €4,000, and more than 150 people have allegedly donated
05:55   €7,500, equal to the top legal donation.
05:59   Emmanuel Macron works hard to fundraise: breakfasts, lunches, diners,
06:03   Paris, London, New York; in order to raise a couple of thousand one shouldn’t overlook anything!
06:07   Especially when the young finance wolf has big plans: between his three meetings
06:11   at the Mutualité [health services,] La Porte de Versailles [exhibition center in Paris]
06:15   and in Lyon he already spent two millions euros. Add to that the costs of
06:19   managing 10,763 square feet of offices on l’Abbé Groult street in the 15th arrondissement in Paris
06:23   for a rent of €20 thousand a month and
06:27   the wages of about 50 employees. The problem
06:31   with all those organizations: En Marche isn’t a political party, but an
06:35   association under the law of 1901; for that reason the movement cannot be the beneficiary
06:39   of either classical campaign financing or public subsidies
06:43   given to the parties. While the budget of the En Marche campaign is set at
06:47   €17.5 million Euros, that won’t be enough,
06:51   especially if we believe his declaration of assets.
06:55   The former Economy Minister won’t be able to imitate Donald Trump and
06:59   use his own money. According to LJDD [newspaper], the candidate
07:04   is allegedly involved in talks with four different banks in order to get a
07:08   personal loan: a half million euros. Even with that, he wouldn’t acquire
07:12   the needed sum. If the movement’s entourage alleges that no company contributes
07:16   to the financing of En Marche, that solution would be nevertheless very practical,
07:20   since for associations there is no legal ceiling for donation amounts.
07:24   In order to raise those funds, Macron isn’t alone. He
07:28   can count on Christian Dargnat, former CEO of BNP Paribas, who is experienced
07:32   at making unifying and lucrative speeches. The other executives
07:36   around Emmanuel Macron aren’t any less important; the president of the
07:40   main association is non other than Véronique Bolhuis, the partner of
07:44   of Laurent Bigorgne, the director of Institut Montaigne
07:48   known as ultra-liberal. The treasurer is a mysterious Cedric O.,
07:52   also a member of the commission of investiture for the legislative elections,
07:56   the general secretary is a close acquaintance of Dominique Strauss Khan’s, Benjamin-Blaise Griveaux.
08:00   Another association was created for the funding;
08:04   the fundraising champion Christian Dargnat is its president.
08:08   In order to lead the march effectively, an elite troop, without convictions, but
08:12   experienced in strategy via financial exercises.
08:16   The last thing left to do is to add to the recipe a well-placed endorsement, support from the Élysée,
08:20   for example, to harvest money for strategic debts or fat wallets,
08:24   or both.

65 thoughts on “Stop Marine Le Pen — And Hang the Expense!

  1. It would be much simpler if France adopted the Australian system of preferential voting. It’s not rocket science. You number your preferences in numerical order. If no candidate gains a majority, they distribute the first preferences of the candidate with the least votes, followed by those of the second last. Thus, if Mr Left gets 40% of the votes, Mr Right 35%, and Mr Centre 25%, and Centre’s supporters split 16% right and 9% left, then Mr Right gets in with 51% of the two-party-preferred vote. That way you avoid a run-off election.

    • That sounds like a terrible system, if I voted Mr Centre and he didn’t made the cut, I wouldn’t want my vote to be used for a random candidate, I would want to have round two where I could choose the “less bad” choice for myself – which also sounds much more democratic than splitting votes based on some kind of formula.

      • AK-47, the Australian system does lead to very anti-democratic results. Read and be appalled.

        Over twenty years ago Pauline Hanson burst on to the political scene purely by accident. For speaking publicly against special benefits for aboriginal people (the majority of beneficiaries are white) she was disendorsed by the Liberal Party for her ‘raacism’ so she ran as an independent in what was a safe Labor Party seat and won. In ditching Labor for a disendorsed Liberal clearly working class people agreed with her views.

        For the next election there was a re-drawing of electoral boundaries and she lost her seat in parliament. Here are the numbers for the raw primary votes:
        Hanson’s One Nation Party polled 24,532 votes
        The Liberal Party polled 14,787 votes
        The Labor Party polled 17,235 votes
        And there were the minor parties whose primary votes didn’t really matter.

        Guess who won the seat? The Liberal Party candidate! That’s preferential voting for you.

        • [You are re-stating the obvious], that’s a nasty way to get votes!

          Reminds me of when my city allowed the socialist party to win one time and not only [s]ent our capital downstream (but) during the next elections the traditional party won again, though very narrowly, and the socialists didn’t shy away from teaming up with everyone else just so they stay in power.

          We should’ve kicked them out because of this, but I guess it wasn’t enough of a problem for most people to actually get off their [rear ends] and do something.

          Seriously, liberals and other socialist scum are the worst that can happen to a country.

  2. Marin Le Pen not only “opposes mass immigration, the EU, and Islamization.”

    she’s got financing from Russia and openly states that she will recognize annexation of Crimea and lift the sanctions if elected president.

    undermining European unity (EU and NATO) is objectively plays to the hand of Putin, so the best thing would be to reform EU.
    if that is difficult, next option is to marginalize the post-modern PC/MC fractions within EU without disbanding it.
    in this regard, Brexit was useful as an alarm, but not as viable strategy.

    the perceptions of Putin as The Powerful Great White Conservative Ally of the West, the social-Darwinian magic wand and defender against islamization are dangerously misguided.
    this is the project essentially combining mafia, gestapo-style secret services and neo-imperial ideology – btw very cynical and eclectic.
    remind again – the JIHADI KINGDOM of Chechnya is THE part of Russian federation, and Chechen jihadis were repeatedly used by Putin as death squads in Georgia and Ukraine, and as hitmen to assassinate political rivals.

    I’ve never got an intelligible answer from anti-globalization crowd on the question of preference of nationalism versus values-driven integration, so I repeat it again

    what is wrong in globalization if it is based upon

    – Western culture (usually, and quite correctly defined as Judeo-Christian tradition)
    – primacy of law
    – separation of powers
    – representative democracy
    – secular, meritocratic principles of governance

    why do I need to support someone who declares “France First” or others shouting “America First” and so on.
    just don’t get it.

    • AY,

      Many topics there; in a nutshell, and the (in my opinion) reason for this site’s existence is Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the West. Attempting to ram masses of young muslim males and illiterate savages from Africa interested only in looting, raping, and conquest in the name of Islam into the heart of Western civilization is to most rational observers, the strongest possible indictment of globalization that can be made. The resurgence of nationalism and the rise of populist leaders in many Western nations is a rational response to the overreach by the elites of politics, finance, and industry who are behind this effort to destroy the West through globalization.

      Your idealization of globalization is nothing remotely resembling the reality; what you describe more closely resembles nationalism, which places the sovereignty of the nation and it’s citizens above foreign, corporate, and financial interests. Globalization seeks to use the differences in local laws, wage scales, political and financial environments to encourage a race to the bottom by corporate power to minimize their costs and maximize their profits at the expense of more expensive workforces in mostly Western nations who pay the cost but reap none of the benefits. One always needs to ask “cui bono”. Who benefits from globalism? Who benefits from nationalism? When you understand this, you will understand mine and many others’ opposition to globalization.

      • “destroy the West through globalization”

        are you aware how many things on and around you are made in China?

        international separation of labour is the reality, – and there are lot of injustice there BTW, otherwise China would be much wealthier.

        go to any technical university, R&D hub, musical college, scientific conference, concert – you will see peoples of different origin working together for the benefit of all.
        some of them cherish nationalistic sentiments, for sure, – that is OK, keeps it interesting.
        they also have sense of proportion, to care about big things first.

        why do you presume that globalization, with certainty, means migration of incompatible groups to the West?
        this is simply a result of faulty social philosophy, bad management, plus islamic hijra powered by oil money.

        • It is the concerted effort to make nationalism suspect that is one of the worst offenses of the globalists. They are open about their intentions to destroy borders, and well know that means the eventual destruction of sovereignty and – in the long run – a deep erosion of the rule of law, including the inalienable right to own one’s property, be it land, valuables, or intellectual property. Eventually must follow the loss of Self.

          This concomitant loss of the notion of “individuals” leaves the mass of us herded into lumpen – see China. The idea of individuals with rights was late to arrive and could be one of the first ideas to disappear…so-called social media will hasten that along.

          • elegant but twisted 🙂

            these unspecified “borders”..
            see above how I define borders worth destroying.

            sovereignty by itself has no value. Kim Jon Un and Mugabe and Putin all enjoy sovereignty.

            nobody talks about abandoning property rights.
            in my first post I mentioned primacy of law.
            but how that contradicts with more collaboration and more charity?

            lumpen is by definition a nihilistic, unmotivated slave.
            work ethics of China, Confucianism, is rather closer to Kant.
            Daosism is fiercely individualistic philosophy.
            they do know what is duty, self-improvement and self-sacrifice and value it very high.
            you can look what John Derbyshire wrote on that topic, his wife is Chinese.

          • This is my last response. None are so deaf as those who will not hear…

            You say:

            nobody talks about abandoning property rights

            Of course, they don’t talk about it. Nor will they, until globalism has accomplished its goals. One can see it writ small in the ludicrous regulations of the EU, and in the vanishing middle class.

            Or in all the stuff you can buy from China even as you know they are junk made by slaves and things you can well live without.

            We live in a material world, estranged now from our original Self. Your world view and mine are so far apart that we’re only able to make points to one another across this cybersphere chasm. In real life the void would be so inescapable we’d wander away from the one another.

        • No, it is deliberate on the part of our ruling elites.

          That so many things here in the USA are made in China is not a positive in my opinion. Every Chinese-made product represents a lost job here, and likely some personal tragedy on the part of globalization. All the while, economic elites get to reap the benefits in cheaper labor while offloading the social costs onto the US taxpayer.

          But I suspect you are incapable of changing your mind on the subject, and I am too grumpy to try any more. In the end, those of us who oppose you are more numerous, are on the ascendency, and we will prevail.

        • are you aware how many things on and around you are made in China?

          Are you aware of the numbers of people who check to see the country of origin and if it’s China they put the item back? Shoddy, made by slaves in conditions worse than Dickens’ time. Junk not worth having.

          Most people, if they knew the conditions of Chinese labor, wouldn’t buy anything from that corrupt, avaricious place. China also has a wonderful medical market: need a new organ? That’s the place to go. They’ll open up a live prisoner and deliver it to the surgeon who has you on the table. China makes billions on medical tourism.

          And no one “works for the benefit of all”. No one. They work for their own gain. That idea has been tried over and over again, ever since “Utopia” was written and it has never worked, not one time.

          • Thank you for mentioning China’s evil organ “donation” scheme. I recently attended a viewing of the documentary Human Harvest which details this horrific policy which is going on right now. China should be sanctioned. I refuse to buy anything from China. I would rather buy used clothing, furniture, you name it than support this grotesque and evil country. I only hope Donald Trump catches wind of it and elevates it somehow.

    • Regarding the NATO & the EU, NATO has long oulived its usefulness, and has morphed into an organization seeking to encircle and provoke Russia. NATO, like the EU, suffers greatly from mission creep; from an organization that standardized military equipment requirements to enhance defense against a common enemy (the USSR), it now has members such as Turkey who are at best passively aggressive against other members, and at worst on the precipice of becoming an islamic dictatorship. It also seeks to admit former Eastern Bloc nations which threatens to turn any local conflict in Russia’s sphere of influence, into a major war that could easily turn nuclear. No different than the series of entangling alliances that led to the First World War.

      My opposition to the EU has more to do with the inevitable takeover of such organizations by leftists, career politicians and bureaucrats. It is not representative of its populace in any meaningful way, and the imposition of a common currency on many diverse nations and economies has had the predictable result of making some even wealthier and more powerful while impoverishing most of the others. And the lack of control of borders and sovereignty of member nations is also a predictable outcome of rule by bureaucrat and economic elites. Nothing good can come of this project, and thankfully its days are numbered.

    • What’s wrong?

      First: they destroy the concept of freedom of speech/assembly/press so that no organized opposition/protest can get started or thrive.

      Second: they import HUGE quantities of enemy soldiers (THEIR TERM) with hatred for the native people into Western countries. These enemies rapidly attack and destroy the native culture and turn it into a mirror of the (redacted place) from whence they came.
      Thus endeth themodern Western world.

      THAT is what’s wrong with ‘Globalism’–it’s a poison pill for modern Western Society.

      • i think you just read unattentively what I wrote.

        by “globalism” I don’t mean any economic or fiscal category.
        even less religious or racial.

        and definitely no dancing around low-IQ parasitic groups with that YUGE guilt on my face.

        by “globalism” I mean collaboration, having joint methodology, and planning, for breaking down corporate and ideological barriers hindering progress in science, technology, medicine, education, protection of heritage, charity, and yes – also in defence, anti-terror, sharing intelligence.

        values-based, rather than interest-based associations.

        narrow nationalisms will just lock people back in feudal cages.

        • The globalists used to be tax farmers for the prince and his state. Sometimes they lent money at usurious rates to reduce a Baron to penury.

          Now the state is a tax farmer for the descendents of the feudal tax farmers who run the banks behind the scenes.

        • ‘narrow nationalisms will just lock people back in feudal cages.’

          The Anglosphere is a prime example of how nation states can work and have worked together in the past as your brand of ‘globalism’ suggest.

          Common heritage, language and culture will always provide nations who share them much advantage over other cultures and non-nation states.

          The Anglosphere has been so successful that it became a target some decades ago for destruction if the world was to move into a New World Order by those who think just like you do.

          Therefore your argument fails.

          • Excellent way of breaking it down. The Netherlands certainly wanted to fit in there somewhere, though it left fewer “colonials” behind.

            Even now, poor present-day Brits seem to be paying the karmic price for the hubris of their forefathers, e.g., the Opium Wars, to name just one ugly moment.

            How the mighty have fallen. The place of Portugal and Spain among the PIIGS is a good indication of their current station. Why (except for Ireland) do these countries lie in Southern Europe? Is one allowed to ask or is that considered waaaycist, too?

          • I believe neither in “God” nor in “New World Order”, so your last sentence looks to me quite vacuous.

            Anglosphere is good example, yes.
            It actually created globalism – exactly because it was so successful, from maritime trade, to internal combustion engine, to penicillin to DNA to Moon.

            but look – here are the nations that shared “Common heritage, language and culture” – Aztecs. Zulus.
            why weren’t they successful?

            why is the nation sharing “Common heritage, language and culture” – Koreans – have suddenly split in two, one of them manufacturing Samsungs and Kias for the world, another boiling grass for dinner.
            one embracing globalism, another is complete nationalistic autarky.

            the answer is simple.
            progressive moral, belief in cause and effect, as opposed to “God”, openness, and (not little) pinch if healthy adventurism.
            remove either of that, – and you will get or stagnation or degradation.

          • AY, two world wars destroyed the British Empire (an empire that came about to counter the New World hegemony of the Spanish and the Portuguese) which then morphed into the Commonwealth of Nations after WW2, that has not lived up to its expectations.

            When Britain signed onto the ‘Common Market’ that loss of British technology and trade within the Commonwealth heralded the eventual end of the Commonwealth of Nations whose then only binding and shared aspect was her Maj in England as the titular head.

            And just because you choose to deny the so very obvious does not make for you a compelling argument against those who do not deny. That is just willful thinking on your part.

            There is no shared national heritage, language or culture between those tribes you have put up. There was and still is no concept to any of those you mention as having national significance or even recognition of such status and so there can be no comparison to what the Anglosphere is and is still capable of achieving if we can regain our nations.

            Your reference to Korea is fanciful because Korea was never a united nation but a country run by those who held the biggest stick – the concept of nation only came about after the Korean war when the peasant class had become ‘liberated’ into western thinking.

    • The demonisation of Russia is terribly overrated. Of course Russia has it’s bad sides, but the US/NATO has provoked mmuch more conflict around the world than Russia in the past two decades or so.

      Look at Syria: the US has absolutely no ground to be there, while Russia was invited as an ally of the official regime – people can dislike that how much they want, but it’s fact that Syria is a sovereign state and no one has the right to support a coup attempt. Also Putin’s right about one thing: they cleared up fairly quickly, within months compared to the US spending years not helping anyone, and if it wasn’t for various interventions Syria would have peace by now, which would obviously help Europe too.

      Now I am well aware there are bigger things at play that don’t consider the well-being of common people anywhere in the world, but bottom line is, saying someone is a bad candidate simply because they may or may not get some funding from Russia holds literally no base. And frankly I’d rather France had a president with quiet Russian support than a puppet of the globalists.

      What European unity are you talking about? Europe has rarely been as divided as it is since at least two years ago.

      Unfortunately, Brexit didn’t work as an alarm, Juncker & Co. simply painted UK black and still think of themselves as the best choice for Europe, whilst spouting out one useless rule after another and turning a blind eye to everything the people of Europe actually need. They’ll cut off the branch they’re sitting on sooner or later with that mindset (preferably sooner because Europe needs some solutions before it turns into a bloodbath – and there’s not much time left now).

      Do you have sources for those claims? Do you have sources that confirm the US or any other country in the world is not doing the same? Even if it’s true and Russia is the only one, at the moment it’s not the biggest issue to be dealing with – take care of the big problems first and then tackle the smaller ones.

      Broadly speaking there is not much bad about the globalisation as you describe it, however show me one place in the world this kind of globalisation is taking place right now? It’s lovely to think back to the UK in the 70. or America in the 19th century, but those are just memories of a distant past that won’t help with anything in the present. Thus people obviously hold onto what they know and that’s their homeland, because (and this should be totally obvious really) it’s much more preferable to know 98% of random people on the street won’t do you any harm because they share the same kind of morals and mentality specific for a certain geographical region, that shaped the people living there for centuries, than to simply not know what might hit you on the next corner.

      Really if you want to understand this mindset go take a look at the Japanese culture, they are very profound in it and because they are not white, nobody calls them racist for wanting to stay Japanese rather than multicultural (though the UN is trying to force migration on them too).

        • AY, what about Contragate, Arab Spring, Al Queda, ISIS?

          You put forward only the Russian underhandedness for which the jury is still out on, yet you never mention what western intelligence agencies have been responsible for.

          Your bias is ruling your thinking.

          • you continue spreading fairytales and cognitive disorder.

            “western intelligence agencies” were acting against al-qaida and isis from the very beginning.
            I remind you that the first American casualty in operation in Afganistan against taliban, was CIA officer.

            these jihadi groups were, and are financed and armed by global islamic mafia via multiple “zakat” and “charity” projects, mostly and essentilly located in and drectted from rich Gulf states.

            yes, “president” Obama was a cros between marxist nihilist and islamic infiltratior in the POTUS chair, which muddles the issues, but that is simply a manifestation of civilization split in the West (used and managed by the same jihadi mafia when they can) – and a separate story.

            much more direct equivalence scenario to what Putin does in Ukraine, is if USA invaded Canada, annexed its Anglophone part, started proxy war of annihilation against “fascist” Quebec, killed ten thousands Francophones there, and forced hundreds of thousands to flee.

            you should listen less to RT propaganda broadcasted for weak minds corrupted by philosophical ecletic here in the West,, – fake news and distortions aren’t only CNN and al-jazeera’s features.

          • after “Russia was invited to Syria”, I frankly stopped reading.

            then, now, I’ve read last paragraph about “racist” Japanese, – well “nobody calls them racist” because it is non-essential characteristic.
            they have something else to propose, and are and will be welcomed in the West with that – if not falling again into abyss of nationalistic incivility.
            knowing some of them, I can say it’s not the case.

            sorry but I don’t see necessity to argue with Russia’s payed propaganda artistry, I don’t mean you literally, that maybe RT influence, but in this communication difference is irrelevant.

          • As usual AY, you assume way too much about me.

            It was the CIA on CFR recommendations that set up the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan, ostensibly to fight the Russians, but also on the understanding they would later morph into Al Queda under a Saudi national named Bin Laden, just as Obama was groomed to become a radical United States President.

            Perhaps you should read a little more, like, The Secret War against the Jews by John Ashcroft, which would provide to you the whole history of the dealings between western intelligence services and the Saudis.

            Werner von Braun knew all about the coming war on ‘terror’ as he related this knowledge to his secretary when he knew he was dying, and that was in 1977, and well before the Russians had invaded Afghanistan.

            So you should realize that nothing in politics or geopolitics, occurs through happenstance.

            Obama is much worse than you have described him as being – even now he plots to overthrow the United States.

            Putin is doing nothing in Ukraine which was another false flag operation by western intelligence. You need to make yourself aware of just how much the intelligence services act apart from the government that they are supposed to serve – have you not noticed the war going on in Washington against Trump by the CIA/NSA and their media lapdogs?

            So who controls all Western intelligence services because it is not their national governments?

            You wrote, ‘you continue spreading fairytales and cognitive disorder’ – so you choose to attack the messenger eh?

            You do realize don’t you that is a tactic straight out of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals?

        • Well I suppose you had no counter-arguments so you commented on my nickname, whatever suits I guess 😀
          I’m not a supporter of Russia though, I just like being objective as much as possible.
          Also just FYI I chose this nickname because it coresponds with several things in my life, like letters in my first and last name, and it’s one of the best guns ever invented (due to it’s durability and versatility), not because I like the country it originated from (unlike to America, Russia actually did a lot of nasty stuff to my homeland).

          • I rather like your nic.

            We need others in a similar vein, e.g., Siggy B Sauer or Glock17. How about Pistol Packin’ Momma? StraightShooter?

            GayShooter or BentRifle? Oops, those could be misinterpreted by people prone to take offense at anything.

            The nostalgic “Have Gun, Will Travel” may already be taken by some ISIS volunteer; time certainly can change meanings.

            It would be quite interesting if all right-thinking Americans chose a gun nic. I’ll peruse the lists at Western Rifle Shooters. My personal favorite would be a “Hello Kitty AR-15”. It’s a lovely pink camo color. T shirt pictures available at – where else? Amazon –


    • Posting things outside Islam is not what had in mind when I started posting here, but I thought something should be added to other replies:

      It takes more than a constitution plus job proficiency to create a society. Trust and Safety, for example, are another elements that make a successful society possible. Even with modern brainwashing methods of these days, it’s impossible to indoctrinate the majority of people to believe they are safe at presence of aliens: physically, economically, spiritually, etc. Anthony Giddens, presumably the guy you admire, also could not reject these elements, though his further rhetoric seems unacceptable to me, sort of willful rationalisation.

      Exactly contrary to your expectations, multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies are economically unproductive while politically tame and spineless. The reason is not hard to guess: efforts of one group will be nullified by opposing groups. Multiculti societies will not be able to defend themselves against tyranny, and that’s what the adherents of globalism are after. I can remember Movazia papers also shortly points this out, but I can’t find my copy as I write this.

      A global society based on Western culture: Well, you are too kind for offering that, but I won’t accept Western culture in whole, though I admire some of it’s elements; I want to be what I am and you have no right to force me into that. We can interact with or without global governance, with or without national boundaries, with or without anything you name. The ancient Silk Road proves people of the world have traded and will continue trading, no need to mingle or remove guards more than necessary.

      Meritocratic Secular Government: Sounds good, but we are not figurines in picture books that always end well. Real humans, outside a picture book, are fueled by greed and jealousy, and if there is a way to exploit their neighbours, no doubt, they will find it. Please go ahead and create a meritocratic municipality with 50,000 homogeneous residents, and then extend it to people of strange colours and beliefs around the world. “Homo homini lupus”.

      • A country’s constitution is the law of the land that provides the basis of a secure and ordered society and that as a system of government is the most effective means of providing the ordinary citizen with liberties that were once only dreamed about.

        And the above will only work in those lands that are either of a completely homogenous racial structure and moral culture or where the law of the land is taught and enforced at an early age and its influence is made to be upon every one who is a citizen regardless of race, color or creed.

        There were such nations in existence only forty years ago and they were Anglosphere nations of the world where one could walk or express an opinion without fear or favor.

        • A few observations that led me to that conclusion:

          The first generation of the new French behaved much better than 2nd and 3rd generations without being enforced into law and order from early childhood. They were happy with some water to drink, but nothing seems to satisfy next generations because they have got the mentality that they are subordinated in their homeland by people that are “different”.

          In my country, Iran, and our neighbour Afghanistan, which are old ethnically-lingually fragmented societies nothing ever has seemed to work right. The concept of fragmented society is not new to us and texts that abhor multi-ethnic societies are as old as 1000 years. People in these areas hate each other and Islam, an ideology that superficially does not accept race as an entity, has failed to create a homogeneous way of thinking and tribal preferences have proved to be of more importance. Forget about what you see on the TV, I am talking about the actual situation. Even voting is highly tribe-oriented here, and exactly the same thing happened in the last American presidential elections.

          How can we make sure the problem was not looming behind the scenes in Anglosphere? Apparently Americans were not successful enough to teach their youngsters they should not vote ethnic-oriented. I strongly believe keeping different people in contact for long time is just begging for trouble, people will find reasons to contradict (and sometimes kill) each other.

          • Do you consider yourself Persian or Iranian? I ask that question in all sincerity as I believe Islam will not continue to dominate the Persian people who want nothing but their freedom from the yoke of tyrannical Islam.

            Obama could have provided moral support to the 2009 Iranian protests but of course, he had been programmed to do the exact opposite in promoting Islam – another Globalist agenda.

            The Anglosphere was only put in place to further Globalist ambitions. What forestalled those ambitions into the 21st Century were certain points in English and Anglosphere history, such as Magna Carta and the English Civil war which resulted in the English Bill of Rights of 1688.

            There have been many other ‘interruptions’ along the road to one world government, but anyone who wishes can easily look them up.

            Then there was the American Revolution that postponed the globalist agenda until 1861 when the American Civil war brought the United States back under Globalist control.

            And now we have the internet which has exposed to any who wish to notice the Globalist agenda that has been further delayed by Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and soon and hopefully, Le Pen and Wilders.

            Russia under Putin too, has played a part in stalling a New World Order.

            So the ‘problem’ as you put it, is ancient and goes way back in time before the Anglosphere ever came about, and like rust, the ‘problem’ never sleeps and is always in flux to meet ‘new challenges’ and to which we are deliberately denied knowledge of except if one belongs to the many compartmentalized secret societies or ancient Janus institutions that have continually plagued mankind.

            But there are remedies that can be used against the organized malignancy that is Globalism. Trump is exposing part of its control with the ‘fake news’ tag and that is doing much damage to the MSMs credibility. Too, all western intelligence agencies need to brought under control of each country’s national government instead of pandering to the centralized international system that is now in place.

            The same with Banking, etc.

            Your grasp of English is very good.

      • to be clear, when I write “protection of heritage” I mean nationalism. in its benign, acceptable form.

        have it and love it.

        don’t start playing zero sum games against others using it as a tool.

        anthropology is defining issue and I do predict a multi-apartheid world unfortunately, – but it is all about managing the character of competition and diminishing violence.

        I’m talking about global, conscious, competent, humanistically motivated overarching social movement and a force, preventing it from slipping to bloody jungle.

        • I’m talking about global, conscious, competent, humanistically motivated overarching social movement and a force, preventing it from slipping to bloody jungle.

          Spoken like a true leftist. And, paradoxically, that is not necessarily a put-down. Many non-malevolent leftists begin with the assumption that man is basically good if you can allow his better instincts to come through.

          Many conservatives assume man’s instincts are evil, so you have to construct institutions to limit the damage of the
          evil proclivities of men, and take advantage of the better proclivities.

          Of course, with our more advanced knowledge of genetics and heritability, we now know there are human groupings with totally different proclivities. The best way to deal with these different and mostly incompatible proclivities is to keep the groups separate.

          Before the Civil War, the cultural differences between the north and the south, whose differences would be totally indistinguishable to most people from Africa or Asia, caused a split between the states. And, it was not the issues of slavery or tariffs, either. The US government was committed to protecting slavery in the southern states, and US tariffs were extremely low at the time of the secession of most southern states.

          I notice you keep larding descriptors and qualifiers on your constructions of globalist authoritarian structures: “I’m talking about global, conscious, competent, humanistically motivated overarching social movement and a force, preventing it from slipping to bloody jungle.”

          But, the qualifiers are intrinsically contradictory to the nature of extra-national authorities, as I have shown in another posting to your original message on this blog.

          • I mostly agree with this.
            including the idea of separation – but not on nationalist principles, but according to common values.
            as you see I’m not “leftist”.

            I’m aware about intrinsic tensions between qualifiers and for that we have skills of politics, to keep them reconciled.

            “leftists”, for me were a group of people I’ve once sen protesting on the streets in costumes of Four Horsemen of Apocalypse:
            – Powerty,
            – Injustice,
            – Global Warming, and
            – Suffering

            impression was so deep that I actually memorized that fiery (fairy?) garbage. 🙂

            oh – and I do abhor China’s human organs industry, as any other inhumanity, and think they are to be taught, sanctioned for that.
            there shouldn’t be realpolitik.

    • Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
      Who never to himself hath said,
      This is my own, my native land!
      Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,
      As home his footsteps he hath turn’d,
      From wandering on a foreign strand!
      If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
      For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
      High though his titles, proud his name,
      Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
      Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
      The wretch, concentred all in self,
      Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
      And, doubly dying, shall go down
      To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
      Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

      O Caledonia! stern and wild,
      Meet nurse for a poetic child!
      Land of brown heath and shaggy wood,
      Land of the mountain and the flood,
      Land of my sires! what mortal hand
      Can e’er untie the filial band,
      That knits me to thy rugged strand!
      Still as I view each well-known scene,
      Think what is now, and what hath been,
      Seems as, to me of all bereft,
      Sole friends thy woods and streams were left;
      And thus I love them better still,
      Even in extremity of ill.
      By Yarrow’s streams still let me stray,
      Though none should guide my feeble way;
      Still feel the breeze down Ettrick break,
      Although it chill my wither’d cheek;
      Still lay my head by Teviot Stone,
      Though there, forgotten and alone,
      The Bard may draw his parting groan.

      Sir Walter Scott

    • To AY,

      I’m in a quandary to reply to your questions.

      I can give a critique with detailed sources, which should be ready in, say, a month or so..or I can reply now, leaving you to Google the specifics.

      I’ll try to reply now.

      Your main question:

      what is wrong in globalization if it is based upon
      – Western culture (usually, and quite correctly defined as Judeo-Christian tradition)
      – primacy of law
      – separation of powers
      – representative democracy
      – secular, meritocratic principles of governance

      In a nutshell, you have to look to Pat Buchanan’s Theory of Public Choice, for which he won a Nobel Prize. Briefly, the Public Choice theory states that bureaucrats, including government bureaucrats, will act like profit-seeking entrepreneurs. The bureaucrats will seek to maximize their power, influence, and wealth within the bureaucracy. This means every bureaucrat is motivated to hire more subordinates and write more rules, preferably rules so vague that it is necessary to create whole new bureaucracies to interpret. Also, the more intrusive the rules are, the more power accrues to the original bureaucrat.

      These bureaucratic incentives are part of human motivation.

      Now, we go to definitions of globalization. I think part of the defense of globalization is based on subtly changing the terms of the argument.

      Most broadly, globalization can mean international trade, education, exchange of workers and cooperation between countries. These are all innocent enough, in themselves.

      But, globalization also means extending government and government authority, including binding rules by international bodies. For example, the really malevolent aspect of the TPP was not the international trade, but that the TPP had a governing body authorized to make binding decisions in case of international disputes. In other words, to override the authority of the national government.

      In the same way, the European Union is not simply a way to voluntarily standardize international standards to facilitate trade, but provides a rule-making bureaucracy that can and does create rules independent of the national governments involved.

      The larger the bureaucracy, the more unaccountable to any specific constituency. In other words, the Law of Public Choice applies in its full force: more bureaucrats, more rules, more intrusive rules, but there is no coherent constituency with the power to fight back. Coherent constituencies are intimately involved with national identities, and mega-organizations such as the UN and EU are specifically designed to nullify national interests.

      The US Constitution was an attempt to balance identity with the benefits of a limited “globalism” for the separate states. The result was federalism: states would exist with coherent identities and power within the framework of a powerful, but limited federal, or “global” government. It was exactly this federalism which elected Trump, who lost the popular vote, but won the electoral votes based on state identities.

      There were powerful, though not necessarily conclusive, arguments for federalism as opposed to simple confederacy, as detailed in the Articles of Confederation. The states were beginning to quarrel among themselves, involving the possibility of armed conflicts. The founders were well aware of history, in which disputing tribes often brought in foreign assistance in local disputes, resulting in a loss of independence.

      It is obvious to many people at present, that the system of federalism detailed by the Constitution is fraying, and the federal government is co-opting the bulk of power to itself, with the federal judiciary making a strong grab for that federal power to itself. This is not a result so much of specific evil people, but of the natural tendency of any bureaucratic or governing group to extend its own power. The original opponents to federalism opposed the adoption of the Constitution on just these grounds, predicting what in fact happened: the demise of state independence.

      You mentioned several conditions for a global government, such as primacy of law, separation of powers, and representative democracy. To that, I refer you to a series of articles in GoV by El Ingles on the limits of democracy.
      His thesis, amply illustrated, was that as society becomes more diverse, it becomes structurally impossible for government to satisfy its constituency. A diverse constituency has totally different and incompatible foci of interests, and government cannot address one focus without ignoring or going against another focus. This is a built-in feature of diverse constituencies, and is not a solvable problem.

      So, the short answer to your question, “what is wrong with globalization” is that globalization creates an unaccountable locus of power with incentives to be as intrusive and unresponsive as possible, and that globalization makes it structurally impossible for government to have a satisfied constituency.

      • thanks for clear response.

        I agree with reservations on dangers of bureaucracy and centralized usurpation.

        there are two points on which I would like to comment.

        first, by definition and by meaning of representative democracy, principle of reward by merit, transparent media,- bureaucratic distortions are to be limited.
        that is actually a purpose for all these mechanisms to exist.

        when bureaucracy tends to be conflated with corruption, crime, causing collapse of separation of powers – this is different situation, oligarchy, we aren’t talking about that.

        next point – the notion “diverse constituency” should be better defined.

        I work in British technical university and my colleagues are virtually from everywhere.
        Professional ties, naturally, have impact on personal life.
        Many are married to each other.
        These are the people I trust and they trust me.
        If something bad happens, I will fight for them, immediately and without much of a thinking.
        There are no muslims among them BTW.

        aldo, I someimes attend concerts in local musical college, and see the same picture, professors and students from everywhere, many are from China, Korea, Singapore etc. They are all top talents.

        the question is, how does that fit the “diverse community” definition. diverse – in what?

        it is essential IMO, that the group identites are re-defined and reshaped in the world where there is free choice and competition in the field of skills and knowledge, – it isn’t greed and communal aggression, not only biology anymore.

        one can try to brush out these examples as insignificant numbers-wise, but they are crucial impact-wise.

        once in a long time, humans have opportunity to choose the best and hold to the freedom to remain with the best.

        I think all this should be carefully analyzed and promoted, and if not by us, then are there any doubt that China will suck it all up with great pleasure?

    • There was not enough nesting levels after posts so I answer here:

      @Nemesis: Thank you for your kind reply, I believe for the most part we both say the same thing.

      I consider myself both Persian and Ire. But I don’t know what exactly that means to you. And after all, we know not who our grandmothers slept with under the bushes, so I don’t insist I am an Ire before passing a DNA test. LOL

      @AY: “aldo, I someimes attend concerts in local musical college, and see the same picture, professors and students from everywhere, many are from China, Korea, Singapore etc. They are all top talents.

      the question is, how does that fit the “diverse community” definition. diverse – in what?”

      Maybe they are not a ” diverse community” yet, just individuals living among you. A subculture by definition should have some numbers and should have some grounds in host society, and in case they are imported foreigners I would like to add they should have lived enough in the area to feel at home, maybe one or two generations. Then they will start to show some behaviours that are specific to the subculture.

  3. Blair, Cameron, Clegg, Trudeau and now this Macron muppet. They all look the same, they all do the same, they all preach the same, they all loath European stock and seek to dispossess Europeans of their lands. Bankstered clones, the lot of them.

  4. Macron cannot be described as making “a last minute run for the Presidency” even if the volume of his support is recent. He declared many months ago that he was running and in order to do so had to leave his post as Finance Minister. This caused no amount of upset in the PS and government as he was a protegé of Hollande and not very well liked by many due to his overly centrist leanings. Mutterings of ” traitor” were heard. If he is now getting lots of financial support it is because Fillon is seen as toast even by many in the Republicaines especially since yesterday the Parquet put out a statement saying that they cannot dismiss the case against him and the investigation will go forward. There is going to be even more pressure on Fillon to throw in the towel now. Hollande will probably endorse Macron since Manuel Valls lost the left primary to Hamon – a cloud cuckoo land nitwit financially and a boot licking dhimmi socially. Fillon’s wife was essentially paid lots of dosh for a job that nobody actually saw her turning up to do.

  5. It looks as though the leftists, globalists have been hoisted on their own petard.

    Opposing Islam is not a racist position. Islam is a religion and as the left has accusingly claimed, fear of unlimited immigration must then be a racist position. However, as racism consists of some prejudice related to racial characteristics, opposing Islam does not fit that category, Islam being a religious affiliation, not a race. Thus, supporting any curb on Islamic immigration does not fall under the rubric of racism.

    Even the American left-wing hard-liners who demonstrate and oppose immigration curbs classify such curbs as based on religion, not race. Additionally, as the left-wing has repeatedly pointed out in the US, the minority may not suppress the majority, discrimination being a tool of the majority to discriminate against the minority. At last count, practitioners of Islam numbered 1.5 billion while Protestants world-wide totaled 800-900 million. Why support the ingestion of a group who have no belief in or support for Western Democratic tradition which is precisely the recipe for dissent & discord?

    When Muslims speak of their religion they refer to, not merely a religion but a political system as well. Even now, the left rails against government support for religiously supported schools but show no hesitancy to support Muslim schools with that same government monies. Muslims are quick to point out they are governed by the Koran, not the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Leftists are quick to point out fewer than 100 immigrants have later been involved in acts of terror, thus asserting the vetting system is in no need of additional curbs. But the number of immigrants who are religious leaders and are responsible for the radicalization of others is an unknown number and troubling given the number of mosques that have sprung up.

    None of this takes into consideration the tendency of Muslim communities to oppose free speech as well as the willingness of American authorities to support Muslims in the claim that their religion must not be criticized. Can anyone recall the “art” works of such “artists” as Robert Maplethorpe who attacked Protestantism and was feted by the left-wing as “farsighted?” Can anyone imagine the results of an “artist” who depicted Islam in such a fashion?

    Even now, in Europe, some political figures are required to live 24-7 with bodyguards to protect their lives. Establishing within the body politic a foreign culture incapable of assimilation is poor policy, consistent with a college freshman’s introduction to Sociology 101 and completely taken with the concepts, however flimsy they may be.

    • A secret regarding comments on GoV (or anywhere): I edited your ideas to create paragraphs out of what was one long spool. This way people are more likely to read your ideas instead of scrolling past what appears to be to be too much trouble to read. I often do this if my energy level allows…

      Normally I don’t read for content, but this time I did because I noticed your use of the word “Protestant” in several places. Is there a reason for that? Christians are made up of many creeds, including Orthodox (Greek and Russian), and Catholics, not to mention China’s growing Christian “house churches”, another variety entirely.

      For instance, Serrano’s “art” didn’t attack Protestantism: he used a Catholic crucifix. Protestants mainly use the cross while Catholics use the crucifix. The latterr is composed of the cross and the corpus (i.e., the body of Christ). With the onset of Protestantism, the gradual elimination of the corpus from the cross was a watering down of the essential message of Christ’s work. It is certainly more comfortable to look at, though.

      At any rate, I am curious about your restriction of Christianity to only Protestants; they are fewer world-wide than Catholics and Orthodox. See Pew’s tally, here:

    • “Globalization” to Islam means supremacy and a theocratic world dictatorship. That you don’t know this proves you are completely ignorant of Islamic theology and the directives of jihad. [redacted incivility].

  6. “Islam is a religion”– open to doubt; it has all the hallmarks of a gigantic cult- unwavering belief in the Leader [Mohammad]; slavish adulation; persecution of dissidents; rejection of ‘outsiders’.
    In addition the penalty for leaving is DEATH.
    What is that, if not a CULT?

    • I think the difference between the academic and popular definitions of the words “cult” and “religion” causes a lot of confusion. The academic definition doesn’t refer to beliefs, but rather to size, the existence and character of institutions (buildings of worship or schools), and extent of influence in wider culture, with a “cult” being much smaller and more limited than a “religion.” In common everyday usage, though, we’ve com to associate the word cult with the very negative kinds of characteristics, mostly because the cults (academic definition) we have in the West in modern times tend to be negative and destructive on belief and practice.

      This is a long winded way to say that I think in this instance, they were referring to Islam as a religion in the academic sense.

      • …they were referring to Islam as a religion in the academic sense.

        As has been established by many Western scholars of Islam, it’s not a religion in the Western sense. Its closest cousin in the West is Marxism, the same kind of supremacist, utopian ideology whose diktats prove woefully inadequate in practice. Islam has only ever taken from the West its many martial advancements, or even worse, turned the West’s peaceful advancements into instruments of war. Only a depraved group would devise murderous uses for cell phones.

        If the West is fortunate, Islam’s proclivity for killing other Islamic adherents first will reduce their numbers enough so that majority-Islamic countries can take the rest of their fellow-believers out of the West. There is nothing Islam respects as much as it does money. Thus we merely have to settle on a take-back price.

  7. I’m sorry but I just don’t understand how someone French can be stupid enough to vote for a guy that needs to get a […]ton of loans to even support his campaign and the origin of the rest of his money is unknown

  8. I will be earnestly praying for Le Pen. God is working behind the scenes. He made Brexit, He raised up Trump against impossible odds and if it is His will, Le Pen will be president regardless the money the globalists waste. The more they waste, the better. 🙂 Some famous Nazi said: “Good propaganda is good propaganda. Bad propaganda is good propaganda.” Let them expose themselves. Vive Le Pen!!! Much Love from Russia.

    • has He raised Putin as well?
      (how can it be otherwise).

      globalists are obviously brought here by Satan.

      and who has raised Ramzan Kadyrov, could you please remind the audience here?

      anyway, with that level of irrationality and denial, you guys become indistinguishable from jihadis.

      • ‘anyway, with that level of rationality and denial, you guys become indistinguishable from jihadis’.

        Oh come on AY, how could you possibly equate Islamic fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism – even for you that is way too big a stretch of one’s imagination!

        • in the mode of thinking not in social practice.

          btw – there was no Reformation in Russian Orthodox church. historically in Russia, church was always a supporter, – archaic, authoritarian and quite cynical one, – of state power.
          Putin now tries to use it again, conflating with his neo-imperial vision.. but so far, not very successful.

          • The OFFICIAL Christian church has been a state sanctioned institution all the way back to the conversion of Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus (Constantine) in 312/313.

          • I have no time for any organized religions AY – I consider them an impediment to human kinds spiritual evolution. Christianity, including orthodoxy, is Bible based and should remain Bible based not in the hands of a few who believe that they have a more reliable link to God.

            Putin is Russian – the Russians have always been difficult to deal with. Just ask the Globalists.

  9. Nemesis wrote:

    “You wrote, ‘you continue spreading fairytales and cognitive disorder’ – so you choose to attack the messenger eh?

    You do realize don’t you that is a tactic straight out of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals?”

    yes I’ve lost patience with you.

    my native language is Russian, I was born there, in the city of Donetsk, currently under Russian occupation.
    moreover, some time back 🙂 you can guess how long ago, I’ve served in the same, then Soviet, 20th armoured army that now participated in invasion.
    I’m not a boy, I’ve seen some things in this – rather “that” – world.
    I follow events in Ukraine for all 3 years of war, very closely.
    the record of Putin’s war crimes there is very long, horrific, and well documented.
    the barbarity this cretin has brought to the heart of Europe is unparallel.
    they were – and are – shelling civilian areas with mortars, howitzers and MRLS, exactly as hamas and hezbollah shells Israelis.
    ten thousand Ukrainians were murdered.
    they are dying every day.

    please do have your opinion and express it freely, – and allow me and others who find the above qualification reasonable, a pleasure to ignore and scroll your writings down, on the grounds of absolute irrelevance.

    • Thank you for the heads up AY, but if you are going to continue to put public comments up that I believe you may be wrong about on this site, which BTW, is open to anyone who wishes to abide by the house rules, then I will respond to them. As to whether or not you decide to read them is entirely up to you, but, you should consider that commenting on any subject on an open forum is always open to criticism.

Comments are closed.