Blog Archives

French Election, Macron vs. Marine Le Pen: Why ‘Every Country Deserves its Government’

Marine Le Pen and French national heroine Jeanne d’Arc

NEW ASK LADA EPISODE

Great question from Shaf! Lada, thanks for another great post. I’m very impressed with the accuracy of your posts and if the PTB don’t prevent Le Pen from winning, then you can say you called a Le Pen victory 5 years in advance! A question. In one your previous articles you said that countries get leaders/governments based on the general wishes/energy of the population in total. Am I wrong? So let’s say then the majority of the French did want Le Pen to win but the PTB stopped her, then how does that work? Perhaps overall in the wider picture, then the general policy direction of France will move more to the right in alignment with the general karmic energy/thoughts of the population, regardless of who is leader?

Lada Ray on 

French Elections, Le Pen, Macron, EU, and Why ‘Every Country Deserves its Government’

Many see the principle ‘every country deserves its government’ as something menacing or negative. But it’s neither negative nor positive: it’s neutral. It works both ways – to one’s advantage or disadvantage – and it doesn’t discriminate. It is akin to karma, or rather a self-fulfilling prophecy. Basically, this principle denotes the collective consciousness and the general cumulative energy of the population at work. It simply reflects that we all collectively are co-creators of our present and future.

I know that it’s hard for some to accept that in many ways a population of any country, tribe, territory or town has collectively generated and propelled to power a specific kind of leader, president and/or elite.

Like it or not, ultimately this is always the choice of any given populace. Sometimes the choice is obvious, when majority democratically votes for a specific candidate.

But what about a monarchy, when the title is passed on from generation to generation? In this case the inhabitants of such country agree generation after generation that such and such ruler has the god-given right to rule them. When they stop agreeing on that, monarchy ceases to exist.

Since we are talking about France today, here’s a great example: in the 18th century the French Revolution put a stop to the monarchic rule and established a republic. Throughout much of the 19th century France continued rocking, with the attempts to resurrect monarchy, since the collective energy of the French citizens could not agree on a single most beneficial future timeline. Admittedly, all this happened with a great deal of external interference by the British Empire, Austria-Hungary Empire and Jewish bankers. However, in the end of the day it were the French people who decided they wanted to live in a republic.

Or let’s take Assad and Syria. No matter how much pressure is put externally on Syria, no matter how much he and his constituents are maligned and threatened, the majority of the population still supports Assad as their leader.

On the other hand, if we take the EU, the system has been designed to produce fake leaders, who are robotic bureaucrats. This happens when the majority of the population is zombified and/or lives in la-la land, when the real world’s problems escape them. Incidentally, this is usually a road to slow destruction. In that case, the populace will produce governments to match.

Now, back to French presidential election. It is clear to me that Marine Le Pen has appeared on the French scene not by accident. Her appearance and fast rise are predestined. In fact, the sane people of France and the EU crave politicians of Le Pen’s strength in order to change the landscape of Europe. The problem is that the old establishment is so far too strong and the percentage of zombified populace is still too large in order for a meaningful change to occur.

However, recall what I predicted in ESR12 re. BREXIT and the Future of the EU: it is a slow and relentless ‘rickety chair effect.’ Slowly, the chair is being more and more destabilized – until it actually falls apart.

The fact that it’s so hard for either candidate, Le Pen, Macron or anyone else, to get a clear majority means that the French population is torn between conflicting choices. It may be clear to us and to those nearly 8 million French citizens who voted for Le Pen, but the rest is either too misinformed, brainwashed or confused. As a result, there is no collective consciousness consensus, or said another way, there is no clear sense of direction France, as well as the whole EU, needs to take.

France is torn between the past and the future. Part of it is a stigma attached to Marine Le Pen’s father and her party (incidentally, that’s why she announced her resignation – I’ll tell you more in upcoming ESR18!). But for the most part it’s all about hanging on to the past and being fearful of change. Some don’t want to give up the cushy lifestyle they came to enjoy as part of the EU; some are afraid to lose all the perks and freedoms the EU allows, such as one currency and open borders.

However, others consider these ‘perks’ to be a burden, and possibly even existential threat, due to the fact that various terrorists and subversive elements may now be able to seep through such open borders, or because one currency and one government restricts national choices, personal freedoms and trade options of any given country. There are additional considerations, such taxes, immigration, social assistance, preserving national and cultural identity, NATO interventionism vs. neutral non-alignment with military blocks, etc.

France’s curse is that it’s Europe’s permanent No. 2. It is one of Europe’s largest economies, with its distinct and rich culture and heritage, with a lot of national pride and talent. Yet in every alliance it has ever entered it always was resigned to playing a second fiddle. With Antanta during WWI it was the second fiddle to the UK; in WWII it was something like a tag along 4th fiddle to three main Allies (USSR, US and UK). In the EU, it’s the second fiddle to Germany.

We can say that the French basically thrived the most when they made an effort to be independent. In recent history it was under Charles De Gaulle and a few of his successors.

Incidentally, it has to be absolutely understood that the phenomenon of De Gaulle and his proud nonaligned, non-NATO, independent of the US/UK/global banksters stance was only possible due to the existence of THE SOVIET UNION, a very strong superpower, which served as the counterweight to the West. The moment Soviet Union was destroyed, France by itself began caving in to pressure from the Anglo-American consortium. Considering how many times this caving in to foreign pressure and partial or complete loss of sovereignty occurred in history, this is something the French resent dearly.

Therefore, if the French at large were smart, they’d get it that only strong Russia – The Great Balancer serves as guarantor of their continued sovereignty. I am not even talking about being grateful for all the support Russia/USSR gave France in the past (alas, gratitude isn’t fashionable in today’s world of Western egoic neo-liberalism).

Perhaps because of this, three out of four major candidates proclaimed their goal of improving relations with Russia. Yet – oh, irony! – Emmanuel Macron, the pro-EU, globalist candidate who stands for confrontation with Russia, won the first round. And it is behind this candidate that the majority of other candidates threw their support in the end.

Even more ironically, the French election front-runner is a younger, slicker, more slippery and more charismatic version of Hollande – the man the French voted out of office during his first term, whose approval now stands at 4%!

Compare him to Marine Le Pen, a rare French politician who truly gets it. This is why she has been so pro-Russian in her statements and campaign promises. In fact, recall what I predicted a while back (in 2014 or 2015, I think): forget the old division into leftists and rightists. That should be left in the 20th century. Presently, the defining factors for who to vote for are: how a candidate or party positions itself in regards to the issues of sovereignty, globalism and relations with Russia. THIS is your ultimate litmus test.

Per Lada Ray’s EARTH SHIFT THEORY, human society has become incredibly imbalanced and lopsided towards unabated individualism and egoic consumerism, which in the end will unavoidably lead to the ultimate loss of all freedoms through the Western-style globalist project, unless Russia – The Great Balancer rebalances the planet before it’s too late.

Who will France elect as new president? France’s choice will tell us whether the population deserves a better government and a better future.

OR, whether France will continue reliving the classic definition of madness: making the same mistake over and over again and expecting a different result. We will discuss all this in upcoming EARTH SHIFT REPORT 18.

 

COMING SOON!

EARTH SHIFT REPORT 18 (written report)

Lada Ray French Election Predictions: Le Pen – Macron Face-off & What it Means for the EU

Also read: The Plot Thickens! Who’ll Win French Presidential Election: Marine Le Pen, Macron, Fillon or Melenchon?

Support Lada’s work: DONATE

 

Advertisements

Prediction and Analysis: #Putin’s D-Day, US and EU

On June 6, leaders of various European countries met in France for the 70th anniversary of the 1944 Normandy landing during WWII. Among others present were Russian President Vladimir Putin, US president Barack Obama and president-elect of the Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko. In his usual diplomatic manner Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an interview to the French press at his Sochi residence before his visit to France.

Video call snapshot 78Lada Ray’s geopolitical analysis and predictions

Overall, I believe the French President Francois Hollande has to be commended for inviting President Vladimir Putin. France in general often plays a role of a connector between Russia and the West, and it seems Hollande wants to continue in the footsteps of his predecessors. Even Sarkozy managed to play this role in 2008 during the Georgia crisis, although Francois Mitterrand and Charles De Gaulle were undeniably much better at this. But of course it was also during those times when France was still a sovereign and independent state that wasn’t a part of NATO. Very diplomatically, President Putin hints at that during the interview.

Hollande faced a logistical challenge during Putin’s and Obama’s visit, as the US president Obama seems to be unable to handle being in the same room with Putin. Can’t bear looking him in the eye after what US has done in Ukraine (like spending $5bln+ to destabilize Ukraine as publicly admitted by Victoria #Nuland)? Or resenting that Putin again outsmarted him (as in the case of Crimea, which US planned on turning into a massive US military base against Russia, but failed)? Most likely – both. See Hilarious! Putin – Obama Split Screen at 70th D-Day Anniversary in France

To keep Putin and Obama separate, Hollande was ready to eat two dinners. He hosted two dinners in one night – one for Obama, another for Putin, which for a French may not be a problem.

But jokes aside, as I predicted, EU finds itself on some serious crossroads of history. EU has massive past relations with the US – economically, politically and militarily. But more and more people in the EU are realizing that their future lies in distancing themselves from the US and getting closer to Russia and the East.

This appears to be the first time a Russian President is attending this event held each year in France. In diplomatic terms such invitation is a signal that, despite tough rhetoric and cancelling of the G8 meeting in Sochi due to events in Ukraine, the EU leaders want to continue talking to Russia.

This confirms what I’ve talked about from the very beginning of the Ukraine crisis. EU is realizing – very slowly and reluctantly – that it is facing a major historic choice. We are going through a tectonic shift of directions and priorities, and of course the EU doesn’t want to give up its cushy and stable past, which it believes, it has earned during the past 70 years of relative peace on the European continent. Europe sees the unfolding crisis of the Western world and fears what the future may bring. However, holding on to the past effectively means siding with the dying dollar and crumbling US Empire. This means that the EU would have to give up its cushy past no matter how hard they try to hang on to it.

This also means that the future for the EU lies in closer integration with Russia and the East. Despite the logic and necessity of such actions, the EU is agonizing over switching gears. It seems paralyzed at the moment due to the massive political, economic and military pressures from the US, and partially from the UK.

However, the UK is at its own crossroads. Britain faces its own economic crisis, Scotland secession, and rising euro-scepticism. Interestingly enough, some in the UK would like to distance themselves from the US even more so than the rest of Europe. Moreover, the win of the euro-skeptics in the euro-parliament elections, indicates that the UK is poised to distance itself from the EU as well.

Unfortunately, 2/3 of the European politicians and media side with the US, while the EU business prefers Russia. In fact, the EU business is screaming bloody murder as the threat of sanctions against Russia makes Russia turn more and more decisively towards Asia. As a consequence, EU companies may be squeezed out of the Russian market, losing billions in investment.

Russian rep to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov says that EU companies are begging Russia not to adopt return sanctions against the EU, motivating it this way: “we are already losing a lot of money from the EU sanctions against Russia, Russia’s return sanctions will be really bad for us.” Hmm… What Russia is losing is not their concern obviously. Sounds grotesque, right? Source – interview by V. Chizhov: Чижов: Европейские компании просят Россию не применять против ЕС ответных санкций

Make no mistake: the consequence of weakening of the European economy, along with Russian, is undoubtedly intended by the US.

Predictions

Eventually, the EU will have no choice but to get closer to Russia and Asia, and distance itself gradually from the US. This will be a very slow and reluctant process. EU will not want to do anything drastic that may lead to a confrontation with the US. Let’s remember, Europe is an occupied continent. There are 50,000 US troops in Germany alone. EU fears destabilization more than anything else, and it cannot afford any conflict with the US.

US knows that long-term the EU is poised to distance itself from its old Transatlantic ally. It’s a historic process, which cannot be avoided. US knows that it may be marginalized – and it fears being isolated. This is why US is desperate to delay the inevitable by binding EU to itself via the Transatlantic agreement; increasing US troop count in the EU; forcing on the EU its expensive shale gas, extracted via barbaric fracking, which harms the environment and decimates the American land; and by demanding from the EU more sanctions against Russia.

To get the US off its back, EU adopted some token sanctions against a number of Russian individuals. But the US keeps demanding economic sanctions, which are bound to harm the EU economy. Contrary to its usually politically meek and conciliatory position, the EU’s large business is sending SOS signals that by pressuring the EU into economic sanctions, the US companies are trying to weaken their European competitors.

Examples are the restrictions on the Russian gas supply to the EU, which, due to the Trojan horses of the US in Europe, such as Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, have partially succeeded. One example is the constant turmoil with the Russian gas transit via Ukraine. The US deep interference in Ukraine and continuing prodding of the Kiev junta to act in an aggressive manner towards Donbass, Odessa and other Russian-speaking regions, is part of the US plan of destabilizing Ukraine and sabotaging Russian gas supply to Europe, thus damaging both Russian and European economies.

Another example is the EU insistence on minimizing the flow of gas though the Gazprom Opal pipeline designed to bypass Ukraine. To any independent observer it would seem logical that if the flow of gas to Europe through Ukraine is under constant threat, then it would be logical to bypass Ukraine. Despite that, Opal runs only at 50% capacity.

US insists that France must cancel the delivery of the two Mistral carriers they are supposed to deliver this year to Russia. They go as far as suggesting NATO should buy these carriers to partially cover France’s losses from the broken multibillion euro contract. What this will do to France-Russia relations, the potentiality of future contracts, and to France’s economy… this is not the concern of the US. Or rather, it is precisely the concern of the US – US would love to damage France-Russia relations!

As I said many times previously, driving a wedge between Western Europe and Russia, sabotaging Russian and EU relations and economies are very important goals of the US foreign policy.

Understanding all that, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to visit France, where during the Normandy event he had an opportunity to meet privately with various EU leaders. The true value of events such as these is that the country leaders can meet on the sidelines and discuss any important and pressing matters candidly and quietly. Without such meetings, there would be much less interaction, and hence understanding, between leaders. In order to foster understanding, constant communication and interaction is as necessary between states as it is necessary among ordinary people.

The fact that Putin has attended the event in France signals that the EU quietly wants to work with Russia, although overtly it is afraid to anger the big boss. Hence two different dinners.

Grotesque and sad, isn’t it? But to avoid international confrontation, it’s still better than the alternative.

Below are the best quotes of Putin’s interview, as well as the link to the video of the full interview. The French journos were rude and aggressive, attempting to trip Putin, which of course didn’t work. I would have liked to see them try talking like this to Obama or Merkel. The interview would have been cancelled in no time. Obama’s questions are always very carefully vetted ahead of time, and a journalist can’t deviate an inch from the script.

Putin looked relaxed, and at times amused, as the French journos kept interrupting himself and each other.

On that note, someone recently “accused” me of being a “Putin admirer.” I find that amusing. Some people’s tiny understanding of how the world works really amazes me. I’m not into “admiring” of any humans, although I respect some.

What I do admire is this: the natural beauty of our planet Earth and the Harmony, Beauty and Truth in general.

Putin is not my boyfriend to be in love with. When it comes to statesmen, I assess them according to the intention and results of their work. If they are doing what a statesman is supposed to do, then they earn my respect; if they fall short, I cannot respect them. Then for me, they are not “statesmen.” They become mere politicians, and that’s what most of them are.

After observing Putin’s actions for years, he has earned my respect of the highest order. He is the only leader of the modern world who makes perfect sense and who is not afraid to stand up to the Western aggression going hand in hand with the unreasonable and juvenile behavior. And he does it in such a way that the world keeps spinning, despite frantic attempts by certain powerful interests to start WWIII. Putin manages to pull wins out of the seemingly no-win situations, check-mating his opponents against all odds, and doing it without any bloodshed. Compare that to how USA acts!

This is because Putin is not only much more than a politician – he is also much more than a statesman. Of that I will talk in one of my future pieces.

For more read Predictions

Watch the video of this article:

Dear readers, please support FuturisTrendcast Blog and EarthShift TV on Youtube – subscribe, share, like and comment!

Read below

Guest Post by Russian President Vladimir Putin

 Putin’s best quotes from French media talk

Source: RT.com
Published time: June 04, 2014 18:30
Edited time: June 05, 2014 12:08

Vladimir Putin faced a barrage of tricky questions from French media ahead of his meeting with world leaders at the 70th anniversary of the Normandy landings. Here are his best replies on key issues: Ukraine, Crimea and relations with the US.

On Ukraine, its sovereignty and Russian troops:

The ongoing crisis in Ukraine has been occupying the center of international attention since the end of last year. While the coup-appointed government in Kiev is carrying out a military crackdown on the southeast of the country, the US said that Russian troops are allegedly involved in the crisis and they have proof of that.

What about proof? Why don’t they show it?” Putin told French media.

“The entire world remembers the US Secretary of State demonstrating the evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, waving around some test tube with washing powder in the UN Security Council. Eventually, the US troops invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was hanged and later it turned out there had never been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You know – it’s one thing to say things and another to actually have evidence.

“After the anti-constitutional coup in Kiev in February, the first thing the new authorities tried to do was to deprive the ethnic minorities of the right to use their native language. This caused great concern among the people living in eastern Ukraine.”

“I wouldn’t call them either pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian. They are people who have certain rights, political, humanitarian rights, and they must have a chance to exercise those rights.”

Read RT’s LIVE UPDATES on Kiev’s military campaign in eastern Ukraine

“When [the coup] happened some people accepted this regime and were happy about it while other people, say, in eastern and southern Ukraine just won’t accept it.”

On Crimea, its referendum and historical ties to Russia:

After Crimea voted in its March referendum to join Russia, the West voiced concerns that the people in the region voted at gunpoint.

Russian troops were in Crimea under the international treaty on the deployment of the Russian military base. It’s true that Russian troops helped Crimeans hold a referendum 1) on their independence and 2) on their desire to join the Russian Federation. No one can prevent these people from exercising a right that is stipulated in Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of nations to self-determination.

“We conducted an exclusively diplomatic and peaceful dialogue – I want to stress this – with our partners in Europe and the United States. In response to our attempts to hold such a dialogue and to negotiate an acceptable solution, they supported the anti-constitutional state coup in Ukraine, and following that we could not be sure that Ukraine would not become part of the North Atlantic military bloc. In that situation, we could not allow a historical part of the Russian territory with a predominantly ethnic Russian population to be incorporated into an international military alliance, especially because Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia.”

One journalist asked the president whether he wants to recreate the old borders of the Soviet Union.

We want to use modern policies to improve our competitive advantage, including economic integration. This is what we are doing in the post-Soviet space within the Customs Union and now also within the Eurasian Union.

On US relations and its aggressive foreign policies:

“Speaking of US policy, it’s clear that the United States is pursuing the most aggressive and toughest policy to defend its own interests – at least, this is how the American leaders see it – and they do it persistently.”

“There are basically no Russian troops abroad while US troops are everywhere. There are US military bases everywhere around the world and they are always involved in the fates of other countries, even though they are thousands of kilometers away from US borders.”

“So it is ironic that our US partners accuse us of breaching some of these rules,” Putin said, apparently referring to Hillary’s Clinton’s statement on Russia’s foreign policy in Eastern Europe, comparing it with Hitler’s in the 1930s.

“When people push boundaries too far, it’s not because they are strong but because they are weak. But maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman.”

On Russia, defense, sovereignty, and opposition parties:

Amid the tensions concerning the latest $1.6 billion military deal that France will supply Russia with two Mistral helicopter carriers, Putin said he hopes the two countries will continue to develop their ties.

“Overall, our relations in this area are developing well, and we would like to continue strengthening them – in aviation, shipbuilding, and other sectors.”

“A policy of expansionism and conquest has no future in the modern world. We’re confident that Russia can and should be a partner with its traditional allies, in the broad sense, now and also in the future.”

“Any country that becomes a member of a military alliance gives away some of its sovereignty to a supranational body. For Russia, this would be unacceptable. As for other countries, it has nothing to do with us. They have to decide such matters for themselves.”

“And there’s another example: François Mitterrand, who spoke of European confederation, with Russia as its member. I think this opportunity still exists and we will have it in the future.”

Speaking about internal policies Putin said that Russia is a common democratic state and its “current regime is not connected to any particular person”

“The overwhelming majority of Russian citizens tend to rely on their traditions, their history and, if I may say so, their traditional values. I see this as the foundation and a factor of stability in the Russian state, but none of this is associated with the President as an individual. Moreover, it should be remembered that we only started introducing standard democratic institutions recently. They are still in the process of evolving.”

“Some of our opponents say there are unacceptable restrictions. What kind of restrictions do we have? For example, we have banned the promotion of suicide, drugs and pedophilia. These are our restrictions. What’s wrong with that?”

“In the United States, since we talked about it, homosexuality is illegal in some states. We impose no criminal liability whatsoever. We banned only promoting homosexuality among minors. It is our right to protect our children and we will do it.”

 

Watch the VIDEO of this article on YouTube!

 

logo 4

Dear readers, all this information is being made available for free. Please support FuturisTrendcast Blog and EarthShift TV on Youtube – subscribe, share, like and comment!

 

Related: Washington’s Iron Curtain — by Diana Johnstone, guest post on PaulCraigRoberts.org.

 

%d bloggers like this: