Emmanuel Macron's inauguration at the Élysée Palace: what was the plan? (Part 1)
Protecting profits and wealth accumulation from the people
Let’s begin this text with the truism that historians are fortunate, since it is easier to recount history when you know the outcome. Except that, unfortunately, they now face another handicap. As soon as you try to identify human intent in the description of events, as soon as you attribute objectives to the actors in said history, a handful of paid cops come out of the woodwork to do the dirty work of discrediting anyone who dares to question the propaganda of the power they serve. The objective is simple: to prevent public opinion from accessing the real course of events. It is not the purpose of this article to detail the various methods used by those in power to impose their lies, as there are many. And the Western treatment of what has been happening in the world, particularly since February 2022, is a singular demonstration of this. But now any challenge to the dominant narrative is immediately labeled “conspiracy theory” or even, the most serious accusation, “conspiracyist.” The tasks are divided among misguided journalists, small-time thugs paid from public funds when they are not embezzling them, and a few intellectuals, sometimes academics, who are touted as experts. Gérald Bronner, for example, is a perfect example of this. He is the appointed leader of a small cohort that devotes its activity to hunting down conspiracy theorists by theorizing about this serious mental illness, going so far as to accuse Marx of suffering from it.
So, beware those who question the arrival in the French presidency of a complete unknown who came out of nowhere, with caricaturally weak political skills and character traits that border on mental pathology. Accusations immediately fly against the heretic, who, studying the conditions of this election, sees it as a concerted operation pursuing a specific goal. For having said as much on certain television programs in 2017, I was struck down by the guardians of the true faith who know, along with Thomas Aquinas, that “heresy is a spiritual crime more serious than counterfeiting, for it corrupts faith, the treasure of the soul.”
Having chosen exile on social media, temporarily sheltered from the secular arm of the inquisitors, I was able to express my conviction that we were witnessing a coup d’état. So, to describe its mechanisms, identify its reasons, and define its objectives, we will engage in a brief and light-hearted exercise in historical analysis. Starting with the fall of the Ming dynasty, moving on to the “Mont Pèlerin Society,” and ending with Ursula von der Leyen...
A brief tour through history
It was Western civilization that brought about the industrial revolution and invented capitalism. China, which in the 18th century was home to the richest region in the world, was unable to make this transition. François Gipouloux, a highly learned academic, brilliantly analyzed the causes, pointing in particular to one of them: the absence of the capitalist entrepreneur. That is to say, those who would transform savings into capital, which the West would have in abundance. They would then form the bourgeois class, which, as we have known since Marx, “played an eminently revolutionary role in history.” Fiercely revolutionary even, all those who tried to oppose it experienced this ferocity. Armed with its Enlightenment ideology and liberal theory, it took power over the world in the 19th century. This was one of the three ages identified by Eric Hobsbawm: “the age of capital, the age of revolutions, and the age of empires.” In the process, it established the form of public space organization that was relevant to its political domination, namely the “territorial nation-state.” As a result, at the dawn of the 20th century, after the second industrial revolution, Capital had changed profoundly and competition was also taking place between nations. Lenin explained this in his own way in his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. The national bourgeoisies decided that it might be wise to settle this competition through war. They then sent masses of men to be slaughtered for years in the first great industrial war in history. Completely devastated, both politically and geographically, Europe emerged from the great slaughter in a state of shock. It was then confronted with a major problem: the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power in the Tsarist empire. With their system weakened, their preeminence challenged, their economies fragile, and their empires beginning to stir, the bourgeoisie realized how fragile their power had become and, after October 1917, how much the order established in the 19th century was at risk of being overturned. After the trauma of the First World War, violent and anti-democratic political movements emerged, ideologically opposed to Bolshevism and supported by the middle classes who had been downgraded by the consequences of the conflict. In the interwar period, fascist regimes took hold in virtually all of Europe, with a few exceptions such as France, which made the opposite choice in 1936, and Great Britain, despite the temptations it faced. Wherever they took power, it was with the support of the bourgeoisie , which preferred to throw liberal ideology, its public freedoms, and principles overboard in order to retain its economic power. Even if it was not only that, fascism was the terrorist form of capitalist exploitation.
However, even before World War II, this solution for perpetuating capitalism and bourgeois domination showed its limitations. Before the coup de grâce of the catastrophe of the Second World War. The greatest war in human history had several consequences. First, it demonstrated the inability of fascism to rid the world of the Soviet threat; on the contrary, it was the USSR that liberated Europe from Nazism. Second, it was a historic windfall for the United States, which also emerged victorious from this conflict at very little cost, securing its undisputed position as the world’s leading economic power. And finally, it led to the destruction of Europe’s material infrastructure, which necessitated a Keynesian reconstruction in which capital was forced to make many concessions and accept the establishment of the welfare state.
The invention of neoliberalism and its victory in the West
Faced with the failure of fascism to preserve capitalism, and concerned about the power of the Soviet Union and the impact of its victory, which enabled and accompanied the decolonization of the empires established in the 19th century, in 1947 the economist Friedrich Hayek brought together 39 intellectuals, economists, and journalists at the Hotel du Mont-Pèlerin, near Vevey (Switzerland). Their goal was to create a forum for discussion to “counter the spread of collectivist ideologies and revive liberalism in order to preserve and develop a ‘free society.’“ Needless to say, in the minds of the founders, this “free society“ was indeed one in which “the fox roamed free in the free henhouse.” The ideological battle waged by this movement focused on denouncing the role of the state, and not only in its welfare state phase, which was presented as ineffective and liberticidal. Opposition to all forms of economic planning and the promotion of the free market, competition, and private property as conditions for wealth and freedom. Benefiting from considerable financial and institutional support, and armed with “Nobel Prizes in Economics,” an award invented for the occasion, the members of the “ club” were able to massively develop this propaganda despite its triviality. The goal was to restore intellectual and moral legitimacy to unbridled capitalism after the catastrophe it had caused with the two world wars.
At the end of the period of economic expansion known as the “glorious 30 years,” this undermining work finally bore fruit in the West. This allowed for a shift from ideological neoliberalism to “political neoliberalism” with the arrival in power of Ronald Reagan in the United States, Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, and the political shift in 1983 by François Mitterrand and the French Socialists. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, caused by internal factors but leading to the disappearance of socialism, obviously did not help matters.
People have experienced this neoliberalism, the frenzied financialization of the economy, Western globalization in a headlong rush, the spread of poverty, the creation of a hyper-globalized class with staggering wealth, and the brutal and deadly organization of the world under American hegemony. The purpose of this article is not to analyze and dissect these phenomena, but it would be irresponsible to claim that they are not the result of the implementation of neoliberalism, which Margaret Thatcher, the fierce grocer, defined in her own way with her extraordinary statement: “There is no such thing as society, there are only individuals.” Could there be a better way to update what Marx and Engels said in 1848 in The Communist Manifesto? “The bourgeoisie has left no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest, than payment in cash. It has drowned the sacred thrills of religious ecstasy, chivalrous enthusiasm, petty-bourgeois sentimentality in the icy waters of selfish calculation. It has made personal dignity a mere exchange value; it has substituted the single, ruthless freedom of commerce for the many freedoms so dearly won.“
Many distinguished intellectuals have analyzed and pointed out the characteristics and dialectic of this system. The first of these, which must be emphasized, is the imposture of its criticism of the state. The discourse on the need for “less state” is completely bogus. It is the strategic and social functions of the state, i.e., the welfare state, that these people want to destroy. But by assigning the state the mission of guaranteeing the so-called “free market,” which is in fact nothing more than a veil over the monopolization and financialization of capital, it is the strengthening of the state in this mission that they want to implement. The neoliberal state, as the market’s policeman, serves transnational corporations and is responsible for ensuring the freedom of capital and constraints on society. Consequently, as Barbara Stiegler clearly demonstrates, it is necessarily anti-democratic, and when the contradictions it encounters become difficult, it will resort to destroying the public freedoms that classical liberalism claimed to have established and defended. Censorship, arbitrariness, violent police and judicial repression—in some respects, this new form of “fascism” will soon be on a par with its predecessors of the 1930s.
But what about Emmanuel Macron in all this? Well, the installation of this psychopath in the Élysée Palace is a perfect avatar of the neoliberal system.
The European Union: a neoliberal fortress
Built and initially desired by French socialists, supported by a bourgeois right wing devoid of any real national sentiment, the European Union is a neoliberal fortress. It is not currently a state organization, but a legal system responsible for monitoring member states. These states have been deprived of most of their sovereign prerogatives, which have been ossified in constitutional treaties that cannot be reformed. No more national currency, no more economic planning, fierce application of the principle of “free and undistorted competition“ in its most deleterious sense. And whose application is only there to guarantee the interests of Capital and in no way those of citizens. It is run by corrupt officials, materially protected and steered by a Commission under Germany’s orders. It is flanked by a powerless parliament, a kind of political dustbin where third-rate politicians whom the member countries no longer want end up. This bureaucracy has, in fact, had only one mission so far: to preserve the grip of neoliberalism on the member countries, of which these cops are the jailers. What’s more, they are assisted internally by zealous magistrates, who ensure this hold in the name of the “rule of law,” which is nothing more than a misleading phrase intended to disguise the dispossession of peoples of their sovereignty. This was spectacularly demonstrated by the violation of electoral democracy in France in 2005, and more recently by the interruption of the electoral process in Romania, where Marine Le Pen, the candidate of France’s leading party, was banned from running in the presidential election.
The French, to take just one example, can vote for Jean-Luc Mélenchon or Jordan Bardella, but it will be impossible for them to break free from the shackles and implement even the beginning of their respective programs.
But that’s not all. Neoliberalism is a form of transnationalism. It is an ideology that serves transnational corporations. It therefore has the greatest aversion to the “territorial nation-state.” A tool for the Western bourgeoisie to seize power in the 19th century, this form is now considered not only obsolete, but also an obstacle to the deployment of Capital and the globalized hyper-class that is its social expression. The territorial nation-state was the relevant space for the deployment of national bourgeoisies, but the state they controlled, while an instrument of domination, was also an instrument of representation. It was the place where contradictions were expressed and compromises were worked out. The welfare state established after the Second World War was the result of these compromises, achieved thanks to favorable power relations. Not only has neoliberalism relentlessly sought to dismantle the gains won through social struggles, but it has also been necessary to break the system. Profit and accumulation were placed beyond the reach of democratic deliberation. This is what happened in France, with the destruction of labor law, which had been built up over decades through legislation and case law. Its dismantling was first initiated by François Hollande and the Socialists with Myriam El Khomri, then with Macron’s reform.
It is for this reason that, accompanied by the chanting of the dim-witted seedlings sent by Macronism to Brussels on the need for “more Europe,” the project of “federalization” of the EU is moving forward. Several things illustrate this, in particular the permanent coup d’état perpetrated by Ursula von der Leyen, who is constantly and illegally attributing to herself powers that are not her own. Without this provoking the slightest reaction from the leaders of the member countries. Could it be because they agree with this dispossession? As far as Emmanuel Macron is concerned, this is obvious. One could even argue that he was elected for this very reason.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Emmanuel Macron’s installation at the Élysée: what was the plan? (Part 2)
Macron at the Élysée Palace: a coup d’état ?
The lightning-fast judicial operation organized in early 2017 by the elite of the French judiciary, aimed at politically disqualifying François Fillon, the favorite in the presidential election to succeed the disastrous François Hollande, may have created false impressions. Organized in advance after the right-wing primary in November, the manipulation was undeniable. However, at the time, it was possible to imagine a windfall effect allowing misguided magistrates to express their aversion to a certain right wing embodied by Fillon. The aim was clearly to block his path to the Élysée Palace. The election of Emmanuel Macron was then only a collateral effect, even if this candidate, supported by the PS apparatus, was perfectly suited to this justice system subservient to that party.
The problem is that this hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny.
First of all, the judiciary’s involvement in the operation followed a carefully controlled agenda, organized in close consultation with the press. The press was fed information by the organizers, many of whom were at the Élysée Palace, which they immediately passed on to the magistrates, as demonstrated by the famous article in Le Canard enchaîné concerning Pénélope Fillon’s employment. Three hours after its publication, this article “triggered” the opening of proceedings... And as the proceedings unfolded, in constant and gross violation of the law on the secrecy of investigations and inquiries, the flow of information was reversed from the judiciary to the media.
Subsequently, an examination of the facts, such as that carried out by Éric Stemelen on the enormous media campaign promoting Macron’s candidacy, or the work of Marc Endeweld, shows that this was a long-term undertaking. Nothing was left to chance by Emmanuel Macron’s sponsors, from Henry Hermand to McKinsey, Jacques Attali, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, David de Rothschild, etc.
Consequently, the judicial aspect appears to be the final episode, with its participants aiming to bring Emmanuel Macron to power, the political disqualification of François Fillon being not the objective, but the means.
The history of this coup d’état has yet to be written, but this characterization is already difficult to refute.
Even if it makes for enjoyable reading, it is not necessary to refer to Curzio Malaparte’s famous book “Technique of the Coup d’État” to identify what defines a coup d’état. A simple reference to French history is enough to identify a method that seems to have been used by the organizers. In 1799, faced with successive political crises that they were unable to control, the leaders of the Directory, who had succeeded the Convention after Robespierre’s execution, sought a solution to stabilize the situation. The aim was to perpetuate the changes brought about by the Revolution and bring it to an end. Abbé Sieyès, who said “I am looking for a sword“ after considering Generals Joubert and then Moreau, chose Bonaparte. On 18 Brumaire, Bonaparte appeared before the Council of Five Hundred, where he was poorly received. Murat then sent his grenadiers into the chamber, causing the opponents to flee, and the remaining members voted to dissolve the Directory and establish the Consulate. The operation took place without violence, apart from the grenadiers’ intrusion into the Council chamber. A certain legal formality was observed, validated a few weeks later by a plebiscite approving the Constitution of the Year VIII.
This is not, of course, a matter of making a comparison, but rather of recalling this episode in French history, which can serve as a reference point. And it is not unreasonable to claim that in the mid-2010s, a circumstantial political alliance was formed. Comprising figures from the senior civil service, leaders of the Socialist Party, and representatives of major oligarchic interests, it set about preparing for the 2017 presidential election after the successive disasters of the Sarkozy and Hollande presidencies. It was not a search for “a sword” and the realization of a military “pronunciamento,” but rather a search for a figure who would be entrusted with a special mission.
To identify this mission, what mandate should be entrusted to him, two hypotheses arise.
First hypothesis: enough with the false alternation, power must return to the center.
First of all, and this was the initial opinion of the author of these lines, the bourgeoisie and its supporters had realized that the system of false alternation that had existed in France since 1983 had finally reached its limits. We remember Philippe Séguin’s damning remark describing the French “left” and “right” that succeeded each other in power as “grocers buying from the same wholesaler.” The term of Nicolas Sarkozy, however friendly he may have been to the major oligarchic interests subservient to the United States, had been disappointing, as he was soundly defeated when his term ended in 2012. To claim that François Hollande won that election is not serious; it was Nicolas Sarkozy who lost it. For the humiliated French people, Hollande’s presidency was a daily ordeal. So much so that he was unable to run for re-election, as the real bosses strongly advised him to step down. A solution had to be found, since false left versus false right was no longer working. So let’s go for the center.
In the 2014 European elections, Marine Le Pen’s National Front was in the lead with 25% of the vote, 5 points ahead of the UMP, while the incumbent president’s party found itself with less than 15%. It was clear that Marine Le Pen would be in the second round of the presidential elections three years later, so the challenge became simple: who would run against her? Who would be guaranteed, even with a secondplace finish in the first round, to enter the Élysée Palace? Emmanuel Macron ticked all the boxes: young leader, Énarque, neoliberal, closely linked to moneyed circles, alien to the national interest, having never worked or been an activist, without the slightest political past, he was a caricature. For people like Attali, Minc, and Jean-Pierre Jouyet, who had spent their entire lives betraying, cozying up to power, and enriching themselves, he was the ideal candidate. This explains why, as soon as they spotted him, they took great care of him.
When we look at Emmanuel Macron’s trajectory since 2012, we see that everything is falling into place and being organized so that he will be ready when the time comes. Among senior socialist officials, the decision was made: he would be the successor to the disastrous Hollande, who would be pushed out the door. The oligarchs who own the French press endorsed him, financed him, and promoted him.
Under these circumstances, the disaster of the two terms in office would be due to the glaring political incompetence of an inexperienced Macron and the incompetence of his teams, leading to an inability to run the country effectively. Character traits bordering on serious psychological disorders did not help matters. According to this hypothesis, the Emmanuel Macron experiment would be a political failure.
But is this really the case?
Second hypothesis: continuing and completing the destruction and dissolution of France.
When Emmanuel Macron was elected, a friend of mine, a sharp French political scientist, warned me: “You won’t recognize your country at the end of Macron’s term(s).” It would be difficult to be more accurate than this prediction. It is not pessimistic to note the scale of the disaster. With France in financial bankruptcy, its institutions no longer functioning, an insoluble political deadlock, a disastrous economic situation, uncontrollable immigration, part of the national territory abandoned to the underworld, major public services, justice, health, and transportation in disrepair, civil liberties trampled upon, France a vassal of the empire ridiculed around the world, etc. etc... let’s not go on, enough is enough! Our country looks a lot like Russia in the 1990s, after the breakup/dissolution of the Soviet Union.
What if this situation were not the consequence of the 2017 coup d’état and Emmanuel Macron’s rise to power, but its objective? Let’s be clear, this is not to claim that each of the above observations was precisely predicted and part of the plan. Rather, we must analyze reality, attempting to detect any possible intentionality in the process that led to it. We can also ask the question in the following way: is this catastrophic result the fruit of a failure due to the incompetence and corruption of Macron and his group? Or was this policy of letting things slide deliberate, and was the dislocation/dissolution of France the plan? Analysis of what happened to the USSR is clouded by ideological issues. But clearly, the final catastrophe of December 1991 was not the plan of Gorbachev and his teams. On the other hand, we can ask ourselves the question , concerning those who brought Emmanuel Macron to power. One of the clues that supports this thesis is the involvement of socialist leaders in the entire operation. The PS candidate in 2017 was not that sad nonentity Benoît Hamon, let’s be serious. With all the socialist bigwigs behind him, it was Macron.
Since 1981, every time they have been in power, they have been the forerunners of France’s neoliberal transformation. Deregulation, financialization, privatization, abandonment of sovereignty—their record is impressive. To claim that their pro-European passion was a substitute for their ideological renunciation of socialism after its failures is simply a joke. It was not a question of setting the French people an exciting European horizon, but of forcing our country into the neoliberal straitjacket. Aquilino Morelle, a close advisor to Lionel Jospin and then François Hollande, analyzed the process in an irrefutable book. In it, he described the Socialists’ rallying to the dogma of the market, financialization, and deregulated globalization. In other words, to neoliberalism... He even went so far as to consider that it was the French Socialists who were the driving force behind it, even beyond France. With Fabius and Beregovoy in power in France, Delors and Lamy at the head of the European Commission, Chavranski at the OECD, Trichet at the European Central Bank (ECB), Camdessus at the IMF, and Lamy at the WTO, all of them staunch socialists or their allies. Perhaps some of them genuinely believed (?) at the outset that it would be possible to “build Europe without dismantling France,” but the most cynical and corrupt, generally close to the globalized hyper-class, knew very well that the main objective was to impose the neoliberal straitjacket on the European peoples and that the EU was the tool for their confinement. For these people, France’s losses and profits were of no importance.
The Alstom affair is a perfect example of the political Macronism desired and implemented by those who orchestrated Emmanuel Macron’s rise to power. It is a spectacular combination of betrayal and corruption. Once he found himself close to political power (as deputy secretary general of the Élysée), he organized the dismantling of one of the major flagships of French industry for the benefit of the United States. Relying on the practice of American hostage-taking based on the extraterritoriality of their rights, the future president of the Republic set up and finalized an unbelievable sell-off operation to the detriment of the nation’s interests. That’s for the betrayal and deindustrialization of the country. Then, as demonstrated by the work of the late Olivier Marleix when he chaired the parliamentary commission of inquiry into this affair, nearly €600 million was “diverted” to the benefit of Emmanuel Macron’s friends, apparently to be used in to finance the operation that led to his election. That’s corruption and the collapse of public morality for you.
So, despite the vicissitudes, political chaos, financial bankruptcy, the collapse of the welfare state, and France being ridiculed internationally, can we consider Emmanuel Macron a failure? That he has not followed the roadmap of the powerful interests that chose him?
Why is Macron clinging on?
The psychopath in the Élysée Palace is determined to remain in office, even though common sense and a modicum of republican conscience should lead him to acknowledge the deadlock he faces and step down. The Constitution of the Fifth Republic is certainly in tatters, but the remnants of republican functioning in a presidential system flanked by “rationalized” parliamentarianism would normally require acknowledging the deadlock and drawing the necessary conclusions. That will not happen.
Supported by a totally locked-down system, subservient mainstream media, the most cowardly journalists in the world, and an oligarchy of which he is an employee, with character traits that some would consider psychiatric, he sees no reason to do so. And above all, he has no intention of doing so. To the point that his henchmen are waving the specter of Article 16 of the Constitution in front of the public to scare them and keep him in power. So one might think that, given the scale of the disaster, the powerful interests that put him in the Élysée Palace would eventually call him to order. Except on one occasion at the beginning of the yellow vest movement, they have never done so. And they will not do so.
What if the correct answer to the question of why he is being kept in power is precisely that, despite the chaos, the lurches and the vicissitudes, things are going according to plan? The plan to weaken France, perhaps to the point of disintegration, and ultimately destroy its sovereignty in favor of a European Union that is being relentlessly pushed towards transformation into a federal system with unassailable neoliberalism. As we have said, in gross violation of existing treaties, Ursula von der Leyen has already seized prerogatives that did not belong to the Union. Accompanied by the mantra, “We need more Europe, we need more Europe!” screeched by the nobodies that the system sends to the Brussels Parliament.
Emmanuel Macron will not be able to run for a third term in the 2027 presidential election? Big deal. The rest of the plan is clear.
Friedrich Merz, the very worrying new German chancellor, has just given us a glimpse of what is to come. With the announcement of Ursula von der Leyen’s candidacy for the presidency of the Federal Republic of Germany at the end of her second term as president of the European Commission in 2027. Thus freeing up the position for... Emmanuel Macron... Taking the helm of an EU gradually shifting into “federal structure” mode to rule over territorial nation states emptied of their substance.
There is no need to invoke the intervention of the Illuminati, or even flat-earth reptilians, to try to understand what is happening to our unfortunate country. Simply refer to Hegel, who in his “Philosophy of History” insisted that it is individuals, peoples, and “great men” who make history. Not that Emmanuel Macron is a great man, let’s be serious, but because he did not come to the Élysée by chance. Based on a strategic analysis, his arrival was the result of a choice, the expression of an intention, and the implementation of a plan. There is nothing “conspiratorial” about this approach. Nor would it be possible to describe the presentation of de Gaulle’s return to power in 1958 as the implementation of a plan as “conspiratorial.”
That being said, if we accept the second hypothesis put forward in this article, and what was the proposed objective of “Operation Macron,” its ultimate success through the dissolution of France into a neoliberal entity locked down in Brussels will depend on the course of history.
Where, according to Hegel, but also and above all Marx, the people still have a say.
Inutile de vouloir en rajouter , Régis de Castelnau a parfaitement résumé la farce soit disant démocratique concoctée pour l'installation du Fondé du Pouvoir Oligarchique aux ordres de la Ploutocratie . Merci à lui .