Showing posts with label #Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Elections. Show all posts

Monday, 11 November 2024

THE PEOPLE OVERCAME THE POLLSTERS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO DEFEAT THE ELITE...BUT

12 November 2024

https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1855759957624283241


This fascinating eight minute video traces how the pollsters and the MSM came to realise in the course of the day that they had been defeated by the people. So it can be done ... but how to do it?

If you take a close look at the interior workings of Trump's 2024 campaign, you will find that they built on and refined the numerous techniques used by Biden to beat Trump last time round and you can go all the way back to Cambridge Analytics if you wish.

BUT

The euphoria is on account of Trump successfully defeating the pollsters, the mainstream media and even seemingly the elite.

Hold hard for a moment, though, let's not get too carried away, remember MAGA. In other words, everything that Trump does will be for America and as it concerns Europe, it will be at our expense - Europe will be collateral damage to Trump's victory.

What we can do is learn from the Trump campaign about how to defeat the existing wet Starmer, duplicitous Macron and bloated EU. We need real leaders to take back control and get out from under America.

AND EUROPE WILL RISE AGAIN

Saturday, 9 November 2024

ON KITCHEN-SINKING MASSIVE TAX RISES

9 November 2024
A completely different approach to soaking the rich is needed.

This new Labour administration's "Soak the rich" policies hit the incomes of talented, hard-working people, of which this country has too few. This is harmful and immoral.

What I don't like is the balance-sheet inequality where the wealthiest 1% of households hold 20% of the nation's total household wealth - a concentration that has been increasing since the early 2000s. In contrast, the bottom 50% of households possess only about 9% of the total wealth.

I also do not like a democratic system where rich individuals contribute to campaign funds and expect in return, favorable treatment from a new administration.

And corporate social responsibility CSR initiatives hit corporations, but not the wealthy one percent behind them.

However, some billionaires do respond to the call. For example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett's "Giving Pledge" is a commitment by billionaires to give away a majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes. It isn’t tied to government projects, but it sets a cultural precedent for wealth sharing.

Or Andrew Carnegie’s philanthropy: an industrialist in the late 19th century, Carnegie funded libraries, universities, and cultural institutions across the U.S. and the U.K. He believed the wealthy had a moral obligation to give back.

I believe, even in these cynical times, the wealthy have a moral obligation to give back to the society that made their wealth possible and I would like to see the wealthy "encouraged", or shamed, to fund projects (preferably during their lifetime) that benefit society, increase the nation's quality of life, such as infrastructure, education, healthcare, or defense.

This is not just a moral project in the national interest, but is far more sensible than kitchen sinking massive tax rises at the start of this administration, which will only lead to inflation by the end and sink their hopes of re-election.

Thursday, 7 November 2024

TRUMP WON

7 November 2024
What is so interesting about this election is that trump got the popular vote, so the people can defeat the elite, and also it means the media (the DT working on the postal vote here) failed. So their games are revealed, eg all the fake polls showing Harris ahead, and they are failures and Trump won a landslide, maybe even a trifecta.

These wars made it possible. It wasn't just immigration and de-industrialisation, it was the wars that revealed the elite as lying burstards, and the media conniving with them.

1) NATO will have to stop pushing east and instead agree a security architecture for Russia in Europe. 2) We'll need a new trade agreement with Russia. (Though the latter will raise american fears, admittedly.)

The savagery and butchery visited on innocent people living in Palestine, warehouses full of two-tonne bombs dropped on residential blocks, kids shot in the head by snipers, white phosphorus, women murdered, the mockery.... horrific inhuman acts committed by the last of the colonisers, under American direction, led to widespread protests and riots across America. Although again admittedly, trump has been obliged to strongly support the zionists.

Incidentally, if you look at turn out and the actual popular vote over the last half dozen presidentials, it's usually in the sixty millions, but biden's was eighty two million, so a very anomalous result, proving that the last election was indeed stolen.

Plus all the censorship, the woke junk, the cancellations, enraged everyone and we all ... well many of us ... burst out of that MSM propaganda straightjacket into the independant press.

Anyway, to over-simplify: the people defeated the elite and we don't read the mainstream media anymore.

Friday, 1 November 2024

LABOUR MADE FIVE PROMISES TO THE ELECTORATE

1 November 2024


In the lead-up to the 2024 UK general election, the Labour Party, under Keir Starmer's leadership, outlined five key national missions aimed at addressing the country's long-term challenges. 

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/5-Missions-for-a-Better-Britain.pdf

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mission-driven-government-labour

These missions are:

1. Achieve the highest sustained growth in the G7: Aiming to boost the UK's economic performance to lead among the Group of Seven nations.

2. Make Britain a clean energy superpower: Transitioning to zero-carbon electricity by 2030 to cut bills, create jobs, and enhance energy security. 

3. Build an NHS fit for the future: Reforming health and care services to reduce health inequalities and ensure timely access to care. 

4. Make Britain’s streets safe: Halving serious violent crime and raising confidence in the police and criminal justice system to its highest levels. 

5. Break down barriers to opportunity: Reforming childcare and education systems to take away any class ceiling on the ambitions of young people in Britain. 

These missions are Labour's commitment to addressing economic, environmental, healthcare, safety, and educational challenges in the UK.

They make a great vision but where's rhe grounded fiscal strategy to deliver on them? Relying on this tax-and-spend approach, sidelining the private sector and piling pressure on the low-paid surely runs counter to Labour’s hopes and promises. This budget risks falling short not because of a lack of ambition, but because of an absence of the right policies needed to foster the promised genuine, sustainable growth.

If Labour is serious about delivering on these missions, a major course correction is needed. Reduce the tax burden on the low-paid, incentivise private investment, and implement real welfare reform to bring millions back to work.


Tuesday, 17 September 2024

ANOTHER ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF CANDIDATE TRUMP

17 September 2024
What do you make of the recent attempt on the life of Trump? It seems to me that it is the result of the campaign against him in the media, which is stiring up and exciting all the easily-influenced people who might have some problem themselves and with Trump. This guy evidently thinks that Trump will be bad for Ukraine, which is his hobby horse.

It's so typical of a bureaucracy that they allow their rules and protocols to get in the way of common sense. It's obvious that they should not decide the level of security to provide as a function of the status of the individual, they should provide security according to the level of the threat. This would mean Trump would have at least the same protection as the current president.
It's hard to imagine what state America would be left in after the people had expressed their anger, were one of the assassins to be successful.

Thursday, 5 September 2024

FRANCE HAS FINALLY GOT A PRIME MINISTER

5 September 2024


You gotta hand it to Jupiter. First Macron made an alliance with the Left to stop Le Pen winning. 

Now he's made a deal with Le Pen to keep the Left out of power. 

Brilliant...he, well Macron's party, came in third by votes cast (Le Pen, of the "far" right, got a third of the votes, the Left a quarter)

Yet despite getting third place, he managed to snooker the other two to keep his party in power.

Another irony. Barnier, 73, will be the oldest PM of France's Fifth Republic, while he succeeds Gabriel Attal, the youngest, who was appointed only eight months ago.

Brilliant!

=====

1. Background on Macron's Electoral Strategy

- After a poor result in the European elections, Macron called for a parliamentary election. 
- His goal was to weaken both the far-left and far-right, which he considered extreme, although this view is debatable - how can a party be described as far right if a third of the country votes for it?

2. Election Results

- Macron's plan backfired. Approximately a third of the electorate voted for Le Pen's National Rally, while a quarter supported the left.
- As a result, Macron's party found itself in the minority in parliament.

3. Deal with the Left

- For the second round of the election, Macron made a deal with the left - they ganged up on the National Rally to exclude it from power. In seats where there was a possibility that one or the other wood win the other stepped aside. This is called the Republican front or the Republican barrier. It works where one party had a chance to win, the other would step down to avoid splitting the vote. 
- This strategy worked, with the left gaining the majority of seats, followed by Macron's party I think and Le Pen's National Rally.:

a. New Popular Front (NFP): A left-wing coalition led by Mélenchon, won 188 seats, becoming the largest bloc
b. .nsemble! (ENS): Macron’s centrist alliance secured 161 seats, a significant drop compared to previous elections.
c. National Rally (RN): Marine Le Pen’s far-right party captured 142 seats, marking substantial gains from earlier results.

4. Cross-Party Complications

- Despite this, Macron was still in a minority position in parliament.
- He then double-crossed Mélenchon by refusing to support a left-wing Prime Minister, even though the left had the most seats. 
- Macron couldn't support a candidate from the right either due to the Republican front.

5. Outcome: a compromise

- Instead of accepting a far-left or far-right candidate, Macron convinced the right-wing to partially support his programme.
- He appointed a centrist Prime Minister, Michel Barnier, ensuring that his party could still effectively run parliament, despite finishing third in terms of seats.

First Interview with Barnier following his Appointment

https://youtu.be/Ia5Ag8lvWp4?si=14v6STI3G4lLFlvT

Comment

1. Macron’s Leadership Criticism

- The writer criticises Emmanuel Macron for being arrogant and self-serving.
- They argue that Macron’s recent political decisions, particularly appointing an elderly right-wing Les Républicains Prime Minister, do not align with the people's will.

2. Betrayal of the Left

- Macron's reliance on left-wing votes to block Marine Le Pen in previous elections is viewed as a betrayal since his policies now appear similar to hers.
  
3. Democratic Concerns

- The lack of compromise by the leftist **NFP** coalition has hindered government formation, and there are concerns about Le Pen's future success threatening democracy.

4. Pessimistic Outlook

- The author fears Macron will be seen as the person who undermined the French Republic, similar to how **Napoleon** did after the Revolution.

Friday, 30 August 2024

THE REPUBLICAN FRONT IN FRENCH POLITICS

30 August 2024

The term "Republican Front" refers to the political strategy used by mainstream parties in France to prevent the far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National, RN) from gaining power. This strategy involves all other major political parties, whether from the left or the right, uniting to block the RN from winning elections or gaining significant influence. Here’s why it’s called a "Republican Front" and why it's implemented:

 1. Historical Context

   - The Republican Front is a barrier rooted in the values of the French Republic,  liberty, equality, and fraternity. The mainstream parties, both left and right, consider the National Rally (formerly known as the National Front) to be at odds with these values due to its nationalist, anti-immigration, and so-called "xenophobic" policies.

 2. Defense of Republican Values

   - The term "Republican" in this context refers to the commitment to the principles of the French Republic, which includes secularism, democracy, and equality before the law. The mainstream parties view the RN as a threat to these principles and thus see it as their duty to prevent the party from gaining power.

 3. Political Isolation

   - The strategy involves political isolation of the RN. For example, during elections, if the RN makes it to the second round of voting, other parties often instruct their supporters to vote for the candidate opposing the RN, regardless of their political affiliation. This was notably seen in the 2002 presidential election when all major parties urged voters to support Jacques Chirac against Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front and again in this year's second round election to the National Assembly (French parliament). 

But it happened most recently in the 2024 parliamentary election where the president's party on psalmer made a deal with the alliance on the left that one or other party candidate would step down if this would give the other the chance of overcoming the RN candidate.

 4. Preventing Normalisation of the Right

   - The Republican Front is also intended to prevent the normalisation of far-right ideas in mainstream politics. By isolating the RN, mainstream parties aim to exclude far-right ideologies from the centre of political debate and decision-making.

 5. The Republican Barrier in Practice

   - The concept has been repeatedly applied in both local and national elections. Even in cases where the RN might be the most popular party in a region or town, the Republican Front ensures that coalitions or tactical voting mean the others gang up against the NR to keep them from taking power, arguably against the spirit of democracy.

 6. Current Relevance

   - Despite the increasing popularity of the RN in recent years, particularly under the leadership of Marine Le Pen, the Republican Front remains a significant force in French politics. It reflects the ongoing tension between the rise of populist, nationalist people's movements and the traditional parties’ efforts to uphold their view of the values of the Republic and their interests.

 7. Challenges to the Republican Front

   - However, in recent years, this barrier has been tested as some voters and politicians argue that it stifles genuine democratic choice and debate. The RN's efforts to rebrand itself and moderate its image have also put pressure on the effectiveness of the barrier to effective power for them.

Conclusion

In summary, the Republican Front is so called because it is a defense mechanism employed by mainstream political parties in France, often at odds with the wishes of significant sections of the people, to protect the values of the French Republic from what they perceive as extreme and divisive policies advocated by the National Rally. It is a significant aspect of French political strategy, reflecting the deep ideological divides within the country.

Sunday, 25 August 2024

R.F.K. Jnr FULL SPEECH


Sixteen months prior to this speech, JFK jnr launched his presidential campaign as a Democrat, driven by the values his father and uncle had championed—civil rights, democracy, and transparency. However, as the Democratic Party began to stray from these core principles, embracing censorship and corporate power, he made the difficult decision to run as an independent.

Despite facing overwhelming odds and mainstream opposition, his movement succeeded in gathering over a million signatures, demonstrating that democracy still had life at the grassroots level. 

However, due to relentless censorship and media control, he decided to suspend his campaign and throw his support behind President Trump. 

Together, they aimed to address issues critical to the future of America: ending the ongoing wars, chronic disease, restoring free speech, with the hope of uniting America around a shared commitment to the future of their children.


SUMMARY OF SPEECH

1. Launch of Presidential Campaign

- Initial Campaign: Sixteen months ago, in April 2023, I launched my campaign for president as a Democrat, the party of my father and uncle. Back then, the Democrats championed the Constitution, civil rights, and opposed authoritarianism, censorship, and unjust wars. However, I left the party in October due to its dramatic departure from these core values.

2. Departure from the Democratic Party

- Reasons for Leaving: The Democratic Party became associated with war, censorship, Big Pharma, big tech, and corporate power. The cancellation of the primary to conceal the cognitive decline of the sitting president was the final straw, leading me to run as an independent.
  
3. Overcoming Challenges as an Independent

- No Debate: My uncle former president John F. Kennedy, and father, former attorney general Bobby Kennedy, would have been astonished at how the vice president had avoided interviews and debates.

- Mainstream Opposition: Despite doubts from mainstream politics and journalism, we built a massive independent political movement, with over 100,000 volunteers who worked tirelessly, often in extreme conditions, to collect over a million signatures and overcome the legal challenges posed by the DNC.
  
4. Gratitude and Accomplishments

- Volunteers’ Efforts: I owe deep gratitude to the volunteers who proved the naysayers wrong by achieving what was deemed impossible, showing that democracy is still alive in America.

5. Current Political Landscape

- State of Democracy: While democracy remains alive at the grassroots level, it has become a mere slogan for our political institutions, media, and government. The DNC waged legal warfare against me and President Trump, preventing opponents from appearing on the ballot and running a sham primary to protect their candidate.

6. Suspension of Campaign

- Reasons for Suspension: I no longer see a realistic path to electoral victory due to systematic censorship and media control. Continuing the campaign would likely hand the election to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on key issues like censorship and war.

7. Support for President Trump

- Unity and Collaboration: After discussions with President Trump, we found alignment on key issues such as ending the Ukraine war, tackling chronic disease, and protecting free speech. Although we differ on some policies, we agree on the existential issues facing the nation.

8. Chronic Disease Crisis

- National Health Emergency: The chronic disease epidemic is crippling our nation, with a high prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and neurological illnesses. Our children’s health is deteriorating rapidly, yet this crisis is ignored by those in power.

9. Root Causes of Chronic Disease

- Culprits: The primary causes are ultra-processed foods and toxic chemicals in our environment. These are poisoning our children and contributing to the early onset of puberty, rising cancer rates, and widespread mental health issues.

10. Call for Reform

- Health Agencies and Food System: To restore national health, we need to root out corruption in health agencies, reform the food system, and inspire Americans to adopt healthier lifestyles. This requires new leadership untainted by corporate influence.

11. Personal Commitment

- A Spiritual Journey: My decision to support President Trump and suspend my campaign was made through deep prayer and logic. I believe this is the best chance to save America’s children and restore national health.

12. Legacy and Unification

- A Unified America: My campaign was launched to unify America around shared values, particularly the love for our children. By joining forces with President Trump, I hope to inspire a national movement focused on protecting our children’s future.

13. Final Message

- Conclusion: Ultimately, the future of our country lies in our ability to prioritise our children’s well-being over political divisions. I thank everyone who supported my campaign and look forward to continuing this fight alongside President Trump.

THINGS I DIDN'T KNOW

Points that I found interesting and didn't know about:

While democracy remains alive at the grassroots level, it has become a mere slogan for our political institutions, media, and government.

The chronic disease epidemic is crippling the nation, with a high prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and neurological illnesses. Children’s health is deteriorating rapidly, yet this crisis is ignored by those in power.

Ultra-processed foods and toxic chemicals in the environment are poisoning our children and contributing to the early onset of puberty, rising cancer rates, and widespread mental health issues. 

Ultimately, the future of America lies in its leaders' ability to prioritise children’s well-being over political divisions.

DETAIL
Here is the speech in full:

Sixteen months ago, in April of 2023, I launched my campaign for president of the United States. I began this journey as a Democrat, which is the party of my father, and my uncle. It is the party which I pledge my own allegiance to. Long before I was old enough to vote, I attended my first democratic convention at the age of six in 1960, and back then, the Democrats were the champions of the Constitution and of civil rights.

The Democrats stood against authoritarianism, against censorship, against colonialism, imperialism, and unjust wars. We were the party of labor, of the working class. The Democrats were the party of government transparency and the champion of the environment. Our party was the bulwark against big money interests and corporate power. True to its name, it was the party of democracy.

As you know, I left that party in October because it had departed so dramatically from the core values that I grew up with. It had become the party of war, censorship, corruption, Big Pharma, big tech, big ag and big money when it abandoned democracy by canceling the primary to conceal the cognitive decline of the sitting president, I left the party to run as an independent.

The mainstream of American politics and journalism derided my decision. Conventional wisdom said that it would be impossible even to get on the ballot as an independent, because each state poses an insurmountable tangle of arbitrary rules for collecting signatures. I would need over a million signatures, something no presidential candidate in history had ever achieved, and then I'd need a team of attorneys and millions of dollars to handle all the legal challenges from the DNC.

The naysayers told us that we were climbing a glass version of Mount impossible. So the first thing I want to tell you is that we proved them wrong. We did it because beneath the radar of mainstream media organs, we inspired a massive independent political movement, more than 100,000 volunteers sprang into action, hopeful that they could reverse our nation's decline. Many work 10 hour days, sometimes in blizzards and blazing heat.

They sacrificed family time, personal commitments and sleep, month after month, energized by a shared vision of a nation healed of its divisions, they set up tables at churches and farmers markets. They canvassed door to door in Utah and in New Hampshire.

Volunteers collected signatures in snowstorms, convincing each supporter to stop in the frigid cold, to take off their gloves and to sign legibly during a heat wave in Nevada. I met a tall, athletic volunteer who cheerfully told me that he had lost 25 pounds collecting signatures in 117 degree heat.

To finance this effort, young Americans donated their lunch money, and senior citizens gave up their part of their social security checks. Our 50 state organization collected those millions of signatures and more. No presidential campaign and his political, American political history has ever done that, and so I want to thank all of those dedicated volunteers and congratulate the campaign staff who coordinated this enormous logistical feat.

Your accomplishments were regarded as impossible. You carried me up that glass mountain. You pulled off a miracle. You achieved what all the pundits said could never be done. You have my deepest gratitude, and I'm never going to forget that, not just for what you did for my campaign, but for the sacrifices you made because you love our country.

You showed to everyone that democracy is still possible here, it continues to survive in the press and in the idealistic human energies that still thrive beneath a canvas of neglect and of official and institutional corruption.

Today, I'm here to tell you that. I will not allow your efforts to go to waste. I'm here to tell you that I will leverage your tremendous accomplishments to serve the ideals that we share, the ideals of peace, of prosperity, of freedom, of health, all the ideals that motivated my campaign.

I'm here today to describe the path forward that you've opened with your commitment and with your hard labors. Now in an honest system, I believe that I would have won the election, in a system that my father and my uncles thrived in a system with open debates, with fair primaries, with regularly scheduled debate, with fair primaries, and with a truly independent media, untainted by government propaganda and censorship and a system of nonpartisan courts and election boards, everything would be different.

After all, the polls consistently showed me beating each of the other candidates, both in favorability and also in head-to-head matchups. But I'm sorry to say that while democracy may still be alive at the grassroots, it has become little more than a slogan for our political institutions, for our media and for our government, and most sadly at all for me, the Democratic Party.

In the Name of saving democracy, the Democratic Party set itself to dismantling it, lacking confidence in its candidate that his candidate could win in a fair election at the voting booth.

The DNC waged continual legal warfare against both President Trump and myself. Each time that our volunteers turned in those towering boxes of signatures needed to get on the ballot, the DNC dragged us into court, state after state, attempting to erase their work and to subvert the will of the voters who had signed those petitions. It deployed DNC-aligned judges to throw me and other candidates off the ballot and to throw President Trump in jail,

It ran a sham primary that was rigged to prevent any serious challenge to President Biden. Then when a predictably bungled debate performance precipitated the palace coup against President Biden, the same shadowy DNC operatives appointed his successor, also without an election.

They installed a candidate who was so unpopular with voters that she dropped out in 2020 without winning a single delegate.

My uncle and my father both a relish debate. They prided themselves on their capacity to go toe to toe with any opponent and the battle over ideas, they would be astonished to learn of a Democratic Party presidential nominee who, like vice president Harris, has not appeared in a single interview or an unscripted encounter with voters for 35 days.

This is profoundly undemocratic. How are people to choose when they don't know whom they are choosing, and how can this look to the rest of the world? My father and my uncle were always conscious of America's image abroad because of our nation's role as the template for democracy, the role model for democratic processes, and the leader of the free world, instead of showing us her substance and character, the DNC and its media organs engineered a surge of popularity for vice president Harris based upon nothing, no policies, no interviews, no debates, only smoke and mirrors and balloons in highly produced Chicago circus.

In Chicago, the democratic speakers mentioned Donald Trump 147 times just on the first day of the convention. Who needs a policy when you have Trump to hate?

In contrast, at the RNC convention, President Biden was mentioned only twice in four days.

I do interviews every day. Many of you have interviewed me. Anybody who asks gets to interview me. Some days, I do as many as 10. President Trump, who actually was nominated and won an election, also does interviews daily. How did the Democratic Party choose a candidate that has never done an interview or debate during the entire election cycle? We know the answer.

They did it by weaponizing the government agencies. They did it by abandoning democracy. They did it by suing the opposition and by disenfranchising American voters. What most alarms me isn't how the Democratic Party conducts its internal affairs or runs its candidates.

What alarms me is they resort to censorship and media control, and the weaponization of the federal agencies. When a US president colludes with or outright coerces media companies to censor political speech, it's an attack on our most sacred right, a free expression, and that's the very right upon which all of our other constitutional rights rest.

President Biden mocked Vladimir Putin's 88% landslide in the Russian elections, observing that Putin and his party controlled the Russian press and that Putin prevented serious opponents from appearing on the ballot.

Here in America, the DNC also prevented opponents from appearing on the ballot. Our television networks exposed themselves as Democratic Party organs over the course of more than a year. In a campaign where my poll numbers reached at times in the high 20s, the DNC-allied mainstream media networks maintained a near perfect embargo on interviews with me during this 10 month presidential campaign. In 1992 ROS perot gave 34 interviews on mainstream networks.

In contrast, during the sixteen months since I declared, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN combined, gave only two live interviews from me. Those networks instead, ran a continuous deluge of hit pieces with inaccurate, often vile pejoratives and defamatory smears. Some of those same networks and colluded with the DNC to keep me off the debate stage.

Representatives of those networks are in this room right now, and I'll just take a moment to ask you to consider the many ways that your institutions have abdicated this really sacred responsibility: the duty of a free press to safeguard democracy and to always challenge the party in power.

Instead of maintaining that posture of fierce skepticism toward authority, your institutions have made themselves government mouthpieces and stenographers for the organs of power. You didn't alone cause the devolution of American democracy, but you could have prevented it.

The Democratic Party's censorship of social media was even more of a naked exercise of executive power. This week, a federal judge, Terry Doughty, upheld my injunction against President Biden calling the White House's censorship project, quote, “The most egregious violation of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America.” ' [The] 155 page decision details how just 37 hours after he took the oath of office, swearing to uphold the Constitution, President Biden and his White House opened up a portal and then invited the CIA, the FBI, and CISA, which is a censorship Agency.

It's the center of the censorship industrial complex, DHS, the IRS and other agencies, they censor me and other political dissidents on social media. Even today, users who try to post my campaign videos to Facebook or YouTube get messages that this content violates community standards.

Two days after judge Doughty rendered his decision this week, Facebook was still attaching warning labels to an online petition calling on ABC to include me in the upcoming debate. They said that violates community standards, their community standards.

The mainstream media was once the guardian of the First Amendment and democratic principles, and has joined this systemic attack on democracy. The media justifies their censorship on the grounds of combating misinformation, but governments and and oppressors don't censor lies. They don't fear lies. They fear the truth, and that's what they censor.

And I don't want any of this to sound like a personal complaint, because it's not. For me, it's all part of a journey, and it's a journey that I signed up with. But I need to make these observations, because I think they're critical for us doing the thing that we need to do as citizens in a democracy, to assess where we are in this country and what our democracy still looks like and the assumptions about US leadership around the globe, and are we living up?

Are we really still a role model for democracy in this country, or have we made it a kind of a joke? And here's the good news, while mainstream outlets denied me a critical platform, they didn't shut down my ideas, which have especially flourished among young voters and independent voters thanks to the alternative media. Many months ago, I promised the American people that I would withdraw from the race if I became a spoiler that would alter the outcome of the election, but has no chance of winning.

In my heart, I no longer believe that I have a realistic path to electoral victory in the face of this relentless, systematic censorship and media control. So I cannot, in good conscience, ask my staff and volunteers to keep working their long hours, or ask my donors to keep giving when I cannot honestly tell them that I have a real path to the White House.

Furthermore, our polling consistently showed that by staying on the ballot and the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats with whom I disagree on the most existential issues, censorship, war and chronic disease.

I want everyone to know that I am not terminating my campaign. I am simply suspending it and not not ending it. My name, my name, will remain on the ballot in most states. If you live in a blue state, you can vote for me without harming or helping President Trump or vice president Harris and red states, just the same will apply. I encourage you to vote for me, and if enough of you do vote for me and neither of the major party candidates win 270 votes, which is quite possible. In fact, today, our polling shows them tying at 269 to 269 and I could conceivably still end up in the White House in a contingent election.

But in about 10 battleground states where my presence would be a spoiler, I'm going to remove my name, and I've already started that process and urge voters not to vote for me, it's with a sense of victory and not defeat that I'm suspending my campaign activities.

Not only did we do the impossible by collecting a million signatures, we changed the national political conversation forever, chronic disease, free speech, government corruption, breaking our addiction to war have moved to the center of politics.

I can say to all who have worked so hard the last year and a half, thank you for a job well done.

Three great causes drove me to enter this race in the first place, primarily, and these are the principal causes that persuaded me to leave the democratic Democratic Party and run as an independent and now to throw my support to President Trump.

The causes were free speech, a war in Ukraine and the war on our children.

I've already described some of my personal experiences and struggles with a government censorship industrial complex. I want to say a word about the Ukraine war. The Military Industrial Complex has provided us with a familiar comic book justification, like they do on every war. At this one is a noble effort to stop a super villain, Vladimir Putin, invading the Ukraine, and then to thwart his Hitler like march across Europe.

In fact, tiny Ukraine is a proxy in a geopolitical struggle, initiated by the ambitions of the US neocons or American global hegemony. I'm not excusing Putin for invading Ukraine. He had other options. The war is Russia's predictable response to the reckless neocon project of extending NATO to encircle Russia, a hostile act.

The credulous media rarely explained to Americans that we unilaterally walked away from two Intermediate Nuclear Weapons treaties with Russia and then put nuclear where any ages missile systems in Romania and Poland. This is is a hostile, hostile act the white the and that the Biden White House repeatedly spurned Russia's offer to settle this war peacefully.

Ukraine war began in 2014 when US agencies overthrew the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and installed a hand picked pro Western government that launched a deadly civil war against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. In 2019 America walked away from a peace treaty, the Minsk agreement, that had been negotiated between Russia and Ukraine by European nations.

And then in April of 2022 we wanted the war. In April of 2022 President Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force President Zelensky to tear up a peace agreement that he and the Russians had already signed, and the Russians were withdrawing troops Kyiv and Donbas and Luhansk.

And that peace agreement would have brought peace to the region, and would have allowed Donbas and Luhansk to remain part of Ukraine. President Biden stated that month that this object, that his objective in the war was regime change in Russia, his defense secretary, Lloyd Austin simultaneously explained that America's purpose in the war was to exhaust the Russian army, to degrade its capacity to fight anywhere else in the world.

These objectives, of course, have nothing to do with what they were telling Americans about protecting Ukraine's sovereignty. Ukraine is a victim in this war, and it's a victim of the West. Since then, we end of Russia, and both Russia and the West.

Since then, we have since tearing up that agreement, forcing Zelensky to tear up the agreement, we've squandered the flower of Ukrainian youth, as many as 600,000 Ukrainian kids and over 100,000 Russian kids, none of whom, all of whom we should be mourning, have died, and the Ukraine's infrastructure is destroyed. The war has been a disaster for our country as well. We squandered nearly $200 billion already, and these are badly needed dollars in our communities, suffering communities all over our country.

Nord Stream pipeline sabotage and the sanctions have destroyed Europe's industrial base, which form the bulwark of us, national security, a strong Germany with a strong industry is a much, much stronger deterrent to Russia, and a Germany that is is deindustrialized and turned into a just an extension of US military base, we push Russia into a disastrous alliance with China and Iran were closer to the brink of nuclear exchange than at any time since 1962 and the neocons and the White House don't seem to care at all. Our moral authority and our economy are in shambles, and the war gave rise to the emergence of brics, which now threatens to replace the dollar as the global reserve currency.

This is a first class calamity for our country. Judging by her bellicose, belligerent speech last night in Chicago, we can assume that President Harris will be an enthusiastic advocate for this and other neocon military adventures, and President Trump says that he will reopen negotiations with President Putin and end the war overnight as soon as he becomes president, this alone would justify my support for his campaign.

Last summer, it looked like no candidate was willing to negotiate a quick end of the Ukraine war, to tackle chronic disease epidemic, to protect free speech, our constitutional freedoms, to clean corporate influence out of our government, or to defy the neocons and their agenda of endless military adventurism. Yes, but now one of the two candidates has adopted these issues as his own, to the point where he has asked to enlist me in his administration. I'm speaking of course, of Donald Trump.

Less than two hours after President Trump narrowly escaped assassination. Calley Means called me on my cell phone I was then in Las Vegas. Calley is arguably the leading advocate for food safety, for soil regeneration and for ending the chronic disease epidemic that is destroying America's health and ruining our economy. Calley has exposed the insidious corruption at the FDA and the NIH, the HHS and the USDA that has caused the epidemic.

Calley had been working on and off for my campaign, advising me on those subjects since the beginning, and those subjects have been my primary focus for the last 20 years, I was delighted when Calley told me that day that he had also been advising President Trump.

He told me, President Trump was anxious to talk to me about chronic disease and other subjects and to explore avenues of cooperation. He asked if I would take a call from the President. President Trump telephoned me a few minutes later, and I met with him the following day.

A few weeks later, I met again with President Trump and his family members and closest advisers in Florida in a series of long, intense discussions. I was surprised to discover that we are aligned on many key issues.

In those meetings, he suggested that we join forces as a Unity Party. We talked about Abraham Lincoln's Team of Rivals. That arrangement would allow us to disagree publicly and privately and furiously, if need be on issues over which we differ while working together on the existential issues upon which we are in concordance.

I was a ferocious critic of many of the policies during his first administration. There are still issues and approaches upon which we continue to have very serious differences. Still, we are aligned with each other on other key issues, like ending the Forever wars, ending the childhood disease epidemics, securing the border, protecting freedom of speech, unraveling the corporate capture of our regulatory agencies, getting the US intelligence agencies out of the business of propagandizing and censoring and surveilling Americans and interfering with Our elections.

Following my first discussion with President Trump, I tried unsuccessfully to open similar discussions with Vice President Harris. Vice President Harris declined to meet or even to speak with me. Suspending my candidacy is a hard rending decision for me, and I'm convinced that it's the best hope for ending the Ukraine war and ending the chronic disease epidemic that is eroding our nation's vitality from the inside, and for finally, protecting free speech.

I feel a moral obligation to use this opportunity to save millions of American children above all things. In case, some of you don't realize how dire the condition is our children's health and chronic disease in general, I would urge you to view Tucker Carlson's recent interview with Calley means and his sister, Dr Casey means, who is the top graduate of her class at Stanford Medical School.

This is an issue that affects all of us far more directly and urgently than any culture war issue and all the other issues that we obsess on and that are tearing apart our country, this is the most important issue, therefore it has the potential to bring us together.

So let me share a little bit about why I believe it's so urgent today, we spend more on health care than any country on Earth, twice what they pay in Europe, and yet we have the worst health outcomes of any nation the world.

We're about 79th and health outcomes behind Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Mongolia and other countries. Nobody has a chronic disease burden like we have. And during a covid epidemic, we had the highest body count of any country in the world. We had 16% of the covid deaths, and we only have 4.2% of the world's population. And CDC says that's because we are the sickest people on Earth.

We have the highest chronic disease rate on earth, and the average American who died covid had 3.8 chronic diseases. So these were people who had immune system collapse, who had mitochondrial dysfunction, and no other country has anything like this. Two thirds of American adults and children suffer from chronic health issues 50 years ago, that. Number was less than 1%

Oh, we've gone from 1% to to 66% in America. 74% of Americans are now overweight or obese, and 50% of our children 120 years ago, when somebody was obese. They were. They were sent to the circus. They were literally there were case reports done about them.

Obesity was almost unknown in Japan, childhood obesity rate is 3% compared to 50% a year. Half of Americans have pre-diabetes or type two diabetes. When my uncle was president, I was a boy, juvenile diabetes was effectively non existent.

A typical pediatrician would see one case of diabetes during his entire career, a 40 or 50 year career today, one out of every three kids who walks through his office door is diabetic or pre-diabetic, and the mitochondrial disorder caused diabetes, also causing Alzheimer's, which is now classified as diabetes, and it's causing this country more than our military budget.

Every year there's been an explosion of neurological illnesses that I never saw as a kid, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, Tourette's Syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, Asperger’s, Autism. In the year 2000, the Autism rate was one in 1500. Now, autism rates in kids are one in 36, according to CDC; nationally, nobody's talking about this.

One in every 22 kids in California has Autism, and this is a crisis that 77% of our kids cannot are too disabled to serve in the United States military. What is happening to our country, and why isn't this in the headlines every single day?

There's nobody else in the world that is experiencing this. This is only happening in America about 18% and by the way, you know there has been no change in diagnosis, which the industry sometimes like to say there has been no change in screening.

This is a change in incidents. In my generation, 70-year-old men, the autism rates are about one in 10,000. In my kids' generation, one in 34. I'll repeat in California, one and 22. Why are we letting this happen? Why are we allowing this to happen to our children?

These are the most precious assets that we have in this country. How can we let this happen to them? About 18% of American teens now have fatty liver disease. That's like one out of every five that disease when I was a kid, only affected late stage alcoholics who were elderly, cancer rates are skyrocketing, and the young and the old, young adult cancers are up 70 79%,

One in four American women is on antidepressant medication. 40% of teams have a mental teens have a mental health diagnosis, and 15% of high schoolers are on Adderall, and half a million children on SSRIs.

So what's causing this suffering? I'll name two culprits, first and the worst is ultra processed food. About 70% of American children's diet is ultra processed that means industrial manufactured in a factory. These foods consist primarily of processed sugar, ultra-processed grains, and seed oils.

Laboratory scientists who form many of them formerly worked for the cigarette industry, which purchased all the big food companies in the 1970s and 80s, deployed 1000s of scientists to figure out chemicals, new chemicals, to make the food more addictive. And these ingredients didn't exist 100 years ago. They humans aren't biologically adapted to eat them.

Hundreds of these chemicals are now banned in Europe, but ubiquitous in American processed foods. The second culprit is toxic chemicals in our food, our medicine, in our environment, pesticides, food additives, pharmaceutical drugs and toxic waste permeate every cell of our bodies.

These assault on our children's cells and hormones is unrelenting and name just one problem, many of these chemicals increase estrogen because young. Children are ingesting so many of these hormone disruptors. America's puberty rate is now occurring at age 10 to 13, which is six years earlier than girls were reaching puberty in 1900 our country has the earliest puberty rates of any continent on the earth.

And no, this isn't because of better nutrition is not normal. Breast cancer is also estrogen driven, and now strikes one in eight women. We are mass poisoning all of our children and our adults, considering the grievous human cause of this tragic epidemic of chronic disease, it seems almost crass to mention the damage it does to our economy, but I'll say it is crippling the nation's finances.

When my uncle was President, our country has spent $0 on chronic disease. Today, government health care spending is almost all for chronic disease, and it's double the military budget, and it is the fastest budget, a growing budget item in the federal budget, chronic disease costs more to the economy as a whole, cost at least $4,000,000,000,000. 5 times our military budget.

And that's a 20% drag on everything we do and everything we aspire to. Or in minority communities suffer disproportionately people who worry about DEI or about, you know, bigotry of any kind, this dwarfs anything. We are poisoning the poor. We are systematically poisoning minorities across this country.

Industry lobbyists have made sure that most of the food stamp lunch program, about 70% of food stamps and 70 or 77% of school lunches are processed foods. There's no vegetables. There's nothing that you would want to eat. We are just poisoning the poorest citizens, and that's why they have the highest chronic disease burden of anybody, any demographic, in our country, and the highest in the world.

The same food industry lobbied to make sure that nearly all agricultural subsidies owed to commodity crops that are the feedstock of the processed food industry. These policies are destroying small farms, and they're destroying our soils. We give, we give about, I think, eight times as much in subsidies to tobacco and we do to fruits and vegetables.

It makes no sense if we want a healthy country. The good news is that we can change all this. We can change it very, very quickly. America can get healthy again. To do that, we need to do three things.

First, we need to root out the corruption in our health agencies. Second, we need to change incentives in our health care system. And third, we need to inspire Americans to get healthy again.

80% of NIH grants go to people who have conflicts of interest. These, these, the people, virtually everybody who says, Joe Biden just appointed a new panel to NIH to decide the food recommendations. And they're all people who are from the industry. They're all people who are from the processed food companies. They're deciding what Americans you know here is healthy and the recommendations on the food pyramid and the Rec and what goes to our school lunch programs, which go, what go to the, you know, the program, the Swiss program, the Food Stamp programs.

They are all corrupted and conflicted individuals. These agencies—the FDA, USDA, and CDC—are all controlled by giant for-profit corporations. Seventy-five percent of the FDA funding doesn't come from taxpayers; it comes from pharma, and pharma executives, consultants, and lobbyists cycle in and out of these agencies.

With President Trump's backing, I'm going to change that. We're going to staff these agencies with honest scientists and doctors who are free from industry funding. We're going to make sure the decisions of consumers, doctors and patients are informed by unbiased science. A sick child is the best thing for the pharmaceutical industry on American children or adults get sick with a chronic condition, they're put on medications for their entire life.

Imagine what happened when. Medicare starts paying for Ozempic, which costs $1,500 a month, and it's being recommended for children as young as six. To offer it for the condition of obesity that is completely preventable and barely even existed 100 years ago, and 74% of Americans are obese.

The cost if all of them took their Ozempic prescription is $3 trillion a year. This is a drug that is made by Novo Nordisk, the biggest company in Europe. It's a Danish company, and the Danish government does not recommend it. It recommends change in diet to treat obesity and exercise.

And in our country, the recommendation now is for ozempic to children at age six. Novo Nordisk is the biggest company in Europe, and virtually its entire value is based upon its projections of what it's going to sell, of the ozempic it's going to sell to America and we have the food lobbyists have a bill in front of Congress today that is backed by the White House, backed by Vice President Harris and President Biden to allow this to happen, this $3 trillion cost that is going to bankrupt our country.

We for a fraction of that amount, we could buy organic food for every American family three meals a day, and eliminate diabetes altogether. We're we're going to bring healthy food back to school lunches. We're going to stop subsidizing the worst foods with our agricultural subsidies. We're going to get toxic chemicals out of our food we're going to reform the entire food system, and for that, we need new leadership in Washington, because unfortunately, both the Democrats and the Republican parties are in cahoots with the big food producers, Big Pharma and big ag, which are among the dncs major donors.

Vice President Harris has expressed no interest in addressing this issue. Four more years of democratic rule will complete the consolidation of corporate and neocon power, and our children will be the ones who suffer most.

I got involved with chronic disease 20 years ago, not because I chose to or wanted to. It was essentially thrust upon me. It was an issue that should have been central to the environmental movement. I was a central leader at that time, but it was widely ignored by all the institutions, including the NGOs, who should have been protecting our kids against toxins.

It was an orphaned issue, and I had a weakness for orphans. I watched generations of children get sicker and sicker. I had 11 siblings and I had seven kids myself. I was conscious of what was happening in their classrooms and to their friends, and I watched these Sick Kids, these damaged kids in that generation, almost all of them are damaged, and nobody in power seemed to care or to even notice.

For 19 years, I prayed every morning that God would put me in a position to end this calamity. The Chronic Disease crisis was one of the primary reasons for my running for president, along with ending censorship in the Ukraine war, it's the reason I've made the heart-wrenching decision to suspend my campaign, and to support President Trump.

This decision is agonizing for me because of the difficulties it causes my wife and my children and my friends, but I have the certainty that this is what I've meant to do, and that certainty gives me internal peace, even in storms. If I'm given the chance to fix the Chronic Disease crisis and reform our food production, I promise that within two years, we will watch chronic disease burden lift dramatically.

We will make Americans healthy again. Within four years, America will be a healthy country. We will be stronger, more resilient, more optimistic and happier. I won't fail in doing this.

Ultimately, the future, however it happens, is in God's hands and in the hands of the American voters and those of President Trump.

If President Trump is elected and honors his word, the vast burden of chronic disease that now demoralizes and bankrupts the country will disappear. This is a spiritual journey for me, I reached my decision through deep prayer, through hard-nosed logic, and I asked myself, What choices must I make to maximize my chances to save America's children and restore national health?

I felt that if I refused this opportunity, I would not be. To look myself in the mirror, knowing that I could have saved lives of countless children and reversed this country's chronic disease epidemic. I'm 70 years old. I may have a decade to be effective.

I can't imagine that President Harris, a president Harris, would allow me or anyone, to solve these, these dire problems. After eight years of President Harris, any opportunity for me to fix the problem will be out of my reach forever.

President Trump has told me that he wants this to be his legacy. I'm choosing to believe that this time he will follow through on this, his biggest donors, his closest friends and all support this objective.

My joining the Trump campaign will be a difficult sacrifice or my wife and children, but worthwhile if there's even a small chance of saving these kids. Ultimately, the only thing that will save our country and our children is if we choose to love our kids more than we hate each other.

That's why I launched my campaign to unify America.

My dad and uncle made such an enduring mark on the character of our nation, not so much because of any particular policies that they promoted, but because they were able to inspire profound love for our country and to fortify our sense of ourselves as a national community held together by ideals.

They were able to put their love into the intentions and hearts of ordinary Americans and to unify a national populist movement of Americans: blacks and whites, Hispanics, urban and rural Americans, and inspired affection and love and high hopes and a culture of kindness that continue to radiate among Americans from their memory.

That's the spirit on which I ran my campaign, and that I intend to bring into the campaign of President Trump. Instead of vitriol and polarization, I will appeal to the values that unite us, the goals that we could achieve if only we weren't at each other's throats.

Most unifying theme for all Americans is that we all love our children, if we all unite around that issue now, we can finally give them the protection, health, and the future that they deserve.

Thank you all very much. Thank.

Friday, 16 August 2024

IN WHAT WAY DOES HAMZA YOUSUF REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND

16 August 2024

This thought-provoking piece reflects on the controversial leadership of Humza Yousaf as the head of Scotland. It explores his political journey, the challenges he faces, and the broader implications of his leadership for Scottish society. The article provides a critical analysis of Yousaf's policies and their impact on Scotland's future, raising important questions about governance and representation.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-manipulation-of-perception/


This all arose because Elon Musk called Hamza Yuosuf a racist and a scumbag. Scumbag cannot be proven, but that he is a racist is true since his only objection to people in positions of power is that their skin is white - that is the conclusion of this article. Hamza Yusuf for his part claims that the Scottish system is institutionally racist, which is pretty ironic given that he is an Asian Muslim male and head of Scotland's Parliament with a long career in ministerial positions of power.

So then we get into the row over freedom of speech on Twitter. The old Twitter banned and cancelled people whose views the management disagreed with, and the new Twitter under Musk allows a more balanced freedom of expression.

The old Twitter was good for the SNP because it allowed the SNP to cancel people, but the new is not good because different opinions are encouraged.

Then we get into the freedom of speech article, which argues 

- that hatred has always existed and is not a creation of social media. Suppressing opinions without addressing underlying issues is not a good idea because you drive people into the streets and eventually into Civil War. Yousuf Hamza could argue that non-whites' opinions are suppressed because they are under-represented in the Scottish Parliament, but this would be untrue because numerically there have been four Asian SMPs and that's about right for a population which is 96% white
  
- then the article suggests that individuals should take personal responsibility for managing content they find offensive. This includes using features like Mute and Block or reporting illegal content to the police, rather than expecting social media platforms like Twitter to do it for them.

- next, it is pointed out that criminal speech remains illegal, and defamation is still actionable, regardless of who owns Twitter. Opinions that one disagrees with are not a legal issue, they are a personal issue.

- the piece goes on to posit that the Left's criticism of Twitter under Musk is due to their loss of control over the platform, which they previously used to "cancel" people with whom they disagreed.

- new Twitter - X, if you prefer - is portrayed as a tool that makes it harder to lie to the public due to features like Community Notes, which allow quick corrections of misinformation, unlike traditional media.

- finally, this article suggests that politicians and media are trying to demonise and control Twitter because they fear the power it gives to ordinary people, rather than because they fear Elon Musk himself. Although the article doesn't say this, the authorities can see that major protest movements and the threat of civil war lie only a little further down the road and they need to control the people in order to assure the status quo.

It seems that this brown man got to be Scotland's First Minister for a number of reasons but one was not that he was elected by the people, he wasn't. Why is he Scotland's First Minister?

- First, his experience - Humza Yousaf is a member of the SNP and has built his career in the party over many years of holding various governmental positions

- He became First Minister of Scotland by being selected as a candidate by the SMPs or party members, not the general electorate - this is a widespread kind of "Electoral College" approach.

- So his base is the party's members, Scotland's elite, but in the country, his support must be very small indeed, especially after calling Scottish people and their system of governance racist, a fake news for which there is no evidence. Does anyone have any figures? I'd imagine he has no popular support - which begs the question what kind of democracy is this and why do the people of Scotland put up with this abusive person?

So I can understand why the SNP is popular: it is because of its focus on Independence. But I cannot see that its progressive, so-called progressive, policies have any support in the country and certainly useless Hamza must have 4% popular support maximum.

Where is the real "make Scotland great again" party? Where is the populist movement?

Saturday, 13 July 2024

THE IRRESISTIBLE CASE FOR VOTING REFORM

14 July 2024



Nigel Farage has claimed that the campaign to reform the UK's voting system will surpass the momentum of Brexit. This follows comments from Sir Keir Starmer, suggesting that the UK lacks a “healthy democracy” as millions of votes do not effectively count. The recent general election highlighted this issue, with Labour securing 63% of parliamentary seats with only 33.7% of the vote, while the Reform Party gained just five seats despite over four million votes. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats won 72 seats with just over 3.5 million votes, underscoring the discrepancies of the first-past-the-post system.

Farage argues that the current electoral system is broken, leading to public apathy, as evidenced by the lowest voter turnout in over 20 years at 59.9%. He believes that this disillusionment will drive a major campaign for electoral reform over the next five years. Although Starmer has benefited from the current system, Labour delegates previously supported a motion for proportional representation in 2022.

Despite having once criticised the electoral system and called for a debate on reforming it, Starmer later defended first-past-the-post, stating it provides strong government. Farage intends to hold Starmer to his earlier comments and will push for the Prime Minister to uphold the Labour Party conference's will for electoral reform.

≈====

le 14 juillet 2024


Nigel Farage a affirmé que la campagne pour réformer le système électoral du Royaume-Uni dépassera l'élan du Brexit. Cela fait suite aux commentaires de Sir Keir Starmer, suggérant que le Royaume-Uni manque de "démocratie saine" car des millions de votes ne comptent pas efficacement. Les récentes élections générales ont mis en évidence ce problème, le parti Travailliste obtenant 63 % des sièges parlementaires avec seulement 33,7 % des voix, tandis que le parti Réformiste n'a obtenu que cinq sièges malgré plus de quatre millions de votes. En revanche, les Libéraux-Démocrates ont remporté 72 sièges avec un peu plus de 3,5 millions de votes, soulignant les disparités du système majoritaire.

Monsieur Farage soutient que le système électoral actuel est défaillant, conduisant à l'apathie du public, comme en témoigne le taux de participation le plus bas depuis plus de 20 ans à 59,9 %. Il pense que ce désenchantement entraînera une grande campagne pour la réforme électorale au cours des cinq prochaines années. Bien que Starmer ait bénéficié du système actuel, les délégués du Labour avaient précédemment soutenu une motion en faveur de la représentation proportionnelle lors de la conférence annuelle du Labour en 2022.

Malgré avoir critiqué le système électoral et appelé à un débat sur la réforme, Starmer a ensuite défendu le système majoritaire, affirmant qu'il fournit un gouvernement fort. Nigel Farage a l'intention de rappeler à Starmer ses commentaires antérieurs et de pousser le Premier ministre à respecter la volonté de la conférence du Parti travailliste pour la réforme électorale.

Friday, 12 July 2024

ANALYSIS OF 2024 FRENCH ELECTION RESULTS

12 July 2024


The results paint a picture that is complicated by that deal made on the left where weaker candidates in the new Popular Front alliance would step aside and let the stronger candidate fight directly the RN, with the result that although the RN's share of the vote went up from 33% to 37%, and the number of seats they won did increase dramatically, but the increase was far less than had been expected by the pollsters.

I think that many people voted not for what they wanted, but to keep the RN out of power. And some even took to the streets to protest the first round results.

I think as well that without all that tactical voting, there would have been a clear win for RN. Now some people may think this would be good and some may think it would be bad, but the reality is that it was a choice between keeping the RN out and the chaos that has followed, or allowing the RN to pass and have their turn at government.

Instead of letting them pass, what we have now is a situation where they are more likely than ever to win in 2027 - "Ce n’est que partie remise", "This is only postponing the inevitable", said Marine Le Pen.

As to the Mainstream Media rhetoric, the MSM made out the RN to be on the extreme, far or hard right, and in this way were trying to tell us that they are the same as the national socialists in Germany of the 1930s and 40s ... but is this true? They just seem to be a party that wants to put the interests of 90% of the electorate who have French as their first language and culture, before those of the waves of immigrants, legal and some illegal. The objection to this is that many of these are French passport holders, some dual nationals, and the state acting to lessen their rights is a fundamentally apartheid idea and against the Liberal idea that we are all created equal and have the same rights to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

So I would characterise the French second round in the same way as the UK elections: it is the electorate rejecting the incumbent more than anything else. 

In fact, it is possible to split the electorate into three groups, a socio-economic breakdown, and to identify those rejecting the incumbent - this is useful because it might suggest a possible coalition of interests as a way out of the current impasse. 

A. Urban, living in major cities like Paris, Lyon, and Marseille. These voters will have access to better infrastructure, education, and employment opportunities. Generally more cosmopolitan and supportive of progressive policies, which include immigration and EU integration and in the UK at least neo-liberalism (often called Woke).

Then there is also the Management and Executive Elite, again living in urban areas where the work is, but high-income professionals, corporate executives, and entrepreneurs. They would tend to support pro-business policies, lower taxes, and economic deregulation.

These groups align more with centrist or centre-right parties like Macron's Renaissance party.

B. Secondly, Rural, the French equivalent of America's rust-belt left-behinds, living in the towns and villages of the provinces, outside big conurbations, major urban centres. They have economic problems, such as poor employment prospects and slower economic growth. These voters are often more conservative and nationalist, with concerns over immigration and globalisation. 

This is where the National Rally finds its main base, due to its anti-immigration anti-globalist stance and its promises to revitalise rural economies. Dissatisfaction here could spawn more yellow-vest protests.

C. And then thirdly, we have the Left-Wing alliance of a diverse range of voters, from young urban professionals (coucou), to blue-collar workers in industrial centres and high school & university students. 

Their values are in social justice, environmental protection, and workers' rights. They are often highly critical of neoliberal economic policies and favour increased government intervention in the economy. 

The New Popular Front, comprising parties like the France Unbowed and moderate socialists, draws significant support from this group.

This 3-way split results from analysis on economic and social factors, but what if we divide into governing class and governed? If you see the conflict as between a globalist elite Who cares more about itself than its peoples, and peoples who huddle under a socialist umbrella, then you would only need to divide the peoples' leaderships between those who are internationalists and those who are nationalists.

This would help understand why the RN got such a pasting in the MSM - because they do not support the global neocons - a position which is also pro negotiation and anti arms sales for Ukraine and Israel. 

So you might now think an alliance is possible between the left and right on the common ground of rejection of the centre's pro-globalist, pro immigration, pro-war policies and the centre's lack of support for "the people". But while it is true that it is easier to get agreement on things that you don't like such as globalisation and economic protectionism, It is more difficult get agreement and implementation on things you do like such as immigration ( The left and centre both have a view of a world without borders, though for different reasons).

So on top of this tactical voting maneuver, the RN also suffered all the negative MSM elite-inspired press coverage, call it propaganda

The cleavage runs along the line of where each party feels "home" to be. The RN believe in borders and the idea of a nation state with a people - the French - with a French national interest and a French culture and identity, of which they are proud. This is a political and social attitude that favours equality and fraternity and finds its home - herein lies the problem - in the nation state or the workers international proletariat.

Aswhere in this view of "elite and people", the elite is for open borders, economic freedom, movement of capital to wherever the returns are greatest, in other words for more integration into supra-national bodies like the EU -  this is globalisation. This is an economic attitude that favours liberty and equality and finds its home in the American Order.

I think that fundamentally the Establishment is trying to have us live in a black and white world: "if you're not for us, you are against us", but reality is more nuanced. There are now many smaller centres of power and instead of opposing views being a trigger for violence or conflict, they should be treated as an opportunity for cooperation and consensus and maybe even coalition government... but that is certainly not in the minds of the deputies in the National Assembly, not at this time.

One solution to this utter chaos in France is for a prime minister from the centre to be chosen by Macron, and for dossiers for each of the policy areas identified in the table above, to be handed out to different leaderships in the Assembly. These leaderships, each now with a Minister in a Cabinet, to be asked to work on their dossier and come back with proposals to be voted on in the National Assembly. 

This could work, once the deputies realise that if they vote against everyone else, then everyone else will vote against them. In other words, the deputies would be obliged to work together cross-party, in a spirit of cooperation so that all the different interests and voices in the country could be heard and in a spirit of tolerance (ie respect for the interests of others), find a place in the Assembly. Let us recall that almost 40% of the electorate are really fed up as they are not represented, plus there are those who voted not for what they wanted, but for what they didn't want: the country is in confusion and there is chaos in parliament.

For interest, here above are the policies of the Left, Centre and Right, according to policy areas that I have identified. Of course these areas, or issues, are not written in tablets of stone, priorities may change, indeed the Left program was put together in just a few days after the shock announcement of elections by Macron. And of course a program of policies is not necessarily going to be implemented - there are many hurdles in the way of execution, notably how will they be paid for, given the state of France's public finances.

=====

12 juillet 2024

Les résultats dépeignent une image compliquée par cet accord conclu à gauche où les candidats plus faibles de la nouvelle alliance du Front populaire se retireraient pour laisser le candidat plus fort affronter directement le RN. En conséquence, bien que la part des voix du RN soit passée de 33 % à 37 %, et que le nombre de sièges remportés ait augmenté de manière spectaculaire, l'augmentation a été bien inférieure aux attentes des sondeurs.

Je pense que beaucoup de gens n'ont pas voté pour ce qu'ils voulaient, mais pour empêcher le RN de prendre le pouvoir. Certains sont même descendus dans la rue pour protester contre les résultats du premier tour.

Je pense aussi que sans tout ce vote tactique, il y aurait eu une victoire claire pour le RN. Certains peuvent penser que cela serait bien, d'autres que ce serait mal, mais la réalité est que c'était un choix entre empêcher le RN et le chaos qui a suivi, ou permettre au RN de passer et d'avoir son tour au gouvernement.

Au lieu de les laisser passer, nous nous trouvons maintenant dans une situation où ils sont plus susceptibles que jamais de gagner en 2027 - "Ce n’est que partie remise", a déclaré Marine Le Pen.

Quant à la rhétorique des médias traditionnels, le MSM a fait passer le RN pour un parti d'extrême droite, en les comparant aux national-socialistes d'Allemagne des années 1930 et 1940... mais est-ce vrai ? Ils semblent simplement être un parti qui veut mettre les intérêts de 90 % de l'électorat qui ont le français comme première langue et culture avant ceux des vagues d'immigrants, légaux et certains illégaux. L'objection à cela est que beaucoup de ces immigrants sont détenteurs de passeports français, certains sont binationaux, et que l'État agissant pour réduire leurs droits est une idée fondamentalement apartheid et contre l'idée libérale que nous sommes tous créés égaux et avons les mêmes droits à "la vie, la liberté et la recherche du bonheur".

Ainsi, je caractériserais le second tour en France de la même manière que les élections au Royaume-Uni : il s'agit de l'électorat rejetant l'incumbent plus que toute autre chose.

En fait, il est possible de diviser l'électorat en trois groupes, une répartition socio-économique, et d'identifier ceux qui rejettent l'incumbent - cela pourrait suggérer une coalition possible d'intérêts comme solution à l'impasse actuelle.

A. **Urbain**, vivant dans des grandes villes comme Paris, Lyon et Marseille. Ces électeurs ont accès à de meilleures infrastructures, éducation et opportunités d'emploi. Ils sont généralement plus cosmopolites et soutiennent des politiques progressistes, incluant l'immigration et l'intégration européenne, et au Royaume-Uni, le néolibéralisme (souvent appelé Woke).

Il y a aussi l'élite de la gestion et de l'exécutif, vivant également dans les zones urbaines où se trouve le travail, mais des professionnels à haut revenu, des cadres d'entreprise et des entrepreneurs. Ils tendent à soutenir des politiques pro-entreprises, des réductions d'impôts et la dérégulation économique.

Ces groupes s'alignent davantage sur les partis centristes ou centre-droit comme le parti Renaissance de Macron.

B. **Rural**, l'équivalent français des laissés-pour-compte de la Rust Belt américaine, vivant dans les villes et villages des provinces, en dehors des grandes conurbations, des grands centres urbains. Ils ont des problèmes économiques, comme de mauvaises perspectives d'emploi et une croissance économique plus lente. Ces électeurs sont souvent plus conservateurs et nationalistes, avec des préoccupations sur l'immigration et la mondialisation.

C'est là que le Rassemblement National trouve sa principale base, en raison de son positionnement anti-immigration, anti-mondialisation et de ses promesses de revitaliser les économies rurales. Le mécontentement ici pourrait engendrer davantage de protestations des gilets jaunes.

C. **L'Alliance de gauche** regroupe une gamme diversifiée d'électeurs, allant des jeunes professionnels urbains (coucou), aux ouvriers dans les centres industriels et aux étudiants des lycées et universités.

Leurs valeurs résident dans la justice sociale, la protection de l'environnement et les droits des travailleurs. Ils sont souvent très critiques envers les politiques économiques néolibérales et favorisent une intervention accrue du gouvernement dans l'économie.

Le Nouveau Front Populaire, composé de partis comme La France Insoumise et des socialistes modérés, reçoit un soutien important de ce groupe.

Cette division tripartite résulte d'une analyse des facteurs économiques et sociaux, mais que se passerait-il si nous divisions en classe dirigeante et gouvernée ? Si l'on voit le conflit comme étant entre une élite mondialiste qui se soucie plus d'elle-même que de ses peuples, et des peuples qui se regroupent sous un parapluie socialiste, il suffirait de diviser les dirigeants des peuples entre ceux qui sont internationalistes et ceux qui sont nationalistes.

Cela aiderait à comprendre pourquoi le RN a subi un tel déluge dans les médias traditionnels - parce qu'ils ne soutiennent pas les néocons mondiaux - une position également pro-négociation et anti-ventes d'armes pour l'Ukraine et Israël.

Ainsi, vous pourriez penser qu'une alliance est possible entre la gauche et la droite sur le terrain commun du rejet des politiques pro-mondialistes, pro-immigration, pro-guerre du centre et du manque de soutien du centre pour "le peuple". Mais bien qu'il soit vrai qu'il est plus facile de s'accorder sur les choses que vous n'aimez pas, comme la mondialisation et le protectionnisme économique, il est plus difficile de s'accorder et de mettre en œuvre des choses que vous aimez, comme l'immigration (la gauche et le centre ont tous deux une vision d'un monde sans frontières, bien que pour des raisons différentes).

Ainsi, en plus de cette manœuvre de vote tactique, le RN a également souffert de toute la couverture médiatique négative inspirée par les élites du MSM, qu'on peut appeler propagande.

La fracture se situe là où chaque parti se sent "chez lui". Le RN croit en des frontières et l'idée d'un état-nation avec un peuple - les Français - avec un intérêt national français et une culture et une identité françaises, dont ils sont fiers. C'est une attitude politique et sociale qui favorise l'égalité et la fraternité et trouve son foyer - c'est là que réside le problème - dans l'état-nation ou l'internationale prolétarienne des travailleurs.

Alors que dans cette vision de "élite et peuple", l'élite est pour des frontières ouvertes, la liberté économique, le mouvement du capital là où les rendements sont les plus élevés, en d'autres termes pour une intégration accrue dans des entités supranationales comme l'UE - c'est la mondialisation. C'est une attitude économique qui favorise la liberté et l'égalité et trouve son foyer dans l'Ordre américain.

Je pense que fondamentalement, l'establishment essaie de nous faire vivre dans un monde en noir et blanc : "si vous n'êtes pas avec nous, vous êtes contre nous", mais la réalité est plus nuancée. Il existe maintenant de nombreux centres de pouvoir plus petits et au lieu que des opinions opposées déclenchent la violence ou le conflit, elles devraient être considérées comme une opportunité de coopération et de consensus et peut-être même de gouvernement de coalition... mais cela n'est certainement pas dans l'esprit des députés de l'Assemblée nationale, pas pour le moment.

Une solution à ce chaos total en France serait que Macron choisisse un premier ministre du centre, et que des dossiers pour chacune des politiques identifiées dans le tableau ci-dessus soient confiés à différentes directions de l'Assemblée. Ces directions, chacune maintenant avec un ministre dans un cabinet, devraient travailler sur leur dossier et revenir avec des propositions à voter à l'Assemblée nationale.

Cela pourrait fonctionner, une fois que les députés réaliseraient que s'ils votent contre tout le monde, alors tout le monde votera contre eux. En d'autres termes, les députés seraient obligés de travailler ensemble de manière transpartisane, dans un esprit de coopération pour que tous les différents intérêts et voix du pays puissent être entendus et, dans un esprit de tolérance (c'est-à-dire de respect pour les intérêts des autres), trouver une place à l'Assemblée. Rappelons que près de 40 % de l'électorat en a vraiment marre car il n'est pas représenté, et il y a ceux qui ont voté non pas pour ce qu'ils voulaient, mais pour ce qu'ils ne voulaient pas : le pays est en confusion et il y a le chaos au parlement.

Pour information, voici ci-dessus les politiques de la gauche, du centre et de la droite, selon les domaines politiques que j'ai identifiés. Bien sûr, ces domaines, ou questions, ne sont pas gravés dans le marbre, les priorités peuvent changer, en effet le programme de la gauche a été élaboré en quelques jours seulement après l'annonce choc des élections par Macron. Et bien sûr, un programme de politiques n'est pas nécessairement destiné à être mis en œuvre - il y a de nombreux obstacles à l'exécution, notamment comment elles seront financées, étant donné l'état des finances publiques de la France.