Its going down in france
(eelb.su)
Comments (9)
sorted by:
Hardcore french truth forum https://eelb.su
Down for 2 days.
Pres. Candidate attacked the other day.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59545455
"If I win this election, it won't be another rotation of power but a reconquest of the greatest country in the world," he told the crowd during a lengthy speech.
He announced he had named his party Reconquest - a name Mr Zemmour said harked back to the period of history known as the Reconquista, when Christian armies drove Muslims from the Iberian peninsula.
The far-right politician also railed against political elites and the media. Several times the crowds booed members of the press gathered in the arena.
"I am the only one defending freedom of thought, freedom of speech," he declared, dismissing allegations of fascism, racism and misogyny. In the past Mr Zemmour has been convicted of hate speech.
I'm a fan of Zemmour, based on the positive reviews of his stuff over at American Renaissance. But they come out of the woodwork everywhere to say that he has Jewish ancestry and he's controlled opposition, etc. etc. etc.
I say, he's better than Macron regardless.
Better than Maricon is easy.
That's why they always have success with offering two choices.
"We prefer the oppression from candidate #2, please." - retarded voting masses
Well, given the choice, I'd vote for the Jew who at least says the right things rather than the cuck who has already been a big proponent of medical tyranny.
Anyway, you have two parties/coalitions due to Duverger's Law. It can't be avoided.
That's probably true, but it would be kind of nice if the choices were legitimately from the people, and not pre-selected by the elites. Pretty unlikely though.
What does voting imply? A suggestion by the choice of the few towards consent by the choice of the many. What choice does voting imply? Want (voting others) over need (being choice). What does choosing want over need imply? The conflict between wanting vs not wanting the suggested (voting). This conflict (reason) is then rebranded in political left vs right, and which side one chooses to want or not want is irrelevant; since ones already ignored need when consenting to suggested want.
"elite" represents the sleight of hand for those with eyes to see; because calling others elite (selection; choice) implies ignorance of ones own free will of choice. If the many ignore to represent the ones with choice; then few become the chosen ones.
That implies choosing between wanting vs not wanting the suggestions by others; what if choice represents the response to perceived balance (need/want); while the suggested choices by others are tempting one to ignore need for want; hence causing the imbalance (want vs not want) by ignoring balance (need/want).
You are ONE; your free will of choice to count the suggestions of others is what causes the "two". A "two" does not represent a perceivable state within nature; but the choice of those within to ignore being ONE within ALL; which thereby also ignores the ONEness of ALL.
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) only the movement is ongoing; while everything within is temporary. So how can one form (Duverger) within all flow define a permanent rule for all other form? Could it be the choice of the many to ignore perceived natural law for suggested laws of men; which in return allows the few to rule the many at free will of choice; by simply resisting the temptation to ignore representing a choice?
a) the few don't offer; they suggest (information) shaped out of everything offered to their perception (inspiration).
b) the suggested choices represent want vs not want; which implies consent to ignore need for want when ignoring perceived balance (need/want) for suggested imbalance (want vs not want).
c) how could those temporarily within ongoing nature "offer" nature? What isn't offered to every ones perception?