In April I published an extensive article about the French Presidential election where I considered the most likely outcome to be a victory for the Front National’s Marine Le Pen. This has since been proven incorrect after Emmanuel Macron’s success was confirmed on May 7th. Looking at the numbers, Macron defeated Le Pen with 66.06% (20.7 million) of the vote, compared to 33.94% (10.6 million) for Le Pen.
What the numbers also show is the amount of people who pledged allegiance to neither candidate. 47.56 million citizens were registered to vote. Of these, 12.1 million – 25% of those eligible – chose to abstain. Another 4 million (11.47%) left their ballot paper blank or spoiled it. Altogether, over 36% rejected both Macron and Le Pen. More people abstained than voted for Front National. And if you combine the abstention rate with blank or spoiled ballots, it comes to 16.1 million people. Macron’s closest rival in the second round of this election was the noncommittal voter.
Before we question Emmanuel Macron’s connection to the Rothschild’s, let’s look at some of the reaction to his victory. Recognised figures from the political establishment – including Barack Obama – came out in support of Macron before Sunday’s vote. That same establishment was quick to portray his victory as one for the Euro Zone as a whole.
European Council President Donald Tusk tweeted that ‘liberty, equality and fraternity had triumphed over the tyranny of fake news‘. A spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Macron’s win was a ‘victory for a strong united Europe and Franco / German friendship‘. French Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve stated that voters had ‘rejected the deadly project of the extreme right’ and had instead ’embraced the EU‘. European Commissioner Jean – Claude – Juncker said the French had chosen a ‘European future, together for a stronger Europe.’ Finally there was Guy Verhofstadt – the European Union’s Brexit Negotiator – who expressed his relief at the defeat of ‘demagoguery and populism‘.
Of the candidates themselves, Marine Le Pen did not appear crestfallen at her loss. Instead, she emphasised how the French had voted for the ‘continuity candidate‘, and that from here on in the Front National’s job was to ‘renew and start a deep transformation of our movement in order to make a new political force.’ Many have translated this into her desire for completely re-branding the party in preparation for the next presidential election in 2022.
Emmanuel Macron’s initial reaction to his victory was to ‘ensure the security and unity of the nation‘ and ‘defend the common destiny the peoples of our continent have given themselves‘. Macron went on to speak of the ‘work to rebuild the link between Europe and the people it is made up of.’
Given the perception espoused by the media of Macron being a centrist progressive, some of the opening salvos to his defeat of Marine Le Pen were not all complimentary. As I watched the election results play out on Sky News, both presenters and guests alike were openly charactertising Macron as a man with a ‘deeply privileged past‘, as being ‘part of the establishment‘, of being a ‘former banker‘. A separate narrative was also created – that the majority vote for Macron was more about people wanting to stop Marine Le Pen from becoming president than supporting the leader of En Marche! Suspicion of Macron’s career history, coupled with doubt about his ability to unify France, was a prominent feature in the coverage.
What this represented to me was that whilst Emmanuel Macron had secured the vote, it was Le Pen who had overwhelming won the psychological battle. The message in the mainstream now is that should Macron’s presidency be a failure – in that economic pressures worsen and societal disquiet becomes toxic – 2022 will see the ‘far right‘ elected to office.
Macron’s personal reputation was brought into question during a debate between the two candidates in the run up to Sunday’s election. Marine Le Pen made reference to a story in the media about how Macron had been alleged to have hidden an offshore bank account in the Bahamas. ‘I hope we don’t discover you have an offshore account in the Bahamas,‘ Le pen told him. The En Marche! leader has since filed legal action against the claims. Forty eight hours before the vote, information came out on a hacking attack against Macron which was promptly placed at the feet of Russia. Those responsible for the hack released copious amounts of data on Macron which is alleged to show impropriety in his financial dealings. Wikileaks picked up on the story and commented how the data dump contained ‘many tens of thousands emails, photos, attachments up to April 24, 2017–around 9Gb in total‘. Macron’s team have denied any wrongdoing. The question now is whether this story vanishes without thorough investigation or if it leads to Macron becoming embroiled in a scandal of some description.
His first political test is the June legislative elections. The 577 seats of the national assembly will be decided over the course of two rounds which take place on the 11th and 18th. As it stands, the Socialist party – of which Macron was once affiliated – holds 280 seats to the Republican’s 194. En Marche! have no representation in the assembly given that the party only came into existence in 2016. Front National have only two seats. The long established left / right axis of the assembly has now switched to two parties who have never formed a government or held power at a legislative level.
A parallel worth pointing out here is how over the past twelves months, when populations appeared to be growing restless at the existing paradigm of choice – notably left or right – a candidate marketed as ‘anti – establishment‘ promptly rose to prominence. What this did was draw people back into the political circle, even if not by a vast majority. Donald Trump’s ticket of being against the old guard of politics (despite him piggybacking on the Republicans as a route to power) was a success in terms of it offering a false choice to the electorate. His campaign captured many disenfranchised people, keeping them locked within an evolving but ultimately rigid paradigm. The same principle applied in France. Whilst abstentions, spoiled ballots and a fear of Marine Le Pen were considerable, enough turned out in the belief that the young and charismatic Macron – in spite of his establishment upbringing – would bring fresh hope and vigor to French politics. The creation of En Marche! was a necessary vehicle in obtaining people’s consent. The image of the socialist party under Francois Hollande had been trashed beyond repair. The fact that Macron served in Hollande’s administration proved not to be a deciding factor. Making the separation and forming a new party was a conjuring trick. By committing to Macron, what people actually did was commit to their place in the circle. Trump and Macron were hope candidates who managed to pull in enough support to prevent widespread dissension.
Figures within the independent media have perceived Emmanuel Macron’s win as a victory for the Rothschilds. Researchers such as David Icke have repeatedly said that Macron is the ‘Rothschild Candidate‘. This view is not without merit. As I pointed out in my original post on the elections, in 2008 Macron went to work for Rothschild & Cie Banque – the French branch of Rothschild & Co. Indeed, the French variant of The Local website ran an article on Macron’s rise to President this week, where they openly stated that,
after going into investment banking, where he earned several million euros at Rothschild, Macron became an economic advisor to Hollande in 2012 and then economy minister two years later.
Macron’s association with the Rothschild’s cannot be denied. It can also not be dismissed that the role of the Rothschild dynasty – particularly through finance and central banks – was an influential factor in promoting Macron to the Elysee Palace.
Whilst I do not deny the significance of the Rothschild family, it is important to consider – particularly in the context of Macron’s victory – the results of the UK’s Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s triumph.
With Brexit, the feeling amongst many proponents of leaving the European Union was that the establishment and their controllers – notably central banks – would not allow the UK to depart the EU. It was expected that the vote would swing in favour of remain. When the leave vote prospered, the reaction was singular. The establishment had not bargained on the result, and had been caught off guard. It seldom occurred to people that the very same establishment might have been pushing for the Brexit result from the outset. As I have previously written, if elites have the power to manipulate elections, they have the power to manipulate them either way.
Brandon Smith over at Alt-Market made this point immediately after the referendum:
What is rather amazing to me is the number of people that, before the referendum vote, were arguing that the elites would “never allow” the Brexit to continue and were thoroughly convinced they would use their influence to disrupt it. Now, in the face of a successful vote, those same people now argue that the elites had no influence over the Brexit, and do not benefit from its passage.
Five months later came the US election. Again, figures within independent media were quick to label Hillary Clinton as the ‘Rothschild choice‘ and say that the elites would never allow Donald Trump a passage to the White House. After Trump won the election, many considered this a defeat for the ‘deep state‘ and took it to mean that the elites of this world were losing their grip on power. Had Clinton been victorious, the ‘Rothschild choice‘ meme would have grown wings. However, when it turned out to be Trump, this apparently represented more of a ‘primal scream‘ from the electorate rather than a calculated effort by globalist elites to install Trump as president. The inconsistency in this narrative is something I have raised throughout the months.
The timing of key meetings between central bankers through the Bank for International Settlements – around the time of Brexit and on the same day as the US election – is also something which has been largely ignored by independents.
There is undoubtedly evidence to suggest that Hillary Clinton is a close ally of the Rothschild family. Throughout her campaign, Wikileaks released multiple thousands of email exchanges between Clinton and various figureheads within politics and the corporate sector. One of those exchanges was with Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the wife of Evelyn de Rothschild (a former bank chairman of Rothschild & Co). Here is an image of both Bill and Hillary Clinton with the aforementioned Rothschilds:
Wikileaks’ previous release of Hillary Clinton’s emails disclosed an April 2010 exchange in which Rothschild tells Clinton under the subject heading “Miss you” that she “would love to catch up” and “I remain your loyal adoring pal.” Clinton responds in kind, “let’s make that happen,” and signs off, “Much love, H.”
Then in September 2010, Clinton messaged Rothschild, “I was trying to reach you to tell you and Teddy that I asked Tony Blair to go to Israel as part of our full court press on keeping the Middle East negotiations going.” She also asks, “Let me know what penance I owe you.”
Rothschild thanks Clinton for “personally reaching out to us,” and notes, “You are the best, and we remain your biggest fans. Sweet dreams and Godspeed with everything you are doing.”
Had Clinton become president, you could easily have turned to exchanges such as this to demonstrate her intimacy with the Rothschilds and how that swung it in her favour. Yet Donald Trump was chosen instead, despite the assumption from many researchers that Clinton had been earmarked for office many years previous.
What this shows is that an ally of the Rothschilds or not, if a candidate’s political position does not fit the moment or a developing narrative, that candidate is expendable. At the time of Trump’s election, the ‘populist‘ / nationalist playbook was gaining more ground, of which Trump was a interpretation of. Alas, he rose to prominence. His closeness to the Clinton’s was also likely a factor, evidenced here during Trump’s wedding in 2005. This is something I discussed in detail back in October last year:
With Macron’s presidency, it predominately tells us two things. Firstly, that the wave of ‘populism‘ that the mainstream media have been so eager to convey as a ‘far right‘ concept has not translated over to France. Macron, despite his track record, is perceived as a ‘progressive‘. In other words, the antithesis of right wing reactionary nationalism. Secondly, it shows how a ‘progressive‘ narrative now has some room to develop and challenge the idea of ‘populist‘ movements attaining further recognition and influence, particularly from within the EU.
Prior to the French election, Austria rejected the ‘far right’ Freedom Party lead by Norbet Hofer in December 2016. Three months later, the Netherlands rejected Geert Wilders’ right wing Party of Freedom. Now the French have rejected Front National and Marine Le Pen. But look closely at these results and there is a clear pattern of growth. Hofer achieved 46% of the vote in Austria. Wilders gained seats following his defeat, whilst Le Pen’s share of the vote was almost double what her father achieved back in 2002. These movements stand to gain further ground should the EU experience renewed financial pressure and increased societal strain as a consequence of immigration in the months and years ahead.
In amongst these defeats for nationalists came a rejection from Italian voters in a constitutional referendum last December. A result very much seen as an endorsement of ‘populist‘ sentiment. As I have previously evidenced, George Soros has named the Italian Five Star Movement party – who again represent the ‘populist‘ badge – as a threat to the future of the European Union. Writing for Project Syndicate, Soros mentioned how Five Star are ‘a partner of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party in the European Parliament‘, which could be interpreted as linking the two movements together. A general election is due in Italy come 2018, but a snap election has been mooted as a possibility for this year. The latest the election can be held is the 20th of May 2018.
The International Monetary Fund’s warning of a ‘sword of protectionism‘ potentially damaging what is a false economic global recovery remains in play given Donald Trump’s presidency. For now, though, Europe is unifying behind Emmanuel Macron as a figure of stability and strength. The ever present strain of Brexit still has many months to evolve, and whilst I do not believe that the UK’s breakaway from the union would be enough to jeopardise the EU project, a success for the Five Star Movement would have the capacity to cause financial instability given the perilous state of the Italian banking sector and its oldest bank Monte dei Paschi.
Speaking after Emmanuel Macron’s victory, UBS Chairman Axel Weber was reported in the Financial Times as saying that En Marche’s rise ‘doesn’t mean Europe is out of the woods. There is still Italy where it is very unclear that the centre will hold.’
A key part of this unfurling narrative will be the actions of the European Central Bank. What is telling is how the Federal Reserve and the ECB appear to have reached a point of intended coordination. A Fed interest rate hike in June, which I think will happen, will likely be followed by further signs that they are preparing to reduce their $4.5 trillion balance sheet. But also, the ECB are nearing a time when they will begin the process of cutting back on stimulus and start to prepare markets for a rise in interest rates. Whilst Euro Zone GDP ‘growth’ of 0.5% GDP for the first quarter of 2017 is promoted as a positive, it is in reality part of a false dawn to convince Europe that things are on the up. Macron’s win further cements that perception. With the threat of Front National out of the picture, the ECB have no excuses not to proceed with their agenda. The central bank’s current quantitative easing program runs until December of this year. The balance sheet of the ECB is estimated to hold over €3.5 trillion, equating to almost 40% of Euro zone GDP. By coincidence or otherwise, the end of this current period of QE brings us closer to the point of the Italian general election. If central banks were looking for a cover story to distract people from their actions, the Five Star Movement looks well placed to respond.
As for France, aspects of their economy is mirroring what is happening on a global scale. The GDP growth estimate for the first quarter came in at 0.3%. Retail sales are stagnating. Consumer credit is rising month on month. Unemployment is ‘officially’ shown as 10%, with youth unemployment at 23%.
But the two data points which are proving a decisive factor for a change in language from central banks is job numbers and inflation. Employment has been on the rise in France, with a rate said to be at 64.7%. Inflation is steadily rising (current level is 1.2%) but lags behind the most recent Euro Area rate of 1.9%. Ultimately, the Euro Area figure is what will take precedent given that France no longer has the independence of its own interest rate.
What will be interesting to observe is how a Macron administration deals with the economic pressures in the Euro Zone, which by association have an impact on France. The scapegoat of French ‘populism‘ is not presently an option for globalist elites. My original theory of allowing Front National to gain power was based on the premise that should the EU suffer economic decline in the upcoming years, public anger and discontent could be channeled in their direction, with both the party and Marine Le Pen being held responsible for their recklessness in wanting to abandon the Euro and perhaps vacate the European Union as the UK is doing. This is now obviously not part of the immediate narrative. Are we going to see the youthful, ‘progressive‘ Emmanuel Macron hung out to dry in the event of a financial crisis? As with Hillary Clinton, Macron will prove in the end to be expendable. It is under what conditions and who is ultimately held responsible for a downturn in the minds of the electorate that makes this intriguing. Whether Macron ends up facilitating the rise of the ‘far right’ come 2022 is something that is far too early to predict.
Right now, Europe breathes its sigh of relief. Emmanuel Macron has called for greater assimilation and integration of France within the European Union. The cultivated trend of ‘populist‘ forces attaining prominence has been halted. But the defeated forces of nationalism have all grown in stature and significance, and have now crucially been accepted as part of the mainstream political landscape.
There remains the potential for a renewed outbreak of ‘populism’ in Southern Europe, and depending on the outcome of Brexit negotiations, for a progressive movement to gain traction within the UK to challenge conservatism. In relation to Brexit, former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown produced an article about this very topic at the end of April in which he said:
What we need now is a British En Marche. What we need is a Macron for the UK.
After the UK election in June, we will have a clearer idea of where the parties stand and if an expected Conservative landslide materialises. Such a result could conceivably lay the groundwork for the process of the UK’s own progressive narrative being conceived.