OCT 15, 2019
More evidence that the media is faker than the Kardashians’ faces
October 7, 2019
*The highest stock markets ever – up nearly 50% since his election win
*The most stock market all time daily highs in a year (71)
*The most stock market all time daily highs in a row (12) – tying Reagan
*The largest stock market rally in a day – over 1,000 points
*The lowest overall unemployment in 50 years currently at 3.5%
*The lowest unemployment ever for women, Hispanics and blacks
*The most Americans working in history
*More job openings that employees
*Massive wage increases, especially in the lowest income workers
*Medium level income at highest levels ever recorded
*Over 6 million new jobs since 2017 (good paying jobs too)
*American energy independence for first time in decades
*American energy exporter first time in decades
*Out of Obamacare mandate which forced Americans to pay tax penalty for not affording insurance
*Millions of Americans off of food stamps
*Strongest military ever
*Started Space Force – preparing America for space age defense
*Destroyed evil ISIS in Syria/Iraq after Obama said they would be there for a generation
*Got US out of horrible Obama trade deal with China and Asian countries giving away US jobs
*Drafted new trade deal with Canada and Mexico (USMCA) which will save US jobs
*Drafted new trade deal with Japan
*Drafted new trade deal with Korea
*Standing up to China in trade and intellectual property theft
*Signed lowest corporate tax rates in decades helping US companies and workers
*First President to step inside North Korea
*First President to meet with North Korea leader in effort to achieve peace
*Standing up for America in NATO requesting EU countries to pay fair share
*Record number of regulations eliminated
*Two new Supreme Court judges
*More than 100 new District judges
*Withdrew from horrible Paris accords
*Withdrew from horrible Iran deal
The WhiteHouse.gov lists many,many more.
In addition to all of this, the President was forced to follow the most corrupt administration in US history.
As a result of the Obama Administration:
*The FBI is no longer trusted let alone respected due to its leaders actions related to Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, and others in passing on Hillary crimes while attacking candidate and President Trump
*Corrupt Obama judges like Amy Berman Jackson who put 70 year old Paul Manafort in solitary are still in place
*The DOJ is full of corrupt lawyers who were involved in Obama Administration coverups and illegal and sinister Deep State actions to spy on candidate and President Trump in efforts to prevent him from winning the election and then attempting to remove him from his Presidency
*The media is corrupt. Mainstream outlets like the New York Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, etc… are all in the tank with Obama Democrats. They praised him like a god during his realm and now follow his lead in slandering President Trump and ignoring his many accomplishments
*NeverTrumpers and other elites on the right side of the isle (e.g. Mitt Romney, etc..) have shown their real colors and lack of integrity due to their hate for President Trump. They would have preferred Hillary.
*Numerous acts of bribery and extortion were present in Obama’s world and this bled down to into the government as a whole. It appeared that all of DC was corrupt.
Ultimately, President Trump’s greatest accomplishment is that he beat Corrupt Hillary in the 2016 election. He arguably is the only one who could have beaten her. The Clinton’s had a machine and no one dared stand up to her but candidate Trump. Trump pointed out her many corrupt acts and won the greatest election of our lifetime.
The corrupt actors from the DNC, Deep State and media are not happy with President Trump. They have done all they can to remove him. Candidate Trump overcame their illegal acts during the election and then the corrupt Mueller investigation, where the President was investigated for no crime for more than three years when you include time before the election.
The Mueller investigation was not an investigation but an obstruction trap. They did everything they could to get the President to do something they could claim was obstruction but he did not fold. They brought his son in for hours of testimony, his daughter and her husband, they set up his son in Trump Tower, they invaded his personal attorney’s office, storage locker and home. They stole documents from his transition team. They set up and arrested his NSA General Mike Flynn who still is involved in the courts today. Everyone he knew or touched was investigated, against the law using the Special Counsel Act, but President Trump stood firm.
The President was berated by the far left media every day. They called him a traitor and fraudulent President. They claimed he worked with Russians to win the election which never made sense because he was later attacked with dirt supposedly coming from Russia.
Now the Deep State wants to remove President Trump from office in another bogus attempt to manipulate the law to their liking. This is not how the law is supposed to be used in this country. Obama destroyed the proper use of the law.
Democrats, their media and their Deep State want to rake the President through more shame and lies and then impeach him based on lies and no crimes. They do this to prevent their crimes during the Obama years from being outed and them held accountable. They have to make something up to take down Trump. Their lies rank them with former totalitarian regimes and banana republics.
By Helen Buyniski
More than two thirds of American adults get their news from social media at the same time that more than half expectthat news to be “largely inaccurate.” Perhaps sensing a business opportunity, Facebook has moved in to manage that news consumption, reportedly offering mainstream outlets millions of dollars per year to license their content in order to present it to users authoritatively, as “Facebook News” – having long since ceased trusting users to share news among themselves.
But trusting Facebook to deliver the news is like trusting a cheetah to babysit your gazelles – all that’s left at the end is likely to be a pile of bones. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg warned legacy media last year that if they did not work with his plan to “revitalize journalism,” they would be left dying “like in a hospice.”
Dangling a few million in front of news outlets after depriving them of the advertising cash on which they once subsisted is merely the final step in the process of consolidation and control that began when Facebook removed actual news from its newsfeed in an effort to manage the narrative in the run-up to the 2016 election. A move ostensibly designed to “favor friends and family over publishers,” it instead plunged mainstream and especially alternative media into financial oblivion, setting them scrambling to recoup lost traffic as their place in subscribers’ feeds was taken by cat videos and family snapshots.
Alternative media were further marginalized after Zuckerberg inked a deal with the Atlantic Council – NATO‘s narrative-managers whose board is populated by some of the most notorious warmongers of recent history – who arrived to set the platform straight after it failed to deliver the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton. The group would ensure Facebook played a “positive role” in democracy in the future, a press release promised. Six months later, hundreds of popular political pages had been purged for getting in the way of the Atlantic Council’s version of “democracy.” Several more purges followed, many pages getting the axe for nothing more than espousing views “favorable to Iran’s national interests” or posting content with “anti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes.”
Zuckerberg has never hidden his desire to see Facebook become an internet driver’s license, and he has no doubt watched gleefully as French President Emmanuel Macron‘s government weighs requiring citizens to turn over actual identity documents in order to sign up to use Facebook. The platform was the first to adopt an intelligence-agency-friendly “real name policy,” irritating political activists, performers, and others who prefer not to have their social media activity follow them around in real life.
Privacy advocates are currently up in arms over the FBI’s recently-revealed plans to monitor social media platforms in real time. Combined with the recently leaked FBI decision to label all “conspiracy theorists” as potentially-dangerous domestic extremists, this looks an awful lot like a manufactured rationale to spy on the majority of the US population. Yet Facebook has been feeding users’ data to the government for over a decade. It joined the NSA’s PRISM program in 2009, providing the agency with its own convenient backdoor for slurping up the data others have had to hack themselves. Not that that’s been very hard – Facebook admitted last year that data on “most” of its users has been compromised at some point by “malicious actors.”
Facebook’s decision to hire one of the co-authors of the notorious PATRIOT Act as General Counsel earlier this year was touted as a move that would help the company “fulfill its mission.” Which would be what, exactly?
Despite its egregious privacy record, the areas of reality outside Zuckerberg’s control are dwindling rapidly. With the rollout of Facebook’s Libra coin, commerce, too, is falling under the shadow of this menacingly bland figure.
When Zuckerberg was photographed traveling through Middle America several years ago, many pointed out it looked like he was running for president. His announcement around the same time that he had found religion – a vague, made-for-TV, feel-good faith guaranteed not to antagonize anyone – also had the feel of a campaign move. If Facebook – and Zuckerberg’s – history is any guide, he has bigger things in mind for Facebook News than a new tab on the user interface. Every campaign needs a press office, after all…
APRIL 11, 2019
A little over a week ahead of the beginning of elections in India this Thursday, Facebook raised some eyebrows when it announced that it had removed a number of politically oriented pages as a part of its “election integrity” efforts.
The social media giant removed 138 pro-opposition pages that had over 200,000 followers for “coordinated inauthentic behavior.” While they only removed 15 pro-government pages, as it turned out, those pages had a far wider reach with millions of likes.
Given the apparent imbalance, it is all the more concerning that the purge was conducted with assistance from the US-based Atlantic Council, a think tank that receives millions of dollars in funding from the US State Department and NATO allies.
Indian defense analyst and security expert Abhijit Iyer-Mitra is one of the people extremely concerned with the impact the American private company could have on India’s elections. He has even filed a criminal complaint with police in New Delhi, describing Facebook’s actions as an act of war, and an attack on the country’s sovereignty.
Speaking to RT, Iyer-Mitra blasted the social network for their glaring double standards: while making extensive efforts to protect American elections from foreign actors in the wake of the alleged “Russian meddling” scandal, the company seemingly had no qualms about letting a state-department-linked think tank act in place of Indian election officials.
“The point is they are an American company, this is an Indian election,” said Iyer-Mitra. “We are not willing to cede our sovereignty to other countries like this. I think they are making a big mistake and I intend to pursue this to the end.”
TIME magazine has gotten a head start with its latest cover story, authored by journalist Simon Shuster, literally titled “Russia’s other plot” and illustrated with the usual clichéd, Soviet-inspired scary red and black artwork.
The story, ostensibly, is about Russia’s construction of an “empire of rogue states” around the world – but in reality the circular screed is actually just bold propaganda for US foreign policy and regime change wars.
The Kremlin, we are told, has been “scouring the world in search of influence” in an attempt to fill “the void left by an inward-looking West.”This is the point at which alarm bells start ringing for those with even a cursory grasp of US and Western foreign policy, who will be asking themselves, since when has the US – with its constant destructive and unwanted interference in the affairs of other nations – ever been “inward-looking”?
When, soon after, Shuster quotes former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen framing international relations as a fight between the noble West and the Russian “bad guys,” we move beyond parody.
On and on the story goes, detailing the activities of Russian mercenaries in Sudan (pro-tip: military mercenaries are only bad if they are Russian) and lamenting the Trump administration’s “new Africa strategy” which cuts aid to African nations that are “tempted into deals with Russia or China.” The great fear is that Russia is offering its allies in Africa “soft-power assistance with state building” that is “typically provided by NGOs and development agencies.”
Former USAID contractor Paul Stronski warns Shuster that the Russians are “learning from us” (the Americans, that is) – but the “key difference” is that, unlike those offered by the well-intentioned US government, the reforms Russia offers to its allies are “mostly cosmetic” and “don’t really address the corruption in the system.” If you didn’t laugh while reading that, you probably don’t know much about US foreign policy.
The claim of “cosmetic” reforms on offer by Russia did spark a memory, though. Readers might recall a 2015 BuzzFeed investigation which revealed that, despite touting education reform as one of its major successes in war-torn Afghanistan, $1 billion allocated to build and staff schools actually enriched warlords and corrupt officials. The schools? Well, many of them were left empty and unused – but it wasn’t a “cosmetic” reform; surely it was just an unfortunate oversight.
Historian Paul Robinson has detailed the “staggering scale” of “waste and incompetence” that has characterized US aid and reform efforts in Afghanistan in particular (highlights include spending half a billion dollars on planes for the Afghan air force which were too dangerous to fly – and $150 million constructing luxury villas for staff at its economic development office).
John Sopko, the man responsible for auditing the billions of dollars the US spends on aid and reform in Afghanistan, worried in 2015 that the US “can’t honestly point to some actual, measurable accomplishments”from its trillion dollar efforts – but okay, let’s pretend it’s Russia that’s the biggest offender when it comes to cosmetic reforms in developing nations.
Next up, we learn that Russia wasn’t always this disobedient. It “did not always advocate” for an end to the “order” defined by the West. In fact, quoting Vladimir Yakunin, “an old friend and colleague” of Putin’s from their KGB days, Shuster tells us that Russia tried hard to fit in with the “globalized world” after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Russia “was naive” however, “to assume that the family of civilized nations would really integrate us.”
Integration was not to be. Russians were to conveniently remain forever in the Western mind as a horde of uncivilized barbarians, so that journalists could keep getting paid to write scare stories and the Pentagon could continue filling its coffers with obscene amounts of cash using the hyped-up Russia “threat” as the perfect excuse.
In its quest for global domination, the Kremlin has focused on wooing “elites” and “warlords” around the world, Shuster claims, with a stunning lack of self-awareness, given US proclivities for supporting questionable regimes run by tyrants to serve its geopolitical interests; US support for the brutal Saudi regime being one of the most infamous in the present day.
The value Russia prizes above all others, we learn, is sovereignty, and the principle that “each regime has the right to rule its territory without fear of foreign interference.” Casting the very concept of national sovereignty as some dirty Russian idea is just another way of telling the reader: US wars for regime change, no matter how disastrous and bloody, are good and for good causes.
To see Russia’s evil in action, we are told to look to how it uses its veto power at the UN to help its friends and allies – another laughable and utterly hollow argument, when you consider how the US repeatedly uses its own UN veto power to shield Israel from responsibility for its treatment of Palestinians and civilian casualties in Gaza and the West Bank.
Ultimately, Shuster claims Russia has created “a ragtag empire of pariah autocracies and half-failed states” – but for those of us who inhabit the real world, when it comes to propping up dictators and creating failed or half-failed states (Iraq, Libya, Syria), there is no country more wildly successful than the US.
Unfortunately, however, Shuster appears to have come down with an acute case of projectionitis. While he thinks his argument is ‘how dare Russia lend its support to dubious players around the world?’ — it is actually ‘how dare Russia do anything we do – and think they can get away with it?’
Shuster even has the audacity to quote Elliott Abrams, the Trump administration’s current special envoy to Venezuela – the latest country to find itself in the US’s regime change crosshairs. Russia, he says, is “completely unconcerned by the degree of repression” in Venezuela.
Abrams, let us not forget, is the man who was convicted of lying to the US Congress, having used fake humanitarian aid shipments to smuggle weapons to the infamously brutal, US-backed Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s – but sure, let’s treat him like a respectable source and authority when it comes to moralizing about human rights and democracy.
If Washington was setting an example of admirable behavior around the world; supporting human rights and democracy, refraining from violating the territory and sovereignty of other nations and using diplomacy as its primary weapon, perhaps then we could take Shuster’s piece seriously and trust that Russia’s various real or alleged infractions around the world are the true source of Washington’s irritation with Moscow.
Sergey Radchenko, a Professor of International Relations at Cardiff University put it best when he criticized the “seriously over-the-top” and “alarmist” article on Twitter, taking issue with the framing of Russia’s foreign policy as akin to “empire”building.
“…If providing support to autocratic governments amounts to having an “empire,” then the biggest empire the world has ever seen is the United States,” he wrote.
By Joel B. Pollak
Meadows had brought Lynne Patton, a senior Trump campaign aide and now an administration official, to submit a statement into the record at the House Oversight Committee defending President Donald Trump from claims by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, that Trump is a racist. Patton happens to be black and has defended Trump before.
Tlaib — who has faced accusations of antisemitism after making insensitive remarks about Israel — shocked the hearing by calling Patton a “prop” and suggesting it had been racist for Meadows to bring her to the hearing. She cited her own feelings as a “woman of color.” (Tlaib is a Palestinian-American.) Meadows, visibly hurt, noted he has relatives who are “people of color.” Tlaib apologized to Meadows (though not to Patton herself).
The left then tried to target Meadows, circulating a video from 2012 in which he told a Tea Party gathering that they would “send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper picked up the video and aired it Wednesday night, noting that Meadows had later regretted his remark and asserted his belief that Obama is an American citizen, but suggesting that Meadows might indeed be a racist for reasons other than Tlaib’s attack.
On Thursday morning, Camerota hosted Tlaib on New Day. Unlike Cooper, Camerota actually mentioned Patton, playing a clip from a radio show Thursday morning in which Patton had objected to being called a “prop.” Cameron described Patton as “the woman who was held up by Mark Meadows without speaking.” Tlaib did not apologize to Patton but asserted that she meant “no disrespect to her at all” to Patton, a remark Camerota did not challenge.
Camerota went on to argue to Tlaib that Meadows was, indeed, a racist, and asked her if she regretted her apology.
First, she asserted to Tlaib that “[t]here were people at home that felt that that was tone deaf and insensitive of congressman mark meadows,” i.e. bringing Patton to the meeting. “You certainly were not alone in that feeling and so why did you apologize to him?” Camerota cited no evidence of how “people at home” felt. When Tlaib offered an evasive answer, Camerota pressed her: “So do you regret apologizing to Congressman Meadows?”
Tlaib said that she “apologized if I made him feel like a racist,” saying that she saw the exchange as a “teachable moment” and did not want to label Meadows as a racist. She added that she was offended by Patton being brought to the hearing and “saying nothing,” evidently ignoring the fact that Patton had a statement entered into the record.
That did not satisfy Camerota, who then brought up the 2012 video: “I’m interested in whether or not you can separate a racist statement or a racist act from the person. And case in point, in 2012, you know, Congressman Mark Meadows engaged in the Birtherism talk where he doubted that President Obama was born here. let me just remind our viewers of what he said back then.” She played the clip, then asked: “Does seeing that change how you feel about him?”
Tlaib declined to take the bait, ignoring the 2012 video: “Congressman Meadows understood where i was coming from, he knew what my intention was at the end, and that’s why he decided to take … his objections back.”
And still Camerota pressed Tlaib: “But just to be clear, you still today feel that he is not racist?”
Tlaib responded: “Look, I feel like the act was. and that’s up to the American people to decide whether or not he is.”
It was not enough for CNN, Cooper, or Camerota that Tlaib and Meadows had reconciled amongst themselves, with the mediation of committee chair Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Using a 2012 video that had no relevance to the exchange Wednesday, CNN tried to attack Meadows and to insert racial division where it had been partly healed.
By Chris Tomlinson
The footage comes from the Yellow Vest protest on Saturday, January 12th, where protesters and hooligans clashed with police for nearly 16 hours and was recorded at the police command room where officers were watching the scenes of violence unfold on several monitors, broadcaster France 3 reports.
Several officers are heard in the recording including both female and male officers with one male officer saying, “The fuckers! There’s one on the ground there,” and another commenting, “What a bunch of bastards!”
A female officer is then heard saying, “we have to shoot!” to which another male officer replies, “When I tell you to, line up two or three rounds.”
While the video was recorded on January 12th, it was not released until January 31st by the Vigi police union which commented on the audio saying “the words of the policemen have exceeded their thoughts,” and that the officers reacted out of surprise and shock at the video feed they were watching.
The Haute-Garonne prefecture released a statement announcing an investigation saying, “This scene of rare violence provoked the emotion of people watching these images live, resulting in spontaneous comments.
“The Departmental Directorate immediately opened an administrative investigation for breach of professional secrecy and concealment, so that all light is shed on these facts.”
The leaked recording comes after police have been criticised for their tactics during the Yellow Vest protests, in particular, the use of “flashball” ammunition which is thought to be responsible for some of the most serious injuries.
French doctors have also spoken out about the injuries suffered by Yellow Vest protesters saying that the number of serious injuries, which have included several losing eyes and hands, has been unprecedented.
The theme of police brutality and violence was highlighted in the most recent “Act XII” protest with Yellow Vests denouncing police tactics.
JANUARY 23, 2019
According to figures by the Air Charter Service, over 1,500 private jets will fly to and from the World Economic Forum summit.
“There appears to be a trend towards larger aircraft, with expensive heavy jets the aircraft of choice, with Gulfstream GVs and Global Expresses both being used more than 100 times each last year,” said Andy Christie, private jets director at the Air Charter Service.
According to a 2008 Institute for Policy Studies report, “An hour of flying in a private jet burns as much fuel as an entire year of driving.”
“Four passengers flying in a private Cessna Citation X from Los Angeles to New York will each emit 8,892 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is more than five times as much CO2 emitted by a commercial air passenger making the same trip.”
The elites expect the common man to adhere to their climate change fantasies while they themselves continually violate them.
After receiving criticism for the poor optics of liberally using private jets to travel to lecture about climate change every year, the WEF did some damage control this year by tweeting out an article about how the elite confab is working to stem the use of private jets to their meetings.
By Tyler Durden
Back in 2014, geographer Christopher Guilluy’s study of la France périphérique (peripheral France) caused a media sensation. It drew attention to the economic, cultural and political exclusion of the working classes, most of whom now live outside the major cities. It highlighted the conditions that would later give rise to the yellow-vest phenomenon. Guilluy has developed on these themes in his recent books, No Society and The Twilight of the Elite: Prosperity, the Periphery and the Future of France. spiked caught up with Guilluy to get his view on the causes and consequences of the yellow-vest movement.
spiked: What exactly do you mean by ‘peripheral France’?
Christophe Guilluy: ‘Peripheral France’ is about the geographic distribution of the working classes across France. Fifteen years ago, I noticed that the majority of working-class people actually live very far away from the major globalised cities – far from Paris, Lyon and Toulouse, and also very far from London and New York.
Technically, our globalised economic model performs well. It produces a lot of wealth. But it doesn’t need the majority of the population to function. It has no real need for the manual workers, labourers and even small-business owners outside of the big cities. Paris creates enough wealth for the whole of France, and London does the same in Britain. But you cannot build a society around this. The gilets jaunes is a revolt of the working classes who live in these places.
They tend to be people in work, but who don’t earn very much, between 1000€ and 2000€ per month. Some of them are very poor if they are unemployed. Others were once middle-class. What they all have in common is that they live in areas where there is hardly any work left. They know that even if they have a job today, they could lose it tomorrow and they won’t find anything else.
spiked: What is the role of culture in the yellow-vest movement?
Guilluy: Not only does peripheral France fare badly in the modern economy, it is also culturally misunderstood by the elite. The yellow-vest movement is a truly 21st-century movement in that it is cultural as well as political. Cultural validation is extremely important in our era.
One illustration of this cultural divide is that most modern, progressive social movements and protests are quickly endorsed by celebrities, actors, the media and the intellectuals. But none of them approve of the gilets jaunes. Their emergence has caused a kind of psychological shock to the cultural establishment. It is exactly the same shock that the British elites experienced with the Brexit vote and that they are still experiencing now, three years later.
The Brexit vote had a lot to do with culture, too, I think. It was more than just the question of leaving the EU. Many voters wanted to remind the political class that they exist. That’s what French people are using the gilets jaunes for – to say we exist. We are seeing the same phenomenon in populist revolts across the world.
spiked: How have the working-classes come to be excluded?
Guilluy: All the growth and dynamism is in the major cities, but people cannot just move there. The cities are inaccessible, particularly thanks to mounting housing costs. The big cities today are like medieval citadels. It is like we are going back to the city-states of the Middle Ages. Funnily enough, Paris is going to start charging people for entry, just like the excise duties you used to have to pay to enter a town in the Middle Ages.
The cities themselves have become very unequal, too. The Parisian economy needs executives and qualified professionals. It also needs workers, predominantly immigrants, for the construction industry and catering et cetera. Business relies on this very specific demographic mix. The problem is that ‘the people’ outside of this still exist. In fact, ‘Peripheral France’ actually encompasses the majority of French people.
spiked: What role has the liberal metropolitan elite played in this?
Guilluy: We have a new bourgeoisie, but because they are very cool and progressive, it creates the impression that there is no class conflict anymore. It is really difficult to oppose the hipsters when they say they care about the poor and about minorities.
But actually, they are very much complicit in relegating the working classes to the sidelines. Not only do they benefit enormously from the globalised economy, but they have also produced a dominant cultural discourse which ostracises working-class people. Think of the ‘deplorables’ evoked by Hillary Clinton. There is a similar view of the working class in France and Britain. They are looked upon as if they are some kind of Amazonian tribe. The problem for the elites is that it is a very big tribe.
The middle-class reaction to the yellow vests has been telling. Immediately, the protesters were denounced as xenophobes, anti-Semites and homophobes. The elites present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist but this is merely a way of defending their class interests. It is the only argument they can muster to defend their status, but it is not working anymore.
Now the elites are afraid. For the first time, there is a movement which cannot be controlled through the normal political mechanisms. The gilets jaunes didn’t emerge from the trade unions or the political parties. It cannot be stopped. There is no ‘off’ button. Either the intelligentsia will be forced to properly acknowledge the existence of these people, or they will have to opt for a kind of soft totalitarianism.
A lot has been made of the fact that the yellow vests’ demands vary a great deal. But above all, it’s a demand for democracy. Fundamentally, they are democrats – they want to be taken seriously and they want to be integrated into the economic order.
spiked: How can we begin to address these demands?
Guilluy: First of all, the bourgeoisie needs a cultural revolution, particularly in universities and in the media. They need to stop insulting the working class, to stop thinking of all the gilets jaunes as imbeciles.
Cultural respect is fundamental: there will be no economic or political integration until there is cultural integration. Then, of course, we need to think differently about the economy. That means dispensing with neoliberal dogma. We need to think beyond Paris, London and New York.
Around 84,000 people had joined the protests across the country on Saturday, the Interior Ministry said. The turnout was comparable to that of last week, meaning that the nation-wide debate on the crisis announced by President Emmanuel Macron so far did little to change the people’s moods.
In Paris, the Yellow Vest occupied the Champs-Elysees and the Esplanade des Invalides near the nation’s parliament. People were seen waving national flags and setting off firecrackers.
Some protesters brought cardboard coffins, in memory of the people who have died since the beginning of the protests (the majority was killed in traffic accidents during road blockades). They marched under a large banner reading “Citizens in danger.”
The law enforcers used water cannons and tear gas to disperse some of the protesters in Paris.
“Over in the distance, you might see a water cannon. They’re trying to disperse the protestors,” RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij reported from the heat of the action in Paris. “We did see the protestors trying to break down some of the traffic lights. We’ve also seen tear gas being dispersed… The protestors were trying to throw back the tear gas pellets back at the police.”
After the officers used force, there were people lying on the ground, who “potentially could’ve been injured,” Dubenskij said.
42 protestors were arrested in the capital for carrying illegal items and other violations, the police said.
The demonstrators have denounced Macron’s open letter to the country, in which he announced the launch of the nation-wide debate to defuse the tensions, as nothing but a “huge scam.”
“It contradicts everything he [Macron] says and does,” one of the protestors told RT, with the other saying that he’ll gladly send the letter back to the president.
“We hear a lot of fine words, but see very few decisions that somehow improve the wellbeing of the people. There must be a least a slight increase in living standard after we’ve been crying for help for the past ten weeks. We work hard, but we still have an empty fridge. That’s how we live,” a female demonstrator said.
The Yellow Vest processions took place in Caen and Rouen, both in northern France. The rallies were also held in Strasbourg, Bordeaux, Toulon, Dijon, Beziers, Avignon, among other places.
The authorities deployed 5,000 police officers in Paris, and 80,000 nationwide, according to local media.
Armored police cars were filmed moving through the southern city of Toulouse where 10,000 people took to the streets. There were scuffles between the police and the Yellow Vests, with at least ten people detained.
A major rally also took place in Bordeaux, with the attendance between 4,000 to 6,000 demonstrators.
Some French protesters carried placards, reading “Freedom, Equality, Flash-Ball,” referring to the type of ‘less-lethal’ guns used by law enforcement to quell the protests. The placards also contained pictures of Marianne – a national symbol of liberty – with an injured eye. That was apparently an allusion to a high-publicized incident in December when a young woman was hit in the eye by a projectile the activists say was fired from a Flash-Ball.
In Avignon, the protestors attempted to set the city hall on fire by gathering burning waste materials in front of the wooden doors to the building.
The Yellow Vest protests began in November as a movement against planned fuel tax hikes, but eventually grew to include wider demands, including the resignation of President Emmanuel Macron and his government.
Previous rallies have seen violent clashes with police. There have been injuries on both sides, and over 1,000 people have been detained in connection to the unrest, which has at times spilled out into street battles.
Saturday’s rallies take place days after President Emmanuel Macron launched“grand national debates,” a series of public discussions about the government’s policies. He hopes the debates will help in reaching a compromise with the protesters, but many have expressed skepticism regarding the format and intentions. As a result, some protesters appeared with placards denouncing the debates as a “scam.”