The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Diana Johnstone Archive
All Power to the Banks!
The Winners-Take-All Regime of Emmanuel Macron
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A ghost of the past was the real winner of the French presidential election. Emmanuel Macron won only because a majority felt they had to vote against the ghost of “fascism” allegedly embodied by his opponent, Marine Le Pen. Whether out of panic or out of the need to feel respectable, the French voted two to one in favor of a man whose program most of them either ignored or disliked. Now they are stuck with him for five years.

If people had voted on the issues, the majority would never have elected a man representing the trans-Atlantic elite totally committed to “globalization”, using whatever is left of the power of national governments to weaken them still further, turning over decision-making to “the markets” – that is, to international capital, managed by the major banks and financial institutions, notably those located in the United States, such as Goldman-Sachs.

The significance of this election is so widely misrepresented that clarification requires a fairly thorough explanation, not only of the Macron project, but also of what the (impossible) election of Marine Le Pen would have meant.

From a Two Party to a Single Party System

Despite the multiparty nature of French elections, for the past generation France has been essentially ruled by a two-party system, with government power alternating between the Socialist Party, roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Democratic Party, and a party inherited from the Gaullist tradition which has gone through various name changes before recently settling on calling itself Les Républicains (LR), in obvious imitation of the United States . For decades, there has been nothing “socialist” about the Socialist Party and nothing Gaullist about The Republicans. In reality, both have adopted neoliberal economic policies, or more precisely, they have followed European Union directives requiring member states to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Especially since the adoption of the common currency, the euro, a little over fifteen years ago, those economic policies have become tangibly harmful to France, hastening its deindustrialization, the ruin of its farmers and the growing indebtedness of the State to private banks.

This has had inevitable political repercussions. The simplest reaction has been widespread reaction against both parties for continuing to pursue the same unpopular policies. The most thoughtful reaction has been to start realizing that it is the European Union itself that imposes this unpopular economic conformism.

To quell growing criticism of the European Union, the well-oiled Macron machine, labeled “En Marche!” has exploited the popular reaction against both governing parties. It has broken and absorbed large parts of both, in an obvious move to turn En Marche! into a single catch-all party loyal to Macron.

The destruction of the Socialist Party was easy. Since the “Socialist” government was so unpopular that it could not hope to win, it was easy to lure prominent members of that party to jump the sinking ship and rally to Macron, who had been economics minister in that unpopular government, but who was advertised by all the media as “new” and “anti-system”.

Weakening the Republicans was trickier. Thanks to the deep unpopularity of the outgoing Socialist government, the Republican candidate, François Fillon, looked like a shoo-in. But despite his pro-business economic policies, Fillon still cared about preserving France, and favored an independent foreign policy including good madtomadness relations with Russia. It is unknown who dug into old records to come up with information about the allegedly fake jobs Fillon gave to his wife and children in past years, and how they were passed on the weekly Canard Enchainé to be revealed at a critical moment in the campaign. The uproar drowned out the issues. To an electorate already wary of “establishment politicians”, these revelations were fatal. The impression that “politicians are all corrupt” played into the hands of Emmanuel Macron, too young to have done anything worse than make a few quick millions during his passage through the Rothschild Bank, and there’s nothing illegal about that.

In France, the presidential election is followed by parliamentary elections, which normally give a majority to the party of the newly elected president. But Macron had no party, so he is creating one for the occasion, made up of defectors from the major defeated parties as well as his own innovation, candidates from “civil society”, with no political experience, but loyal to him personally. These “civil society” newcomers tend to be successful individuals, winners in the game of globalized competition, who will have no trouble voting for anti-labor measures. Macron is thus confirming Marine Le Pen’s longstanding assertion that the two main parties were really one big single party, whose rhetorical differences masked their political convergence.

The Macron victory demoralized Republicans. Weakening them further, Macron named a Republican, Edouard Philippe, as his Prime Minister, in a government with four Socialist and two Republican, alongside his own selections from “civil society”.

Transforming France

Macron won in part because older voters in particular were frightened by his opponents’ hints at leaving the European Union, which they have been indoctrinated to consider necessary to prevent renewal of Europe’s old wars. But only the hysterical anti-fascist scare can explain why self-styled leftist “revolutionaries” such as François Ruffin, known for his successful anti-capitalist movie “Merci Patron”, could join the stampede to vote for Macron – promising to “oppose him later”. But how?

Later, after five years of Macron, opposition may be harder than ever. In recent decades, as manufacturing moves to low wage countries, including EU members such as Poland and Rumania, France has lost 40% of its industry. Loss of industry means loss of jobs and fewer workers. When industry is no longer essential, workers have lost their key power: striking to shut down industry. Currently the desperate workers in a failing auto-works factory in central France are threatening to blow it up unless the government takes measures to save their jobs. But violence is powerless when it has no price tag.


Emmanuel Macron has said that he wants to spend only a short time in political life, before getting back to business. He has a mission, and he is in a hurry. If he gains an absolute majority in the June parliamentary elections, he has a free hand to govern for five years. He means to use this period not to “reform” the country, as his predecessors put it, but to “transform” France into a different sort of country. If he has his way, in five years France will no longer be a sovereign nation, but a reliable region in a federalized European Union, following a rigorous economic policy made in Germany by bankers and a bellicose foreign policy made in Washington by neocons.

As usual, the newly elected French president’s first move was to rush to Berlin to assert loyalty to the increasingly lopsided “Franco-German partnership”. He was most warmly welcomed by Chancellor Angela Merkel, thanks to his clear determination to force through the austerity measures demanded by the Frankfurt budget masters. Macron hopes that his fiscal obedience will be rewarded by German consent to a European investment fund for stimulating economic growth, but this implies a degree of federalism that the pfennig-pinching Germans show little sign of accepting.

First of all, he has promised to complete the dismantling of the French labor code, which offers various protections to workers. This should save money for employers and the government. For Macron, the ruin of French industry and French farming seem to be welcome steps toward an economy of individual initiative, symbolized by startups.

The Macron program amounts to a profound ideological transformation of the French ideal of égalité, equality, from a horizontal concept, meaning equal benefits for all, to the vertical ideal of “equality of opportunity”, meaning the theoretical chance of every individual to rise above the others. This is an ideal easily accepted in the United States with its longstanding myth of the self-made man. The French have traditionally been logical enough to understand that everyone can’t rise above the others.

Horizontal equality in France has primarily meant institutional redistribution of wealth via universal access to benefits such as health care, pensions, communications and transportation facilities, allocations for families raising children, unemployment insurance, free education at all levels. These are the benefits that are under threat from the European Union in various ways. One way is the imposition of “competition” rules that impose privatization and favor foreign takeovers that transform public services into profit-seekers. Another is the imposition of public budget restrictions, along with the obligation of the State to seek private loans, increasing its debt, and the loss of tax revenue that all end up up making the State too poor to continue providing such services.

Very few French people would want to give up such horizontal equality for the privilege of hoping to become a billionaire.

Macron is sufficiently Americanized, or, to be more precise, globalized, to have declared that “there is no such thing as French culture”. From this viewpoint, France is just a place open to diverse cultures, as well as to immigrants and of course foreign capital. He has clearly signaled his rejection of French independence in the foreign policy field. Unlike his leading rivals, who all called for improved relations with Russia, Macron echoes the Russophobic line of the neocons. He broke tradition on his inauguration by riding down the Champs-Elysées in a military vehicle. A change of tone is indicated by his cabinet nominations. The title of the new foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, who served as defense minister in the Hollande government, is “Minister of Europe and of Foreign Affairs”, clearly giving Europe preference in the matter. Sylvie Goulard, an ardent Europeist who has remarked that “she does not feel French”, has been named Minister of Armies and Minister of Defense. Clearly national defense is an afterthought, when the main idea is to deploy the armed forces in various joint Western interventions.

The Divided Opposition

Unless the June parliamentary elections produce stunning surprises, the opposition to Macron’s catch-all governance party appears weak and fatally divided. The Socialist Party is almost wiped out. The Republicans are profoundly destabilized. Genuine opposition to the Macron regime can only be based on defense of French interests against EU economic dictates, starting with the euro, which prevents the country from pursuing an independent economic and foreign policy. In short, the genuine opposition must be “souverainiste”, concerned with preserving French sovereignty.

Two strong personalities emerged from the presidential election as potential leaders of that opposition: Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen. But they are drastically divided.

Mélenchon ran a spectacularly popular campaign, leaving the Socialist Party far behind (the party he personally left behind years ago). Initially, as he seemed to be taking votes away from Le Pen as well as from the Socialists, he got friendly media coverage, but as he came closer to making it to the decisive second round, the tone started to change. Just as Le Pen was finally knocked out as a “fascist”, there is little doubt that had Mélenchon been Macron’s challenger, he would have been increasingly denounced as “communist”.

Mélenchon is intelligent enough to have realized that the social policies he advocates cannot be achieved unless France recovers control of its currency. He therefore took a stand against both NATO and the euro. So did Marine Le Pen. Mélenchon was embarrassed by the resemblance between their two programs, and contrary to other eliminated candidates, refrained from endorsing Macron, instead calling on his movement, La France Insoumise, to choose between Macron and abstention. Finally, 25% of Mélenchon voters abstained in the second round, but 62% voted for Macron – almost exclusively motivated by the alleged need to “stop fascism”. That compares with the final total results of 66% for Macron and 34 % for Le Pen.

That vote confirmed the impossibility of forming a unified souverainiste opposition and allows Marine Le Pen to strengthen her claim to be the leader of a genuine opposition to Macron. She has admitted her own mistakes in the campaign, particularly in her debate with Macron, who beat her hands down with his arrogant performance as the economic expert. But despite her mere 34%, she retains the most loyal base of supporters in a changing scene. The problem for Mélenchon is that his electorate is more versatile.

Despite his loud appeal to “youth”, Macron was elected by France’s huge population of old people. Among voters over 65, he won 80% against 20% for Le Pen. Marine Le Pen did best with the youngest age group, 18 to 24, winning 44% against Macron’s 56%.[1]According to poll of 7,752 representative voters by Le Figaro/LCI,


The differences were also significant between socio-professional categories. Macron won a whopping 83% of the votes coming from the “superior socio-professional categories” – categories where the “winners” in competitive society are largely ensconced. But in what are described as “categories populaires”, a French term for ordinary folk, with less education, the vote was 53% in favor of Le Pen. And she confirmed her position as favorite candidate of the working class, winning 63% of workers’ votes.

Note that the “superior socio-professional categories” are where the significance of these results will be defined. Individuals from that category – journalists, commentators and show business personalities – are all in a position to spread the word that this vote indicates that the workers must be “racist”, and therefore that we have narrowly escaped being taken over by “fascism”.

One of the many odd things about the latest French presidential election is the rejoicing among foreign “leftists” over the fact that the candidate of the rich roundly defeated the candidate of the poor. It used to be the other way around, but that was long ago. These days, the winners in the competitive game comfort themselves that they morally deserve their success, because they are in favor of diversity and against racism, whereas the less fortunate, the rural people and the working class, don’t deserve much of anything, because they must be “racist” to be wary of globalization.

The fact that Paris voted 90% for Macron is natural, considering that real estate prices have pushed the working class out of the capital, whose population is now overwhelmingly what is called “bobo” – the bohemian bourgeoisie, many of whom are employed in various branches of the dominant human rights ideology fabrication business: journalists, professors, teachers, consultants, the entertainment industry. In these milieux, hardly anyone would even dare speak a positive word about Marine Le Pen.

What if Marine Le Pen had won?

Since politics is largely fantasy, we may as well try to imagine the unimaginable: what if Marine Le Pen had won the election? This was never a realistic possibility, but it is worth imagining.

It could have had one, perhaps only one, extremely positive result: it could have freed France from its paralyzing obsession with the nonexistent “fascist threat”. The ghost would be exorcised. If the word has any meaning, “fascism” implies single party rule, whereas Marine Le Pen made clear her desire to govern by coalition, and selected the leader of a small Gaullist party, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, as her prospective prime minister. Poof! No fascism. That would have been an immeasurable benefit for political debate in France. At last genuine issues might matter. Real threats could be confronted.

Another advantage would have been the demise of the National Front. Since Marine Le Pen took over the notorious party founded by her reactionary father, it has kept a precarious balance between two opposing wings. There is the right wing in the southeast, along the Riviera, the bastion of the party’s founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, a region represented in the outgoing parliament by his conservative granddaughter Marion Maréchal Le Pen. In the old industrial northeast region, between Arras and Lille, Marine Le Pen has built her own bastion, as champion of ordinary working people, where she won a majority of votes in the presidential election.

This is not the only time in history when an heiress has gone away with the heritage to join someone of whom her father disapproves. All those who want to cling to their comforting hatred of the left’s official Satan have trouble believing that Marine Le Pen broke with her reactionary father to go her own way (just as U.S. hawks couldn’t believe in Gorbachev). This change owes everything to her encounter with Florian Philippot, an intellectual who gave up on the ability of the Socialists to face the real issues. Marine has the personal qualities of a leader, and Philippot provided the intellectual substance she needed. Marine has decisively chosen Philippot as her advisor and co-leader, despite grumblings by Jean-Marie that she has been led astray by a gay Marxist. Had Marine won, her left wing would have been strengthened enough to enable her and Philippot to scrap the National Front and found a new “Patriot Party”. However, by scoring below 40%, she has weakened her authority and must try to hold the troublesome party together in order to win seats in the new parliament – which will not be easy.

Marine Le Pen would have tried to enact measures to save French industry and the jobs it provides, provide various benefits for low-income people, withdraw from NATO, and even promote a peaceful world, starting with friendly relations with Russia. She would even have begun to prepare her compatriots for escape from the euro.

But not to worry, none of this “fascist” program would ever have come to pass. If she had won, bands of protesting “antifascists” would have invaded the streets, smashing windows and attacking police. The outgoing Socialist government was preparing to use the resulting chaos as a pretext to stay in power long enough to manage the parliamentary elections,[2]“Si Le Pen avait été élue… le plan secret pour ‘protéger la République’”, Le Nouvel Observateur, May 17, 2017, ensuring that President Marine Le Pen would be held in check. A “color revolution” was ready to be stirred up. The deep state is vigilant in NATOland.

Diana Johnstone is co-author of “From MAD to Madness: Inside Pentagon Nuclear War Planning”, by Paul H. Johnstone, her father. She can be reached at [email protected]


[1] According to poll of 7,752 representative voters by Le Figaro/LCI,

[2]Si Le Pen avait été élue… le plan secret pour ‘protéger la République’”, Le Nouvel Observateur, May 17, 2017

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
Hide 28 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The present world wide war is between globalisation and nationalism.
    Or, one can say, the same in other words, between money and democracy.
    Free movement of capital was the end of democracy, and the beginning of the power of money.
    It was already in 1997.
    The central bankers of the world monthly meet at BIS in Basel.
    One can see the results, the share for labour in national income is moving down all the time, the share of capital increases all the time.
    At present some USA hedge fund people own 18% of AkzoNobel shares, they want to buy the company.
    All they talk about is interests of shareholders, the interests of those who work there, not their problem.
    At a law suit with us in the Netherlands this difference in view on what companies are for was expressed with great clarity.
    I do hope the Dutch government, and thos leading AkzoNobel, they have been threatened personally that their careers are over when they persist in resistance, refuse to be intimidated by USA profiteers.

    • Replies: @Serg Derbst
  2. Diana Johnstone’s pieces are always important but here she appears to slip over a problem of our time and that is that in the face of once horrible candidate (here, Macron, in the US, Hillary Clinton–read Johnstone’s excellent ‘Queen of Chaos) there is… another horrible candidate. Marine Le Pen too had a right-wing program, not a word on the minimum wage, etc. What makes the current crisis a real crisis is that along with capitalism, the parliamentary system is unraveling and in election after election, the choices become less and less meaningful.
    Even disregarding the ‘surgical’ terror attacks after which ‘campaigning ends’–except for the state and the governing party, which by definition continue their campaign of moulding public opinion.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Ace
  3. @Kees van der Pijl

    Front National wants France to be ruled in Paris, not in Brussels.
    Four out of every ten voters agree with FN, alas those on the left who want France to leave the EU do want immigration, those on the right want to limit immigration.
    This division gave Merkron his chance.
    Those who did not want Marine le Pen voted Merkron.
    So Merkron immediately flew to Berlin, to meet the uncrowned queen of the European continent, Merkel.
    The country that profits most of the EU is Germany, Germany lives on export, the queen stays in power through continuing the euro crisis.

    • Replies: @hyperbola
  4. Agent76 says:

    Jul 20, 2016 Brexit Is A Blow to the Oligarchs: Michel Chossudovsky Unmasks the EU Empire

    In order to understand Brexit in its full historical context, we must know about the origins and motivations for the formation of the European Union and the forces that have shaped the EU bureaucracy into an arm of the IMF/World Bank-led Wall Street hegemon. Today Professor Michel Chossudovsky joins us to expose the EU as the imperial project that it always was, and the growing movement against EU domination as an anti-imperial movement of world historical importance.

  5. Pandos says:

    “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Independence does too. Go North Korea – just don’t use them.

  6. I was struck by this:
    “there is no such thing as French culture”.
    This apparently from the President of France.
    It might not be a legal definition, merely a “rule of thumb” one, but I’d call that treason. Essentially, he’s suggesting that the nation he governs is not a nation but a mere administrative unit of the EU. A unit which has no unique character, no special interests, beyond the interests of the EU.
    I may despise the stupidity of the voting French, but — I feel sorry for the nation. (There are few countries on earth that have so jealously defended their own culture…& now this: no culture left to defend).

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Ace
  7. Agent76 says:

    Aug 11, 2015 The Monetary System Visually Explained

    A great visual explanation of how monetary systems work.

    • Replies: @anon
  8. Sean says:

    All power to Germany more like. Macron made a telling remark:

    “I have never defended (the idea of) Eurobonds or the mutualisation of existing debt in the euro zone.

    French banks have toxic assets in loans to Italy which the Italians, will never repay. Moreover ths the Italians have have no rise in living standards since 2ooo and seem to be toying with the idea of leaving the EU, which would make the loans explicitly bad and cause a collapse of the French banks. Macron is Germany’s man and under him France will give up national sovereignty to German. In return, the banks of France will get German taxpayers money.

    Almost every revolution in history has been caused by the failure to successfully assert national interests. Macron is not going to survive turning the country into a vassal state, which his older voters will be outraged by, especially as he also will face the wrath of the considerable part of the nation being pauperised by outsourcing of manufacturing, and continued EU immigrant workers brought in to keep wages low in services in what can’t be outsourced (services and things like construction).

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  9. @animalogic

    Those who want Europe to be a USA clone must deny that nations and cultures exist.
    But do not worry, traces of the Louis XIV culture still exist galore in France, so it will not be easy to eradicate French culture, or any other.
    One sees the same in the USA, no melting pot, stew, all the ingredients still are there.

    • Replies: @Sowhat
  10. @Sean

    This is Merkronian stupidity.
    As Varoufakis, he talked with Merkron, already stated, queen Merkel will never give away her sovereignty over German money.
    Stiglitz, in discussion with agriculturalist Dijsselbloem about the euro, reached the stalemate: we cannot give up the euro, and we cannot fullfill the conditions to make the euro the European currency.
    Dijsselbloem, in an press conference, later admitted this ‘ doormodderen met de euro’, translation ‘muddling along’.

    The great stupidity of the EU is the idea that Germany can be encapsulated in a EU.
    Kennan saw this as the great omission of Versailles.
    He did not live to see that one cannot control the probably most capable people in the world in a political construction.
    So it went the other way round, Berlin what Hitler wanted, the capital of the continent.

    If, IF, indeed Trump withdraws USA military might from the world, then Berlin will indeed rule the continent.

  11. Ace says:
    @Kees van der Pijl

    Megagargantocapitalism seems to be prospering but, with captive politicians, is sucking the life out of the only economic system that benefits people – that capitalism that shares risk and rewards innovation and efficiency.

    The choice is not between MGC and kindly socialism that indulges in some occasional tinkering with the markets and the odd new tax here and there​. It’s between statist zealots that lust after power and lunatic social engineering, and free people and free markets.

    MLP the right-wing candidate. Hah. Nationalist? Not stupid? Yes to both.

  12. Ace says:


    The concept of treason is meaningless now. Nothing is actionable.

    McCarthy, among others, revealed a ghastly penetration of the US by communists. Diana West revealed another dimension of American communism. Both were attacked by powerful forces intent on negating their message.

    Hillary and Bill sold their souls to foreign powers and nobody blinked. Gen. Flynn merely talked the the Russian ambassador and it was TREASON!!!

    • Agree: Sowhat
  13. @jilles dykstra

    “The present world wide war is between globalisation and nationalism.”

    Not nationalism, but rather sovereignism.

  14. Yep, we have a true son, a Rothschild incarnate, Catholic, and all that. Let’s brace ourselves as the Cabal power is reaching its peak. Le Pen was a big defeat, a loss we’re still mourning

    • Replies: @Sowhat
    , @Sowhat
  15. Sowhat says:
    @jilles dykstra

    American culture is being systematically eradicated before my eyes. The Republic has already been replaced by this oligarchy.

    The Trans-Atlantic Elite
    Duetche Bank
    Federal Reserve Bank
    The Bank of England
    The Rothschilds, J.P. Morgan, and company,and the Banker-Elites

    Each and every country in the world that operates a debt based financial system and taxes their citizens …

    “No generation has the right to contract debts greater can be paid off during the course of it’s own existence. ” George Washington

    Slowly enveloping the world, taking over successive countries’ banking and governments, the World banking system is a sham, a Ponzi scheme, systematically perpetrating the theft of every citizen’s prosperity, everywhere.

    World monetary hegemony has been progressively lucrative to the “ruling class” and devastating to the working class. Left unchecked, the World will be totally enslaved, as those of us within these grips can already easily attest. Once their email il scheme is revealed, it leaves one feeling hopelessly abysmal, knowing that future generations will suffer, absolutely.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  16. Sowhat says:

    It seems so, everywhere, doesn’t it?

  17. Sowhat says:

    It seems so, everywhere, doesn’t it? I get the distinct impression that votes mean little when oligarchs rule.

    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
  18. @Sowhat

    Votes are just an appeasement for the ignorant masses. We are herded like sheep. We’ll have to wait until our brains grow a little, replace hoofs with claws, I don’t mean dogs, cat’s claws, and wake up from this decadent slumber!!!!

    • Replies: @Sowhat
  19. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Yep, bring in more Mooching Muslims and more Blabbering Blacks.

    There goes France.

    • Replies: @anon
  20. LauraMR says:

    The hysterical tone of the media, the hysterical discourse of politicians, the hysterical notions of commentators…

    The popcorn of the ever-coming “apocalypse”.

  21. Sowhat says:

    Brains and claws? I was thinking that “gonads” might work well. Balls and brilliant generals.

  22. @Sowhat

    I never saw any USA culture when visitng the USA.
    But perhaps you refer to what Henry Ford tried to defend, beginning in 1918, Shakespeare in stead of Broadway.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  23. @jilles dykstra

    ” I never saw any USA culture when visiting the USA”

    Obviously you never visited a jazz club and experienced the magic of a swinging jazz band, and the electricity in the air of such an “American culture” venue.

    And obviously you have never made a tour of the magnificent “Art deco” skyscrapers of Detroit, unique world-wide and subjects of architecture study to this day.

    Or you have never attended a symphonic concert featuring the ground-breaking iconic music of one Charles Ives, during his lifetime an unheralded businessman and an unknown composer who’s works have advanced to the forefront of so-called “Modern-classical” and are performed globally.

    One could go on and on with the list of “American cultural achievements”, a hopeless endeavor in the light of your hatred for all things American, but rest assured : you have no clue as to what you are talking about, when voicing your opinion on US cultural achievements, or attributes.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz musician.

  24. anon • Disclaimer says:

    I didn’t get the part where and how currency is created when the Fed writes a check to the banks who have bought the debt ( bond or IOU of the government )

    • Replies: @Agent76
  25. anon • Disclaimer says:

    no they are not the problem Problem is the rich banker class who robs you the hard earnings you make everyday by your sweat and blood . Take that class out of the equation, you will enjoy a better conscience , see less cruel jokes of lies like these circulated about Muslims and Blacks or Latinos and more earn greater satisfaction with your role .

  26. Agent76 says:

    May 18, 2017 Deutsche Bank Sued for Running An “International Criminal Organization”

    Having been accused, and found guilty, of rigging and manipulating virtually every possible asset class, perhaps it was inevitable that Deutsche Bank, currently on trial in Milan for helping Banca Monte dei Paschi conceal losses (as first reported last October in “Deutsche Bank Charged By Italy For Market Manipulation, Creating False Accounts”) is now facing accusations that it was actually running an international criminal organization at the time.

  27. Agent76 says:

    I hope this gentleman from across the pond explains better for you.

    May 21, 2013 Why the whole banking system is a scam – Godfrey Bloom MEP

    • European Parliament, Strasbourg, 21 May 2013

    • Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire)

  28. hyperbola says:
    @jilles dykstra

    But Angela is a puppet of the anglo-zionists – one of her main sponsors when young was no less than arch Brit-zionist Lord Weidenfeld.

    Angela Merkel Is A Zionist Sock Puppet – BlackListed News

    Furthermore, Merkel has already implemented the “zio-liberal” worker abuse in Germany that Macron now threatens to copy in France.

    Die Anstalt vom 16. Mai 2017

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Diana Johnstone Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2