Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts

Friday, September 11, 2026

Becoming Brigitte

 


För kännedom. 

En sammanfattning av den högerradikala konspirationsteorin att Frankrikes första dam Brigitte Macron egentligen är en man, skriven av någon som verkar tro på den. 

På nätet har den framförallt kommit att förknippas med den amerikanska (ex)-MAGA-influencern Candace Owens, som pikant nog är en svart kvinna. Herr och fru Macron har stämt Owens för förtal i amerikansk domstol, men inget har hänt på över ett år nu. 

Att extremhögern älskar denna konspirationsteori är ju nästan oundvikligt. Troperna haglar: globalisterna är judar, homosexuella och pedofiler. Både Epstein och en Rotschild gör gästframträdanden. Måste dock säga att Brigitte-historien faktiskt *är* lite märklig...

Fifty - fifty?  

Är Frankrikes första dam egentligen en man?

Saturday, September 5, 2026

Lights in the night

 


I actually recognize the front page of the French UFO magazine covering this case, "Lumières dans la nuit" (LDLN), but I never really heard about the case itself. It happened in 1973 outside the town of Draguignan in Provence. 

It´s quite scary and raises a lot of questions. Was it a military psy-op/black-op, actual alien robots, or some kind of machine elves gone mustang? A hoax is another possibility, but I agree with the LDLN investigators that the witnesses seemed to scared or even cowardly for that explanation to really work. Unless somebody else staged the hoax, but then we´re back where we started...

Fairies, right? 

Sunday, August 23, 2026

Dwarfs and genocide

 


An essay on various Native American / American Indian legends about the Little People. And not just from southern Ontario, either! I suppose it *is* interesting that many (all?) cultures around the world have legends of both Little People and Giants. At the very least, we´re dealing with a very powerful psychological archetype here. 

But I couldn´t help noticing something else...

Yes, the Iroquoian Confederation (extolled by feminists and romantic leftists) genocided other American Indian nations.    

Iroquoian Dwarf Legends from Southern Ontario

Saturday, August 1, 2026

A dissident among dissidents

 


A video about controversial French ufologist Jacques Vallée. One thing that struck me is that Vallée´s description of the paranormal "control system" sounds very much like a metaphor for the Deep State or some such cabal. What are Vallée´s own connections to the intelligence community, I wonder? 

That being said, his speculations about the UFO phenomenon being a kind of fairies are as interesting as they are "out there". They are also compatible with the eye witnesses hallucinating everything! However, there seems to be enough evidence that *something* is going on, not just in our tender psyches, but also in the skies above...

Will the real UFO disclosure please stand up?

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Frisk och fruktig

 


Lite om hur vinodlingen i Bordeaux-trakten påverkas av de stora skogsbränderna. Rök kan tydligen påverka vinets smak?! På lång sikt är det dock snarast klimatförändringarna som hotar vår tillgång till "friska och fruktiga" viner...

Branden hotar Bordeaux

Små marginaler

 

Credit: jacilluch

Intressant artikel om skogsbruket i södra Frankrike. Apropå de närmast apokalyptiska bränderna där. 

"Skogen måste förändras"

Monday, July 27, 2026

The fire next time

 


162 people have been arrested in France on suspicion of - wait for it - having started wildfires. Had I been a climate activist, I suppose I would have added "none of them is an oil executive". But I won´t.

Let´s just say that the fires seem rather overdetermined at this point. A toxic brew of bad forest management (cuz no money or whatever), pyromaniacs, Godzilla El Nino, and - yes - long-term anthropogenic climate change. I wouldn´t be surprised if both Islamists and France´s geopolitical adversaries will start fires in their forests during the years ahead as a form of bio-warfare (or eco-terrorism). 

Thanks for your attention to this matter.  

Välkommen till apokalypsen

 


Håller med om att fotografiet högst upp kommer att bli en klassiker. Här är ett citat: 

>>>Vi står, konstaterar forskarna, inför ett moment 22: Vi behöver plantera mer skog för att begränsa klimatförändringarna – men om inte framtidens skogar planeras utifrån en kraftigt ökad brandrisk, riskerar de att brinna upp innan de hinner fungera som de kolsänkor som klimatstrategierna bygger på.>>>

Påminner om klimatkrisens mer generella "moment 22": om vi slutar att använda fossila bränslen kollapsar den moderna civilisationen, men om vi fortsätter kan den mycket väl kollapsa ändå. 

Välkommen till apokalypsen.

Bränderna rasar - men kaosåret har bara börjat

Sunday, July 26, 2026

In vino veritas

 

Credit: VinoFamily 

The French city of Bordeaux (with over one million inhabitants) is preparing for evacuation as we speak. Several large suburbs have already been emptied. The reason? Yes, the wildfires. Over 200,000 people have left their homes in the Bordeaux-adjacent regions of Gironde and Lande. 

We are monitoring the situation.  

Sunday, July 12, 2026

The secret sin of Jesus

 


OK, this was fascinating. When notorious 17h century Irish archbishop James Ussher procured Waldensian documents for a work on this medieval "heresy", two Cathar scriptures were found among them. One of them claims that *Jesus himself* sinned once - when he prayed to the Father to spare him from the crucifixion at the Garden of Gethsemane. This is somehow connected to Cathar theology concerning the physical body. As a divine being of Light, Jesus simply couldn´t stand being incarnated into one! Note also the doctrine that John the Baptist was Satanic...

The YouTube channel "ESOTERICA" seems to be an attempt to create a scholarly channel on esotericism which is still somehow esoteric. Make of that what you wish.  

Thursday, July 9, 2026

Submission

 


Orthodox bad boy Jay Dyer calls out the SSPX (or as he jokingly calls them: Ssss-pksss), who were recently excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The SSPX faithful presumably want the Orthodox to submit to Rome, but they don´t seem willing to submit themselves...

Dyer was a supporter of the SSPX for a number of years and his video contains some funny gossip about the society. Are we to believe Dyer, the SSPX is teeming with crypto-Nazis, barely closeted homosexuals and kooks in general. At one point, our man emphasizes that no gay priest ever touched his butt?! Alcoholism is another rampant problem. One SSPX priest had a private collection of German Nazi memorabilia which he treated in an almost sacramental manner. Dyer also believes that the society is theologically heterodox compared to mainstream conservative Catholicism, perhaps in a Jansenist and Gallican direction.  

His main argument against the Society of Saint Pius X, however, is their refusal to consistently obey the papacy. Dyer argues at length that according to both Catholic theology and canon law, Catholics are duty bound to follow "the First See" at Rome *on all issues*. Yet, the SSPX picks and chooses which decisions of Rome they will follow, and hence acts exactly like the "modernists" they are condemning! 

This is something I noticed, too. The SSPX do next level "lawyering" in order to stay inside the Catholic Church. For instance, they pretend to recognize the Second Vatican Council, but argue that its decisions aren´t binding (cuz reasons blah blah).

In case you are interested in this latest occasion for scandal...  

Sunday, July 5, 2026

A tale of two revolutions...or were they three?

 


Since the United States is often regarded as "the world´s first modern democracy", I asked ChatGPT about it and got the following (very balanced!) response...

Short form: it´s a tie between the United States and France. No surprise there, to be honest. But what about the Netherlands? Then, ChatGPT revised its response and included the Batavian Republic (1795) in its short-list of early modern democracies. It seems we´re back were we started with the "AI"...

It´s still a dumb machine that has to prompted to give you the "right" answers.

What nation could be considered "the first modern democracy"? What nation was the first with universal male suffrage?

There isn’t a single uncontested answer to either question, because it depends a lot on what counts as “modern democracy” and what counts as “universal male suffrage.” But the short version is:

  • First modern democracy: the strongest candidates are usually the United States, France, or Switzerland, depending on definition.
  • First country with universal male suffrage: the best-known early claimant is France in 1792/1793 (in revolutionary form), while the first durable national state to implement it and keep it is often taken to be France again in 1848, with some important earlier and rival cases such as Switzerland and certain Latin American republics.

Here is the cleaner breakdown.


1) “First modern democracy” — what are the main candidates?

A) The United States is often called the first modern democracy

Why people say this:

  • It created a large-scale representative republic with an elected legislature, written constitution, separation of powers, and regular elections.
  • The constitutional order from 1787–1789 was unusually durable and influential.
  • It helped establish the modern model of constitutional representative government.

Why this answer is incomplete:

  • The early United States was not a full democracy in the modern sense:
    • slavery remained
    • women could not vote
    • Native peoples were excluded
    • many states still had property requirements or other restrictions on voting
  • So it may be better called an early modern constitutional republic with democratic elements, rather than a full modern democracy from the outset.

So if someone says “the first modern democracy was the United States,” they usually mean:

the first durable large-scale modern constitutional representative republic that became a major democratic model.


B) France is another major candidate

Why:

  • The French Revolution pushed the idea of popular sovereignty much further than most earlier regimes.
  • In 1792, France became a republic and moved toward universal male suffrage for the National Convention elections.
  • In principle, revolutionary France articulated democracy in a much more radical way than the early United States.

Why it is complicated:

  • The revolutionary period was unstable, violent, and short-lived.
  • France oscillated among republic, empire, monarchy, and republic again.
  • So if “first modern democracy” means a stable democratic regime, revolutionary France is a difficult fit.

So France is a strong candidate if by “first modern democracy” you mean:

the first major state to proclaim popular sovereignty and near-universal male political citizenship in a recognizably modern way.


C) Switzerland sometimes enters the discussion

Why:

  • Some Swiss cantons had very old traditions of assembly government.
  • The Swiss federal state of 1848 became a durable democratic republic.
  • Swiss political institutions, referenda, and citizen participation became very important in the history of democracy.

Why it usually isn’t called the first modern democracy:

  • The old cantonal traditions were not “modern democracy” in the same sense as a national representative democratic state.
  • The 1848 federal state is later than the American and French revolutions.

D) Some scholars would point to Britain, but usually with caveats

Britain is central to the history of parliamentary government, cabinet government, and constitutional monarchy. But it generally was not the first modern democracy because:

  • suffrage remained heavily restricted for a long time
  • the political system was oligarchic well into the 19th century

Britain is crucial for the history of liberal constitutionalism and parliamentarism, but not usually the best answer to “first modern democracy.”


2) So what is the best answer to “first modern democracy”?

It depends on the standard:

If you mean:

“first durable large-scale modern representative republic”

then the usual answer is the United States.

If you mean:

“first state to embody modern democratic sovereignty in a radical egalitarian sense”

then revolutionary France is a very strong answer.

If you mean:

“first democracy by today’s standards”

then honestly none of the late-18th-century candidates fully qualify, because all excluded major parts of the population.

So my own concise formulation would be:

The United States is often called the first modern democracy in the sense of being the first durable large-scale constitutional representative republic, while revolutionary France is often the strongest claimant if one emphasizes popular sovereignty and universal male suffrage.


3) What nation was first with universal male suffrage?

This also needs a definition.

The key issue is whether you mean:

  1. first to proclaim it, even briefly or in unstable revolutionary conditions, or
  2. first durable state to establish it in normal national politics.

4) The strongest early answer: France (1792/1793)

During the French Revolution, elections to the National Convention in 1792 are usually treated as one of the first major cases—arguably the first national case in a modern state—of universal male suffrage (at least in principle for adult men, without property qualifications).

That is why France is so important in this story.

Why the answer is still messy

  • Age and residency rules still existed.
  • “Universal” never literally means every male person without exception.
  • The revolutionary system was unstable and interrupted.

Still, if you ask:

“What was the first nation to adopt universal male suffrage at the national level?”

a very standard answer is:

France, during the Revolution, especially 1792.


5) The first durable universal male suffrage system: often France in 1848

The French Revolution of 1848 established universal male suffrage in a more stable and administratively modern form under the French Second Republic.

That is why many historians treat 1848 France as a landmark:

  • clear national implementation
  • mass electorate
  • modern electoral administration
  • major symbolic influence on Europe

So if the question is:

“Which major state first established universal male suffrage in a durable modern sense?”

then France in 1848 is one of the best answers.


6) Were there earlier or rival claimants?

Yes—depending on how strict you are.

A) Very small republics or local polities

There were earlier cases of very broad male political participation in places like:

  • some Swiss cantons
  • some revolutionary or post-colonial polities
  • arguably certain frontier or settler republics

But these often fail one of the tests:

  • not a nation-state
  • not a modern representative democracy
  • not clearly universal
  • not durable

B) Latin American republics

Some 19th-century Latin American constitutions were, on paper, quite broad in suffrage, and in some cases earlier than parts of Europe in removing property qualifications. But the details are complicated because literacy, dependency, military status, or local political realities often narrowed the electorate.

So they are important in the broader history, but the most standard “first” answer still tends to be France.


7) A careful two-part answer

If you want the safest historically defensible summary, I’d put it like this:

First modern democracy

  • Most common answer: the United States, if by that you mean the first durable modern constitutional representative republic.
  • Alternative strong answer: France, if you emphasize modern democratic sovereignty and mass male citizenship during the Revolution.

First nation with universal male suffrage

  • Best short answer: France in 1792 (revolutionary France), at least as the first major national example.
  • Best “durable implementation” answer: France in 1848.

8) My own bottom-line answer in one sentence

If you forced me to give the most defensible compact answer, I’d say:

The United States is often regarded as the first modern democracy in the constitutional-republican sense, while France was the pioneering state for universal male suffrage, first in revolutionary form in 1792 and more durably in 1848.

If you want, I can do a country-by-country timeline of suffrage expansion from 1776 to 1920—US, France, Britain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, and the major Latin American republics—so you can see exactly where each one sits on the spectrum of “modern democracy."

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

SSPPXX

 


HA HA HA. The autistic lawyering of the SSPX is cringe as fuck, and essentially gay. There, I said it. 

Friday, May 22, 2026

Another kind of resignation

 


Everyone (sometimes secretely) hopes that everything will simply go back to Normality when the Republicans are defeated in the upcoming US midterm elections. Or at the very latest when Gavin Newsom becomes POTUS in 2028.   

Maybe. But what if *nothing changes*? What if Trump´s "isolationist" or "multi-polar" orientation isn´t a temporary aberration, but an objective necessity? He is pursuing that course very erratically, to be sure, but what if the course itself is baked into the cake at this point?

After all, Biden´s administration had all kinds of conflicts even with America´s allies, including the UK and France. And when Russia attacked Ukraine, Biden urged caution. Or compare Biden´s debacle in Afghanistan (c/o Trump) with Trump´s debacle in the Persian Gulf. The Biden admin was confrontational with China, as had Trump Mark 1. They even promoted the Wuhan lab leak theory!

In the background, we have the national debt crisis in the United States. Or the BRICS anti-dollarization moves. And what if oil and gas prices won´t go back to normal? 

What if the United States will prove incapable of shouldering the fiscal and military burdens of defending Europe against Russia or its East Asian allies against China? What if Democrats or Neo-Cons simply can´t restore the status quo before, say, 2016? Even if Russia is weakened by some kind of decisive setback in Ukraine, it´s still not obvious that this will strengthen the "rules-based liberal world order". Maybe it will simply strengthen China. I can see them (pro)claiming a Co-Prosperity Sphere in Siberia and the Russian Far East! 

Add to this the enormous problems in building new nuclear power plants or sustaining the AI-related data centers. I would glady trade the latter for the former, but what if even that won´t work? And then there´s the creeping demographic crisis, problems surrounding migration, new pandemics, and so on.

Maybe the world around 2040 will look pretty much the same no matter which political factions takes over post-Trump: a Potemkin America, a Russian Time of Troubles, a French-dominated Euro-Canadian alliance, and a very shaky Beijing-centric "new world order". And underneath this, large masses of African migrants and refugees...and perhaps some crazy rich White men trying to "geo-engineer" the atmosphere.

In case you wonder why I´m not *that* optimistic about the next 15 years. But sure, I could be wrong. I mean, Paul Ehrlich couldn´t predict the cost of tungsten, right?

Saturday, May 16, 2026

I rävens natt

 


Det börjar brådska med den där ukrainska militära segern över Ryssland...

AfD ligger på 30% i en färsk tysk opinionsundersökning

50 years of the ICC

 

Not the ICC, for the record 

Last year, the zany International Communist Current (ICC) celebrated its 50th anniversary. Yes, really! The ICC was founded in 1975. Imagine accomplishing *absolutely nothing at all* in half a century. Except publishing weird magazines with interminable articles nobody actually reads. OK, the book about the history of the Italian Left was somewhat interesting. So was the agent-baiting and Mason-bashing during the 1990´s.

Personally, I don´t think the ICC will be around in 2075, but I suppose it´s not *entirely* impossible. The Bordigists and their eternal Communist party will of course be around still in 3000 AD...