As soon as the summer school holidays end, the campaign for the 2027 presidential election will begin, perhaps even sooner. In the case of what I call “Operation Macron,” his first notable public appearance was later identified as having been in December 2015. Before that, although he was an obscure apparatchik of the Socialist Party, he was virtually unknown to the general public. After his election to the presidency in 2017, François Asselineau and other “resisters” highlighted that over 17,000 articles or television/radio appearances had flooded the media space during 2016 and up until the 2017 election. After two terms, Macron officially cannot run again. In the coming months, the system and the deep state will propose the “new option,” or “chance for the Republic.” One will have to keep a sharp eye open, although it is likely that, in a context of control over all media, political repression, and brain manipulation, many French people will not see it coming, just as in 2017, the clever trick that will be played on them…
From Pompidou to Macron. After the removal of General de Gaulle (1969), followed by his death the next year, the Fifth Republic regime lived on for several decades under the 1958 Constitution. The General’s shadow long dominated French politics, with many French heads of state or politicians claiming his legacy to this day. In reality, we can observe four distinct phases. Initially, political life was marked by a political dance, from the right to the left, entirely predictable, between right-wing and center-right governments and the caviar left and the Socialist Party. The end of the USSR allowed for the elimination of the powerful French Communist Party, which met its end under the presidencies of Mitterrand and Chirac. However, the first two presidents were clearly presidents of the New World Order: Georges Pompidou, followed by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.
The second phase was that of two presidents who could not be considered in that line: François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac. Mitterrand brought the illusion of “change,” with the left coming to power, although the period up to Jacques Chirac was marked by cohabitations. These two presidents were heirs to a France that was still more or less sovereign, but they were no less active gravediggers of France. The last French convulsions were expressed under Chirac’s presidency, with France’s refusal to participate in the Iraq War (2003-2005). The third phase was that of two new presidents of the deep state: first, Nicolas Sarkozy brought France back into NATO’s unified command (2007), later betraying the French people’s choice in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (held in 2005).
With François Hollande, the French regime was already running out of steam, plagued by intractable problems, an already worrying debt, social fractures, and a deleterious economic situation. To survive, the system therefore invented “Macron.” He is the first president of a fourth phase, sold to the French as “a rebirth,” “a renewal of politics,” which shattered the classic left-right divide. Many voters fell into the trap, truly imagining that the political world would be regenerated, that it would take a new direction and bring solutions. Almost ten years later, the country’s situation has deteriorated even more severely, with unimaginable debt and the pauperization of the French. The list of problems burying France is so long that an encyclopedia would not suffice. To survive, the system is therefore condemned to reinvent itself.
And after Operation Macron? That is the essential question. Because as the cracks widen, along with increasingly crude manipulations—cognitive war against the population, governance by false information, politics of fear (Covid, Russia, terrorism)—the system will have to reinvent itself again. The stakes are high because, in a forward rush comparable to the situation of the GDR in the 70s-80s, if the deep state wants to remain in control of France, it will have to once again maneuver and manipulate French public opinion. The system is indeed already wounded; French debt is a deadly poison that can only be managed through greater aggression against the French, the theft of their savings, and the plundering of the country’s last resources and jewels. To survive and maintain its dominance in a context of inequality, a communitarian Republic, divided and mistreated, the deep state will have no choice. It will have to present a new hope, a new candidate. The coming months will show us what has been imagined, and any media insistence on a candidate should alert our compatriots. “Macronism” doesn’t really exist; it was merely an episode, a skillful but momentary manipulation. The system had to adapt to try to better control public opinion. To begin with, the presidential and legislative elections were imposed in the same year and consecutively, to ensure a controlled National Assembly. The seven-year term was replaced by a five-year term, allowing for faster rotation and less obvious public opinion fatigue in the face of a presidency deemed too long. For a long time, the safety valve of the FN, then the RN, also allowed the system to maintain itself by ensuring certain victories in the second rounds (2002, 2017, and 2022). Finally, the press played a huge role in brain manipulation, shredding possible alternatives or personalities deemed dangerous to the system, as in the case of Étienne Chouard suddenly transformed into an “infamous fascist” (2017).
To last, the system therefore needs new candidates, reinvented politicians, placed at the head of the country with an impression of renewal, while the entire endogenous, nepotistic, and corrupt elite is in fact still in place. Several solutions are available to the system. The first would be to push a female candidate, to ride the idea of a “first-ever French woman president.” The argument would be strong in a country portrayed as patriarchal from a historical point of view. This candidate would be presented, like Macron, as the new hope, destined to secure the country’s future, with the magnified particularities of a female head of state. The argument would carry weight, especially if the candidate in question were young, pleasant, and “clean.” The ideal candidate would of course be chosen from the backstage circles of power. Some are already being promoted, but the system could not choose a political veteran. Ségolène Royal failed in her time (2007), followed by Marine Le Pen (2017 and 2022). The other possibility would be the invention of the “French Obama.” The ideal candidate would be a personality with immigrant origins. This person could also be a woman. Nicolas Sarkozy was the first president from the latter background, but European, with Hungarian origins. The candidate should ideally be from a “Benetton France,” including among mixed-race or quarteron individuals. Here again, the future candidate would be sold as a “new chance” for the country, with the advantage of appealing to a large segment of voters, but with the disadvantage of being suspect to conservative forces.
In a more distant future, note that examples have appeared in countries manipulated by the deep state. These examples are heads of state who hold passports of other countries. The cases of Sandu in Moldova or Zourabichvili in Georgia are known. However, this dual-nationality candidate would be more difficult “to sell” to the French, but anything is possible (notably with a candidate holding an Israeli, German, British, or even American passport). In a more distant future, given the resistance to the dominant LGBT ideology, the first LGBT head of state would be an immense success for the system. The deep state has already succeeded in placing such candidates in important positions: mayor of Paris, ministries, and even Prime Minister. But most of the time, the “nature” of the candidate was not known before their election, or they were appointed and not democratically elected. The deep state would dream of it, but the danger would be that the electoral mass of French people from colonial immigration might definitively turn away from the system. This is a very dangerous point for it, which could provoke an undesired alliance between migrant France and conservative France. Finally, although difficult to repeat, the system could pull a Macron 2.0 out of its hat. An unknown personality, with characteristics in common with Macron at the time of his 2017 election: rather young, but in the political system for a long time, therefore endorsed by it, who would reinvent politics anew. Another hypothesis: the system will try to perpetuate Macronism by presenting a successor… This would be difficult to do but could be a stopgap for a new term (2027-2032). And the last case: the system could invent an anti-Macron case, a man or woman skillfully presented as an opponent of Macronism, to recreate hopes and an artificial divide (copying the old left vs. right one). This divide could allow a new alternation between two “fromagiste” parties (which share power by alternating). This option, coupled with other aspects of my analysis, could allow the system to win a few more five-year terms (three or four). It remains to be seen whether the French will let themselves be led by the nose to the slaughterhouse, or whether unforeseen events, domestic or international, will come to disrupt and destroy the webs skillfully woven by the deep state.
* LGBT ideology is prohibited in the Russian Federation as contrary to the values defended by the country, notably those of the family and for the protection of society, youth, and the most vulnerable.
