Here in France, if one speaks of "the General" one is referring to General de Gaulle, who was not only the man of 16th June 1940, whe he refused to accept defeat at the hands of the Nazis, but also went on to become a pivotal political figure in the Country who reconciled the people with their past and their future. We should also never forget that his was the Military mind which recognised the evolution and modernisation of warfare, and that, although his jealous fellow officers in France (as also in Britain and elsewhere) belittled his ideas, he wrote the books which were translated into German and used as basic textbooks by the Wehrmacht when it arose once again under Adolf Hitler's rule.
The General's fundamental political idea for France was that it should be free from foreign domination, and many a present day politician loves to claim that he or she is his true successor. This was certainly true of our present president when campaigning for office, and incidentally promising everything and anything to every individual voter or group of voters.
The point has therefore come to my mind that he would have had something to say about what is now happening to his beloved country. For those who think of France as being a land of happy-go-lucky idlers wearing berets and smoking foul-smelling cigarettes they should know that this caricature, drawn up by our enemies, is extremely far from the truth. However excitable our people may seem to be to outsiders, there is also a strong conservative (with a lower-case 'c') strand in French life which acts as a brake on many excesses. To quote the old saying, Paris is not France, and the Provinces have always been very reticent when it comes to accepting whatever comes out of the capital. Also Charles de Gaulle himself was not an "excitable" southerner accustomed to sunning himself on the Mediterranean beaches, but a somewhat dour man from the northern town of Lille, the ancient capital of Flanders, and he very much had his feet firmly on the ground.
I believe that any comment which he would make on today's state of the nation would be very rude (he was known for some rather coarse language when he felt it necessary) and short and pithy. I therefore consider it appropriate to try to explain my belief.
Our country is on the horns of a dilemma, since Mr Sarkozy won the presidential election last year by a substantial margin, and his supporters went on to succeed similarly in the parliamentary elections which followed shortly afterwards. However, since he began to give clearer examples of his real policies during the months which followed, the opposition did extremely well in the local (in the municipalities and départements) elections of this year. In other words people began to regret their votes in Mr Sarkozy's favour. Please remember that each of us has a direct vote in electing our president, with no intervening electoral colleges or other sources of confusion.
The General, with his vision of a free and independent France, would be horrified by the proposed moves which would subject our sovereignty completely to a foreign power, particularly the USA, to which Mr Sarkozy has promised to overturn one of the General's most important moves, namely to extricate France from the NATO Integrated Command Structure, under which all important posts are held by officers from the USA. The General quite correctly saw dangers arising from the so-called "Special Relationship" which bound together the British Empire (which then shrank to being just the United Kingdom and Dependencies) and the USA. He equally correctly saw (and said so) that the United Kingdom's rulers were constantly licking the boots of those of the USA. He also foresaw the danger of a cultural collapse before the waves of anti-cultural rubbish being imported from across the Atlantic, and he expressed his concern for our Canadian cousins suffering, much closer to, from this very same danger.
NATO is for us a problem, since it has not yet shown that it has found a role to fulfill since the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which had previously rivalled that built up by successive administrations in the USA. I am one of many who believe that NATO should be allowed to wither away to give every member the chance to get on jointly and severally with the task of fighting all forms of terrorism, not just choosing to restrict that fight to being one against any and every opponent of the USA (who may perfectly justifiably be resisting the foulest oppression).
Much has also been said about the need for change in UNO (which the General used to call le Machin, the thingummy-bob) which was designed to answer the problems arising from the situation which arose from the Allies having won the Second World War. It certainly now needs to be modified to make it useful for the modern world, but little is being done towards this and France (like the other minor country still having one, the United Kingdom) is frightened of losing its veto.
Until comparatively recently and since the drastic decolonising moves made by the General, France has had an improving policy with the Arab world, whereby support was given to the people without becoming too close to the often corrupt rulers, but this is now being abandoned in favour of a pro-Zionist stance, which dishonours us all. This same change is true of the Socialist Party which has been disastrously infected by Zionism and steadily and heavily infiltrated by the CIA and its Zionist masters. Other parties also have suffered from such infection and infiltration, but not to quite the same extent. However, anti-Arab feeling is being quietly and not very subtly nurtured and fostered by leading members of several political groupings and parties by using Zionist catch-phrases and especially the heavy use of the expression "anti-semitism" with the aim of silencing their opponents.
One can contrast the efforts of the present government with the General's masterly solution to the Algerian problem culminating in the granting of independence, and also his decolonisation in Africa after the disasters of the former Indo-China. He opted for cooperation rather than imperialism and it would be fitting to follow his ideas in realising that globalisation requires us all to carry out our duty towards the less fortunate. His idea of the value of national independence may have gone too far, but it is not as evil an idea as unbridled capitalism. We should also well understand that we should stay out of the internal affairs of other states, such as the Lebanon, Syria and the countries of the Maghreb, in each of which our present government has managed to meddle with great inefficiency to increase such chaos as already existed. We have today (7th August) heard of a coup d'état in Mauritania, but, before rushing to judge what it means for the whole of the Maghreb, we should first find out just what was intended and exactly what has happened - we shall see what our rulers decide to do.
The more one looks at the present situation, the more one has to think that the General would have made some very rude and crude comments about the actions of his current successor as president.
© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com
This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!
