Elections Européennes : l'incroyable débat Attal - Bardella !

My friends, good morning. I'm going to show you some love. I watched the entire debate between Bella and Atoll, or between Atal and Bardella, depending on which side you're on. You know, if you go to Marseille and say, yes, tonight PSG is playing Homme, you might have problems. It's always Ohm against psg. So what I wanted to tell you is that. Well, several things. First, these two guys. These two guys are very interesting because in terms of, let's say, presentation, artistic note, as we say in skating. Well, if Bardella or Atal were to, for example, shoot someone on the Champs Elysees and then run away, well, they would be described in the same way by the tourists who populate this famous avenue. In other words, we have the same composite portrait, right? Let's look at it here. There. It's true that sometimes, you know, I like. You know, I don't like watching tv. I don't like watching that kind of thing. For me, watching TV is like dying a little bit, you know, it empties the brain, it empties the soul. I even suspect that it empties the heart. But I really had to focus. I felt like I was listening to twin brothers talking. Now I'd like to tell you something. Here, the first surprise. The first surprise I had. What? Bardella. Bardella. And here, you know, I'm not into shortcuts. I'm not into the. The politics of the good guy, the bad guy, the teddy bear, the butcher and all that. I find. And I deplore it. And we saw it recently with the death of the Iranian president. I deplore it. I, who grew up, you know, I grew up at the time. It makes my tongue hang tight to say it. I'm too old now. I'm an old fool. And I grew up during the Cold War. I remember the fall of the ussr. At the time. At the time, tensions between the two blocs were what they were. But there was a certain level of restraint, a certain form, I almost want to say, a certain dignity in politics. Look at old videos of Francois Mitterrand, for example. Watch Margaret Tater, a sinister scoundrel. But I'm not talking about the record, I'm talking about the person in charge. Watch Moutte. Not a good sign. That was something else. But, hey, he's an exception. But what I'm trying to tell you is that I deplore the simplification of politics today. I deplore the caricatures today. The caricatures. There you have it. The Iranian president is Dead. His funeral was attended by lots of Iranians. There was a huge crowd. And then in the British media and many French media, the Butcher of Tehran is dead. Okay? The Butcher. The Butcher. I've heard it for Putin, I've heard it for Bashes. I've heard it, heard it for a lot of people. In fact, in foreign policy, or even in domestic policy, in Europe today, we have the teddy bears, right? There's the teddy bear on one side, nice teddy bear. And on the other side we have the butcher, for example, in the butcher category, you know, I don't know why we throw clean water on a profession like this, a profession of moving. There you have it. If I were the Union of Movers, I would have raised a protest. So I said that we have to do things with nuance. Hmm. It's important. But today I have the impression that we are serving politics to people, to a population that we have dumbed down. We are dumbing down, you know, the people. When there is an election there. There is a very important European election coming up. And if you send people into the subway with microphones to listen to what the audience is debating, you know, she tricked him. Then he arrived, he opened his iPhone, he found the message, and when he started reading, well, there you go. The Netflix episode stopped. They said, we'll start again tomorrow. So you see, you've looked. People are at that level today. People are not interested in their destiny. Young and old no longer vote, no longer campaign, no longer join parties, unions, all that. It's over. We're like sheep going to the slaughterhouse. Back to the debate between Ada and Bardella. So I say Thursday, but not Thursday. Today. It's actually Friday. But the debate took place Thursday, if I'm not mistaken. So let's get back to the sheep. I say, no, the bearer. But honestly, the. There's no lame, idle pun on my part. I'm just saying a French expression. It's Rabelais, that he used in one of his books. There you go. So I was saying that Mr. Bardella. Mr. Bardella is an intelligent man. That's how I perceived him. I know. I know that some people will say, yes, so and so. I know. I've heard all the criticisms of him, but his intelligence is poorly served because the other one, opposite, Atol, is also. Atol is not a stupid guy. He's also intelligent. These are guys who could have worked for Marine. They have very striking faces. You know, the face there, the little suit and all that. They have that face. They could both work at Manec, by the way, if he's listening to me, I suggest that they send them their CVs. They're recruiting. So the problem they both have is that, yes, they are intelligent, that's true. I would say that even Bardella impressed me with his ability to debate. It's not in here. I'll tell you something. Remember, this is the first time you've heard him here. I don't think Bardella. This is the first time you've heard him, remember, here on this channel. I don't think Bardella will last very long at the level of the National Rally, because he is someone very intelligent and generally the National Rally empties from the top. It means when someone reaches a certain level of political maturity and is someone intelligent and cultured and all that, the person no longer has anything to do at the National Rally. The person will find himself leaving. He is someone who has really worked on his files, you can feel it. He has worked. Let me tell you what his problem is. That's the problem with both of them, by the way. His problem is that he lacks courage. You know, courage is the ability, the pillar that supports convictions. If we don't have political courage, then we won't have conviction because we're moving forward on soft ground, we're moving forward on quicksand, right? And in fact, the problem is that it's the sign of the times they took Bardella. He's poorly served. He's poorly served by what? Yes, he's intelligent, yes, he's very well prepared. But the problem he has is that he's defending the indefensible. Do you see the thing? He's defending one thing and it's opposite. Let's imagine, for example, you take the best lawyer at the bar, who is someone very good, excellent, and the guy is very strong, very intelligent, very eloquent, whatever you want. But then you give him a mission. You say, I'm going to ask you to defend this, I'll do what I can. But frankly, that's Bartle's problem. He's defending a wrap's indefensibility because on the one hand, the National Rally doesn't have. Doesn't have. And I think since the departure of Jean Marie Le Pen, I think it doesn't have an ideological backbone. The National Frank or the National Rally. Sorry, I'm still counting in the old Frank. That's how it is. The National Rally is not a party that draws a line in the sand, that says you won't get through there, that says there, there, if you get there, it's not possible. You won't get through. We'll die for this line. It's not that kind of party. It's not a party of conviction. It's a party that has become bourgeois in a form of introspection, of political opportunism, of people who seem to live among themselves in a kind of autarky among themselves. They feel good, they talk, everything is fine. And then I imagine when they see a migrant or a foreigner, it's the nice Fatima who does a wonderful job. She's really obedient, she's perfect and all that. Honestly, if they were all like her, we wouldn't be here. There you have it. So in fact, I have the impression that it's a party that's dead. In reality, it's a party that just continues to exist, you know, a bit like that headless chicken. It continues to exist. Maybe our world is like that too, huh? There are people who worry about the end of the world. Maybe the world is over. We may live in projection. We live off what remains because it has existed for so long that one day it stops. Well, it's like a car breaking. It will break for 50 meters. Well, the world will break for 5,000 years. Well, maybe that's just the idea before disappearing into space. But anyway, I wanted to move on to something else, you know, the problem is that I have a problem in my head. That everything is connected to everything else. And I was thinking, when the world ends, let's imagine that the world ends and then the sun explodes and wipes out the Earth. That it disappears, that it evaporates. And as two can you imagine, Would the universe still exist? That means I imagine so. But the thing is, what bothers me about the story is that if there were more consciousness than there would be, it would mean that we are somewhere in the conscious embodiment of this universe. We are the conscious part. If we disappear, there will be no one left who will know that the universe exists. Will it really exist when no one knows that it exists? It's just a philosophical question. I'll think about it before I go to sleep. And I'm sure that while I'm thinking about it, I'll drift off into the arms of Morpheus. And then my alarm will go off at 6:30 in the morning. Yes, I was saying that they agree on. What I want to say is the main thing they agree on. What is ruining France. Both. Both. Oh, they agree on the European Union. There you go. Both are for the European Union. I almost want to tell you. Come on. I'm for the European Union. He doesn't know. He doesn't know. Honestly, it's not meanness on my part or anything. I'm not trying to get anyone on board. I give the point. I give the point to Atoll. Why? Because there is a consistency. There is a consistency, if you like. Macron is a federalist. Wait, I'm going to turn on the light. Nothing at all. So Macron is a federalist. Macron, Honestly, I almost have the impression that he covets the Venardin position. Macron, when he's finished his 10 years in France, let's imagine that he doesn't find a way to do even more. Well, he's someone. I see. I would have seen him understood in Ukrainian prison, because there is a concern, frankly, uh, very strong for this, for this country, much stronger than, moreover, for France. So Ukrainian president would be perfect, but I think it would be a bit difficult. But on the other hand, in Van der Leyen's place, I think he would do a very good job, as Fabu said, in Van der Leyen's place. And that's really it for him. Europe is the United States of Europe. You know, he sees himself as a sort of American president. He would put blue and yellow lines on the flag, on the flag of this thing called the European Union. And then there you have it. He becomes the president. He has his attitude. And Atoll is consistent. I understand Atoll. He is pro European, but he is consistent with Europe. He is consistent with this disastrous project. So somewhere, Atoll as much as the other. Bernardo, you see, the name is already there. Bardella, not Bernardo. I'm messing up. So I was saying, as much as Bardella is an intelligent man, he is defending one thing and its opposite. Because on the one hand, he wants economic sovereignty. On the one hand, he wants less immigration. On the one hand, he wants more France. On the one hand, his party, historically is the party of France, isn't it? The French, French France of nationalism. For a very long time, since 74, the party has been the national rally. We are in the French nationalist movement. And, well, he defends the European Union. Good luck. Good luck. Ah, good luck. I mean, Bardella may be an intelligent and prepared guy, but good luck. I put myself in his shoes. I try to put myself in his shoes. And honestly, I don't see how to do it step by step. It's really hard to defend one thing from its opposite. Huh? You see? So there, indeed, Atol is shooting at him like shooting an elephant. Stuck in a corridor. I mean, here we can even see Athol's smile when the other one starts talking about the European Union. Because he knows he's going to kill him. He knows he has no chance in this because he's talking with both sides of his mouth. They both agree on the climate. Of course. In any case, the climate is what's happening, and I'm writing a book about it. The climate is what's enslaving France. But here we're talking about France and bringing it to its knees before China. With the climate, there's no more economic sovereignty in any form of. You're on your knees before the Chinese Communist Party. Wind turbines come from China and heat pumps come from China. All this stuff about China. Because look, when there was, for example, when France was dependent on Arab oil, what did it get with it? She took it with. Well, there you have it. She took it with Islam, immigration and a bunch of other things, okay? She took it with all that. The kebab shop. Three kebab shops per street and all that. Today, just as she was on her knees before the oil monarchies, today she is kneeling before the climate monarchies. You can't be sovereign in this game. Your sovereignty is nuclear power. Your sovereignty is energy independence. Your sovereignty is your borders. It's your ability to decide for yourself. Your sovereignty is not about kneeling before billionaires, before CEOs who come to the COP to ask for your country to be destroyed, asking for your citizens savings to be taken and for them to be sold on credit cards so that you can buy them with yachts and private jets. That's not the reality. Huh? That's not the reality of someone who calls themselves sovereign, someone who calls themselves national. That's not it, huh? Okay, you know what about the climate, Bardella, listen to me. Bardella. You're listening. Bardella, come and change my mind. Bardella. The climate is the destruction of your country. The climate is worse than the atomic bomb. We can't destroy France with an atomic bomb, Bardella. We can't. You know why we can't? Because you have the atomic bomb. We can't attack you with nuclear weapons. It's not possible. On the other hand, through ideology, which is a form of weapon, right? There's nuclear deterrence. We. We know about it. But you know about ideological deterrence. You know about that one. You know about the ideological bomb? Oh, no, that's something else. When we want to attack countries that have nuclear power, we don't attack them with conventional weapons. We don't attack them with bacteriological weapons or nuclear weapons. We attack them with the I bomb, which is the ideological bomb. And we're going to take countries like France that have successfully made the transition, the energy shift through nuclear power, for example, and have extraordinary know how. And they themselves are going to close their nuclear power plants. They themselves are going to close them down. They themselves are going to go back to the way Sudan and Iran are. They don't have access to nuclear energy because they themselves are closing it down like the Germans did. There's no difference between someone who doesn't know how to build a nuclear power plant because they don't have the technology or knowledge, and someone who has knowledge and who keeps quiet, who closes the nuclear power plant for ideological reasons to please people who, who don't even know if they are men or women, to please lunatics who come out of American universities. That's what the climate is, okay? And you know, the problem is that you don't dare say it because you don't have the courage. You're not courageous. That's the problem, okay? That's the problem. They get there, they start, yes, yes, the climate can't do anything. Uh, we're going to ban. In the other one, we're going to ban. We're going to ban cars in 2035. We're going to ban cars? Yes. The French, how are they going to get around? The other one says, yes, no, we're not going to ban cars, we're going to ban new cars. What does that mean? France is going to become like Cuba. That means that in 2070 there will still be the clio, that we will continue to weld and repair people. Tourists will come from far away to take photos. Click, click. It's a vast program of national destruction. Not questioning it is political cowardice. After all, there is no more nationality, no more sovereignty. There is nothing left. I mean, between people from the National Rally and Macron. If I am forced to vote, I will vote for Macron. I say if I am forced to vote, I will vote for neither. If I were forced to put a piece of paper in the ballot box, I would vote for Macron. There you go. Might as well go for destruction. Well, let's go for it. Let's go for destruction. Look, here in the United Kingdom, we have a vote that is about to start. The conservative Prime Minister, Raidha Sunak, a billionaire by trade, has decided to dissolve everything. Let's call an election and everything. I'm going to vote for the left. Why am I voting for the left. It's an extremely rotten party. Oh, you know what? Rotten for rotten. Well, I'm voting for the left. There you go. I tossed a coin. I'm fed up with this team of billionaires, okay? They're billionaires. They've been ruling the country for 15 years. The country has been sinking for 15 years. So I'm fine with the left doing worse, but I don't care if they do worse. Anyway, we're destroyed now. We're finished. We're in the midst of civilizational destruction. Well, I'm going to vote at random. There you go. I don't agree with the left, but I still don't agree with these billionaire tax collectors. Huh. So there you have it. What do you want me to tell you? That was the debate on Russia. It's the same. They left, they left on. Yes, Vladimir Putin and so on. So these are people who were perhaps young at the time of the Cold War. I would like to remind you that what is happening with Russia is not a personal story. With Vladimir Putin, it is not personal. It is a proxy war that the United States is waging. The United States is using France as it used Vietnam in the past, as it used Afghanistan in the past. They are using France today. In any case, I understand the Americans. Why are they bleeding Afghanistan? If we can do the same thing with France and Germany, it simply pays more. It's not a personal story. It's not a personal story. And there Gaoism and everything. Just avoid talking about gaoism. Avoid talking about Gaoism. You want to be submissive? You are submissive. You are worthless. You are completely submissive. There you go. Well, that's what this video inspired me to do. Understand? It's all complicated. I'm leaving you, my friends. I think it's high time I left you. And I'll come back another time. I promise I'll come back another time. If I come back because I'm dead. But I'll come back another time and talk to you about other things. I'm going to go think about it.