I know the central bank of france was nationalized in 1945 after WWII so I guess that's when it started. In 1973, the Giscard-Pompidou law (called Rotschild law here too because of the acointances of Pompidou with the Rotschild family) forbid the state to borrow at 0% from the central bank and forced it to borrow from public markets. Since then, the interrests of the debt have become the major problem we face. It has been calculated that we have payed now more than we have borrowed in cumulated interrests since 1973...

Then the European law, which is basically the same, took over.

this is interresting, blue line is what we really borrowed without the interrests
red line is with the cumulated interrests


So yeah if we had borrowed from the central bank at 0% we would have reimboursed everything and there would be enough left for free health care, food and champaign for everyone.

But who would still work? No more slaves to feed the jews? Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

not for public view

(the above explanatory story is not my original concept, it's my translation with a few added nuances. i really like it as a simple aid for explaining the paradigm of monetary operations that i believe in, so why the fuck not right)

the people who created those debts were democratically elected

most of that money was used to fund the welfare we grew up into and we take for granted

I dont think getting mad at traders/jews/banks/illuminati is very mature

I always knew you were one of them

Actually the problem we face here Gob is that if we want to elect people that propose to come back to sovereign money printing, go out of the Nato etc. so basically become France again and not a puppet of this system, we have to elect the so-called extrem right, which is not extrem-right at all (thx medias) but has a serious case of being xenophobic in the past. While their message is now much cleaner (and their ranks were cleaned too from 3rd Reich nostalgics) it's still risky at best to elect them.

Nationalism has become a bad word and is forbidden, so it's not easy for non-xenophobic people to say they're nationalists without unleashing the wraith of the medias that keep telling us that globalization is great and why we should be ashamed to be proud of our contry.

It has gotten so far, that waving the French flag outside of football events is suspect here.

nationalism is retarded and so is xenophobia. If you think thats your way out: lol@u

Sorry nrom I don't think nationalism as in sovereignity is a bad word per se, xenophobia is totally retarded of course.

fake multiculturalism, nigger quotas, gay quotas and other similar pseudo-political-correctness is retarded
some like to call this stance xenophobia

"nigger quotas"

literally

Globalization is the way things are going. Invoking nationalism would do nothing to solve Europe's issues. Only Germany and France stand to benefit from dropping from EU and not even that. They'd turn into protectionist states again, and whatever benefit they get from dropping the euro would mean jackshit.

Just because things are fucked up economically, doesnt mean EU has a lot of great things going for it, one of them is the attempt to put behind the retardation behind nationalism. Its a flawed system, but its the right way to go. I wish we had something like that in Latin America, and in the next administration, is the way its most likely to move for us.

And yeah, cool stance. Niggers are for Europe what latins are for the US, and southeast asians are for China/Japan. They do many jobs the receiving countries workers won't. They are ostracized from local culture so they don't adapt well and keep their ways. When inmigrants dont adapt well to their new countries, its as much the inmigrants fault as whomever receives them.

If the rich countries pushed agressively for economic and social reform, improvement of quality of life and education in the poorer ones, you wouldnt have niggers in your countries at all. Saying "WELL WHY WOULD I CARE!!" is also saying "WELL I DONT CARE BUT ITS GON RAIN NIGGAHS ON MY LAWN"