Brigitte Macron (not Martin Lichtmesz)
178 words / 1:58:15
Greg Johnson and Martin Lichtmesz discussed Martin’s investigation into a conspiracy theory surrounding Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte. It is now available to download or listen to online.
Topics include:
1:49 – Greg’s fascination with this topic.
3:30 – The “Michelle Obama is man” conspiracy theory never went beyond memes, but Brigitte is different.
6:10 – What is the Brigitte Macron theory?
13:23 – People latch on to conspiracy theories because they no longer trust the ruling class or institutions.
17:40 – The problems in France.
22:17 – It’s not actually that easy to find pictures of people.
29:39 – Martin was intrigued by the cognitive distortion behind this conspiracy theory.
40:40 – People’s delusions about what will happen after a conspiracy is uncovered.
48:29 – Why you can’t simply trust your eyes.
52:22 – The Justin Trudeau-Fidel Castro conspiracy theory.
56:38 – Why is Tucker Carlson giving credence to the Brigitte “story”?
1:11:00 – Listener questions and comments.
1:31:29 – Greg and Martin discuss MAGA America’s alienating of Europe.
1:51:42 – Maintaining a high quality of discourse in the face of slopulism.
1:55:50 – Where to follow Martin.
To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”
20 comments
“Brigitte Macron (not Martin Lichtmesz)”
Oh dear oh dear. That is funny, that is. LOL
Oh who gives a damn? She/He/It should just move to LA and screw Bridgette Jenner.
If rogan’s show ever nosedives like I hear daily wire is, he should start a variant called Freak Factor meets mma. Even TLC would be hesitant to touch that lunacy. Fight card 1: dylan mulvaney vs brother nathaniel, or jeffrey marsh vs tim pool vs spudhead the luggage stealer in a steel cage.
Rightly, the people no longer trust the ruling class and ruling institutions.
Shockingly, the ruling class still trusts itself and its institutions. There is no breakdown of ruling class confidence as there was in the Soviet Union. No matter how catastrophic the results of ruling class incompetence and institutional failure the international antiwhite ruling class continues to look at itself in the mirror and see the best and the smartest people doing good work.
I am sympathetic to relatively normal people who look at this horrible, incompetent, overconfident ruling class and think there must be something wrong with these people and are puzzled as to what it is.
This is a good point. I keep looking for signs of self-awareness in these people. I keep hoping their spirits are breaking. But the Dunning-Kruger factor is powerful among regime operatives, especially among the Affirmative Action class like Kamala and Jasmine Crockett. Another factor is that a lot of these people don’t really want anything but destruction, so they’re not likely to take setbacks seriously.
You’re right and you made many other solid points including the political uselessness of this kind of thinking.
Greg said years ago that he thinks amerika’s ruling class has lost their minds. I concur, and we see their anti-values filtered down to disposable cogs like that jasmine crockshit, stockton “no White guys” rush, and evergreen state alumni who are far too arrogant with a laughably high opinion of themselves to dare take a personal inventory check of their congenital fuckedupness. It’s people like that ghastly trans-pritzker dude and other democrat Howard Hughes’ types who are out there like Neptune.
Regarding the burden of proof, if you were told you were a fake and you had died and been replaced by someone else you would be shocked and offended.
OK, but you are not a member of the ruling class such as Prince Andrew, explaining that he took a week-long visit with his very good friend Jeffrey Epstein and his stable of under-age sex slaves because he, Prince Andrew, is so honorable that he is perhaps too honorable, and furthermore that he, Prince Andrew, does not sweat.
If you were Prince Andrew or someone of his class I would not care if you were shocked and offended that someone said fantastic things about you. You would be telling fantastic stories about yourself.
These fantastic, completely implausible stories would be the only reasons why you and other people of your class should not be in jail, according to your own laws.
These fantastic, obviously lying stories of yours would not count as the nutty, tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories that all the people with good opinions must despise. Only theories that don’t agree with your self-perception of goodness, honesty, and normality would be reviled like that.
I don’t think these depraved, obviously lying freaks going harumph, harumph, how dare you sir! are entitled to the presumption of innocence and to having the burden of proof be in their favor.
The best part of this conspiracy theory is that someone looked at the case of the Macrons, where a fourty-year-old cradle snatcher left her husband and kids for a fifteen year old student, and decided that no, this is just not scandalous enough to be interesting.
Well put.
When I was fifteen I would’ve gladly settled for a Bo Derek, 90’s Dolly Parton, or 80’s Joan Collins for a while but what the hell is wrong with these powerful people who deliberately choose ghouls? The macron gal looks like bradley ‘chelsea’ manning’s cousin. It’s one more transformation away from Peyton Manning. Even closet homosexuals like possibly howard stern hide themselves behind some leggy albeit horse-faced blonde for cover. Same with overpaid celebs like dicaprio are always going for rail-thin heroin chic nineteen year old ‘models.’ The dirtbag left Asheville van life crashing into a homeless drug commune look. Ugh. Hard pass.
How uninteresting is this? Let me count the ways…
Also, couldn’t someone simply get her dna and send it to 23and me or some such service? It’s so easily falsifiable.
oh, I see, it’s more about the phenomenon. I take it back: it was very interesting. It would have been good to bring in Qanon. There was a recent article on this topic at counter currents about conspiracy theory and historical politics which was very enlightening.
I recently finished the teaching company lecture on the glorious revolution and civil wars(highly recommended) and that period was rife with conspiracy theories. The similarities with our own time are uncanny. When James, the pretender was born, protestants had the conspiracy theory that in fact, he was a random baby male who was brought up the stairs in the back of the palace to make it seem that there was a Catholic successor, that the pregnancy was faked. A male successor would take precedence before the female Protestant Ann and Mary. It was all about the Catholics and protestants at this time. This whole conspiracy theory was like a sort of Proto birthism. However, it succeeded– the theory gained such political strength that they barred James from the throne and elected William and Mary in the glorious Revolution! That’s how the jacobites were born.
party politics was extremely volatile and fights would break out between people in the streets and taverns between the nascent wigs and Tories. It was called the “rage of party.” Very similar to the hostility between the trumpers and never trumpers. Before that in the war of the roses period, accusations of witchcraft against the wives of political opponents were very effective.
I think slopulism simply is a powerful political force, which has existed in many stages of human history and is not a degradation of our own fallen age. This is what Robert Kennedy and tucker are up to with the antivax and satanism and aliens crap. They are cannily tapping into these things that appeal to the low iq masses, as off putting as I personally find it.
One theory I find particularly idiotic is the sandy hook crisis actor conspiracy theory. Of all the school shootings and similar things that have happened since columbine, why is that one sandy hook a hoax? What political advantage did “they” hope to obtain by faking that one more shooting?
You are so wrong! How do you sleep at night? 🥹
It’s not that all conspiracy theories are bad or have to be untrue, which is important and was touched on in this. That’s the opposite end of the madness. It’s completely healthy to be skeptical about the claims of power.
And we’re all human, we are all looking for patterns in stuff that was an important point as well.
With these idiot types you see this straight collapse into fantasy, that acts as a derailing force, actually obscuring whatever the real issue is. The nuanced course to understanding isn’t satisfying to them, it has to be the most elaborate illusion that’s been constructed. And they have this secret code to unlock reality as they see it. And that’s how they see things, as a personal television show, where they read more and more into details to extract this dopamine hit, to keep the high going.
The evidence for their claims, which is shared around between these types, and which they are fanatical about is more like reading the tea leaves or seeing a shape in a cloud. And it’s all cherry picked. A collection of cherry picked tea leaf or cloud shapes that seem to fit their claims with some text to prompt you to see the same shape too. Anyone who knows anything about the subject at hand, or information in general, will instantly recognize this as a pile of nonsense.
These fantastic claims are also toxic because they take people away from real stuff that’s happening. They act as a distraction and deradicalizing element. These lunatic theories cover up the crimes of the system.
The deepest conspiracy lore on this general topic seems to be the idea that most celebrities (and major politicians) are hidden transvestites, because a super-secret Sabbatean/Frankist cult within the elites has highly esoteric, Cabalistic reasons for making it so (in the real world, Frankism was about inverting God’s order as much as possible in order to usher in the end of the world).
What’s notable about the “transvestigation” brand of conspiratardery is that these people are obsessing about particular physiognomies without having a clue about physiognomy, i.e. everyone knows from direct experience that there are men of small statue with relatively narrow shoulders, just like there are tall, broad-shouldered women with huge hands. Ethnic differences in statue and body type also play a role.
I don’t see how fighting Russia in Ukraine could in any way part of be conceived of as part of a larger project to protect the European people(s). I have tremendous sympathy for the Ukrainians and what has been done to them both by Russia and by the deceitful Western leaders, so I do not begrudge them or any other people from former Soviet bloc nations who are concerned about Russian aggression. As for people in Western Europe? It’s absurd to think of Russia as a threat. Russia is only a threat (or an adversary) to a certain segment of the obnoxious ruling class of Britain, France, etc. Russia would only ever threaten the actual population of those countries due to Western leadership provoking or blundering into another world war.
I am no fan of Putin, but he and his nation is obviously not a clear and present danger to the vast majority of Europeans. All of these whataboutisms about “But doesn’t Europe have a right to protect itself?” are absurd when it is the very ruling class of Europe that insists upon mass immigration and other forms of destruction to their own native populations. How on earth could the people of Europe righteously and honestly fight against a supposed external threat at this point, when in doing so they would be fighting FOR their own corrupt ruling class, which is more of a threat than the Ruskies? It’s absurd.
Morgoth is a wonderful thinker, but it almost like he has come full circle in his dissidence and contrarianism in asking this supposedly revolutionary question about “But doesn’t the native European have the right to defend himself?” This is in fact the FIRST, the SURFACE-LEVEL question, not the Final Boss Level insight. OF COURSE Ukraine specifically has the right to defend itself! Everyone who second-guessed the righteousness of the “Ukraine” cause already dealt with this question very early on. Because what even is “Ukraine” anymore? In what sense has it had sovereignty? What does it mean to fight for Ukraine in the 2020s, or what would it mean to fight for Britain? It would mean to fight for the corrupt European rulership class. There IS no way to join the national military and fight for one’s nation in the true sense of the word right now. We can’t really even fight for “nation” in the sense of civic nationalism, because each individual country scarcely has sovereignty as a distinct entity anymore.
Relatedly, in Greg’s overture toward a larger European project on these matters, I feel that once again we have come “full circle” without realizing it. Larger pan-European projects have already been tried. That is what the EU is! That is, roughly, what NATO is. These ideas have been tried and they have failed. Or they have succeeded only in the sense that they have furthered the power of the corrupt Western globalist forces.
“In what sense has it had sovereignty?”
That is a good question.
From a pro-White point of view a form of government or an instance of government proves to be good for our race or it doesn’t. “Sovereignty” and its many vague, contradictory, and confusing connotations doesn’t come into it.
We should focus on biological benefit and not on “sovereignty.”
We are a dying race being forced into a planned extinction and we don’t have spare time to focus on non-biological abstractions that may amount to little more than political bragging rights.
When a pillow is being forced over your face the only thing that matters is air.
Amusing and intriguing!
There are hoaxes and hoaxes. I am confident that there is much about Sandy Hook that is a hoax. Kids could really have been shot and killed, yet the narrative is not the one presented.
Likewise: before the term “Holocaust” was adopted (from a 1978 NBC miniseries) to describe the whole German KZ story, with anti-Jewish initiatives during WW2, we were already being fed a tale that six million Jews were gassed to death and cremated at Auschwitz. Now, nobody pushes that story anymore, but one reason they don’t is that Historical revisionists did extensive research 30-60 years ago and proved that, while there’s no evidence of Jews killed in gas chambers (disguised as shower rooms!), there is indeed evidence indicating that SS Einsatzgruppen and Eastern Europeans were extensively killing Jews at the time of Barbarossa (1941). So ironically that evidence now gets enlisted by Holocausters as a component of the genocide the claim, even though it wasn’t in their stock narrative until the Revisionists talked about it.
So that’s a long-winded way of prefacing my suggestion that new Sandy Hook “truth” could come out and be eminently verifiable, and prove that the media-certified version was mostly a lie, a hoax…but that won’t matter because the Sandy Hook hoaxsters will rewrite their story.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.