France is being torn apart by protests against the government’s plans to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 years. The French authorities appeal to the citizens to understand the problem and the citizens somehow refuse to understand. Why? Here’s why:
① It was during the presidency of Francois Mitterrand that the retirement age was lowered. What was the argumentation then? Ah, elderly employees would make jobs available to younger people, i.e. unemployment would be lowered. Why does this mechanism not operate anymore? Why was it beneficial then and is not beneficial now?
(We will mention only briefly that promising people an earlier retirement age and reducing unemployment were mere political manoeuvres to win more votes. That’s what democracy is all about: you need to play up to your electorate.)
② The retirement age needs to be raised because there are not too many working people to support the pensioners. Why then did consecutive governments and the powers that be discourage people from having children, claiming that the world was overpopulated?
③ Today’s citizens might well understand the economic necessities of raising the retirement age, but why should they believe that the government is running out of money:
(a) if it always has an inexhaustible source of finances to accept, accommodate and take good care of the endless influx of Third World people? and
(b) if it funnels millions or billions into Ukraine where – to top it all – all that money is being invested in a non-win game?
④ The French authorities are oh so angry with the popular unrest in Paris or Lyon, but why are they so much happy about similar popular protests in Minsk or Kiev?
We all know the answer to the last question: protests in other countries are – yes! – legitimate while protests in the country that we are running are not. It’s as simple as that.
To reiterate: the government has money for the influx of immigrants and the government has money to support the Zelensky regime in Ukraine, but it somehow does not have money to pay the retirees. Isn’t it strange?
Picture to yourself that you live centuries ago, when there was no state-run support for the elderly. You are dependent on your son for your survival. You are an elderly person and your son tells you that he will cut down on his support for you because… well, because he plans on accommodating a couple of drifters and he also needs to lend some money to an acquaintance living God knows where who in turn needs this money to cover the costs of his advocate in a legal dispute with someone else. Would you not go mad?
