ER Editor: Within France, Le Pen is best known for her relentless position against the ‘Islamisation’ of France and the ghetto areas that decades of immigration have wrought, where lawlessness reigns and where ordinary French try not to live. The ongoing ‘terrorist’ attacks against French citizens have created more sympathy for her position.
Very disappointingly, she has had almost NOTHING to say against the illegal lockdown of millions of France’s HEALTHY citizens for a mild virus, and hasn’t called out the dangers of the vaccines nor of Macron’s attempts to impose them on French people, who are naturally not given to vaccination. She said something recently in defence of the multitude of small business owners who have been denied their right to open their businesses up during the past fourteen months. But too little too late. Economic ruin has followed for many and she’s been surprisingly quiet.
The recent call of France’s senior military figures for a coup d’etat against the government for its support of the Far Left’s socially divisive ‘racialism’ and advocacy of (il)legal mass migration has made these military people and Le Pen somewhat natural allies. Although they have called her out for her opportunism and her pandering to the officer class. French people are also quite receptive to the military’s proposals.
In fact, the best defender of the ordinary citizen right now is former Le Pen deputy, Florian Philippot (pictured). He has called out the virus hysteria and the anti-constitutional covid measures every step of the way, leading Saturday protests himself. Unfortunately, he will not get near the presidency. Philippot has never relinquished his sensible call for Frexit, unlike Le Pen. He, too, is no defender of imperialism.
We are not entirely sure in the article below what fully constitutes the word ‘progressive’ as, domestically, Marine Le Pen is heavily FOR French identity and culture, for re-establishing law and order in multicultural banlieux where the rule of law seems to have been abandoned, and for strengthening France as an economically and culturally viable nation state. As far as we know, the Bernie Sanders and AOC’s of this world are not for these things. We last heard that she was favoring a citizen referendum on immigration. However, it is certainly true that she does not promote an anglo-imperialist position on the global stage, far from it.
Marine Le Pen Has the Strongest Chance to Succeed Of All Progressive Political Leaders in the World Today
She is the daughter of the far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen, but after taking over leadership of the far-right Party that he had founded, she expelled him from it, and has made increasingly clear, since then, that she is a progressive (including a passionate opposition to any imperialism) — so much so that now the Wikipedia article on her, in its section “Political Positions”, presents political viewpoints that would be hard to distinguish from those of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders in America, and of Jeremy Corbyn in UK. The biggest difference, perhaps, between her and those other progressives, is simply that whereas in U.S. and UK the dominant political ideology is imperialist-fascist (springing from the Englishman Cecil Rhodes in the late 19th Century), that’s not so in France. (Twentieth Century France had nothing like Cecil Rhodes — a leading and impassioned champion of racist aristocratic rule.) Consequently, French public opinion isn’t as hostile toward progressivism as is the case in U.S. and UK. (Progressivism is the exact opposite ideology to imperialistic fascism.) So, a larger percentage of the French are willing to consider voting for a progressive candidate. A larger percentage in U.S. and UK are closed-minded, refusing even to consider a progressive, but instead vote only for regressive candidates. Therefore, France, today, is less imperialist-fascist (less pro-aristocratic) than are U.S. and UK, both of which are more controlled by billionaires, in both of the country’s main Parties, than is the case in France. (ER: Although France is heavily directed by the trillionaire Rothschilds and their minions. Almost every president has been an associate of them at some time or another.)
An argument could be made that Le Pen is an opportunist who sees better prospects for herself by separating herself from her father’s views; and this argument might be true, but she has won more support with progressive views than proponents of those (progressive) views have had in a long time; and French progressive voters have no other realistic chance of getting a progressive Government than by voting for her.
In addition: on 17 April 2017, after the Republican Donald Trump reversed himself 180 degrees on NATO (which he had vigorously opposed while campaigning in 2016 for the U.S. Presidency), CNN headlined “Le Pen criticizes Trump’s new found NATO stance” and reported:
“Undeniably he is in contradiction with the commitments he had made,” Le Pen said in an interview with France Info radio. “I am coherent, I don’t change my mind in a few days. He had said he would not be the policeman of the world, that he would be the president of the United States and would not be the policeman of the world, but it seems today that he has changed his mind.”
Her comments come just two days after Trump hosted NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House and declared that the military alliance is no longer outdated, which had been a frequent refrain of his during the 2016 campaign.
She has, in fact, spoken out far more forcefully against U.S. imperialism, and against NATO in particular, than Bernie Sanders did when he was running for the U.S. Presidency in 2016. This is extraordinary. A French progressive has a possibility of getting a progressive President by voting for her, but none at all by voting for any other candidate. Apparently, the proponents of U.S. imperialism want anyone but her to win.
The American imperialist-fascist Michael Bloomberg published on April 11th a ‘news’-report, which stated that,
The Ifop-Fiducial poll showed Macron getting 23%-28% of votes in the first round, against 25%-27% for Le Pen, meaning he would come first in only one scenario. The president was seen beating Le Pen in most cases tested by the pollster last October. The French presidential vote sees a wide field of candidates whittled down to a final two in the second round.
Two other potential rivals, former health minister and president of the working class northern region of Hauts-de-France Xavier Bertrand, plus Paris region president Valerie Pecresse, were also seen winning against Le Pen if they reached the second round against her, with 59% and 55% of votes respectively.
However, that was extremely deceptive ‘reporting’, because in Politico’s aggregate of polls (and this is a far more reliable indicator than is any one poll), the percentages are Le Pen 26%, Macron 25%, Bertrand 15%, Melanchon 11%, Jadot 6%, Hidalgo 6%, Dupont-Aignan 5%, Poutou 1%, Asselineau 1%, Arthaud 1%, Lassalle 1%, and Chaminade 1%. Consequently, the Bloomberg-reported mere speculation, that Bertrand and Pecresse “were also seen [by nobody except that single poll] as winning against Le Pen if they reached the second round against her” (meaning if either of those two candidates were to score a higher percentage than Macron in the first round, which is obviously not going to happen) was published by him only so as to deceive his readers to think that Le Pen is vastly less popular in France than she actually is. Even to have published the possibility that Pecresse would be among the top two contenders in the first round was irresponsible and highly deceptive ‘news’-reporting — unprofessional ‘journalism’ at best, and propagandistic at worst: designed to make Le Pen’s Presidential prospects seem (to the ignorant) to be far less than they actually are. The imperialist-fascists in the United States and in UK (which includes all of those two countries’ billionaires) would dread that Le Pen become leader of France. They were able to destroy Corbyn, and to prevent Sanders from winning America’s Presidency, but at present the likelihood is that (if the coming French electoral counts will be accurate) Marine Le Pen will probably become elected on 13 May, 2022 (or in a second-round contest thereafter, between the top two first-round contenders) as France’s President.
The biggest single threat to the international policies of Joe Biden and of Boris Johnson (Rhodes’s vision, which has been the world’s reality since 1945) would be a French President Marine Le Pen. Anglo-American imperialism (including yet more subversions, sanctions, coups, and invasions — such as against Afghanistan 2001-, Iraq 2003-, Syria 2011-, Ukraine 2014-, Yemen 2015-, and Venezuela 2015-) would possibly even collapse altogether. The election of Marine Le Pen could become the biggest single event to end the U.S. empire — an empire which had started on 25 July 1945 in the mind of U.S. President Harry S. Truman.
“We all have the same conviction that Marine Le Pen won’t win the next elections,” says one participant of the call and a member of the National Council, a 120-member committee that decides on the party’s policies.
“We need to find a new candidate,” said the participant, who asked not be quoted by name for fear of being sidelined.
The group of discontents, a mix of National Council members, regional heavyweights and local representatives, meet online on Fridays.
This argument is similar to what was used in America’s Democratic Party in 2016 and 2020 when the progressive Bernie Sanders was running for that Party’s Presidential nomination, against Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020. Both times, he lost that contest for the nomination, and the main reason which the Party’s Old Guard presented against him is the same main reason that Le Pen’s Party and America’s billionaires are presenting now — through Politico and other ‘news’-media — why that Party’s voters shouldn’t give her the nomination: she’s ‘not electable’. The polls indicate otherwise, but most of any Party’s loyalists listen far more to what the opinions of that Party’s Establishment are saying.
However, if Le Pen does become elected on May 13th as France’s President, then German voters could still give a big boost to U.S. imperialism by electing the Green Party’s candidate, Annalena Baerbock as their next Chancellor on September 26th. She is now favored in the polls to win, and is a strong supporter of U.S. imperialism. Her Party have policy-positions that are most similar to the views of America’s Democratic Party, which is to say liberal fascist, big on centralized control by billionaires, but favoring the high-tech billionaires over the fossil-fuel billionaires. Baerbock is a strong supporter of America’s NATO, and would even be called a neoconservative in America, because she is such a strong supporter of control over the entire planet by the United States Government. She’s not a German Nazi, but an American one. By contrast, the progressive Le Pen wants NATO to be replaced if not ended altogether, and wants Europe’s subordination to U.S. interests to be definitely terminated altogether. Furthermore, on April 17th, Baerbock said that if the Russian natural gas pipeline to Europe, Nord Stream 2, will be allowed to be completed and go into service, then “Europe will be destroyed.” The U.S. Government has been demanding that Europe buy U.S. fracked, containerized and shipped liquefied natural gas, and not Russia’s pipelined gas, which is vastly less expensive; and Baerbock is a big champion of that very costly American ‘proposal’ for Europe. The color of Germany’s Green Party is actually blood red, like that of Germany’s Nazi Party was. They’re out for a global fight, not for a global peace. But, this time, the Master ‘race’ is American, not German. In other words: they want America’s billionaires, not Germany’s ones, to be the world’s masters. They call that “Green.” After all, it’s 1984, in 2021. “Ignorance is strength.”
As far as “red lines” are concerned, Putin’s implicit message remains the same: a NATO base on Russia’s western flank simply won’t be tolerated. Paris and Berlin know it [but if Baerbock replaces Merkel, then ‘Berlin’ suddenly won’t ‘know’ it any longer]. The EU is in denial. NATO will always refuse to admit it.
We always come back to the same crucial issue: whether Putin will be able, against all odds, to pull a combined Bismarck-Sun Tzu move and build a lasting German-Russian entente cordiale (and that’s quite far from an “alliance”). Nord Stream 2 is an essential cog in the wheel – and that’s what’s driving Washington hawks crazy.
Whatever happens next, for all practical purposes Iron Curtain 2.0 is now on, and it simply won’t go away.
However, if Le Pen becomes elected in France, and Baerbock doesn’t become elected in Germany, then it probably will “go away.”
Consequently, one may reasonably expect the Rhodes group — particularly the billionaires of U.S. and UK — to employ all of their vast skills at international subversion, coups, and the like (via CIA, MI6, etc.), toprevent Le Pen winning in France, and to insure Baerbock winning in Germany. Can they do it? Or will Russia stop them? In either case, is this “democracy”? Or: is it instead democracy only if the publics in France and in Germany get to know the truth, and will vote on the basis of it? Russia’s Government doesn’t have any need to deceive the Russian public in order to retain their support for fighting back against the Rhodesists, but the U.S.-and-allied side does need to deceive their publics in order to retain their support for continuing Rhodesist aggressions. The fact that there are two sides in a war doesn’t mean that both sides need to lie in order to win it. 1984 won’t necessarily be the permanent situation. The “news” won’t necessarily always be Newspeak in the U.S.-and-allied countries. But, if the Rhodes group (billionaires in U.S. and UK) succeeds both in France and in Germany, then it could become virtually permanent. Europeans will decide the world’s future, but will America’s and UK’s billionaires decide what that decision will be?
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
(No idea about the site Q-Actus but anyway it is a bad link because you cannot copy any text from their site. The article has been published by other sites, more handy, but relates “only” to the fraudulent withdrawal of Fillon from the presidential race.)
Thanks for all this! Do you know if there’s a reason why I can’t access qactus.fr? I always get re-directed.
Fillon : I forgot to mention, not only was he catholic, of course most importantly he had a friendly relationship to Vladimir Poutine.
There were many articles, but most have been tidied up.
All methods have been used, before, during and after the vote. The ultimate method is electronic rigging of the counts between the local results trnasmitted to each “préfecture” and the ministère de l’intérieur.
For this reason, before the 2017 election I tried to launch a control of the counts by a team of citizens : we had successfully prevented Sarkozy to replace paper votes by voting machines, so it is easy in France to add independantly all the local results and check if the final results dispayed at the ministère de l’intérieur are true…
I prepared a mailing and sent the first e-mail.
When I pressed “send” to send the second message, my mailbox was blocked.
The big electronic rigging has begun since Sarkozy (who had made his way to the position of ministre de l’intérieur before the presidential election 2007.
Why ? Because we had voted a clear NO to the EU dictatorship in 2005, the last non-rigged vote in our country, despite a hysterical media propaganda overflowing with disgusting moraline.
Our rights and social protection won at the end of WW2 with the Conseil National de la Résistance and de Gaulle could not be carpet bombed. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conseil_national_de_la_R%C3%A9sistance
The Juncker had declared then : no demoracy can be allowed to go against the EU dictatorship !
I’ll be back for another article on the electronic rigging later.
In the meantime, please see :
And the introduction gives the nod to Philippot. He is the only one who responds honestly, IMO.
I hear you, Brigitte. I am not so optimistic, but then people who contribute their writing are free to express themselves. Do you know of any articles where we can reasonably assume the 2017 was electronically rigged? I have seen suspicions of that, but I’d love to know if there is some stronger evidence. I bet it was, too.
Alas, Eric Zuesse doesn’t know what happened. Please do not spread false hopes.
Florian Philippot is the only remaining strong political opponent to the dictatorship, naming the ennemies EU, NATO, Big pharma, big data, transhumanists and of course finance looters. Why does Suesse write “sadly” ???
Marine Le Pen actually won the 2017 electronically rigged election because of him. Macron didn’t even pass the first round.
Marine Le pen was an opponent in the past, standing alone against war in Syria, EU dictatorship with forced immigration and so on… Now she is silent : she is an hostage.
It is totally useless writing about who has chances to win rigged elections.