Former Soros associate: Wilders and Le Pen elected, then chaos in the EU and global markets

[araucaria]

Posted by Hervé (here)
It does sound very much to be almost the same speech... bizarre... teaching fillon a lesson about the difference in "delivery"? Or, maybe, a dirty trick played on Le Pen by her speech writer? However, Fillon and Le Pen do share some common ground with respect to France and her future.

OK, we are invited to reread post #48, let’s do it.

First off, France, a country that doesn’t have free speech like the US does, nonetheless has a whole string of anti-cabal candidates, Hamon, Fillon, Le Pen and the unmentionable/irrelevant Mélenchon. Wow, yet in a country that does have free speech like the US, until recently the cabal had been happily playing one side against the other in such a way that the outcome didn’t really matter that much. While the French can’t say what they like, they produce politicians who apparently can, but they don’t get elected, presumably because the people are not only dumb, they are deaf too. These politicians have grassroots support to get them electable, but not enough grassroots support to get them elected. Together they captured 76% of the popular vote, but the cabal, who are unexpectedly down to just one candidate, are going to get him in.

De Gaulle once said a country with 365 cheeses and 36,000 communes with their own mayors was ungovernable. The communes have been getting together, but I reckon there are still more cheeses now than then. That is no bad thing and is not going to change any time soon. Even Le Pen is not suggesting we should have just a red cheese, a white cheese and a blue cheese. Paradoxically, De Gaulle, we are told, did a pretty good job of proving himself wrong by governing the ungovernable. His independence from the US likely also has something to do with his personal experience of presidential assassinations (no work for lone nuts), and possibly evidence from the French secret service that JFK was murdered by the Corsican mafia. This very real cabal would give him the political and diplomatic leverage to get away with making known his anti-American views. The question is over his failure to explain why. The problem was the secrecy: it doesn’t matter that he/France were innocent of any wrongdoing: by maintaining secrecy, this leverage amounted to blackmail, which is an aggravating form of complicity in wrongdoing. The alternative that De Gaulle did not take was to announce to the world what had happened at Dealey Plaza as boldly as Kennedy announced to the world what the USSR was up to in Cuba during the missile crisis. So it is no good harking back to De Gaulle except to note that he took a wrong turn through the moral maze. This would naturally be exploited by the cabal (blackmailers usually get silenced, but by this time at nearly 80 he was running out of steam anyway). We are still trying to find our way back; this is a long-haul saga, which means that the idea that the cabal’s options are reduced to Macron or Macron is an encouraging sign, unless one takes the view that it is now or never. Things are rarely ‘now or never’, unless one is panicking at the thought of imminent catastrophe. Macron hasn’t been elected yet, but he already has the next big hurdle looming in June of trying to gain a parliamentary majority on the basis of 24% support from mostly newbies.

The cabal has always been a tiny minority, and therefore only in charge for as long as the majority cannot get its act together. Fillon was right to say that this had to be achieved through unimpeachable honesty. But that doesn’t mean Fillon himself was a valid candidate, or Le Pen either: it did not need a hatchet job by the cabal to remove him; he removed himself by setting a standard that he could not live up to. But the combination of candidacy and removal was a major step forward in implementing that agenda, without the man himself. See this post.

There are several inconsistencies in the story offered in this post #48. If Fillon is an anti-cabal candidate, why did nothing get done during his five years as prime minister (2007-12)? Possible answer: because Sarkozy was president, and Sarkozy is pro-cabal, right? Objection: why then would Sarkozy stick with such a PM for his entire term? You tell me, I don’t know; unless it was because Fillon was compromised by the dirt that came out this year, and being blackmailed on that account. Objection: Fillon only opened his consultancy/conflict of interest business in 2014.

Hence the alleged timing of the Fillon scandals is totally irrelevant. The fact remains that, for all his good Catholic family background, he has been behaving for years in ways that the Pope would disapprove of (btw I thought the Pope was part of the cabal?), adding hypocrisy to his other sins, and basically just way off being the ideal candidate he himself was calling for. You don’t need to introduce a cabal at all to see that he was never more than a straw man ready to be blown over by any gust of wind.

If the cabal needed Fillon out of the race, it would have been so much easier to have ousted him at the first round stage of the primary; he was not expected to reach the run-off, and only did so by presenting himself to voters as Mr Clean. Why let him through, when to do so he had to beat Sarkozy, who was also running, and Sarkozy is pro-cabal, right? It makes no sense. It makes even less sense when we consider the fact that Fillon would have to be actively involved in his own downfall. Why would he do that? Either because he was himself part of the cabal or because blackmailers, as I was saying, need to be silenced – in this case Sarkozy, who is also under formal investigation and has even been sent for trial on one of many counts. We are not talking about cabals, just good old-fashioned sleaze.

I don’t have all day to dismantle this stuff. Let me just finish with this: ‘Pompidou was a relative nobody’: what utter tosh. Even Wikipedia will tell you ‘he appeared as the natural successor to de Gaulle’. Hint, Pompidou was De Gaulle’s prime minister, leading five governments from 1962-68. You have the Sarkozy-Fillon setup in reverse: why did the ‘great De Gaulle’ place so much trust in the former Rothschild banker who was set on undoing his work? Answer, because black-and-white conspiracy theories fail dismally to explain the complexity of individuals and groups.

[Hervé]

No surprise: Clinton allies blame Russia for Macron emails leak

Sputnik
Sat, 06 May 2017 12:13 UTC

© REUTERS/ Gonzalo Fuentes

Hillary Clinton's former campaign aides on Friday accused Russia of masterminding a massive leak of French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron's campaign emails despite pre-election silence in France.

Tens of thousands of emails were purportedly stolen from accounts of Macron's political movement and posted online late on Friday. The campaign confirmed it had been the target of a massive hacking attack but said the leak was laced with fake papers to spread lies ahead of this Sunday's voting.

"Putin is waging war against Western democracies and our President is on the wrong side," Clinton's former press secretary Brian Fallon tweeted.

"For those who thought Russia was dialing back. Macron's French presidential campaign emails leaked online," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on social media.

​​Zac Petkanas, the rapid-response director of Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign said on Twitter that "Russians just hacked Macron to help another puppet get elected."

​The US intelligence has accused Moscow of orchestrating Clinton campaign leaks last year to undermine her bid against eventual victor Donald Trump. No evidence was provided.

The Macron email dump took place just hours before a media blackout of campaign propaganda came into being in France. The French will go to the polls this Sunday to choose between Macron, a centrist endorsed by Barack Obama, and his right-wing rival Marine Le Pen, who called for a dialogue with Russia.

Russian officials have repeatedly denied the allegations of meddling in foreign elections, calling them absurd. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at the Munich Security Conference in February there were "no facts, just accusations" against Moscow.

-------------------------------------------------------

Emails & docs from France’s Macron campaign leaked after ‘massive’ hacking attack

RT
Published time: 6 May, 2017 08:27
Get short URL

French presidential hopeful Emmanuelle Macron’s team confirmed that it suffered a massive hacking attack after a trove of internal documents was released online just a day before the final round of elections.

On Friday evening, a profile called EMLEAKS posted a nine-gigabyte leak to Pastebin, a web application where users can store plain text.

WikiLeaks posted a link to Pastebin on Twitter, saying that the release in question “contains many tens of thousands of emails, photos, attachments up to April 24, 2017.”

However, the group denied being involved in the leak, saying only that it is verifying the information.

• WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks 18h18 hours ago

Alleged multi-GB team Macron email archives. Could be a 4chan practical joke. We are examining

WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks

Update: #MacronLeaks contains many tens of thousands emails, photos, attachments up to April 24, 2017--around 9Gb in total

1:31 PM - 5 May 2017

Macron’s political movement, En Marche!, has released a statement confirming that the candidate and his campaign team were hacked.

“The En Marche movement has been a victim of a massive and coordinated hacking attack leading to the spreading this evening on social media of internal information of a diverse nature (emails, documents, contracts),” the statement said.

According to the team, “those circulating these documents are adding many false documents to authentic documents in order to sow doubt and disinformation.”
The release came “in the last hour of the official campaign” and this hack is “clearly a matter of democratic destabilization,” the statement added.

“Throughout the campaign, En Marche! has constantly been the party the most targeted by such attempts, in an intense and repeated fashion. The aim of those behind this leak is, all evidence suggests, to hurt the En Marche! party several hours before the second round of the French presidential election,” it continued.

The statement stressed that the documents “arising from the hacking are all lawful” and show the “normal functioning” of Macron’s presidential campaign.

In the meantime, the presidential election commission has confirmed that it is aware of the hack, but urged the media to be cautious about publishing the details.

“It [the commission] asks media, and in particular [news] websites, not to report on the content of this data” as distribution “of false information” may lead to criminal charges, it said.

WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks

#MacronLeaks assessment update: This massive leak is too late to shift the election. The intent behind the timing is curious.

2:12 PM - 5 May 2017

WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks

WikiLeaks Retweeted Reuters Top News
Macron confirms #MacronLeaks Vague claims of fakes was also tried by Clinton. Which? Leaks: http://archive.is/eQtrm

WikiLeaks added,

Reuters Top NewsVerified account @Reuters
UPDATE: Macron campaign says it has been the victim of a massive, coordinated hacking operation. http://reut.rs/2qMUdjj

3:22 PM - 5 May 2017

WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks

Why #MacronLeaks will not change French election. Macron has a 13 point advantage and French media pre-poll blackout has already started.

3:38 PM - 5 May 2017

WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks

We have not yet discovered fakes in #MacronLeaks & we are very skeptical that the Macron campaign is faster than us

4:31 PM - 5 May 2017

WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks

#MacronLeaks archives are now available as uncensorable magnet links http://archive.is/aULcm @WikiLeaks is still assessing content.

8:14 PM - 5 May 2017

[Atlas]

@1:03: "4 million people live in bad housing and it's unbearable"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xzy80uL7Arc

[norman]

Emmanuel Macron has beaten Marine Le Pen in Sunday's French election

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...on-presidency/

[sheme]

It was inevitable he was the cabals man, we knew this would happen . He has no party . Just the cabals man .

[norman]

I wonder what this does to Theresa May's ideas now?

If she thought the EU would fall to bits before she'd have to start signing agreements, that plan's up the shoot.

[araucaria]

Posted by sheme (here)
It was inevitable he was the cabals man,

This may be so, but it is not something that has been demonstrated in this thread, not one of Avalon’s best. We have had plenty of posts saying what you say, and quoting what other people have to say, but whenever I have applied a little critical thinking in order to offer a few objections, I have been met with polite silence. I was expecting, even hoping for someone to explain my mistake with some info or insight I had overlooked, but I am still waiting.

Macron is in for a rough time because he hasn’t really broadened his base of 24% in the first round, and it has nothing to do with conspiracy research. Quite simply, he was clearly the candidate representing banking and corporate interests, with both a track record in government and an explicit agenda. The French man in the street is not stupid; he is perfectly aware that Macron does not have his best interests at the top of his list. He is also very annoyed at having to vote for this guy to keep out the neo-fascists, for that is what they are.

Quite apart from that, Marine Le Pen showed in Thursday’s debate to anyone still under any illusions (including her own aides) that she is simply not up to the job. When for example she mentioned the wrong corporation with reference to an affair handled by Macron during his time as minister, you are talking about a major train wreck. Again, it takes no conspiracy: like Fillon before her, she simply self-destructed. Not smart enough for the man in the street.

Not only does it take no conspiracy, but conspiracy theory has been shown up in its negative aspect, as the excuse of guilty parties presenting themselves as victims: like Fillon, who claimed a campaign was being organized by a ‘black cabinet’ at the Elysée Palace. Nonetheless, had he been the unimpeachable man he claimed to be, instead of being forced to confess, none of the mud would have stuck. Conversely, allegations by possibly sore losers of Macron having an offshore account maybe did not stick because they were denied and the denial was accepted. This should be even easier to understand for a conspiracy buff, and here is why. Given that they had been grooming a candidate over a period of years – back in 2015, Jacques Attali announced in the magazine l’Express that the next president would be a new face (meaning his own protégé) – and that it was planned to use sleaze as an issue to blow away the competition, then it follows that the candidate in question would need to be squeaky clean. This would be absolutely no problem since we are talking about the filthy rich, for whom money is no object: it would make absolutely no sense for Macron to expose himself over a trivial sum of a million or two when his life was completely scripted and anything he might have needed would be handed to him on a plate. These guys are smart and would not do anything so dumb as to expose Macron to this sort of attack; on the other hand, knowing him innocent, they might well have initiated the allegation themselves. Again, we have no necessary conspiracy - just business as usual with campaign dirty tricks.

[Chester]

Who am I to even think I have any place to comment on this thread. I am not saying this sarcastically. I am stating this because I truly know little about French politics.

But I must admit that up until just prior to this election, I was rooting for Le Pen because Macron appeared to me to be the establishment (perhaps I could say 'cabal') candidate. Yet just a week before the election and perhaps because of a post I read by araucaria, I looked at the whole thing from a helicopter view where I saw the neighbor of Germany and thus one of the most effected (and perhaps ideologically torn) countries of the rise of Nazi Germany and all that Nazi Germany represented 75 to 85 years ago and it occurred to me that perhaps the best outcome... and I am sad to say this... but that the best outcome may not be Le Pen... because the associations (especially with regards to her father) may still be too sensitive and thus risk more damage than good.

But again, I truly have no reason to post about the matter except that I just felt I needed to express this. I have no clue if what I am suggesting is in any way valid or in any way foundationally supported.

[turiya]

Macron - The Welcome Mat?

[araucaria]

Bienvenue: an interesting word and concept. Every morning I get an extremely irritating Bienvenue from Bill Gates welcoming me to Windows as if I were entering his space rather than he mine. His software is full of holes, windows of opportunity for unwelcome outsiders, and windows of opportunity for ‘Bill Gates’ to offer endless patches and add-ons and unwanted upgrades. Rant over. We find the same in these elections. The primaries on both right and left were organized in such a way that anyone could vote, merely by paying a token fee and claiming to embrace the values of whichever side they were voting with. Given that many people were openly admitting to interfering in the process of the party they would be voting against later on, it is hardly surprising that the primaries produced unlikely, and possibly straw man candidates. Open borders to undocumented aliens translated into electoral terms.

The next step is the Parliamentary elections. Macron, a president without a party, is recruiting 577 members of the public to stand for what would become a ‘presidential majority’. He is recruiting these people, maybe not on eBay, but on the Internet all the same, of all places. In the last three months he has collected 14,000 applicants. Let us hope there is a vetting process worthy of the name in place; nevertheless, you have a party with no history whatsoever with anonymous citizens defeating odds of better than 28 to 1 to become candidates for whom we are expected to vote simply on Macron’s recommendation. Some of these people will be unknowns, and that will be their platform: new faces; others will be opportunistic politicians scuttling from their own drowning formations to save their careers, and that will be their platform: some reassuring old faces practising a new brand of politics. And of course there will be some good bona fide people in the mix as well.


Will it work? Will Macron get his majority? And will it act to ratify his decisions, or to undermine them? The paradox is that more democracy means fewer and less docile minions and more citizens speaking their mind; another paradox is that more democracy is intended to lead to greater consensus. Contrast with the current situation where everyone is squabbling and yet the same old agenda is getting pushed through regardless: divide and rule. The resolution of the two paradoxes only leads to a third: in matters of government, less is more. Presidential elections are the worst of all, one huge diversion, tending to focus all the power upon a single individual. Macron is not just an ex-banker, he trained as a philosopher, and I gather has been studying the philosophy of kingship. He considers that ever since Louis XVI lost his head the French have been yearning for a king, the last one being De Gaulle; and his elaborate pantomime in front of the Louvre pyramid was supposed to restore a bit of regality to the proceedings. One pundit dubbed him Tutanmacron (i.e. a latter-day Tutankhamen). This is the theory of the elite in everyday retrograde terms. Last year we had an interesting discussion on related matters on the Here & Now thread. Start here and track back.

Kingship is retrograde, in historical terms: the long-term trend shows that we are trying to move on. See this post. But it is an island of stability, or a phoenix, reinventing itself when everything else around it changes, as the notion of ‘feudalism then and now’ suggests. See here and here.

[Hervé]

Posted by Sam Hunter (here)
[...]
... because the associations (especially with regards to her father) may still be too sensitive and thus risk more damage than good.
[...]

Posted by Hervé (here)
Le Pen & Trump aren’t even close – are we stuck with Emmanuel Macr-Obama?

by Ramin Mazaheri April 24, 2017


It’s not [so much] that the National Front has changed since the 1980s – it’s that the other parties have changed so much for the worse.

C’est ça – that’s the point, as the French say, and which translates into English rather ineffectively.

[...]

Trump is hilarious and entertaining (and thousands of kilometers from where I live), yes, but hate for him is new: Le Pen and her family have been hated for decades.

The Le Pens have spent decades insulting Muslims, Roma, minorities – French people – and that simply cannot be erased.

[...]

However, I can report to you that this current of National Front fear/resentment/myopia is too strong for me to think that Le Pen will win: I have met so many people from across all boundaries who simply cannot, will not, ever vote for any Le Pen. Their dead ancestors practically forbid it.

[...]
===============================================

Macron was/is tutored/mentored by Jacques Attali...

There you have it: The choice between bankers and the Nazi "Collabos" ghosts...

... wait... didn't the bankers finance Hitler's Brown Shirts and war machine as well as the Bolsheviks?

... either way, France is toasted to a golden crisp, both sides...

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Hervé (here)
... either way, France is toasted to a golden crisp, both sides...

Yes. As Alex Jones said when the election news broke: (21:45 in this video)

You can pretty much stick a fork in France. They're done.

[sheme]

Richie Allen show Is Macron being groomed by his wife.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW7qqQTff7U Richie Allen show

[norman]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. My daughter lives in Toulouse with my only two grand children and a guy who earns good money flight testing Airbus planes off the production line. She's thrilled with the result of the election and seems to buy the line that Le Pen was a raving fascist they were very lucky to escape.

She's even sharing her pleasure on her facebook page:


I love her, she's my daughter. I don't want a big fight with her.

I responded by posting a jolly little haha note on my bogus FB timeline that only she can see, with this:




Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'm trying to laugh but there are no tears of joy.

I could see this coming. It was in the tea leaves I was reading.

[araucaria]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Hervé (here)
... either way, France is toasted to a golden crisp, both sides...

Yes. As Alex Jones said when the election news broke: (21:45 in this video)

You can pretty much stick a fork in France. They're done.

Thank you for that, Bill and Hervé, but it does nothing to improve the quality of this thread. When our friend Sam Hunter has the honesty to say:

Posted by Sam Hunter (here)
Who am I to even think I have any place to comment on this thread. I am not saying this sarcastically. I am stating this because I truly know little about French politics.

the likes of Henry Makow and Alex Jones step in where angels fear to tread. What do they know about French politics? They are talking from the lofty viewpoint of the overarching conspiracy, itself viewed from the lowly position of alternative media contributors. Both those positions have advantages and drawbacks, and when taken together may have a self-fulfilling effect. I would suggest that if toast is all you can see, then maybe we are talking about a ‘magic’ viewpoint, as in ‘magic bullet’.

My own viewpoint is the outcome of over 40 years living on the spot, in France. I first arrived when President Pompidou was still fairly new in his job. In November 1970, the month De Gaulle died, literally as the typical ‘man in the street’ I came within about three feet of Pompidou as he drove past to open France’s first intercity autoroute. This is as lowly a position as you will get, which is an advantage in that one ‘has one’s ear to the ground’, being oneself ‘grounded’, i.e. most sensitive to tiny local detail. If on the other hand you take the overarching view, then either you belong to the elite of planners, or, in the case of Makow and Jones, you are looking at them through a distorting mirror, second-guessing what they are up to, in addition to sharing their blindness as to the detail at the grassroots level, notably due to the ignorance that comes from being so far above the rabble. Maybe they can read a car number plate from geostationary orbit, but until they have universal and total mind control, they can’t deal with the deepest thoughts of every individual and how those thoughts pan out into collective action. There is no smaller than lifesize model for that. We are talking about pure planners who have to rely on others on the ground to implement their plans, and at that distance the best-laid plans can go awry at any stage.

Here is an anecdote that I can bring you from my years of experience here. For the 1994 Normandy landings, having decided to attack the beaches, Churchill and others decided they needed a couple of artificial ports codenamed Mulberries to bring troops and supplies ashore while establishing a bridgehead. Churchill told the engineers, ‘Do not argue the matter. The difficulties will argue for themselves.’ The difficulties were clearly ironed out since the British harbour at Arromanches was duly built and operated to plan. But the American Mulberry was never completed on time and was destroyed unfinished in a storm. The reason for this was that the Americans were not terribly interested in this British contraption, and decided they didn’t need it anyway, preferring to unload the ships directly onto the beach. So we see that there was nothing wrong with the plan or the blueprint per se, but a combination of a foreign mentality and practical considerations on the ground meant that a totally different outcome resulted from the same set of circumstances through failure to take into account the human factor on the one hand and practicalities (unexpected difficulties and/or shortcuts, etc.) on the other. The fact that all ultimately went well does not mean that everything went according to plan. Moreover, all these people were very much on the same side in a battlefield situation with an enemy to face on top of everything.

Things tend to be very neat in theory; in practice they often get rather messy. Transpose this to France: Macron and his planners mean to introduce a regal-type regime to be implemented not only by his allies, who are fewer than advertised, but also by opponents in large numbers. Hence while providing a king-figure to be welcomed with open arms by one section of the population, they expose themselves to another, regicidal, section, potentially capable of mobilizing a majority in the spirit of 1793. From the overarching viewpoint, such an occurrence is always unexpected, simply because the elite is so completely cut off from the populace; if it weren’t, there would be no problem. The messiness I take away from the demise of Charles de Gaulle is that the cabal was tugging in two different directions; they wanted rid of him, but now they see him as a useful model.

Was it Henry Makow said the cabal got rid of De Gaulle? To repeat my earlier comment, the fact that all ultimately went well does not mean that everything went according to plan. It is not true that everything went according to plan, and it does matter. The fact is that the 1968 student-worker coalition got rid of him, albeit with a delayed effect, and they did so without the help of the CIA. Which shows that the simplistic, dualistic idea that my enemy’s enemy is my friend is not universally applicable. There were no allies in the CIA-De Gaulle-student rebels triangle, so nothing can be deduced from the ouster of one party. Something had to give, and it was the old man, end of story. The CIA obtained its planned result: it did not achieve it. It simply coincided with the student-workers achieved objective of toppling King Charles. Hence modern-day ‘regicide’ is alive and well. If it could independently see the back of General de Gaulle, I wouldn’t hold out much hope for Emmanuel Macron.

[Hervé]

Jim Stone's math:

I HAVE A GOOD QUESTION:

Now, there is supposedly a huge impending terror attack planned for France.

QUESTION: WHY would there be a "huge Islamic terror attack" planned for France, right after France was in effect, handed to Muslims and the EU?

How about: The Rothchild dynasty knows the native French know the election was stolen, MILLIONS of them received destroyed ballots, and a terror attack on top of it all might spark a revolt that can be exploited for whatever they have planned next?

Le Pen most likely beat Macron by 4 million votes
Here is the math:

33 million votes cast (and counted).

16 million votes cast (and nullified due to damaged ballots, and claimed "forfeited protest votes".)

Votes cast to Macron: 22 million.

Votes invalidated by damaged ballots (100 percent of these were Le Pen's) : 15 million.

Votes for Le Pen that were not invalidated by damaged ballots: 11 million.

Probable actual protest votes, no more than 1 million

Le Pen: 11 million plus 15 million is 26 million.

ACTUAL PROBABLE FINAL VOTE TALLY:

Le Pen: 26 million.
Macron: 22 million.
Protest: 1 million.

But it is a lot worse than that, because there were extra ballots printed for Macron, that went poof into nowhere. So obviously they got stuffed. Macron DEFINITELY, beyond a doubt, did not get 22 million votes.

Macron is openly and publicly stated, even by the MSM, to be the Rothschild big banker choice. Macron hates France, and did not even honor the national anthem after "winning".

It is flatly impossible for him to have been elected.

In French elections, any damaged ballot is automatically thrown out as "spoiled". So to steal a French election all you have to do is tear up most of one candidate's ballots before mailing them out. They will then be rejected when counted.

This is precisely what happened to Le Pen. The torn ballots by the millions, which are a confirmed fact, prove the French election was stolen.

Beyond saying this, while the MSM refuses to report it, what can I say or do? There is nothing I can do about it if the French just sit there and suck it up.

It took a huge secret operation to destroy that many Le Pen ballots by hand. Thousands of people had to have been employed to do it....
[...]

Full article: http://82.221.129.208/baaasepages2.html


Related:
French election commission looks into claims by Le Pen campaign of ballot tampering

DIRTY TRICKS: French Voters Receive Invalid, Damaged Le Pen Ballots


Edit: Actual numbers recorded/published:

[...]

Mr Macron earned over 20.8 million votes in the election, while Ms Le Pen gained a record 10.6 million votes for Front National.

But while France had 47.5 million registered voters, a near-record 25 per cent abstained from casting their ballot in this year’s election. A further 8.6 per cent of people who did vote spoiled their ballot or left it blank.

The number of people who abstained from voting totaled 12.1 million, already outnumbering the amount of people who chose to vote for Ms Le Pen.

This, coupled with the amount of blank and spoiled ballots - numbering more than four million - would have comfortably put the Front National candidate in third place.

Related:

• Macron victory praised by Hollywood as 'a win for sanity and light'
• Investors, economists and strategists react to Macron's victory
• Euro hits a six-month high as Macron’s wins French election
• Nearly half of young French voters backed Le Pen, projections suggest

[araucaria]

Beyond saying this, while the MSM refuses to report it, what can I say or do? There is nothing I can do about it if the French just sit there and suck it up.

I can’t believe I’m reading this stuff. While ‘the French just sit there and suck it up’, Marine Le Pen goes dancing. Did no one tell her she won? Or is she a part of the cabal, bought off to lose? That would explain her appalling debate performance. But then, if she was trying to lose, why would anyone want to vote for her anyway?

For the record: 47 million votes would require a 100% turnout: not going to happen. Personal testimony: I can see our local polling station through my windows: pretty quiet all day. Fact. People I have seen voted Macron and were unhappy about doing so. Fact.

[turiya]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Hervé (here)
... either way, France is toasted to a golden crisp, both sides...

Yes. As Alex Jones said when the election news broke: (21:45 in this video)

You can pretty much stick a fork in France. They're done.

Thank you for that, Bill and Hervé, but it does nothing to improve the quality of this thread. When our friend Sam Hunter has the honesty to say:

Posted by Sam Hunter (here)
Who am I to even think I have any place to comment on this thread. I am not saying this sarcastically. I am stating this because I truly know little about French politics.

the likes of Henry Makow and Alex Jones step in where angels fear to tread. What do they know about French politics?

I don't think it has really much to do with "knowing about French politics." This is not a very complicated discussion to have. It's whether the people really care about preserving their French heritage, or whether they could care less about having their country / society being completely destroyed by the onslaught invasion of foreign migrants that have no willingness or capability to assimilate into a hosting nation's culture.

More than a few good points brought up in this conversation between Stefan Molyneux & his associate, Mike.

Au Revoir France
True News: Week In Review
(Published May 9, 2017)

VIDEO

[araucaria]

Posted by turiya (here)
I don't think it has really much to do with "knowing about French politics." This is not a very complicated discussion to have.

That is just your unreasoned contradictory opinion supposedly backed up by yet another outsider contribution that I refuse to look at. I am truly appalled – particularly at a time when Bill Ryan is explaining elsewhere what serious research involves – by the total unwillingness of Avalonians to contribute any personal critical input here to turn this non-discussion into a genuine exchange of ideas. I am not talking about ideological debates such as immigration policy. I am talking about the nuts and bolts of an election, hard facts. Concrete events like Fillon admitting he took cash or favours from certain people, or Marine Le Pen conceding defeat. The points I have been making have been systematically ignored, including now.

Please someone answer in their own words just one of my questions: Why would Marine Le Pen be dancing to celebrate passing 10 million votes when she is supposed to have won this election? Wouldn’t the normal reaction be to kick up a huge fuss? If I use the Startpage search engine recommended by Alex Jones to search for “Le Pen a gagné” (Le Pen won), I come up with just eight pages including no conspiracy theories whatsoever, and mostly predating or otherwise irrelevant to the election result per se. Tell me how news of the alleged vote-rigging on such a massive scale got out to an English-speaking audience with zero leakage through a single French-speaking Internet poster.

Here is another factual element to deal with. In the vote-counting system we have, ballots are placed by the hundred, unopened in individual envelopes which are given to a table of four people to count with members of the general public breathing down their necks. One person opens the envelopes, another reads out the candidate’s name, and the other two record the result on paper. Once counted the entire hundred ballots go back into the envelope which is sealed. This means that it would be a huge task to isolate for special treatment large numbers of ballots for a given candidate, and particularly to do so unnoticed by anyone.

[Ewan]

Posted by araucaria (here)
Was it Henry Makow said the cabal got rid of De Gaulle? To repeat my earlier comment, the fact that all ultimately went well does not mean that everything went according to plan. It is not true that everything went according to plan, and it does matter. The fact is that the 1968 student-worker coalition got rid of him, albeit with a delayed effect, and they did so without the help of the CIA. Which shows that the simplistic, dualistic idea that my enemy’s enemy is my friend is not universally applicable. There were no allies in the CIA-De Gaulle-student rebels triangle, so nothing can be deduced from the ouster of one party. Something had to give, and it was the old man, end of story. The CIA obtained its planned result: it did not achieve it. It simply coincided with the student-workers achieved objective of toppling King Charles. Hence modern-day ‘regicide’ is alive and well. If it could independently see the back of General de Gaulle, I wouldn’t hold out much hope for Emmanuel Macron.

Would we know if agents provocateurs had been involved? Those matters are, by their very nature, difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty; often only coming to light decades later if at all.

I wasn't there, I know nothing about it, but I am a little familiar with the track record of the CIA. Given that as the basis for further musing it is not difficult to hypothesise, at least, that perhaps there were people involved that had a more political agenda than just dissatisfaction.

Posted by araucaria (here)
That is just your unreasoned contradictory opinion supposedly backed up by yet another outsider contribution that I refuse to look at. I am truly appalled – particularly at a time when Bill Ryan is explaining elsewhere what serious research involves – by the total unwillingness of Avalonians to contribute any personal critical input here to turn this non-discussion into a genuine exchange of ideas. I am not talking about ideological debates such as immigration policy. I am talking about the nuts and bolts of an election, hard facts. Concrete events like Fillon admitting he took cash or favours from certain people, or Marine Le Pen conceding defeat. The points I have been making have been systematically ignored, including now.

Please someone answer in their own words just one of my questions: Why would Marine Le Pen be dancing to celebrate passing 10 million votes when she is supposed to have won this election? Wouldn’t the normal reaction be to kick up a huge fuss? If I use the Startpage search engine recommended by Alex Jones to search for “Le Pen a gagné” (Le Pen won), I come up with just eight pages including no conspiracy theories whatsoever, and mostly predating or otherwise irrelevant to the election result per se. Tell me how news of the alleged vote-rigging on such a massive scale got out to an English-speaking audience with zero leakage through a single French-speaking Internet poster.

Here is another factual element to deal with. In the vote-counting system we have, ballots are placed by the hundred, unopened in individual envelopes which are given to a table of four people to count with members of the general public breathing down their necks. One person opens the envelopes, another reads out the candidate’s name, and the other two record the result on paper. Once counted the entire hundred ballots go back into the envelope which is sealed. This means that it would be a huge task to isolate for special treatment large numbers of ballots for a given candidate, and particularly to do so unnoticed by anyone.

I can back Sam's point above that I contribute nothing due to complete ignorance, I would be in the same position were the topic about British politics.

Your points may not be getting a response but they are not being ignored by everyone, it does appear some avoid responding though.

If I may generalise on a wider issue, there was a theory being postulated that a particular goal, (of the cabal) might be the destruction of Europe. The enforced immigration combined with the twisted new liberal madness was creating a scenario that would explode by its very nature. Then the Brits voted Brexit, Trump became president and, to follow that theme, Le Pen should have been elected - that might have slotted nicely into the developing jigsaw on the Demise of Europe. In fact Le Pen winning might have earned the 'France is toast' prediction more accurately as it would naturally follow, according to one line of reasoning, from the collapse of the EU.

(I personally believe France stood a better chance alone, free of the EU but as I've already stated I know little about the situation so my opinion is pretty meaningless.)

From an onlookers perspective Macron does not seem to be the result France would have truly wanted, in fact Macron would appear to be everything the French should despise the more you delve into what the man is, his history and connections.

I found it very interesting that you could find no French references in respect of a vote-rigging scandal yet the English language results are awash with them.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Hervé (here)
Jim Stone's math:

I HAVE A GOOD QUESTION:

It took a huge secret operation to destroy that many Le Pen ballots by hand. Thousands of people had to have been employed to do it....

Jim kind of sabotages his whole premise right there, do you not think?