How not to be struck by the resemblance between the campaigns aimed at shooting down Donald Trump and François Fillon? How can we fail to observe that these two men, with their very different personalities and ideologies, threaten the same interests?
At the same time, very large press campaigns are developing in the Western world against both US President Donald Trump and, to a lesser extent, against French presidential candidate François Fillon. The former is accused of being an irresponsible white supremacist; the second is accused of having committed what is described as a moral fault not sanctioned by law.Only a year ago, one could never have imagined such campaigns against a former French Prime Minister and even less against the current President of the United States of America.
These campaigns display the ten traditional tenets of war propaganda, as observed in 1928 by Lord Arthur Ponsonby (Falsehood in Wartime) and then specified by Professor Anne Morelli (Elementary Principles of War Propaganda):
We deplore this confrontation with a president in office (USA) and during a presidential campaign (France).
MM. Trump & Fillon are the solely responsible for what is happening.
MM. Trump & Fillon are dangerous personalities.
We defend a noble cause, that of the principles of our Constitution (USA) and that of equality (France), while Messrs. Trump & Fillon only care about their personal fortunes.
MM. Trump & Fillon behave very badly. The first attacks Muslims, the second is a thief. Of course, we have made mistakes, but not at all on the same scale.
MM. Trump & Fillon use non-orthodox methods.
MM. Trump & Fillon are off track. The first has just been disowned by the federal courts, the second by the polls.
Artists and intellectuals share our indignation.
Our cause has a sacred character.
Those who question our media are neither true Americans nor true French.
In both cases, this campaign is accompanied by judicial actions that are destined to fail. The first aims at invalidating an immigration decree, even though it is perfectly legal and constitutional, while the second is to justify police investigations when the target is not suspected of any breach of the law. These actions thrive against all logic. Who is able to operate both the media and the judiciary?
Given the international nature of these campaigns, it is clear that their sponsors are not responding to national issues and are not themselves mere Americans or French.
In previous years, such campaigns have taken place at the instigation of NATO. The most recent in the Syrian Arab Republic. However, there is nothing to accuse NATO this time of acting against the White House, nor to disrupt the French presidential election.
In addition to the hypothesis of NATO’s being a principal sponsor, one can imagine a coalition of transnational financial interests capable of influencing the few magnates of the press, the gregarious effect causing the rest to tag along.
- The New York Times sounds the halali: Donald Trump is preparing to ban the Muslim Brotherhood.