Hobby Lobby Fined For Importing Stolen Artifacts

archaeology
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
July 9, 2017

This week has been such an unusually fruitful week for articles being shared that, today, Saturday, I am still combing through them to decide on what to schedule for blogs this coming week! So I want to thank everyone once again for sharing so many good finds, making the choice of what to blog about more difficult and, in a way, more fun. Some of these articles I have in fact archived for next week, as I may yet blog about them.

But this story had to be at the top of the list. Indeed, when I saw it, there was no doubt in my mind that it was at the top of the “final cuts” folder. So many people found various versions of it that I knew there was something in the aether and that this story would require some attention. So I present some of those various versions that people found for your consideration, before I get to my high octane speculation about the story, with a thank you to all of you who shared these articles and who are following the story:

Hobby Lobby to pay $3 million fine, forfeit smuggled ancient artifacts

Hobby Lobby will pay $3 million, forfeit ancient items smuggled from Iraq

Justice Department sues Hobby Lobby over thousands of looted Iraqi artifacts it bought

Let’s begin with the last of these articles, which indicates that Israel and the United Arab Emirates were involved in the deal. What is unclear, of course, is whether the individuals and organizations that functioned as components of the deal were simply located in these countries, or whether they were actually members of their governments. For reasons I’ll get to in the high octane speculation, I suspect the latter.

Turning to the second article, we see a picture of a cuneiform tablet from the New York Times, with the caption “Pictured is a cuneiform tablet, one of several artifacts smuggled from Iraq by owners of Hobby Lobby.” Then we read:

Prosecutors said in the complaint that Hobby Lobby, whose evangelical Christian owners have long maintained an interest in the biblical Middle East, began in 2009 to assemble a collection of cultural artifacts from the Fertile Crescent. The company went so far as to send its president and an antiquities consultant to the United Arab Emirates to inspect a large number of rare cuneiform tablets — traditional clay slabs with wedge-shaped writing that originated in Mesopotamia thousands of years ago.

In 2010, as a deal for the tablets was being struck, an expert on cultural property law who had been hired by Hobby Lobby warned company executives that the artifacts might have been looted from historical sites in Iraq and that a failing to determine their heritage could break the law.

Despite these words of caution, the prosecutors said, Hobby Lobby bought more than 5,500 artifacts — the tablets and clay talismans and so-called cylinder seals — from an unnamed dealer for $1.6 million in December 2010.

Now, this really captured my attention, not for what it is saying, but rather, for what it seems to be carefully avoiding saying, namely, that these cuneiform tablets and cylinder seals might be some of the missing loot from the Baghdad Museum Looting, about which I have written in my books and blogged about. I have always been suspicious of the whole events for several reasons, and it’s worth recalling those reasons: (1) People dressed in American uniforms were seen by others going into the museum and removing things. Whether they were actually American soldiers or merely people dressed in American uniforms is a moot point. I have suspected the latter, and that the looting was a false flag, because (2) the story of the looting and people dressed in American uniforms was broken – as far as I am aware – by Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine, a point which puts a rather funny light on the whole event, for as I have pointed out numerous times, the French and Germans had several archaeological teams in Iraq at the behest of Saddam Hussein’s government, digging up the Iraqi desert. These teams would have kept field catalogues of their discoveries, including brief notes about the contents of any cuneiform tablets they unearthed. Of course, when the US and UK and its “allies” went into Iraq during operation Desert Storm, the French and Germans were advised to remove their archaeological teams. The unwritten part of this story is that the German intelligence, the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) maintained a presence in the country, and hence, in my speculations previously advanced, would have been capable of mounting a looting of the Museum with personnel in American uniforms. (3) When the Museum looting was studied, experts came to the conclusion that it was an “inside job” since the looters apparently were interested in specific things and knew exactly where to go to get them, in spite of the fact that many items had not, apparently, been entered into the Museum catalogue.

(4) Then came the U.S.-led recovery operation led by Marine Colonel Bagdonovich, which, in terms of the art works recovered, was quite successful. But as I mentioned at the time, something disturbed me, and this was the fact that the missing cuneiform tablets had seemed to drop completely out of the story, while the world’s newspapers concentrated on supplying us with pictures of dazzling and beautiful ancient Mesopotamian art works that had been recovered. Faced with golden crowns and jewelry, thousands of dusty brown clay tablets really weren’t very sensational, and I suspected then, and still do now, that that was the whole point: the really important loot was the tablets, not the art works.

The tablets, in other words, had dropped right off the radar, until a few years later, several thousands apparently turned up in Spain, causing a rumpus between Madrid and Baghdad, because Madrid did not want to return them. I say apparently turned up in Spain, because, like so often in these stories, we are never presented with the chain of evidence concerning these tablets to document the claim that they were, indeed, recently looted.  And so it is here: we’re supposed to believe that Hobby Lobby was the final step in a chain of custody from Iraq, to Israel and the Emirates, to the USA. But in order to establish this, it would seem to me that one would have to have an itemized inventory of what was on the tablets, or a photo record of each one, and then establish that the specific tablets in question were in the possession of each of the alleged participants.   So the question remains open: were these tablets part of the original Baghdad Museum Looting haul (or any associated looting activity at that time?) and what is on said tablets that would make Hobby Lobby want to buy them (and then, sell some of them)?

All this brings me to my high octane speculation of the day, for in the first article we read that this may not have been a “simple mistake” on Hobby Lobby’s part:

Ancient cuneiform tablets and clay bullae from modern-day Iraq were smuggled into the United States through the United Arab Emirates and Israel, JOD officials said. With Hobby Lobby’s consent they were falsely labeled as “ceramics” and “samples” and illegally shipped to Hobby Lobby stores and two corporate offices, according to the DOJ.

Cuneiform is an ancient system of writing on clay tablets that was used in Mesopotamia, according to the DOJ, and clay bullae are balls of clay on which seals have been imprinted.

“In 2009, Hobby Lobby began acquiring a variety of historical Bibles and other artifacts. Developing a collection of historically and religiously important books and artifacts about the Bible is consistent with the company’s mission and passion for the Bible,” said a Hobby Lobby statement. (Emphasis added)

We are told that the haul was not simply cuneiform tablets, but cylinder seals and so on, and that all this interest was because of Hobby Lobby’s interest in the bible. Cylinder seals were used in Mesopotamia as a way of sealing documents; they would be equivalent to today’s corporate seals, or monarchial or hierarchical seals of a king, nobleman, or bishop, and thus they are rather important from a legal point of view. They could, potentially, be seals that once belonged to Mesopotamian dynasties (and I’ll let the reader run wild with speculation on that possibility… I don’t think I need to say any more). What interests me rather is the allegation that these items were intentionally mislabeled, and therefore that the intention was to smuggle them into this country. That implies, to my speculative mind, a further intention to possibly remove more “intriguing” or perhaps even “offending” tablets from public view and scrutiny, while benefiting a narrow circle of insiders studying the contents of these objects. And what better way to do it than through corporate cutouts. I’ve even entertained the notion that the real reason Saddam Hussein was hung was that he may already have been briefed on the possible “sensational contents” of some of the things being dug up in his country’s deserts, and that he simply had to be permanently silenced. After all, it was he who invited those archaeological teams to Iraq in the first place.

And, as always, we’re still waiting for these media to report on the contents of these tablets, or at least, direct us to links where we may view each and every one, and to sites where – if any translations have been made – we can read what’s on them. I suspect if that were to happen, we’d be reading a lot of ordinary business transactions, a bit like reading someone’s checkbook register. The “juicy” stuff has probably been carefully removed from public view… and perhaps found its way into a corporate vault somewhere between Baghdad and here.

The sad bottom line is, that the looting of antiquities from Iraq is a story that just keeps on giving.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Advertisements

Data Indicates Cell Phones Expose Consumers To Radiation Levels Higher Than Manufacturers Claim, Says The French Government

Source: ActivistPost.com
Catherine Frompovich
June 20, 2017

The Environmental Health Trust published “Cell Phone Radiation Scandal: More Exposure Than Manufacturers Claim ‘PhoneGate’  In France, government data release reveals 9 out of 10 phones tested exceed regulatory limits” [1].

The French ANFR published online on June 1, 2017, a listing of cell phone data “details of make, model and test results for each cell phone that was tested, after months of legal action by French physician Dr. Marc Arazi.”

According to Environmental Health Trust,

Popular brands such as Apple, Motorola, Samsung and Nokia were among the cell phone models tested. When tested in contact with the body, some phones have test results as high as triple the manufacturer’s previously reported radiation levels.  [1] [CJF emphasis]

Here’s something that for the life of me, I cannot understand parents permitting or allowing their toddlers to play with!

Source [1]

Dr. Arazi replied with the following statement as a result of a French court order to publish the results of cell phone radiation exposure when used next to the human body, as most cell phones are handled, even worn “live” in women’s bras, men’s trouser pants pockets, on belts, or anywhere on the body:

As a physician, I am deeply concerned about what this means for our health and especially the health of our children. People have a right to know that when cell phones are tested in ways people commonly use phones – such as in direct contact with their body – the values exceed current regulatory limits. This is a first victory for transparency in this industry scandal.

Here are Dr. Arazi’s less than 2 minute comments about the French court’s decision on cell phone radiation dangers.

Continue Reading At: ActivistPost.com

France is “decriminalizing” cannabis nationwide

Image: France is “decriminalizing” cannabis nationwide
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
June 8, 2017

How cannabis use laws will be enforced is about to undergo a big change in France. Recently, the nation announced that they would be ending all prison terms for cannabis users by the end of 2017. Currently, cannabis use is punishable by up to one year in prison and a staggering EUR 3,750 fine. While it will still remain a criminal offense, it seems that prison sentences will no longer be on the table.

It will still be a long time before France truly “decriminalizes” cannabis, but it’s clear that a monumental shift is taking place. Many hope that French President Emmanuel Macron will continue to reform current marijuana legislation in the country, and that current laws will continue to be modified. Encouraging cannabis law reform was a key component of Macron’s electoral campaign, and so far it seems that he is beginning to deliver on his promise.

France is one of half a dozen of countries belonging to the European Union that criminalizes the use of cannabis, but the tides are slowly changing. Countries such as Portugal, Estonia and Latvia have already decriminalized cannabis, and Spain has decriminalized it as well, provided it’s being used in a public place.

French government spokesperson Christophe Castaner has said that an average violation of this sort takes up to six hours of time for police officers and presiding magistrates. “What is important today is to be effective, and above all to free up time for our police so they can focus more on essential matters,” Castaner said.

While these changes in France may seem small, they are certainly a big step in a new direction. As Waking Times reports, “The French Observatory for Drug Use and Addiction reported that in 2014, 17 million French citizens said they had taken cannabis at some point in their lives. There are estimated 700,000 daily cannabis users in France.” Clearly, there are plenty of people who will be able to breathe easy knowing that their cannabis use won’t automatically land them in jail anymore.

Why should cannabis be decriminalized?

Many people believe that possession for personal use and drug use should not be crimes, mostly because the government should not be able to tell citizens what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. There are many reasons why cannabis should be at least decriminalized. Beyond the scope of personal freedom, there is also the fact that cannabis can be used as medicine, and is decidedly less harmful than most other drugs — including legal ones like alcohol and tobacco.

As Huffington Post reports, a team of drug experts from the UK even published a study on this very fact — and found that cannabis was less harmful to others, as well as the individual user, when compared to alcohol, tobacco and a host of other drugs. While other drugs like heroin and cocaine are readily accepted as “worse” than cannabis, the fact is that cigarettes and booze are worse for you too.

And to top that off, cannabis actually has a very low potential for abuse. Statistics show that cannabis dependence occurs in just 9 to 10 percent of adult marijuana users. Comparatively, a staggering 30 percent of adult tobacco users will struggle with dependence — and despite being more addictive, tobacco is still legal. The cannabis plant is also touted for its array of medicinal uses and health benefits.

To put it simply: France is making great strides by lessening the punishment for cannabis use, but there is still a long way to go with marijuana reform.

Sources:

WakingTimes.com

EuroNews.com

HuffingtonPost.com
Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Now That The French Elections Are Over, Who Gets To Play Karl Der…


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 19, 2017

I almost have to laugh at the comic relief the European Union provides us.

It was the utopian fantasy of the post-war era, of the Adenauers and Mendez-Frances and Averill Harrimans and other nomenklaturachniks of the globaloney crowd: bigger and bigger federalism good, national economies, bad. Oh, and let’s not forget, that the whole idea also found major support in the circles around Kaiser Wilhelm II, were articulated in a very inchoate form as a war aim by his Chancellor, Bettmann-Hollweg, in September 1914, and became the subject of detailed planning in the early 1940s by Reichbank president and finance minister Walter Funk, in a Nazi-I.G. Farben fantasia that looks all too much like the current bureaucratic monstrosity and tyranny in Brussels.  The fantasy was born, of course, because Europe had just been through two World Wars, the basic point of which was “the rest of the world has to gang up on Germany, fight it (and themselves) to exhaustion, to prevent it from becoming a world power, which it very much wants to be, and which we very much don’t want it to be.” Even that 1942 Walter Funk Reichsbank-I.G. Farben study on how to make a European Union under the dominance of Germany was a kind of back-handed admission that even the Nazis (or at least, that rare breed of them that were somewhat sane) recognized that the “we’re-having-a-war-and-everyone’s-invited-please-RSVP” approach wasn’t working out quite according to the Meisterplan.  Throw in some Halford MacKinderisms about world islands, heartlands, and the absolute necessity for “the West” (France, Britain, and the USA) to prevent a Russo-German(and Chinese!) alliance – which would dominate the “world island” (Eurasia) and thence the world – stir and simmer over medium heat, and you have all the makings of a NATO stew.

It’s that simmering NATO stew that brings me to today’s thought-provoking op-ed piece at Zero Hedge, which Mr. H.B. discovered and shared:

“Zumutungen!” Buyer’s Remorse In France, Impossible Situation For Germany

The problem, if one reads the quotations of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard cited in the article carefully, is the German economy:

Emmanuel Macron’s lightning conquest of France has put Germany in an awkward spot. French voters have picked an apostle of Europe and an arch-defender of the Franco-German axis. While this is welcomed with jubilation by some in Berlin, it raises thorny questions that others would prefer left unanswered.

He plans Nordic labor reforms, easier collective bargaining rules, and the sort of tax shake-up that German leaders have long demanded. The quid pro quo is that Berlin must agree to eurozone fiscal union, and cut its corrosive current account surplus – now 8.6 percent of GDP and in breach of EU rules.

“If France is not reformed, we will not be able to regain the confidence of the Germans,” Mr. Macron told Ouest-France. “After that, Germany must ask whether its own situation is tenable. It is accumulating surpluses which are neither good for its own economy nor for the eurozone.”

He wants a eurozone finance minister and budget, with joint debt, and a banking union with shared deposit insurance, all legitimized by a new parliament for the currency bloc. It implies a unitary eurozone superstate.

This calls Berlin’s bluff. The German elites often argue that they cannot accept such radical proposals as long as other eurozone states scoff at budget rules and fail to put their house in order.

The Handelsblatt accused Mr. Macron of “Teuton-bashing” over the trade surplus. The German Council of Economic Experts holds defiantly to the national view that trade surpluses are proof of virtue. It sees EMU debt-pooling as a slippery slope towards a “Transferunion”.

And this, of course, is the simmering NATO stew dilemma: NATO, according to the vowel-impaired Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski in his Grand Chessboard, was as much about containing German power as it was about containing Soviet power. For the German governments from Adenauer to Schmidt, it was as much about allowing Germany to rearm, without having to assume the mantle of pan-European defense, and growing their economy. NATO, on this view, was a cynical “gentleman’s” agreement: everyone knew what the other side was up to, and everyone agreed not to talk about it (think Molotov-Ribbentrop pact here) and pretend like everyone was friends now(think Molotov-Ribbentrop pact again). The same, I suspect, is really what the early Common Market, and now the EU, is all about: for the rest of Europe, as revealed by M. Macron’s remarks, the EU is about contriving a mechanism to contain German economic and manufacturing power and ultimately German sovereignty (You have too much surplus!), while for the Germans, it has always been about the German economic domination of Europe (think Bettmann-Hollweg and Walter Funk) until everyone else (mainly France) gets their spendthrift houses in order; the hidden caveat being that Germany is perfectly happy not to have everyone else get their manufacturing and fiscal houses in order, because Germany can retain its sovereignty and dominate the situation.

And in the background, there lingers that suspicion that there has been a quiet and covert economic war going on between the USA and Germany: heavy fines on German companies, and American troop transfers to Clemenceau’s old cordon sanitaire in Poland and Romania, which we’re told are in response to Russia, but which I suspect are equally targeted at Germany.

It’s about who gets to play Karl der Grosse… er… Charlemagne.

After all the fine verbiage, treaties, globaloney sentiment, and after all the centuries, it is still ultimately about Realpolitik.

There will be now an immense tug-of-war between Paris and Berlin, with Washington and Moscow as the interested parties. Where it goes is anyone’s guess, but there are essentially three broad options: (1) A European super-state, which will still be dominated by Germany both economically and militarily; (2) a “rump” EU, resulting in Germany abandoning the European project should France (and the hidden player, America) press too hard; this will result in massive German rearmament and a vigorous eastward foreign policy with Russia and China (which we’ve seen signs of already); (3) A “rump” EU resulting in France’s abandonment of the European project, leaving the rest to be dominated by Germany.  Of course, there will be several shades and “micropositions” between all of these as well. Add to this the growing discontent in Eastern Europe over the immigration crisis, and one has all the potential makings for a potential massive geopolitical realignment in Europe.

This is one to watch. And one can expect Washington – true to its heritage – to back the weaker continental power (France) against the stronger (Germany) in classic British style. But it must do so delicately, lest it provoke Germany to solve its problems in “the traditional way”, to paraphrase Chancellor Kohl’s comments prior to the crack-up of Czechoslovakia. (Is it just me, or does anyone else have a sinking feeling of deja vu here?)

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Macron wins…The Question Is, How?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 17, 2017

Well, you’ve probably been wondering why I haven’t talked about the French elections. Truth be told, it was in part because of out-of-town commitments, and in part because during the election itself, I “smelled a rat”, but we’ll get back to that.

By now you’ve probably heard that M. Macron, the young up-and-coming-Rothschild-backed whatever-he-is, has become the President of France. Sitting on the sidelines across the pond over here in the USSA, I felt a keen sense of deja vu… it was like the Darth Hillary-Donald Trump affair all over again: one couldn’t muster much enthusiasm for either, but one sensed (or rather, smelled) the distinct odor of corruption hovering over the whole thing. It was Le Pen vs. Macron, that is to say, a French nationalist with ties to a very right-wing, and in my opinion, historically fascist, party, versus stale musty same-old same-old euro-globaloney that people like the Rottenchilds and Rockefailures like to force down everyone’s throats. It was rather like watching an election between Robespierre or Danton, and Marshal Petain, being refereed by General Maurice Gamelin. Ms. Le Pen may have put the finest point on it when, during a debate with Mr. Macron, she said that regardless of the outcome of the election, the next president of France would be a woman, either her, or Frau Merkel. By this “Penine” logic, it would appear Frau Merkel won. Watching the whole circus, I couldn’t help but think “Where’s Talleyrand when you need him?”

Indeed, M. Talleyrand’s ghost, at least, may have been hovering over the election. At one point, a friend of mine reported to me (apparently we were both following the returns) that Mr. Macron’s lead was 66.06%, a percentage he found to be fishier than a mackerel on a moonlight beach: it both shined, and stunk. The problem, of course, is that Mr. Macron’s election, though expected, solves nothing. If anything, it means more of the same, and continued German domination of the European Union, and of France. The can, as they say, has been kicked down the road; German surpluses continue, immigration continues, the French state of emergency continues, and nothing is solved. This, I would aver, is a dangerous state of affairs, and Mr. Macron, like Mr. Trump, in a certain sense is an outsider, though certainly one with the approval of Mr. Eurobaloney and Mr. Globaloney. Better a fake outsider, like Mr. Macron, than a real one, like Ms. Le Pen.

But not all is well, and this is where it gets interesting. One was almost waiting for “the other shoe to drop”, since elections in the west these days look more and more like elections in Bolivia.

The shoe, according to articles that many regular readers here shared with me, just dropped (copy and paste into your browser: http://yournewswire.com/marine-le-pen-election-rigged/  ).  There was also this version of the story, also shared by many others (copy and paste: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/05/france-election-2017-fraud-rigged-european-union-masters-deceit-must-annulled-knowledgeable-professor-alexia-thomas-demands/ ).

I have to admit, the stories cause some difficulty for the formation of today’s “high octane speculation.” On the one hand, I do not doubt that there was election fraud in France in favor of Mr. Macron. What I have to question, is why? Most of the data that I saw had him clearly leading Ms. LePen, so why bother to add fraud to the procedure?  It would seem to be a self-defeating project. There are several possibilities here, but the two that stand out to me are a rather obvious one, and one that is not so obvious. The obvious one is that Mr. Macron’s support was actually softer than the public numbers showed, and that he had to be helped along a bit. I’ve suspected the same thing with respect to Darth Hillary in this country, and in particular in her “solid support areas” like Nuttyfornia. Perhaps Mr. Macron was facing similar prospects in the Ile de France and other supposedly “solid support” areas, and hence, according to the first article, torn ballots for LePen were mailed out, while double ballots for Macron were mailed out. The result is predictable: some are saying that he is not the legitimate President of France. And it’s that assessment that brings me to my second option in today’s high octane speculation grab-bag: the pattern of the last American election has been repeated in its broad outlines in France, with one notable exception: (1) allegations of fraud have been accompanied by (2) media spin (in the US case) or media blackout (in France’s case) following by (3) a questioning of the legitimacy of the results in both cases. What remains different, what remains the exception in France’s case, when one compares the two, is that in Mr. Macron’s case, the “deep-state approved” candidate won. So the question is, why the pattern?

I can only speculate here, but my guess highlights the second option: it may be that we’re seeing this pattern because the real goal is to bring constitutional representative republics into doubt and question regardless of whether the “approved” candidate wins or not; already there are calls in the USSA for a constitutional convention, a process I personally think would be a disaster, allowing Mr. Globaloney to walk off with stolen money and saddle the rest of us with bad debt.

France, of course, has been through several constitutions since the French Revolution, and would be much more easily open to such a process. In other words, it is not because it is Ms. Le Pen making these allegations that I am concerned, it is because of the nature of the allegations themselves, and that we may be looking at a contrived pattern, a new ploy in the playbook, by Mr. Globaloney, that I am concerned.

All that’s missing is for the French to blame it on the Russians.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Meanwhile…In France…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 28, 2017

By now you’ve probably heard: politics in France has turned a very bizarre corner, for the mainline parties, and their candidates, hardly made an impression. Instead, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen are headed to a runoff election on May 7th. One poll that I saw had M. Macron winning with 23.9% of the votes, with Mm. Le Pen trailing closely with 21.4% of the votes. Fillon, Melenchon, Hamon came in at 19.9, 19.6, and 6.3% respectively. Here’s the way it looks to the U.K.’s The Guardian:

French election: Macron and Le Pen go to second round – live coverage

Notably, neither Macron nor Le Pen together get a clear majority, but, interestingly enough, neither do the “mainline” candidates, who fell by the wayside. What this means in effect is that whether or not Macron or Le Pen win, they will have to govern either with each other, or by reaching out to those parties led in the last round of elections by Fillon, Melenchon & Co. And that will make governance difficult.  As all of this has been going on, I’ve been receiving a steady trickle of emails from members of this website who live in France, who inform me that many of the same tricks we saw applied in the previous US election have also been rolled out in France: pro-Le Pen comments are censored on social media, pro-EU/globaloney articles are pushed, &c. In spite of this, Le Pen has advanced to round two: the mainline candidates did not.

The question is, why?

In doing a little research for this blog, I came across the following article from Global Research News (copy and paste in your browser:

The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty and the Future of France

This article is well worth pondering at length, but I want to draw attention to certain statements critical of the traditional right-left divide, and why French politics looks so peculiar now. Consider, first, the critique of the right:

The upshot is that Fillon’s coherent pro-capitalist policy is not exactly what the dominant globalizing elite prefers. The “center left” is their clear political choice since Tony Blair and Bill Clinton revised the agendas of their respective parties. The center left emphasis on human rights (especially in faraway countries targeted for regime change) and ethnic diversity at home fits the long-term globalist aims of erasing national borders, to allow unrestricted free movement of capital. Traditional patriotic conservatism, represented by Fillon, does not altogether correspond to the international adventurism of globalization.

And now the left:

As the traditional left goal of economic equality was abandoned, it was superseded by emphatic allegiance to “human rights”, which is now taught in school as a veritable religion. The vague notion of human rights was somehow associated with the “free movement” of everything and everybody. Indeed the official EU dogma is protection of “free movement”: free movement of goods, people, labor and (last but certainly not least) capital. These “four freedoms” in practice transform the nation from a political society into a financial market, an investment opportunity, run by a bureaucracy of supposed experts. In this way, the European Union has become the vanguard experiment in transforming the world into a single capitalist market.

The French left bought heavily into this ideal, partly because it deceptively echoed the old leftist ideal of “internationalism” (whereas capital has always been incomparably more “international” than workers), and partly due to the simplistic idea that “nationalism” is the sole cause of wars. More fundamental and complex causes of war are ignored.

For a long time, the left has complained about job loss, declining living standards, delocalization or closure of profitable industries, without recognizing that these unpopular results are caused by EU requirements. EU directives and regulations increasingly undermine the French model of redistribution through public services, and are now threatening to wipe them out altogether – either because “the government is bankrupt” or because of EU competition rules prohibit countries from taking measures to preserve their key industries or their agriculture.

Add to this the following:

Meanwhile, it has become more and more obvious that EU monetarist policy based on the common currency, the euro, creates neither growth nor jobs as promised but destroys both. Unable to control its own currency, obliged to borrow from private banks, and to pay them interest, France is more and more in debt, its industry is disappearing and its farmers are committing suicide, on the average of one every other day. The left has ended up in an impossible position: unswervingly loyal to the EU while calling for policies that are impossible under EU rules governing competition, free movement, deregulation, budgetary restraints, and countless other regulations produced by an opaque bureaucracy and ratified by a virtually powerless European Parliament, all under the influence of an army of lobbyists.

Benoit Hamon remains firmly stuck on the horns of the left’s fatal dilemma: determination to be “socialist”, or rather, social democratic, and passionate loyalty to “Europe”. While insisting on social policies that cannot possibly be carried out with the euro as currency and according to EU rules, Hamon still proclaims loyalty to “Europe”. He parrots the EU’s made-in-Washington foreign policy, demanding that “Assad must go” and ranting against Putin and Russia.

And finally, this comment about Melenchon and Le Pen:

A most remarkable feature of this campaign is great similarity between the two candidates said to represent “the far left”, Mélenchon, and “the far right”, Marine Le Pen. Both speak of leaving the euro. Both vow to negotiate with the EU to get better treaty terms for France. Both advocate social policies to benefit workers and low income people. Both want to normalize relations with Russia. Both want to leave NATO, or at least its military command. Both defend national sovereignty, and can thus be described as “sovereignists”.

The only big difference between them is on immigration, an issue that arouses so much emotion that it is hard to discuss sensibly. Those who oppose immigration are accused of “fascism”, those who favor immigration are accused of wanting to destroy the nation’s identity by flooding it with inassimilable foreigners.

So where’s my daily dose of speculation? A few months ago I predicted that even if Marine Le Pen does not win this bid for the French Presidency, the issues driving her and her party simply will not go away, especially if Mr. Globaloney continues to pursue the same policies with the same playbook, and to ignore the real issue.

That issue, I suspect, is much deeper than even Global Research understands, for the phenomenon is not political, it is cultural and civilizational, and it is, perhaps, not surprising at all that it should be France, and Britain (with the Brexit vote) where we see, if not the strongest opposition to Mr. Globaloney, then at least the most articulate and vocal, for those two nations are, to put it succinctly, the two oldest nation-states in the western world. They represent, so to speak, the core countries of modern western culture: Britain spread Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and associated cultural institutions throughout the world via the British Empire. In doing so, it also put an end to many practices we would now consider barbaric. And yes, I realize in stating that I have taken a very unpopular view. (If you want to hear the politically correct view, attend an American university.) France, similarly, spread French law and jurisprudence and institutions throughout Europe during the Napoleonic era, which gave rise to the national aspirations of Italy and Germany and helped pave the way for their national unifications in the 19th century.

Why is this distinction between politics and culture important? It’s very simple: if what is driving the Trump train, or the Brexit vote, or, now, the upheavals in French politics, is cultural and not political, then the phenomenon is not going to go away very quickly, nor very quietly, no matter what the politicians do or do not do.

The first politician in the West that truly understands this, and can articulate the cultural vision and aspect of the problem, wins.  Why? Because Mr. Globaloney has no real innate sense of culture. He has to buy it, but does not understand it, nor view himself as belonging to any cultural tradition (except a modern one no older than a century or century and a half). He endows modernist ugliness and promotes it at every turn (think David Rockefailure here, folks, and his “taste” in modern “art”); and people are turning from ugliness.

As for France, this will, indeed, be an election to watch, and I confess some personal emotional involvement; my paternal grandmother was French; I have my great-grandfather’s (her father’s) French prayer book; French composers – Saint-Saens, Rameau, Couperin, and so on – and musicians have enriched my personal life; when I studied organ, I played an edition of J.S. Bach’s organ music edited and prepared by the grand master of French organists (Charles-Marie Widor), and so on. So I watch what goes on there with great personal feeling, because I do not want France to become something one can only read about in history books, another victim of Mr. Globaloney’s hatred of and war on all things of beauty belonging to western culture and tradition.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Facebook Shuts Down Pro Le Pen Posts As French Election Nears

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 16, 2017

Well, sure. Wouldn’t you? The woman is running for the presidency of France. She wants to reverse the tide of immigration in her country, so she must be a racist, and whatever she says or whatever anyone else says in support of her is, automatically, fake news, mindless, evil, and the population must be protected from that infection. This is how free speech works. It’s free unless it could do harm, unless certain minds might be taken in by it, and apparently Facebook is stepping up to the plate. Mark Zuckerberg is long overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Zero Hedge: “The first round of French elections will be held on April 23rd, prompting Facebook to shut down pro Le Pen accounts, which they deem to be ‘fake’.”

“In addition to outright bans, the company [Facebook], in conjunction with French media, are running ‘fact checking’ programs — designed to fight ‘fake news’, heightening their efforts around the elections — which spans from 4/23-5/7.”

France must be purified. Only then can media function.

Immigration, you have to understand, isn’t an issue. There is nothing to debate. Immigration is a fact, wholly beautiful, and anyone who wants to limit it is speaking against love, flowers, and the proposition that the sun rises every morning.

Facebook is providing a public service. Just as Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy, FB is making the news run on time—the real news.

Fake news should be shut down. Free speech only concerns what isn’t fake. Yes, I’m beginning to see the light.

After fake news is purged, then we can have free speech.

Aha. Yes.

Somehow, I must have missed this when I studied the 1st Amendment. James Madison, who wrote it, made this note: “Except for fake news.”

The guiding principle should be: if you’re not sure whether an item or issue or report is fake, don’t talk about it, don’t write about it, don’t express an opinion about it, until the authorities have cleared things up, until they’ve decided whether it’s fake or real.

Mark Zuckerberg is providing us with an easy way to check. If he and his people censor a post, it’s fake. Ignore it. Remain silent.

And if you’re French, don’t vote for Le Pen, unless you want a faker as your president.

Things are basically simple. They really are. If you know how to follow the signs and the warnings and the people in charge.

For example, right now I can sense an errant thought creeping into my mind: a corporation based in the US is colluding with the French government to influence an election in France. But I reject that thought. I denounce it. I urge everyone to denounce it. Pretend I never uttered the thought.

Please. I beg of you.

It’s fake.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.