BREAKING: Marine Le Pen's headquarters RAIDED by police in 'scandal' investigation

Express Co. (UK) ^ | Feb 20, 2017 | Peter Allen

[Candor7]

Le Pen must be ruthless in attacking the Deep State.
She should be taking a few pages from the books of Geert Wilders and Donald Trump.

In doing so, Le Pen must use these Deep State Atacks to capture the news cycle and keep the momentum and attentio of the French people. Once she does, then she will be propelled into office on a surge of patriotism that will burn her liberal fascist opposition away.

That is the accomplishment of both Wilders and Trump.and Le Pen will do well to emulate it.

[outpostinmass2]

Ms Le Pen is said to have set up a fake job in the European parliament for her ex-paratrooper bodyguard nicknamed ‘The Gorilla’.

The alleged scandal could see Ms Le Pen jailed, along with other party officials involved.

A previously confidential report by Olaf, the European Anti-Fraud Office, contains allegations of a criminal scam worth up to £300,000 received by the FN, all of which are reportedly supported by leaked documents.

[Moltke]

The elder (but there’s also another reason I chose the moniker). I don’t think the younger deserves much esteem.

[Texas Fossil]

Do you really believe the money for the bodyguard is the issue?

Surely not.

The issue is she is a threat to the totally corrupt elites in EU.

It is really that simple.

[Texas Fossil]

Yes. If she is capable of doing that.

Leaks are the ingredient that is destroying the power.

Daylight disinfectant.

Lies seldom work when reality is exposed.

[Ohioan]

Must admit I do not know when the major changes in the curricula took place. I first became aware of the effort to bias the approach to international affairs in High School, when I stumbled upon the WPA "Debate Handbook," in my school library. (A New Deal writers' project, for Leftwing writers in the Depression, it was heavily slanted towards Egalitarian/Collectivism (communism) and the pursuit of world government. It was a real wakeup call for this then (1951) young Conservative

Frankly the Conservative Debate Handbook is in large measure my response to that Leftist effort--and the thousands like it, over the years--although I believe my handbook may address more issues than the WPA propaganda.

The problem is that there has been a gargantuan dumbing down of the verbal arts in the West over the past century+, and this is especially evident in education. Those planning curricula are not all into deliberately betraying the West, but many are basically stupid, and easily misled. It was ever thus in the history of skulduggery & evil promotions. All of which makes our duty to fight back all the clearer.

[Rockitz]

She’s getting to strong to stop, so the lefties need to fabricate a scandal.

[Ohioan]

There is nothing either liberal or rational about modern "liberalism." It is a movement driven by neurotic compulsions, that employs people who cannot accept the realities of life and human interaction (Lenin's "useful idiots") by pretending that it can somehow solve the grievances of humanity--real or imaginary--by simply outlawing reality.

Why targeting the "Nation State?" Because the high achievers among the Nations provide an irrefutable demonstration that none of us are really equal--a refutation of the neurotic impulse for uniformity of condition, which underlies all Leftist movements.

[Texas Fossil]

Absolutely correct. Well stated.

[Architect of Avalon]

Nations of Europe that developed and prospered for many centuries may be erased by the end of this one if current trends continue.

[Architect of Avalon]

The pattern tends to be:
1. Claim that Group A and Group B are equal
2. Claim that Group A’s advantages are, therefor, solely a result of their alleged oppression of Group B
3. Institute systemic privileges and entitlements for Group B at the expense of Group A as payment for the alleged oppression

[Ohioan]

You have left out one of the crucial aspects for leading people down the primrose path. Note the addition:

3. Institute systemic privileges and deceptive entitlements for Group B at the expense of Group A as payment for the alleged oppression and

do everything possible to get Group B to focus on their imaginary grievances, rather than on any opportunity, or on developing any unique or particular talent that members of that Group actually have.

The egalitarian/collectivist formula actually benefits no one but scoundrels & demagogues. Egalitarianism, actually understood, is destructive of all groups with honorable intentions or aspirations. It has never been any mystery why Socialist & Communist systems fail. They are at war with reality, and the pattern you describe is ultimately as damaging to Group B as it is to Group A.

The examples are all around us.

[kanawa]

The Four Olds

Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas.

[outpostinmass2]

No I don’t believe the story. I was just putting it on the post as it was not clear from the story what the raid could be about.

[ek_hornbeck]

It’s interesting that the French authorities and press only manage to uncover alleged evidence of financial wrongdoing in the right-wing (Le Pen) and center-right (Fillon) candidates, not in any of the Eurocrat or Socialist candidates. Are we really supposed to believe that Eurocrats and Socialists conduct themselves with higher ethical standards?

[Texas Fossil]

No, but it does not look good, so they did not “find” it.

[Tea Party Terrorist]

She’s leading all the polls, but the way it works is if no one gets a majority then it goes to a run-off, where presumably she will have little chance as the rest of the parties rally against her under one candidate

[mass55th]

No wonder they end up with losers all the time.

[Elsie]

 

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply.

These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the conspiracy or  coverup.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.  Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor,  etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen,  and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.  Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus  on side issues which can be used show the topic  as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the  'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.  Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's  argument which you can easily knock down to make  yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.  Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet  and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal  agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent  is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.  Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.  Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.  This requires creative thinking unless the crime  was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.  If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys  listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can  'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.  Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant  and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other  empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable  events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid  the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

How to spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

 

 

[Tea Party Terrorist]

Don’t hold your breath waiting for nationalists to win elections in mainland Europe