Confirmation of electoral fraud in France cost Le Pen the presidency

Thank you very much, Han Barkmeyer.

Another “total victory” FROM FREEDOM’S FRONT LINE

Solicitor hails “total victory”
in Töben case

http://jailingopinions.com/tobenvictory.htm

The modus operandi of “perpetual fraud”.
A case in point, and worthy of repeating, is that of Lady Renouf, wife of the late Sir Frank Renouf, who was prosecuted under Germany’s notorious §130 Volksverhetzung law, but ended without her being found guilty of any offence. After 32 months the German courts backed down, and Lady Renouf was acquitted.

Why? For the sake of fraud and perpetual fraud.
The following excerpts are copied from “Role Model on Trial”:
The Dresden prosecutors feared media examination of the Hermann Abs story. Abs was a friend and colleague of the late Sir Frank Renouf. They worked together to open up West German investment banking. Hermann Abs was the most powerful banker in postwar Europe. Defence evidence in the trial of Lady Michèle Renouf would have exposed the existence of a previously unknown British spy inside the Third Reich.

[Lady Michele Renouf, being an Australian-born international model and television commercials actress, is an excellent reason for Australians to know her story and the process of her prosecution.]

Hermann Abs was the most powerful German banker of the 20th century, his career having flourished under Adolf Hitler. Peter Rushton, who was a research consultant to the Renouf defence team, uncovered a secret that has lasted for almost eighty years – the identity of a German-Jewish spy inside the Third Reich, and his role in the postwar rehabilitation of Hermann Abs.

Hermann Abs was described by the late David Rockefeller as “the most important banker of our time”. A biographical summary prepared for the chief of the CIA’s European Division in December 1974 quoted Rockefeller’s assessment, and added that while Abs “holds no governmental positions his influence is enormous and dates back to his successful leadership in 1952 of the German Delegation which regulated the post-war German reparation question and set the basis for the FRG [West Germany] to regain its sovereignty in 1955…”

Hermann Abs was recruited by the British to help rebuild Germany’s postwar banking system and to do so, the British had to protect Abs from their vengeful allies.

A US intelligence report prepared for the War Department in March 1945 had featured Abs prominently among those financial and business leaders who “in an outstanding way thrived under National Socialism, …aided the Nazis to obtain power, …[and] shared the spoils of expropriation and conquest.” Jewish-American attorney Col. Bernard Bernstein was a partisan supporter of the Morgenthau Plan devised by his co-racialist Henry Morgenthau, President Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary, who aimed at the permanent destruction of Germany’s industrial and technical capacity, despite an assessment that this would mean the deaths of 40% of German civilians. Bernstein had himself been a US Treasury Department attorney before being transferred to the Army as financial adviser to Allied Commander Gen. Dwight Eisenhower. Col. Bernstein led the American effort to put Abs on trial, sending a fellow Jewish officer, Maj. Andrew Kamark to interrogate him in the British zone.

This interrogation failed to obtain any evidence on which Abs could be charged, but by the start of 1946 continuing political pressure from the Americans, including threats to leak stories about Abs to the British press, meant that he had to be purged from his directorships and jailed. Even then, held in Altona prison in Hamburg, and later at the notorious Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre during the first half of 1946, Abs was locked up not so that he could be ill-treated in any way, but so that he could be kept away from the Americans.

It would have been revealed in court that the British occupation authorities were lobbied to press ahead with Abs’s rehabilitation by Robi Mendelssohn, a partner in the long-established Jewish banking firm Mendelssohn & Co. to rebuild postwar Germany.

Who was Robi Mendelssohn? Why was he in a position to give high-level advice to the postwar British authorities? And why has his role remained secret until now, more than 75 years after the war?

Robert von Mendelssohn played an important role in what had been Germany’s largest private bank, especially in regard to international trade and government debt. He made a trip to Stockholm in 1943 where he met with M16 representative Harry Carr. Harry Carr was a veteran MI6 officer who first worked for British intelligence in Russia soon after the Bolshevik revolution. From 1928 to 1941 he had been in charge of the important MI6 station in Helsinki, mainly focused on anti-Soviet operations, then relocated to Sweden after Finland joined the German side in 1941. Mendelssohn made two further visits to Stockholm during the second half of 1943, and one in 1944, on each occasion meeting with MI6 and with an unnamed American diplomat… He appears to have been partly acting as an intermediary on behalf of German military intelligence officer Georg Hansen, right-hand man to Abwehr chief and arch-plotter Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.

Up until this work undertaken by Lady Renouf’s defence team, nothing has been written about Robi Mendelssohn, who survived treason arrests and trials entirely unscathed.

It seems that at Mendelssohn’s instigation. Hermann Abs (with British backing) successfully proposed that there should be a common German currency – the Deutsche Mark, introduced in the three western zones of Germany (British, American and French) on 20th June 1948.
The introduction of the Deutsche Mark was one of the ways in which Hermann Abs shaped the postwar world, along the lines suggested by Robi Mendelssohn to British intelligence: what could be termed an anti-Morgenthau Plan.

With the end of the Cold War and the slow passing of the wartime generations, Germany’s enemies (in fact Europe’s enemies) chose to restart the witch-hunts and a worldwide obsession with the ultimate crime – the ‘Holo Caust’.

British documents unreported until today show that Robi Mendelssohn – the very man who had been a partner in the largest Jewish family bank supposedly seized by Hermann Abs on behalf of Deutsche Bank – was the man who persuaded the British to rescue this ‘nazi banker’ and secured his position postwar.

Time and again, historians have picked over the bones of the Abs story; but each time they have ignored Robi Mendelssohn. Moreover the same historians who are usually so keen to discover stories of wartime spies and Jewish heroism have completely ignored the fact that a half-Jewish banker – part of Germany’s most famous Jewish banking family – was an Allied spy inside the Third Reich.

In October 2020, the Mendelssohn story formed part of a dossier about Hermann Abs, including other contradictory statements and actions from influential Jews – a dossier that would have formed part of the defence case for Lady Michèle Renouf, former wife of Abs’s old friend Sir Frank Renouf, had Dresden prosecutors gone ahead with their long-planned case against her for ‘Holo Caust denial’.

Now the Mendelssohn story is part of a forthcoming book by Peter Rushton, research consultant to the Renouf defence team.
Role Model on Trial (modeltrial.blogspot.com)

During the Cold War there might have been good reasons why the Western Allies never revealed the story of their German-Jewish spy Robi Mendelssohn – especially as this related to sensitive histories of German peace proposals and the role of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who like Robi Mendelssohn had mysterious ties to British and American intelligence, before disappearing in January 1945 – a case that has never been solved.
Role Model on Trial (modeltrial.blogspot.com)

In Melbourne, there is a monument dedicated to Raoul Wallenberg at Kew, and a tree and memorial seat in Carlisle St at St Kilda Town Hall, Balaclava. Apparently, trees were planted with explanatory plaques at the front of the Federal Parliament in Canberra. The trees were “a project of the Raoul Wallenberg Unit of B’nai B’rith Melbourne”.
Australia « The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation

British and German authorities are now under an obligation to be fully candid about their archives on Robi Mendelssohn and German Jewry: official half-truths and evasions are unacceptable while historical sceptics are locked up for asking awkward questions.
Role Model on Trial (modeltrial.blogspot.com)

What a gobbledygook by Eric Zuesse. His lengthy article could be summarized in a few paragraphs.

The mainstream media (MSM) has, as always, done the work for the “billionaire aristocracy” by getting the public to vote for “labels instead of for policies”.

Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.

The “billionaire aristocracy” as of September 2020, control 90 per cent of media outlets in the U.S.: AT&T, CBS, Comcast, Disney, News Corp and Viacom. Would not be any different in the rest of the world.

Those 6 corporations (down from 100 in 2004) wants the public to read, whatever makes them the most money, like lower taxes, fewer financial and environmental regulations, etc.
Since profits are the bottom line, staffs are cut back, papers are merged, and stories dumbed down to not upset anyone.

So fewer papers, fewer reporters, tighter budgets (which means no investigative reporting) and a less informed population. Because democracy only works when people are informed enough to make choices, democracy is diminished and now in 2022 not existing anywhere in the world.

Elections have become Selections and voting only gives the Voting Fodder the Illusion of Democracy.

Eric Zuesse, referring to Glenn Greenwald in his article, mentions the words ‘nazism’ 3 times and ‘nazi’ once. No wonder as Glenn Greenwald himself is Jewish.

And who are the “billionaire aristocracy” if not Jewish?

They can subvert our societies and we cannot even say who is doing the subverting.
We cannot address the people who are doing the subverting. It’s got to change.

A cautionary tale! There’s not a single one of us that hasn’t fallen prey to the 3 card labelling shuffle that’s played on us. Here’s one in the French election and no doubt the same goes for the Australian one.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/triumph-deceit-how-thinking-labels-mere-words-not-reality-killed-democracy/5778415

“The Triumph of Deceit: How Thinking in Labels Has Killed Democracy. France’s Presidential Election”

By Eric Zuesse

“On April 19th, Glenn Greenwald, who is not only a great lawyer but one of the world’s most brilliant investigative and analytical journalists, headlined “The WashPost’s Doxxing of @LibsOfTikTok Reveals Who Corporate Journalists See as Their Targets”, and he exposed how the billionaires (the controlling owners of those mega-corporations) have used their ownership and control of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media in order to blackball and blacklist, from their liberal media, anyone or anything that would constitute a real threat against their own control over the media, over the government, and over their profit and nonprofit corporations.

In short: he exposed that the money-power people won’t allow their control to be effectively challenged or weakened. He explained how fascism, and even nazism (racist fascism), can be liberal, and not ONLY conservative — can be leftist, and not ONLY rightist; can be far left, and not ONLY far right. (His presentation there includes also a brief summary of how he had switched from being a lawyer, to his becoming an investigative journalist — a profession that he describes as, and was attracted to on account of its being aimed at — “exposing the secrets and crimes and improprieties of the most powerful actors in society.”)

Greenwald, being the genius that he is, was able there quickly to expose — rip off the mask of — nazism, and to reveal it so deeply as to penetrate beyond and beneath the superficial level of the standard ideological labels, so that the public might ultimately become able to be freed from the lies by which the billionaire-class has captured and mentally enslaved the public — enslaved them into neoconservative-neoliberal beliefs and commitments that benefit ONLY the super-wealthy, such as are those billionaires themselves.

That masking is the phenomenon which has caused the publics in all of the U.S.-and-allied nations to think in terms of “us” versus “them” as being inter-ethnic, or inter-‘racial’, or inter-religious, INSTEAD OF as being inter-economic-class: the owners of mega-corporations, versus the employees and customers of mega-corporations — the super-wealthy versus all of the “ethnicities,” and all of the ‘races’, and all of the “religions.” (While the other partisan distinctions do play a role, that role is, in reality, vastly less powerful than that of the one distinction which is the same in ALL countries, and which actually controls almost all countries’ governments — the distinction between the rich versus the poor.)

Labor unions become crushed in this way (by the public’s having the wrong targets — targets that aren’t the billionaires).

Consumers’ rights to safe products become crushed in this way. All protections of the weak against the strong become crushed in this way. All accountability (obligations that the owners have toward their employees and other agents, and toward their corporations’ customers) become crushed in this way. And “this way” can be liberal, and not ONLY conservative. Fascism and even nazism can be liberal, and not only conservative. (The only difference there, is the difference between liberal billionaires versus conservative billionaires, but rule by ANY billionaires is an aristocracy not a democracy. It doesn’t represent the public; it represents the super-rich.)
France’s Presidential Election

A good example of this phenomenon is the French election for that nation’s Presidency, on April 24th, between Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron: On April 24th occurred the second and final round of voting for the next French President. Macron beat Le Pen by 58% to 42% — a 16% lead above Le Pen — and the reason why that happened was this engineered-by-the-super-rich confusion of ideological labels.

On the night prior to the April 24th election, Politico’s French “Poll of Polls” showed very clearly that immediately after the first-round voting on April 10th, Le Pen rose and Macron fell in the voter preferences, so that at the time of the April 20th lone Presidential candidates’ debate between the two top finishers in the first round (Le Pen and Macron), the voters’ preference of Macron over Le Pen was at its lowest point ever, around 6%, but that between the 20th and the 23rd, it had grown back to around 10% — which it had previously been.

This had happened despite the major polling organization Elabe having found that whereas only 16% of viewers of the debate said that Le Pen came across as “arrogant,” 50% of its viewers said that Macron came across that way.

Yet in that same poll, 59% said Macron won the debate, while only 39% said Le Pen did. So: very clearly, the French public viewed Le Pen’s “non-arrogant” performance in that debate to have attracted them less than Macron’s “arrogant” performance in it did. What could explain this? It was purely the labeling thing. Not only did the report of that poll refer to Le Pen as being “la candidate d’extrême droite” (the candidate of the extreme right), but all of France’s ‘news’-media did.

And yet, Le Pen, on issue after issue during that debate, was advocating a more progressive, or more social-democratic, a more leftist, position than the moderate conservative (pro-corporate-dictatorship) Macron did, and she stated very clearly what she would do differently than what Macron had done as President, virtually all of which was to Macron’s left — she was consistently favoring the rights of the poor over the rights of the rich, workers over stockholders, small businesses over the mega-corporations, economic competition over concentrated economic power and monopolies, and consumers over the big corporations.

While Macron praised the former French Empire, Le Pen did not: she was anti-imperialistic. Though those were all views that were closer to the polled policy-preferences of French voters than were the positions that Macron espoused and had been practicing as France’s President, her expressed views appealed to the voters less than did the more right-wing views that Macron expressed and had done. What seems to have been absolutely decisive is that all of the French media, and all of France’s leading politicians — prominently including the leading leftist candidate in the first round, the socialist Jean-Luc Melenchon, who had come in third with 22% of the vote in the first round, and who, as Wikipedia accurately summarized, “advised his voters not to vote for Le Pen in the second round, but did not endorse Macron” — even Melenchon and other “leftists” were referring to Le Pen as being “far-right.” (In fact, Melenchon’s Party, when they had met to decide on their recommendation to voters, “The option of voting for Le Pen was not given to respondents.” They said: no Melenchon follower should even consider voting for her.)

In other words: Melenchon and other self-declared “leftists” were advising their followers to prefer actually the (by far) more conservative candidate. Those ‘leftists’ were saying: if you’re going to vote for a candidate in the second round (but please do not), then vote for Macron. Melenchon and all of the self-alleged “leftist” parties said that Le Pen is “far-right” (and thus ideologically beyond the pale). That label was believed by “leftist” voters. Those voters followed the labelings that were being applied by the leading people who had been describing themselves as “leftists.” It’s like, in a sense, a mob mentality, but not against a minority ethnic group; it was instead against an ideological label, no matter how fraudulently that ideological label was actually being applied. Furthermore, in France, which had been so brutalized by Hitler’s Nazis, no political label is even nearly as toxic to a candidate as is the label “far right.” That label, alone, prevented the Presidential candidate who had the (by far) most progressive platform and political commitments, from defeating France’s incumbent, very unpopular, moderate conservative President Macron. That is how France’s billionaires won — yet again. As their Reuters ‘news’ report said, “One notable winner has been the hard-left Jean-Luc Melenchon, who scored 22% in the first round and has already staked a claim to become Macron’s prime minister in an awkward ‘cohabitation’ if his group does well in the June vote.” Another report on the outcome said “Leftist voters — unable to identify with either the centrist president or Ms Le Pen’s fiercely nationalist platform — were agonising with the choice on Sunday. Some trooped reluctantly to polling stations solely to stop Ms Le Pen, casting joyless votes for Mr Macron.”

On the morning of the April 24th vote, the American ZeroHedge financial news site bannered “As France Votes For President, Wall Street Warns Le Pen Upset Would Be Bigger Shock Than Brexit”. France’s ‘leftists’ and ‘news’-media had been campaigning actually for the same candidate (Macron) that the billionaires had been backing in this contest. Whereas many of those ‘leftists’ might have been doing it because they were sincerely suckered, few if any of the billionaires had been like that — they instead had been financing that suckering.

The same thing had happened during the 2017 contest, which likewise had been between Le Pen and Macron. (The only difference then was Le Pen’s greater emphasis then on “protecting our borders” against an unlimited influx of Muslims and possibly even jihadist ones into France. In 2022, that was no longer a big issue for her, and the Party that Le Pen had inherited — which once had been conservative — became even more progressive than it was in 2017.)

The 2022 result, in other words, was basically history repeating itself. And this is the way that billionaires continue effectively to rule a country, by getting the public to vote for labels instead of for policies. The public fall for it time after time; they don’t turn against the people who were lying to them before. They vote for them yet again. There is thus no accountability. It’s easy for people to do if they pay more attention to labels than to policies. And no democracy can actually function in that way. And none does. Only an aristocracy can. And it does.”

Hi kaiwanshou, Ain’t that the Truth!

Hi Editor, “Feel free to write something about it please. Ed”
Can you please advise whom you were addressing? Thanks. And thanks also once again for your all your work and dedication to presenting the Truth.

Feel free to write something about it please. Ed

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. Any reference to the balfour declaration for the holohoax bullshit is absolute lies lime every thing else. Winston Churchill was a jew! You fought the wrong enemy and you are still fighting the wrong enemies!! Every notice your leaders scurrying off to Israel for a months holiday?????? No Because you were to busy worried about your shitty AFL team winning!!! Pay attention they tell you everything! They are warning you, like a lion playing with a mouse!!

We still do not know what the hell is going on? Have a look at this one.
Klaus Schwab Explains the Great Reset Agenda “600 Highly-Educated People Located Around the World.” https://banned.video/watch?id=6266f2b294dc542d65d0b36f

Hi periguinfalcon, Exactly.
And Yes, the Christchurch Mosque massacre was a false flag attack. Said that from the get go. Taken straight out of the Port Arthur massacre playbook. Also a false flag attack. My parents were there holidaying from NZ at the time and vehemently attested to that.