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.

What interests feel threatened by these two men to the point of organizing such campaigns?

The only thing in common between MM. Trump and Fillon is to want to put an end to imperialism by installing, wherever possible, co-operation instead of confrontation. While many other policy makers around the world are defending this goal, Trump and Fillon are the only ones to take it to its logical conclusion. According to them, it will not be possible to restore peace and prosperity without first putting an end to the instrumentation of Islamic terrorism, without freeing the Muslim world from the grip of the jihadists, and without going so far as to attack the matrix of terrorism: the Muslim Brotherhood.

Roger Lagassé