Analysis of a Standard Globalist Elite Article by The New York Times on a Potential Marie Le Pen Victory

Executive Summary

• Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat-aligned media is often interpreted as superior to conservative media.
• We analyze an example article from the New York Times to test his hypothesis.

Introduction

Democrats constantly talked about how one-sided Fox News is, and its viewers’ misinformed. However, what evidence is there that Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat-aligned media is superior in accuracy or lack of bias? Furthermore, Democrats are generally unaware that not only is most of the media aligned with Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat, but so is Big Tech. This causes Democrats to live in a type of media bubble, and for most, they are unable to question this bubble, who controls the bubble, or the incentives of the bubble controllers.

Let us review an article in the New York Times that answers all of these questions.

The New York Times Article on the Le Pen Victory

A Fair Election Shows a Fissure in Western Democracy?

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials are anxiously watching the French presidential election, aware that the outcome of the vote on Sunday could scramble President Biden’s relations with Europe and reveal dangerous fissures in Western democracy.

This is a misuse of the term democracy, and a republic is a correct word for a system where representatives are voted for. However, the elites constantly use the term “democracy” to show that political systems are more controlled by the public than they are.

Secondly, the US is not a democracy; it is also categorized as a republic, and the term democracy does not appear anywhere in the constitution. Elites use enormous amounts of money to influence elections with high degrees of success. Therefore, the US questionably meets the standards of being a republic. A proper republican government would remove money from the equation and allow unadulterated voting for representatives.

This is explained well in the following video, a video that neither the elites nor the New York Times wants you to see.

This video shows the results of a study that found a near-zero relationship between what the US public wants to be legislation and what is passed as legislation. Therefore, there is no area where the US political system can say to be democratic or a democracy. 

Furthermore, notice that the New York Times refers to an election that the times does not like the outcome of to “reveal fissures in democracy.”

This means that the New York Times considers elections that are fair but do not lead to the selection of globalist candidates, even those like Macron, who have numerous corruption scandals, to be a danger to democracy.

The US and France Have Been Crucial Partners for Promoting Democracy?

The quote continues.

President Emmanuel Macron of France has been a crucial partner as Mr. Biden has rebuilt relations with Europe, promoted democracy and forged a coalition in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Macron is in a tight contest with Marine Le Pen, a far-right challenger.

Two questions immediately come to mind.

Question #1

This again misuses the term democracy. Also, where are Biden or Macron promoting democracy?

Question #2

How can France or the US promote democracies if they are not themselves democracies?

But furthermore, the NYT implies that Biden had to rebuild relations because they were damaged by Trump, who ran as a Republican. So is the NYT’s political enemy, as the NYT is firmly a Democratic-aligned media entity.

The NYT then states that the NATO instigation against Russia in Ukraine that led to the Russian attack on that country, which the NYT tells its readers was utterly unprovoked, was some victory for a coalition that has been co-lead by Biden and Macron. One wonders if this is the same successful and honest coalition used against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lybia. And the answer is that it is.

Le Pen is a Populist Agitator?

The quote continues.

Ms. Le Pen is a populist agitator who, in the style of former President Donald J. Trump, scorns European Union “globalists,” criticizes NATO and views President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as an ally.

This is an elite label applied to a politician who provides things that benefit the population, rather than just the elites, which the NYT completely opposes as an elite media entity. The NYT then critiques Le Pen by pointing out that she has views that the elites do not agree with, the EU and NATO, and then smears her by associating her with Putin.

Observe that there is no analysis of her position or why she thinks these things. Instead, this is character assassination through association.

Le Pen May Complicate Isolating Russia and Aid Ukraine?

The quote continues.

Her victory could complicate Mr. Biden’s effort to isolate Russia and aid Ukraine. But the very real prospect of a nationalist leading France is also a reminder that the recent period of U.S.-European solidarity on political and security issues like Russia and democracy may be fragile. Poland and Hungary, both NATO members, have taken authoritarian turns. And Germany’s surprisingly strong response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is already drawing domestic criticism.

This quote implies that promoting the continuation of a war that Ukraine cannot win and infusing them with weapons aids Ukraine. However, what if aiding Ukraine would instead be to stop blocking a negotiated settlement and stop making Ukraine think it can win? The NYT never questions this because the NYT is aligned with elite interests that want a protracted war using Ukraine as a proxy.

This video shows how the US has promoted Ukraine to reject a negotiated settlement with Russia. The New York Times will not report on this because the New York Times is controlled by elites that want to continue to stoke the war. This is true with all of the Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat-aligned media, and to a lesser but still problematic degree with the Republican-aligned media, as is covered in the article The US Mainstream Coverage of the Russia Ukraine Conflict is Designed to Beat the Drum for War.

Also, there is something else Le Pen’s election could do — it might expose the fact that the US is blocking a negotiated settlement because a significant reason for arming Ukraine and promoting the idea of Ukraine joining NATO is to create a new proxy war that would be good for US defense contractors. This is covered in the article Did Zelensky Offer Russia That Ukraine Would Never Join NATO?

This has been part of a multi-decade strategy by NATO to agitate Russia, as is covered in the article How NATO is Constantly Adding Members Countries and Aggravating Russia.

This was the reason for manipulating Zelensky, as is covered in the article How the US Tricked Zelensky Into Thinking the US and NATO Would Defend Ukraine from Russia.

Le Pen Would Dare to Reflect The Will of the French People and Restrict the Control of the EU Over France?

The EU is a globalist elitist institution, which undermines the local governments in Europe. Therefore, the NYT is a big fan. This quote is used to warn that Le Pen might restrict EU power over France.

“To have a right-wing government come to power in France would be a political earthquake,” said Charles A. Kupchan, a professor at Georgetown who was the Europe director of the National Security Council during the Obama administration. “It would send a troubling signal about the overall political health of the Western world.”

He added: “This is a moment of quite remarkable European unity and resolve. But Le Pen’s election would certainly raise profound questions about the European project.”

Historical Unity Fail and Unity Deception by the DNC

How the term unity is often used for deception and to crush dissenting views was the “Unity Tour” that occurred after the DNC rigged the Democratic nomination for Hillary Clinton against Bernies Sanders. This was instrumental in pulling progressives, who wanted an alternative to the Democrat party and wanted Bernie Sanders as their nominee and not Hillary Clinton. After the Unity Tour was over, all of the progressives co-opted into the DNC were fired. It was a standard embrace-extend-extinguish strategy. 

After the DNC was sued for rigging the primary, the attorney for the DNC stated that whoever the Democrat voters vote for has nothing to do with who is the eventual nominee. This is explained in the following quotation.

In a courtroom in South Florida last week, a DNC lawyer said openly that if the party wanted to do things like the old days and pick a candidate over cigars in back rooms, it would be within their legal rights to do so.

“We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’” Bruce Spiva, lawyer for the DNC, said during a court hearing in Carol Wilding, et al. v. DNC Services Corp., according to court filings exclusively obtained by TYT Politics.

The class-action lawsuit has been deliberated since October, 2016. It was filed by Bernie Sanders voters and donors against the DNC, and has largely been ignored by mainstream media, many of whom have labeled Sanders supporters as a collective group of sour grapes who should simply unite with the establishment Democrat wing of the party against President Trump.

The DNC’s lawyer also implied that, despite the DNC’s charter and bylaws stating that it must be neutral during Democratic primary contests, there’s no contractual obligation to follow through.

“There’s no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There’s no contractual obligation here…it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise,” Spiva said. – Medium

Does the EU Have Unity?

Getting back to the previous New York Times quote, the EU is often referred to those in the EU as a “disunion” as there are so many disagreements within the EU. Furthermore, the EU has not improved the lives of the typical European but has benefited the European elite. The EU continually usurps the participatory governments of each country with the EU to self-determination, something that the NYT does not want to be known or discussed. However, I thought the New York Times supported democracy, yet the EU is fundamentally undemocratic and further centralizes decision-making.

This video describes how the EU works. 

Referring to the previous quotation, Kupchan, like the NYT, appears to question the right of the French to move in a direction away from the EU, and this (again) seems to undermine their supposed claims about democracy. Furthermore, it is not a signal about the “political health of the Western world,” it is a signal that the population of France or part of it is fed up with the EU and with billionaire globalists — which is who owns the New York Times. The New York Times never mentions their billionaire ownership and alliances and how their incentives may differ from the non-billionaires who make up the vast majority of their readers.

This video shows how billionaires control the media. However, the Democrats oppose a “billionaire” like Elon Musk taking over Twitter because Musk would most likely reduce censorship against non-Democrats as Twitter is known as a Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat platform and establishment echo chamber. 

Is Being Anti Immigration Bad?

The quote continues.

Mr. Macron was unable to command more than a small plurality of support against several opponents in the first round of voting on April 10. Ms. Le Pen, who finished second, is his opponent in the runoff election on Sunday. Polls show Mr. Macron with a clear lead, but analysts say a Le Pen victory is completely plausible.

An immigration hard-liner and longtime leader of France’s populist right, Ms. Le Pen has campaigned mainly on domestic issues, including the rising cost of living. But her foreign policy views have unsettled U.S. officials. Last week, she renewed vows to scale back France’s leadership role in NATO and to pursue “a strategic rapprochement” with Russia after the war with Ukraine has concluded. Ms. Le Pen also expressed concern that sending arms to Ukraine risked drawing other nations into the war.

The phrase “immigration hardliner,” which has been miswritten and means “anti-immigration hardliner,” is a euphemism used by globalists to smear the people that hold this position as bigots. The NYT leaves out that a primary reason globalists are pro-immigration is that it reduces labor wages, which then goes into the pockets of the globalists. This is one reason the US has a nearly identical income inequality to Haiti, as is covered in the article How Does the US Have an Income Inequality of a Preindustrialized Country?

The EU wants a constant stream of immigrants from the Eastern areas to move to the Western regions, which helps depress wages in the West.

This video shows how Eastern European truckers now work the Western European market dropping wages in those markets. Outside of trucking, countries like Bulgaria have been emptied of a high percentage of their young seeking higher wages in Western Europe. This would not have been possible without the EU’s free movement rules. 

The EU is also in favor of pushing countries to accept non-white immigrants with high reproductive rates, making all European countries less white. This has benefited the elites by reducing the ability of labor to organize due to the natural mistrust of “diversity.” This extra money that would typically be paid to workers goes into the pockets of the elite. Anyone who opposes this immigration is called a racist.

The EU has punished Hungary and Poland for wanting to keep their countries Hungarian and Polish. 

Notice that, as is explained by Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, neither the EU nor the NYT wants referendums to be held in Hungary. This is because most of the Hungarian population opposes what the EU wants to impose on Hungary.

Also, if we recall the earlier statements by the NYT, the EU is unified. However, if the EU is so unified, why is it constantly at odds with Hungary and Poland? And these are only a few of the disagreements within the EU. What about the UK leaving the EU. Isn’t that a conflict as well?

There is a clear incentive for the NYT to overstate the unity and degree of agreement within the EU.

Le Pen is a Putin Puppet?

The quote continues.

In a debate on Wednesday, Mr. Macron reminded voters that Ms. Le Pen’s party had taken a loan from a Russian bank. “You depend on Mr. Putin,” he told her.

Ms. Le Pen insisted she was “an absolutely and totally free woman” and said she sought foreign cash after French banks refused to lend to her. She also sought to deflect charges that she was sympathetic to Russia’s war aims, declaring her “absolute solidarity” with the Ukrainian people.

Ok, so Le Pen could be dependent on Putin. However, why is Macron’s corruption not mentioned in the article? Is Le Pen as corrupt as Macron? That would not be easy. There is nowhere in this article where Macron’s recently exposed corruption is even discussed. So let us review the recent scandal, which shows that through Macron, the French government has been heavily infiltrated by consulting scam artist McKinsey.

On March 25, the French Senate announced that it was pursuing legal action against management consultancy firm McKinsey. The investigation was led by Senator Eliane Assassi, a member of the Stalinist French Communist Party (PCF). McKinsey is accused of evading hundreds of millions of euros of tax as it advised the Macron government on COVID-19 policy, and of perjury, for lying about this to a Senate committee.

The report detailed massive financial corruption inside the Macron government. It has awarded McKinsey €2.4 billion in consultancy fees since 2018, including over €1 billion in 2021. The real total is probably higher, as the investigation only probed the most prominent sections of the administration. Despite a turnover of €329 million, McKinsey did not pay a cent of corporation tax in 2020.

The report stated that the government’s use of consultancy firms “had become a reflex” and that McKinsey and other firms were involved in “most of the major reforms” of the Macron government, including attacks on pensions, housing, and unemployment benefits. While private consultancy firms including McKinsey have been utilized by previous French governments, Macron massively expanded their use.

Perhaps most explosively, McKinsey advisers were reportedly at the heart of Macron’s vaccine-only policy on the pandemic, and its refusal to implement basic social distancing measures to eliminate circulation of the virus—even as over 142,000 people died in France.

There are extensive ties between McKinsey and Macron’s Le Republique En Marche (LREM) party. Paul Midy, deputy director of LREM, was a partner at McKinsey from 2007 to 2014. Mathieu Maucourt was a project leader at McKinsey for three years before becoming a political director for LREM and is now part of the state secretariat. Etienne Lacourt was on LREM’s direction committee until 2018 before being hired as a partner by McKinsey.

There can be little doubt that McKinsey’s evasion of taxation and their role in advising the Macron administration have a criminal character. Clearly, moreover, it has been an open secret in French government, judicial and media circles for some time. The Senate report, itself in preparation for over four months, is being brought to the fore on the eve of the upcoming presidential election.

Far-right candidate Marine Le Pen tweeted, “With Emmanuel Macron, McKinsey, which cost you €1 billion last year for very vague missions, will continue to gorge itself on public money, not pay taxes and lie to the Senate!” Unsubmissive France candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon responded by claiming that “with me, consulting groups will be gone.”

Les Republicains (LR) candidate Valérie Pécresse stated on Wednesday that “it seems the government has something to hide.” Pécresse supporter Xavier Bertrand described the report’s findings as a “state scandal,” calling for an enquiry into the state’s use of consultancy firms. – World Socialist Web Site

Secondly, why would no French banks loan to Le Pen? Do the French banks prefer if Macon wins? Will Macron provide financial benefits to banks? Also, have the French banks loaned to Macron? None of these questions were answered because the NYT does not want its readers to know the answer to any of these questions.

Restricting the Influence of the EU is Wrong?

The quote continues.

Ms. Le Pen has also pledged to curtail the influence of the European Union, which the Biden administration sees as a vital counterweight to Russia and China.

Notice that this is considered as bad according to the NYT because, according to the NYT, the EU must not be questioned.

France Won’t Sacrifice Sufficiently for The US Instigated War in Ukraine?

The quote continues.

During the debate on Wednesday, Ms. Le Pen said she supported sanctions against Russia’s financial system and oligarchs but opposed banning imports of Russian oil and gas, saying that the French people should not have to suffer.

“I don’t imagine Marine Le Pen going to see Vladimir Putin two weeks after getting elected and talking about a great reset in relations,” said Martin Quencez, the deputy director of the Paris office of the German Marshall Fund.

“Rather, it would be more like Le Pen, as president, making it more difficult for the E.U. and the U.S. to agree on a new posture — a new package of sanctions, and to agree within NATO on what we need to do on the eastern flank,” he added.

For the Biden team, the fallout from a Le Pen victory would extend well beyond policies toward Russia and deal a blow to his project of bolstering democracy against authoritarianism worldwide, said Daniel Baer, the acting director of the Europe program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

OK, Le Pen might provide a more independent view from the US, making it more difficult to enforce sanctions. However, the NYT expects its readers to accept that the US sanctions are the correct view.

Furthermore, what evidence is there of Biden “bolstering democracy?” This is, again, a claim that cannot be supported but is merely asserted. Ukraine is not any more democratic than Russia, and the US performed a coup in Ukraine in 2013, so how is the US supporting or bolstering democracy?

Biden Sees This as a Contest Between Democracy and Autocracy?

The quote continues.

“Biden sees this moment as a contest between democracy and autocracy,” he said. “Over the longer term, certainly having one of the world’s most revered, advanced democracies elect an illiberal person would be a setback for the cause of democracy writ large.”

Biden became the Democratic nominee through a rigged system where Obama worked behind the scenes to rig the nomination against Bernie Sanders, and all of the challengers were promised various goodies to drop out at the same time and then endorse Biden, a candidate they had previously lampooned. Furthermore, Big Tech and the establishment of Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat media suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story, as is covered in the article How the Democrat Media Covered Up Hunter Biden Laptop Exposing Him as a Drug Addled Influence Peddling Machine. Polling shows that if the media and Big Tech had not censored this story, it would have changed the election’s outcome in favor of Trump.

Therefore, Biden is in no position to use the term democracy as his actions have shown he has always been firmly against the participatory government.

But the NYT says that Le Pen is illiberal and a setback for democracy. However, if Le Pen wins, she will have won what is considered a fair election. It seems that it is only a setback for the elitists at the New York Times and not a setback for participatory government or the ordinary people in France.

Le Pen Would be Like the Leaders of Poland and Hungary?

The quote continues.

Mr. Kupchan noted that the vigorous European response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had papered over simmering concerns in Washington about autocracy in countries like Poland and Hungary, whose right-wing prime minister, Viktor Orban, was comfortably re-elected last month.

NYT does not like Viktor Orban or Rady Ministrów because they are not globalists, and they prefer to go along with the will of Poles and Hungarians over the will of the EU. However, listening to your population over elitists in Brussels is considered “illiberal,” according to the NYT.

The quote continues.

“Everything we were worried about before Feb. 24,” the date of the Russian invasion, “is still lurking beneath the surface,” Mr. Kupchan said. “And if Le Pen did win, it would mean that illiberalism — the politics of racism, of protectionism, would be on the surface.” – New York Times

Racism is a code term for France restricting non-white immigration, which would correspondingly increase the wages for native-born French, which is intolerable to the billionaires and, therefore, the NYT. Protectionism is, again, a pushback on globalism, and globalism is how the billionaire elites can maximize their return. Thus anyone who opposes the profit maximization by billionaires to the benefit of the workers must be personally attacked, which is what this article is all about.

Conclusion

It is impossible to view Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat media as anything more than the shadow of elite opinion cast onto the public. The idea that consumers of conservative media are manipulated, but consumers of Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat media are getting the real story is ludicrous.

The job of these media entities is to convince the overall population that they need to share the concerns of billionaires. These outlets hide their control by billionaires from their readers and maintain the illusion that they are looking out for the overall good when in reality, they are paid to present the views of billionaires to the general population.