Lockdown sceptics:Health Secretary Sajid Javid Tests Positive for Covid-et varia-ariclez censuré et récupéré

Lockdown sceptics:Health Secretary Sajid Javid Tests Positive for Covid-et varia

Publié le par lettreelectronique

Health Secretary Sajid Javid Tests Positive for Covid

By Michael Curzon

Health Secretary Sajid Javid, who has had two doses of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, is self-isolating with his family after he tested positive for the virus. Javid says his symptoms are “very mild” and has urged unvaccinated Brits to get ‘jabbed’ “as soon as you can”.

BBC News has the story.

Mr Javid, who became Health Secretary in June, said he had taken a lateral flow test after feeling a “bit groggy” on Friday night and it was positive. 

He said he was now self-isolating until he got the results of a PCR test. …

In a video posted on his Twitter feed, Mr Javid said: “I was feeling a bit groggy last night, so I took a lateral flow test this morning and it’s come out positive, so I’m now self-isolating at home with my family until I get the results of a PCR test.” 

“I’m grateful that I’ve had two jabs of the vaccine and so far my symptoms are very mild.” 

He urged people who had not been vaccinated yet to “get out there and get them as soon as you can”.

Mr Javid also said people who feel groggy or come into contact with someone who is positive should take a lateral flow test.

“If everyone plays their part, you’re not only protecting yourself and your loved ones but you’re also safeguarding the NHS and helping to preserve our way of life,” the Health Secretary added.

Worth reading in full.

Stop Press: Half the Cabinet could be pinged within a few days, according to MailOnline, including Boris.

CommentsIs it ‘Freedom Day’ Already?

By Toby Young

Sun-starved Britons flocked to beaches and parks today causing miles-long tailbacks on the hottest day of the year so far as temperatures hit 88F (31C), making parts of the U.K. warmer than the Caribbean. MailOnline has more.

The warmest parts of England today were Yorkshire, the Midlands and Bristol – and conditions could be even hotter tomorrow with the Met Office warning of 91F (33C) highs as the summer heatwave continues.

The balmy weather, driven by a blast of warm air coming in from the Azores in the North Atlantic, has prompted health officials to issue warnings about the dangers of extreme heat – especially to the elderly and vulnerable.

The sunshine is due to last until so-called ‘Freedom Day’ on Monday, the day when the last of the Covid-19 restrictions are due to be lifted by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, when thunderstorms could arrive.

Thousands of people have flocked to beaches across the country, with London and the South East seeing clear skies and highs of 84F (29C) today – with the mercury climbing to between 88F (30C) and 90F (32C) tomorrow.

And, for a change, the heat is being shared across the country – with the North Midlands and South Yorkshire hottest today, followed by the South East tomorrow.

Monday is expected to see the highest temperatures shift to the West Country. But we are still a long way off record temperatures – with the all-time UK record of 101.7F (38.7C) being set in Cambridge on July 25, 2019.

Tom Morgan, meteorologist at the Met Office, said: “We have got quite an extended hot spell of weather to come through the next several days lasting much of this week, nighttime temperatures will be in the high teens Celsius and daytime temperatures will be in the high twenties or low thirties.

“It’s going to mean that people are really going to feel the effects of the heat as we go through this week.”

Worth reading in full – not least for the gallery of photographs showing people relaxing and enjoying themselves in the sunshine.

CommentsBritain Set to Carry Out Largest Flu Vaccine Roll-Out in Its History This Winter

By Michael Curzon

Encouraged by its large Covid vaccine programme, Britain will carry out the largest flu vaccine roll-out in its history this winter, with all secondary school pupils and children aged two and three set to be offered vaccines. Officials expect that, altogether, 35 million people could be vaccinated against seasonal flu this year and that Covid and flu vaccines will continue to be given for “years to come”. MailOnline has the story.

NHS England and Improvement, and Public Health England have issued the 2021-2022 annual flu letter to providers, outlining their plans for this year’s expanded programme.

From September, 35 million people including all secondary school students up to Year 11, children aged two and three on August 31st, all primary school children, people aged 50 and over, pregnant women, unpaid carers, and frontline health and adult social care staff will be eligible for the free jab.

The drive will build on last year’s expanded flu programme, which saw a record 19 million jabs being administered.[Health Secretary Sajid] Javid encouraged all those eligible to get their flu jab when they are called.

“Flu can be a serious illness and we want to build a wall of protection by immunising a record number of people,” he said. 

“With the nation getting closer to normal life, we must learn to live with Covid alongside other viruses and we’re offering the free flu jab to millions more people to help keep them safe this winter.

“The phenomenal scale of the Covid vaccination programme is a clear demonstration of the positive impact vaccination can make and I encourage all those eligible to get their flu jab when called forward.”

Public Health England medical director Dr Yvonne Doyle said the upcoming flu season will be “highly unpredictable” combined with “the likelihood that Covid will still be circulating”.

The flu programme is expected to be delivered alongside any booster programme for Covid vaccinations.  

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is expected to publish its final advice on the Covid booster jab programme later this summer. …

In a letter sent to senior leaders, GPs and hospital bosses earlier this month, NHS England said health systems should be preparing to deliver booster doses of the coronavirus vaccination between September 6th and December 17th. 

NHS Providers Chief Executive Chris Hopson said people will to be vaccinated for flu and coronavirus for “years to come”.     

“Rolling out a flu programme of this scale alongside a Covid booster campaign will take a huge amount of planning, collaboration and commitment, particularly from primary care,” he said.  

“It is incredibly ambitious in its scale and complexity, and while we have no doubt the NHS can meet this challenge, we do need to think about how we enable NHS staff to carry out this programme while meeting the other pressures they face.

“We’ll be vaccinating against flu and Covid for years to come so let’s put our approach on a sustainable footing as soon as possible.”

Worth reading in full.

CommentsBBC Offers Lanyards to Staff Wanting to Continue Social Distancing When Returning to the Office

By Michael Curzon

Having recognised that a sizeable proportion of its workforce does not want to return to normality just yet, the BBC is offering white lanyards to staff who are returning to the office but would like to continue ‘social distancing’. Employees are also being asked to disclose their vaccination status, but they have been told they will still be able to come to offices if they have not been vaccinated against Covid. The Telegraph has the story.

A memo sent to BBC employees on Friday by Bob Shennan, the BBC’s Managing Director, said the organisation “knows that some of you are anxious about returning to the office” in September.

“To address this, we are introducing a new white BBC lanyard to indicate that the wearer wishes to be given extra space. If you see a colleague wearing this lanyard then please respect their position,” he wrote.

He told staff the white lanyards would co-exist with their “sunflower” equivalents used by people with hidden disabilities. 

BBC staff were also informed that the number of people allowed to use office lifts simultaneously would rise as more employees return to the office. 

Some signs restricting the amount of toilet facilities that can be used would also be removed, Mr Shennan wrote.

A BBC spokesman said: “We’re taking some simple and effective steps for staff safety and to ensure that critical public services remain on air.”

The Government has endorsed homemade badges made by the “Distance Aware” initiative that read “please give me space” and encouraged people to print them out at home if they were worried about a lack of social distancing.

Worth reading in full.

Stop Press: A reader has been in touch with details of an email sent to the staff at his local gym containing instructions from the Government to “set a good example” by continuing to wear face masks.

Just been to my Nuffield gym in Kingston, chatting to the trainer and he showed me the email to all staff from the CEO. Apparently, all the big health clubs and gyms were ordered in to see the Government and were told they must “do their bit” from July 19th. That means all staff carrying on wearing masks in order to “set a good example”. So, this is coming from the Government, not the health clubs and you can bet if gyms were ordered in so were supermarkets, etc. Say no more. Not really freedom is it?

CommentsInfections in the Vaccinated Overtake Those in the Unvaccinated For the First Time – But the Graph is Removed From the ZOE App Report

By Will Jones

Health Secretary Sajid Javid has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, despite being vaccinated – and he is far from alone. The latest ZOE data shows that, as of July 12th, infections in the vaccinated (with at least one dose) in the U.K. now outnumber those in the unvaccinated for the first time, as the former continue to surge while the latter plummet (see above). (Note that 68% of the population has had at least one vaccine dose, so there are still at this stage disproportionately more new infections in the unvaccinated, though on current trends that may soon change.)

At what point will the Government accept that these vaccines have limited efficacy in preventing infection and transmission, and thus the whole rationale of being vaccinated to protect others – vaccine passports, compulsory vaccination, and so on – is suspect?

The above graph was in yesterday’s report, so I downloaded today’s report (you can get it by signing up to the app and reporting your symptoms) to get the new update. I was dismayed to find the graph was gone. At the bottom, a note explains:

Removed incidence graph by vaccination status from the report as there are very few unvaccinated users in the infection survey, the Confidence Intervals are very wide and the trend for unvaccinated people is no longer representative.

Which I would say is very convenient, just as infections in the vaccinated became the majority. Perhaps ZOE should try to recruit some more unvaccinated people for its survey, so it can continue to report on this as well as have a control group for its vaccine data? That would seem the scientific thing to do, rather than just stop reporting it because it is suddenly “no longer representative”.

It’s doubly odd because Tim Spector, lead scientist on the ZOE app, made the decline among the unvaccinated a feature of his video this week. So the realisation that the trend is “no longer representative” appears to have been rather sudden, even invalidating the contents of a ZOE ‘data release‘ two days earlier.

It seems we will never know how the story ends, which is a shame and a missed opportunity for ZOE.

ZOE data continues to suggest the current Covid surge is peaking and possibly even beginning to decline in the U.K., at least outside England (see above). Yet this is at odds with the daily Covid reports from the Government, which show continued growth.

UK positive tests by date reported (HMG)

Why the discrepancy? Is it because the Government figures include all the lateral flow tests that schoolchildren are taking as they isolate? 839,100 children – 11.2% of the total pupil population, more than one in 10 – were absent from state schools for Covid-related reasons on July 8th. All of them will have been tested and this will be picking up asymptomatic or mild infections that would usually not be noticed. ZOE data is symptom based, with a confirmatory PCR test, so would not be affected by surges in lateral flow testing among schoolchildren picking up asymptomatic infections.

Whatever the explanation, one to watch.

CommentsAustralia’s Loony Zero Covid Policy Gradually Drives Entire Country Mad

By Toby Young

In Australia, the state of Victoria, with more than six million people, has been put into lockdown because of 18 cases. Yes, you read that correctly. There are now 12 million Australians confined to their homes due to fewer infections than you’d find in the average British pub.

We’re publishing a guest post today by Steve Waterson, the Commercial Editor of the Australian. This piece originally appeared in the Weekend Australian, but Steve has given us permission to republish it.

So away we go again, hunting to ground the absolute beast, the out-of-control killer virus that runs rampant at light speed, vaulting from customer to customer in a fleeting cafe encounter.

Contact tracers scramble tirelessly to chase down the asymptomatic covidiots, while their masters, responding to the hour-by-hour health advice, are forced against their will to impose a snap lockdown, perhaps a circuit-breaker, to flatten the curve towards zero transmission, but for no longer than necessary.

Regrettably, they may have to slam their state borders shut (only as a last resort) so medical facilities will not be overwhelmed, to save lives and keep people out of harm’s way in this unprecedented, existential war. After all, they’re simply following the science, and they make no apology for that.

Hasn’t it been illuminating, these past 18 months, watching the verbal gymnastics of our politicians and their supporting cast of advisers and enablers, as they contort language and meaning to support their twisted edifice of hysterical illogic? The banal retreat into cliche, exaggeration, oxymoron and jargon, all wind and no substance, largely unchallenged, it’s sad to say, by a media pack trying to outdo each other with doom-laden headlines.

No matter how much you might resent it, you have to admit the scaremongering has been absolutely first-class, judging by the results. Many of us have been reduced to whimpering sadomasochists, grateful for the beatings administered to our livelihoods, our relationships, our hopes and dreams, our self-reliance and self-respect, and quick to spank those with a different outlook on life.

We’re in a Fifty Shades of Grey scenario, or perhaps a Tarantino film: state premiers have us handcuffed to a chair and are repeatedly punching us in the face with one hand, then applying a soothing balm with the other, saying, “Look what you’ve made us do!”

Half the population are now imprisoned in their homes, not because of the tiny number of Covid cases, but because of the brutal overreach by the moronic authorities who can conceive of no other way of dealing with them.

Many observers, since this insanity began, have mounted a simple argument: identify those at risk, offer them protection, and let the rest of the country go about their business like adults. They will take what precautions they consider necessary, safeguarding or neglecting their health as is their habit and right. Some of them drink alcohol; many eat too much; others smoke; a few rash souls do all three at the same sitting. They will have the opportunity to receive a coronavirus vaccine soon enough, and some will refuse it. That shouldn’t bother the vaccinated.

But many Australians have succumbed to the terror rhetoric, and genuinely believe they are at extreme risk of death should they contract a disease that has a better than 99% survival rate. Look at India and Indonesia, they wail, there are sick people on stretchers outside their hospitals! It could happen here, they warn, without acknowledging that we have eight times as many hospital beds per capita as the subcontinent, four times as many as Indonesia, and immeasurably more sophisticated healthcare resources.

A previously unnoticed coterie of experts, relishing their moment in the limelight to ramp up the fear, project the figments of their imagination, confidently predicting what will or would have happened in their flawless reading of the future or an alternative present; and always, always focusing exclusively on case numbers and epidemiological data, as if those are the only things that matter.

For them, perhaps; but some of us live in the real world, where life comes with no guarantees. There are elderly people reading this who will not wake up tomorrow. Today is their last day on Earth, and it has been wasted by a government that forbade this weekend’s visit from the grandchildren. There are fading cancer victims who will now die alone, whose governments have denied them that last chance to hold a loved one’s hand, although they’d whisk them enthusiastically into the grave under an assisted dying law.

It’s increasingly difficult to see any humanity in our leaders’ actions and overreactions. They are like medieval theologians debating how many angels would fit on the head of a pin, losing sight of anything else. Critics say a lockdown is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but at least you want the nut cracked. What we’re doing is using a sledgehammer to do the washing-up.

Meanwhile, the real, ignored pain accumulates: surgery is stopped or delayed, rendering treatable conditions terminal; schooling is suspended, fostering another gullible generation of scientific illiterates and innumerates; mental health deteriorates, shattering families; and the dismantling of the backbone of our economy gathers pace.

Many of us have friends whose small businesses are going under, whose staff will soon find themselves unemployed, whose savings, built up prudently over decades, have all but disappeared. Some of them will lose their homes just as they should be enjoying the rewards of a life of diligent work.

It’s almost embarrassing to have a job that is relatively secure, though it means I’m on the hook for part of the official benevolence that has thrown in excess of $300 billion at this self-inflicted wound. My share of the debt is in the tens of thousands already. Call me picky, but I don’t feel I’ve got value for money.

Our unaccountable premiers whirl about like headless chooks (although they still manage to run rings around the Prime Minister; how’s that national cabinet working out?), while claiming to follow the ubiquitous health advice no one else is allowed to see, just as the various Treasury cost-benefit analyses remain top-secret.

Governments pay millions of our dollars to generate this information; the suspicion remains that if there were any evidence that their virus-containment strategy is sensible and proportionate, they would be ramming the data down our throats. Maybe it’s too complex for the man in the street to understand, although if Dan Andrews can get his head around it I think one or two of us might give it a go.

Instead we are drip-fed pseudo-scientific gobbledygook, with fancy 3.5 degrees of lockdown and Greek letters for the variants, ooh, just like on Stephen Hawking’s blackboard. The “rocketing spikes” of infections are announced each day and added to the running total (it appears nobody recovers, not that we’re permitted to know whether they’re sick in the first place). Hundreds of thousands queue for hours to be tested, costing millions of dollars a day, when none of them have the virus. There’s the real measure of the success of the scare campaign.

So well done, pollies and bureaucrats, enjoy your lavish salaries and lick your lips at the pensions that await you. You are sinister monkeys dancing on the barrel organs played by medical nonentities, blithely stripping us of our freedoms as we stumble towards tyranny. But thanks for keeping us safe.

Now we have confirmed this pandemic is an existential war, let’s recall our response to an earlier deadly threat. Eighty years ago, as young Australians steeled themselves to fight and die in WWII, and Londoners endured months of bombing during the Blitz that claimed almost 50,000 Cockney lives, their governments understood their role was to encourage stoicism, resilience and defiance in the civilian population. Official histories record that far from sinking into panic and despair, Britain’s overall mental health improved, with citizens treating air raids as casually as inclement weather, referring to bad days as being “very blitzy”.

Contrast that with our modern leaders’ efforts, which they proudly declare are designed to terrify us simpletons. No “soldier on” or “keep calm”; instead we had Queensland’s next governor last year admitting school closures were unnecessary, but would communicate the gravity of the crisis: “It’s more than just the science and health,” she said, “it’s about the messaging.” Last month the NSW Premier, face contorted in agony, told us we were in the “scariest period” of the pandemic so far. Lord knows how frightened she and her advisers must be by now.

If you’re going to infantilise the population, then at least have the fortitude to behave like parents, who traditionally reassure their children in the night that there are no monsters under the bed, rather than scream that there are also monsters in the bedroom cupboards.

Imagine if Winston Churchill had followed this modern script, his sonorous baritone crackling over the wireless to address the Commonwealth, as the scourge of Nazi Germany ravaged continental Europe: “Oh my God, everyone, have you seen how many tanks and aeroplanes Adolf Hitler has got? And all those great big stormtroopers! It’s as scary as anything. I’ve changed my mind about fighting them on the beaches; let’s keep really, really quiet and fingers crossed they’ll leave us alone.”

Hide from the virus. Hide from the world, even as it opens up. This is what our leaders have condemned us to, seemingly in perpetuity. Our situation is beyond parody, and beyond pathetic.

CommentsA Response to Scott Alexander on Lockdowns

By Noah Carl

The prolific blogger Scott Alexander has written a long post about lockdowns. It’s not too objectionable from a lockdown sceptic’s point of view. For example, he concedes that “lockdowns weren’t necessary to prevent uncontrolled spread” and says that it’s “harder to justify strict lockdowns in terms of the non-economic suffering produced”.

Nonetheless, I do disagree with him on several points, which I will highlight here.

First, he ignores most of the academic studies that have found little or no effect of lockdowns on mortality. For example, he doesn’t mention Simon Wood’s studies finding that infections were in decline before all three U.K. lockdowns. Nor does he mention the paper by Christopher Berry and colleagues which observed “no detectable health benefits” of shelter-in-place orders in the United States.

Despite ignoring these studies, he dedicates a whole section of his post to something called CoronaGame, which he oddly classifies as “Actual Evidence”.

Second, he compares the official COVID-19 death rate up to August 2020 in Sweden with various other countries, and claims that “Sweden comes out looking very bad, but not the literal worst”. He then claims that “it looks even worse when you compare Sweden to other Scandinavian/Nordic countries”.

However, if he had used age-adjusted excess mortality, and had extended his window of analysis up to the end of 2020, Sweden would not have come out “looking very bad”. As I’ve noted several times, Sweden saw age-adjusted excess mortality up to week 51 of just 1.7% – placing it 14 out of 22 European countries.

And there are several reasons why the “neighbour argument” – the argument that we have to compare Sweden to its immediate neighbours rather than the rest of Europe – isn’t very convincing. Sweden saw unusually low mortality in 2019; border controls (not lockdowns) made the difference in the first wave; and once you include the Baltics, Sweden no longer stands out.

Third, he claims the cost of lockdown “is measured in psychological suffering and economic decline”, noting that in order to do a cost-benefit analysis “we should figure out how much stricter lockdowns affected the economy”.

While the economic impact of lockdown certainly constitutes a major entry on the costs side of the ledger, Alexander neglects to mention another negative impact of lockdown, namely the switch to remote learning. As several studies have shown, this resulted in sizeable learning losses, which were concentrated among children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

Alexander’s post offers a decent overview of the debate, but he’s too charitable to the lockdown side, leading him to overstate the benefits of lockdown and understate the costs. Not his best piece of work, in other words.

CommentsThousands March Against Vaccine Passports in France

By Michael Curzon

Thousands have taken to the streets in France to protest against President Emmanuel Macron’s extreme plans to force all health workers to get vaccinated against Covid and to prevent the unvaccinated from visiting restaurants, shopping malls and hospitals, and from using trains and planes. Unmoved by these demonstrations, French Prime Minister Jean Castex says people should be “convinced” to take the vaccine “at all costs”. Reuters has the story.

Macron this week announced sweeping measures to fight a rapid surge in coronavirus infections, which protesters say infringe the freedom of choice of those who do not want the vaccination.

The measures had already prompted demonstrations earlier this week, forcing police to use tear gas to disperse protesters.

“Everyone is sovereign in his own body. In no way does a president of the Republic have the right to decide on my individual health,” said one protester in Paris who identified herself as Chrystelle.

Marches, which also took place in France’s largest cities such as Marseille, Lyon and Lille as well as many smaller centres, also included “yellow vest” protesters seeking to revive the anti-Government movement curbed by coronavirus lockdowns.

Visiting a centre in Anglet in southwestern France, Prime Minister Jean Castex said vaccination, which is not mandatory for the general public for now, is the only way to fight the virus.

“I hear the reluctance that arises but I think that we must at all costs convince all our fellow citizens to be vaccinated, it is the best way to cope to this health crisis,” Castex said.

Despite the strength of the protests, an Ipsos-Sopra Steria poll released on Friday found more than 60% of French people agree with mandatory vaccination for health workers, as well as a requirement for a health pass in some public places.

Worth reading in full.

CommentsNews Round-Up

By Jonathan Barr

Comments

Theme Tunes Suggested by Readers

Ten today: “All The Lies” by Alok, Felix Jaehn & The Vamps, “Evil Doers” by Michael Prophet, “Help Out This Nation” by Everal Cooper, “Stop Them” by Billy Joe Morgan, “Bad To Worse” by Burning Spear, “What’s Next” by Drake, “The Good Times Are Coming” by Cass Elliot, “Counting Down The Days” by Natalie Imbruglia, “The Time Has Come” by The Time Has Come and “Tomorrow” by Aileen Quinn.

Love in the Time of Covid

Clarke Gable and Joan Crawford in Love on The Run

We have created some Lockdown Sceptics Forums, including a dating forum called “Love in a Covid Climate” that has attracted a bit of attention. We have a team of moderators in place to remove spam and deal with the trolls, but sometimes it takes a little while so please bear with us. You have to register to use the Forums as well as post comments below the line, but that should just be a one-time thing. Any problems, email Lockdown Sceptics here.

Social Media Accounts

You can follow Lockdown Sceptics on our social media accounts which are updated throughout the day. To follow us on Facebook, click here; to follow us on Twitter, click here; to follow us on Instagram, click here; to follow us on Parler, click here (temporarily disabled); and to follow us on MeWe, click here.

Woke Gobbledegook

We’ve decided to create a permanent slot down here for woke gobbledegook. Today, we bring you the news that The School of Literature, Drama and Creative Writing at the University of East Anglia is preparing to decolonise its courses following a request by its students. Henceforth, the Literature In History II module, which includes works by Shakespeare as well as Ishiguro’s The Remains Of The Day, will no longer be taught. Instead, students will have an opportunity to take Writing Across Borders, a course which focuses on the way English has “operated as a language of the coloniser”. The Daily Mail has more.

Students at a university that has produced a string of world-renowned authors are to be taught that English “operated as a language of the coloniser”.

The School of Literature, Drama and Creative Writing at the University of East Anglia – which boasts Nobel Prize laureate Kazuo Ishiguro and the Booker Prize winners Ian McEwan and Anne Enright among its alumni – is to “decolonise” its courses following demands from students.

The decision is the latest controversial move by institutions to make lessons more diverse – but critics claim it is “anti-academic” and “corrosive”.

Frank Furedi, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at Kent University, said: “The project of decolonising the English language has nothing to do with genuine academic concerns. Associating the evils of colonialism with English literature is more about turning the subject into a political dogma than studying the merits of different writing and authors.”

“None of this is about English literature. It is using English literature as a medium to make a statement about how morally superior these students are.”

Documents obtained using Freedom of Information rules show the department will abandon its Literature In History II module, which includes works by Shakespeare and Ishiguro’s The Remains Of The Day.

Instead, a new course entitled Writing Across Borders will focus on “the way English operated as a language of the coloniser”. The reading list includes Zong!, a book-length poem by Caribbean-born writer Marlene Nourbese Philip that uses court documents to detail the massacre of 150 Africans thrown overboard from a British slave ship in 1781 so that its owners could claim the insurance.

The change was sparked by a letter from students last year that described the current course as being dominated by “white, cisgendered male authors”, and centred on the “privileged, white, male experience”.

It accused the department of being “complicit in upholding exclusionary, erasive, patriarchal, heteronormative and white supremacist standards”.

Worth reading in full.

Stop Press: Last week, Toronto Council voted to change the name of Dundas Street because it’s named after the Scottish Politician Henry Dundas who delayed the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade. The move will cost $6.3 million and it will take until 2023 to come up with a new name. This is what happens when you “judge the past by the standards of the present”, says Toronto Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein.

The late British writer G.K. Chesterton once famously observed that “journalism largely consists in saying ‘Lord Jones is dead’ to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive”.

Such was the case with media coverage last week as Toronto Council – often the epicentre of absurdity in Canadian municipal politics – lived up to its reputation by voting to spend up to $6.3 million renaming Dundas Street, named for Scottish politician Henry Dundas.

The costs will involve expunging the name “Dundas” from street signs, subway stations and other namesakes such as the city’s iconic Yonge-Dundas Square.

It will take until 2023 to come up with a new name for Dundas and complete the transformation, according to the city.

Council will also decide what do about 60 other streets with so-called problematic names.

All this because of a petition to council signed by 14,000 people denouncing Dundas for delaying the abolition of the slave trade in the 1790s.

That’s 14,000 in a city of 2.9 million, the vast majority of whom had no idea of who Henry Dundas was.

But this foolishness is what happens when you judge the past by the standards of the present – it even has a name, it’s called “presentism”.

Worth reading in full.

Stop Press 2: In a new poll of 1,000 registered voters carried out in the U.S., one third said they considered themselves to be “woke”, and the number was higher among women than men. Newsweek has more.

One-third of U.S. voters said they consider themselves to be “woke”, a term used to refer to someone who is aware and proactive about social justice issues such as racial discrimination.

A new The Hill/HarrisX poll of about 1,000 registered voters conducted between July 8th-9th found 32% of them saying they “consider themselves to be woke”. A larger percentage of men, 35%, said they would fit under the wide umbrella of that term, while only 30% of women surveyed said the same.

The term “woke” has become a divisive political and cultural reference as conservatives often use it to mock progressives as elitist or arrogant. A 60% majority of Democrats surveyed said they think “wokeness” is a good thing for the country, but only about 20% of Republicans agreed.

Polled voters were evenly divided in their view of whether being “woke” is a positive or negative concept for the country moving forward. Respondents were asked if “wokeness” is doubling down on the country’s racial and social divisions, or if it is a helping the U.S. to evolve for the better. Exactly 50% of voters said “wokeness” is stoking differences and causing unrest, while another 50% said it is developing and evolving the country for the better.

Massive partisan divides were evident, as 70% of Democrats said “wokeness” is a good thing alongside 54% of independent voters. By comparison, a 72% majority of Republicans said “wokeness” is further dividing the country along racial and ethnic lines.

Worth reading in full.

Stop Press 3: Scientists are now warning that humanity may well run out of things to call “racist”, the Babylon Bee reports.

“Mask Exempt” Lanyards

We’ve created a one-stop shop down here for people who want to obtain a “Mask Exempt” lanyard/card – because wearing a mask causes them “severe distress”, for instance. You can print out and laminate a fairly standard one for free here and the Government has instructions on how to download an official “Mask Exempt” notice to put on your phone here. And if you feel obliged to wear a mask but want to signal your disapproval of having to do so, you can get a “sexy world” mask with the Swedish flag on it here.

A reader has started a website that contains some useful guidance about how you can claim legal exemption. Another reader has created an Android app which displays “I am exempt from wearing a face mask” on your phone. Available free of charge.

If you’re a shop owner and you want to let your customers know you will not be insisting on face masks or asking them what their reasons for exemption are, you can download a friendly sign to stick in your window here.

And here’s an excellent piece about the ineffectiveness of masks by a Roger W. Koops, who has a doctorate in organic chemistry. See also the Swiss Doctor’s thorough review of the scientific evidence here and Prof Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson’s Spectator article about the Danish mask study here.

Stop Press: After ‘Freedom Day’ Prince Charles is only going to wear a mask when he has to, the Mail On Sunday reports.

Prince Charles will wear a mask only when Government advice dictates that he should do so, the Mail on Sunday can reveal.

In a boost to the Government’s Freedom Day, the Prince is not expected to cover his face when he visits Exeter Cathedral tomorrow.

Charles is patron of a fundraising appeal at the cathedral and, for the first time in months, his trip has been made public in advance.

During the pandemic, visits have been kept secret to prevent crowds congregating.

A Palace source said: “This will be the first time in 18 months that we are seeing a return to normality. We’ll be looking forwards, not backwards.”

Worth reading in full.

Stop Press 2: A parody poster in the style of Welsh Government notices reminding English travellers that they must wear masks when they enter Wales has created a storm of protests on social media, Nation Cymru reports. Critics branded it “racist” and “xenophobic”.

Stop Press 3: Health officials in Los Angeles County, California, have reinstated the indoor mask mandate in response to increasing rates of infection. However, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva says he is not going to expend his departments limited resources in enforcing it. Here is his statement.

Forcing the vaccinated and those who already contracted COVID-19 to wear masks indoors is not backed by science and contradicts the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) has authority to enforce the order, but the underfunded/defunded Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will not expend our limited resources and instead ask for voluntary compliance. We encourage the DPH to work collaboratively with the Board of Supervisors and law enforcement to establish mandates that are both achievable and supported by science.

The Great Barrington Declaration

Professor Martin Kulldorff, Professor Sunetra Gupta and Professor Jay Bhattacharya

The Great Barrington Declaration, a petition started by Professor Martin Kulldorff, Professor Sunetra Gupta and Professor Jay Bhattacharya calling for a strategy of “Focused Protection” (protect the elderly and the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life), was launched in October and the lockdown zealots have been doing their best to discredit it ever since. If you googled it a week after launch, the top hits were three smear pieces from the Guardian, including: “Herd immunity letter signed by fake experts including ‘Dr Johnny Bananas’.” (Freddie Sayers at UnHerd warned us about this the day before it appeared.) On the bright side, Google UK has stopped shadow banning it, so the actual Declaration now tops the search results – and Toby’s Spectator piece about the attempt to suppress it is among the top hits – although discussion of it has been censored by Reddit. In February, Facebook deleted the GBD’s page because it “goes against our community standards”. The reason the zealots hate it, of course, is that it gives the lie to their claim that “the science” only supports their strategy. These three scientists are every bit as eminent – more eminent – than the pro-lockdown fanatics so expect no let up in the attacks. (Wikipedia has also done a smear job.)

You can find it here. Please sign it. Now over three quarters of a million signatures.

Update: The authors of the GBD have expanded the FAQs to deal with some of the arguments and smears that have been made against their proposal. Worth reading in full.

Update 2: Many of the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration are involved with new UK anti-lockdown campaign Recovery. Find out more and join here.

Update 3: You can watch Sunetra Gupta set out the case for “Focused Protection” here and Jay Bhattacharya make it here.

Update 4: The three GBD authors plus Prof Carl Heneghan of CEBM have launched a new website collateralglobal.org, “a global repository for research into the collateral effects of the COVID-19 lockdown measures”. Follow Collateral Global on Twitter here.

Judicial Reviews Against the Government

There are now so many legal cases being brought against the Government and its ministers we thought we’d include them all in one place down here.

The Simon Dolan case has now reached the end of the road, and it looks as though the Robin Tilbrook case has too. Neither claimant was granted permission for a judicial review against the Government, unfortunately, although Tilbrook says he’s going to appeal.

The GoodLawProject and three MPs – Debbie Abrahams, Caroline Lucas and Layla Moran – brought a Judicial Review against Matt Hancock for failing to publish details of lucrative contracts awarded by his department and it was upheld. The Court ruled Hancock had acted unlawfully.

Lawyers for more than 2,000 families who lost loved ones during the pandemic are taking legal action to try to force the Prime Minister to hold an immediate public inquiry into the government’s handling of the crisis. The group, called COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, is seeking permission for a Judicial Review. The group’s lawyers are arguing that the Government has a duty under human rights law to hold an urgent judge-led statutory inquiry, because there is evidence that thousands of people died needlessly as a result of decisions taken by ministers. You can read more about that group and contribute to the fundraiser here.

Then there’s John’s Campaign which is focused specifically on care homes and began a legal process to challenge guidance which recommends that care home residents who go on visits outside should isolate for 14 days upon their return. The Government’s initial response stated that this was was not a legal requirement, and that it is up to individuals care homes to determine how best to protect residents from Covid. On May 1st it was reported that the guidance was going to change to no longer recommend the period of self isolation after a visit to a garden or an outdoor space, such as a park or a beach. Read more about the case and get updates here.

Scottish Church leaders from a range of Christian denominations judicially reviewed the decision of the Scottish Government to close churches, supported by the Christian Legal Centre. The church leaders argued that it was a disproportionate step, and one which has serious implications for freedom of religion. The review was upheld, with the judge ruling on March 23rd, 2021 that that the Scottish Ministers’ decision to ban and criminalise gathered worship was unconstitutional and a disproportionate interference in worshippers Article 9 ECHR rights. Read more about the victory here.

There’s the class action lawsuit being brought by Dr Reiner Fuellmich and his team in various countries against “the manufacturers and sellers of the defective product, PCR tests”. Dr Fuellmich explains the lawsuit in this video. Dr Fuellmich has also served cease and desist papers on Professor Christian Drosten, co-author of the Corman-Drosten paper which was the first and WHO-recommended PCR protocol for detection of SARS-CoV-2. That paper, which was pivotal to the roll out of mass PCR testing, was submitted to the journal Eurosurveillance on January 21st and accepted following peer review on January 22nd. The paper has been critically reviewed here by Pieter Borger and colleagues, who also submitted a retraction request which has now been rejected. The Jerm Warfare blog has published an interview with Reiner Fuellmich about his plans to take the World Health Organisation, and others, to court for “crimes against humanity”.

Hugh Osmond, the founder of Punch Taverns and a former director of Pizza Express, and Sacha Lord, Greater Manchester’s night time economy adviser submitted a claim for a Judicial Review about the fact that indoor hospitality venues have had to remain closed for weeks longer than non-essential shops in England. Their case was initially expedited, but on May 3rd, 2021 it was dismissed on the grounds that, by then, the hearing could not take place until after May 17th, the date on which the sector would be permitted to reopen.

Law Firm PGMBM is acting on behalf of an NHS worker, a pensioner and a gig economy worker to challenge the Government’s charges for hotel quarantine for residents coming into the UK from a red list country. Read about that case, and support it, here.

Lawyers from the Law or Fiction group launched a legal challenge against a multi-academy trust in Sheffield to try and stop children having to wear masks in school, but were unsuccessful. You can read about the judge’s decision on Law or Fiction’s CrowdJustice page here.

The Law or Fiction group is also bringing a case against an employer who’s made the vaccine mandatory. It relates to Barchester Healthcare which is planning to impose a ‘No Jab, No Job’ policy on its 17,000 staff. Read more about that case and support it here.

And last but not least there was the Free Speech Union‘s challenge to Ofcom over its ‘coronavirus guidance’. A High Court judge refused permission for the FSU’s judicial review on December 9th and the FSU has decided not to appeal the decision. Check here for details.

Stop Press: Debbie Hicks, the anti-lockdown campaigner who was arrested after posting a video on Facebook of a recording she’d made of a largely empty ward at Gloucester Royal Hospital, is facing trial and has started a fundraiser to help pay for her legal defence. You can donate here.

Samaritans

If you are struggling to cope, please call Samaritans for free on 116 123 (UK and ROI), email jo@samaritans.org or visit the Samaritans website to find details of your nearest branch. Samaritans is available round the clock, every single day of the year, providing a safe place for anyone struggling to cope, whoever they are, however they feel, whatever life has done to them.

Shameless Begging Bit

Thanks as always to those of you who made a donation in the past 24 hours to pay for the upkeep of this site. Doing these daily updates is hard work (although we have help from lots of people, mainly in the form of readers sending us stories and links). If you feel like donating, please click here. And if you want to flag up any stories or links we should include in future updates, email us here. (Don’t assume we’ll pick them up in the comments.)

And Finally…

The Question Everything Lockdown Summit took place in London yesterday and featured contributions from many of the lockdown sceptics that have featured prominently on this blog over the past year, not least Toby and Dr Will Jones. The video recording, all nine hours of it, is now up on Dan Astin-Gregory’s YouTube channel to watch at leisure. The schedule ran as follows, with time stamps within the links.

Wikistrike:No pass-aran ! Deux lignes de force et six actions pour résister TRIBUNE – Nous avons tous compris au moins une chose : la peur est mauvaise conseillère. Or le gouvernement continue de s’appuyer sur le système de la peur. Poursuivant l’intimidation, il organise la terreur pour écraser les nations-article censuré et récupéré

No pass-aran ! Deux lignes de force et six actions pour résister TRIBUNE – Nous avons tous compris au moins une chose : la peur est mauvaise conseillère. Or le gouvernement continue de s’appuyer sur le système de la peur. Poursuivant l’intimidation, il organise la terreur pour écraser les nations

Le blog de Frédéric Delorca:L’assassinat du président haïtien est-elle liée à la dictature sanitaire mondiale ?

Le blog de Frédéric Delorca

Le blog de Frédéric Delorca

Au milieu des années 2000, quelques années après mes premiers pas sur Internet avec le site Résistancenet.org en 1999, je me suis proposé de poursuivre l’expérience du commentaire occasionnel de l’actualité mondiale à travers ce petit blog, et je continue aujourd’hui, dans le respect du IXe commandement du Décalogue qui interdit le faux témoignage (un commandement que tant de publicistes négligent). Ce blog vous donnera peut-être envie aussi de lire mes livres sur la Serbie, le Béarn, la Transnistrie, l’Abkhazie, les régimes populistes… (et pour une présentation plus vivante des contenus de ce blog n’hésitez pas à vous abonner gratuitement à TV Delorca sur You Tube !)

L’assassinat du président haïtien est-elle liée à la dictature sanitaire mondiale ?

17 Juillet 2021 , Rédigé par Frédéric Delorca Publié dans #coronavirus-vaccination-big pharma, #Colonialisme-impérialisme, #Le monde autour de nous

On a déjà insisté sur les décès suspects de deux présidents africains résistants à la dictature sanitaire de l’OMS : les présidents du Burundi et de  Tanzanie, certains se demandent aujourd’hui si la mort le 8 juillet dernier du président haïtien Jovenel Moïse n’est pas, elle aussi, liée à la dictature sanitaire.

Le Pentagone à Washington a récemment admis qu’une partie des 28 assassins (26 Colombiens et 2 Américains) avaient reçu un entraînement militaire américain.

Dès le 10 juillet en effet, le quotidien français de l’oligarchie, Le Monde, (il ne fut bien sûr pas le seul) titrait « Haïti n’a toujours pas inoculé le moindre vaccin, et ça, c’est très inquiétant ». Selon des chiffres non vérifiables 500 personnes mourrait en ce moment du Coronavirus en Haiti en ce moment (alors que la mortalité habituelle dans le pays est de 200 personnes par jour).

Aujourd’hui la mouvance Qanon essaie de relier l’assassinat aux activités de la Fondation Clinton dans le pays depuis 20 ans (et de possibles trafics d’enfants), oubliant au passage que l’expulsion de l’ambassadeur américain en février 2019 par le président Moïse eut lieu sous le mandat de Trump, mais il est vrai que cet ambassadeur, Paul Altidor, était sans doute lié à l’Etat profond américain puisqu’il avait présidé une fondation conjointe Bush-Clinton pour Haïti avant d’être diplomate). L’accusation est si facile qu’elle est récupérée par la grande presse pour « debunker » toute prétention à enquêter sur les causes profondes de cette opération. Se peut-il qu’une fois de plus Qanon soit un écran de fumée pour dissimuler les vrais problèmes, à savoir la dictature de Big Pharma ? Le président Moïse, prenant exemple sur Madagascar (qui elle aussi résiste beaucoup à l’OMS) avait refusé en mai le vaccin AstraZeneca. Il était très lié à son homologue malgache Andry Rajoelina. En mai 2020 il avait fait importer le médicament Covid-Organics à base d’artemisia après une vidéo-conférence avec ce dernier, malgré l’hostilité des lobbies pharmaceutiques à l’égard de ce médicament.

Life Site:Russia blasts top European court for pushing it to recognize homosexual ‘marriage’

Russia blasts top European court for pushing it to recognize homosexual ‘marriage’

‘The ruling, which tries to make Russia register same-sex marriages, contradicts the foundations of Russian rule of law and morality,’ Duma deputy Vasily Piskarev said. Fri Jul 16, 2021 – 10:49 am EST

Featured Image
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasized that same-sex ‘marriages’ are ‘not allowed’ under Russia’s constitution, which was amended this year to state that the ‘institution of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.’ BBC News / YouTube

By Raymond Wolfe
Follow


LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

MOSCOW, July 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Russia rebuked a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) this week that pushed the country to recognize same-sex “marriage.”  

The ECHR’s order, handed down on Tuesday, held that Russia’s refusal to register homosexuals as “married” violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes a “right to family life,” and Article 14, which prohibits discrimination. The Strasbourg-based court has interpreted the articles in recent years to apply to same-sex unions, despite previous rulings to the contrary and no language about homosexuality in the text of the European Convention.  

JVM Show

The case, Fedotova and Others v. Russia, was brought by several Russian homosexuals whose requests to register a notice of marriage were rejected, according to the ECHR. 

“The Court found that Russia had an obligation to ensure respect for the applicants’ private and family life by providing a legal framework allowing them to have their relationships acknowledged and protected under domestic law,” the ECHR said. 

The court claimed that measures that would effectively equate same-sex unions with heterosexual marriages “would not be in conflict with the ‘traditional understanding of marriage’ prevailing in Russia.” The ECHR added that “the most appropriate form of registration of same-sex unions remained at the discretion of the respondent State.” SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic

Russia slammed the ECHR ruling, reaffirming on Tuesday that marriage in the country remains strictly between men and women. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasized that same-sex “marriages” are “not allowed” under Russia’s constitution, which was amended this year to state that the “institution of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.” 

“The wording in the constitution is absolutely unambiguous and there is an unambiguous number of Russian citizens who support this unambiguous position,” Peskov said, according to Reuters. “No compromise on the form of registration needs to be looked for,” he added. 

Russian politicians have also denounced Tuesday’s ECHR decision, State Duma deputy Vasily Piskarev calling it “clear systemic meddling.”  — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Stand with Hungary for protecting children from LGBT propaganda

43,108 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 45,000! Add your signature:   Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.

“The ruling, which tries to make Russia register same-sex marriages, contradicts the foundations of Russian rule of law and morality,” Vasily Piskarev, who leads a parliamentary commission on foreign interference, said. “This is clear systemic meddling in Russia’s internal affairs.”

The ECHR, the international court of the Council of Europe, does not have enforcement powers, and the Russian government enacted a law in 2015 allowing the country to overturn ECHR verdicts. Russia, which joined the Council of Europe in the 1990s, has not implemented nearly 90% of leading judgements from the court in the past ten years, according to the European Implementation Network. 

Last Tuesday, the ECHR issued another ruling against Russia for letting a woman prohibit her gender-confused former husband from visiting their children. A Russian court had declared that being around the father, who had undergone surgery to impersonate the opposite sex, would have a “negative impact on the mental health” of the children.

The ECHR’s attempts to impose LGBT ideology on Russia resemble ongoing efforts by the European Union to force Hungary to rescind a new children protection law that bans pro-LGBT materials in schools. European Council president Ursula von der Leyen said last week that “the Commission will use the powers invested in it as the guardian on the treaties” against the legislation.

“Brussels bureaucrats have no business at all, no matter what they do we will not let LGBTQ activists among our children,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán responded.

Life Site:Spain’s high court rules coronavirus lockdown was unconstitutional, violated citizens’ ‘fundamental rights’

Spain’s high court rules coronavirus lockdown was unconstitutional, violated citizens’ ‘fundamental rights’

Vox leader Santiago Abascal called the coronavirus lockdown the ‘worst violation of Spanish citizen’s rights and liberties throughout our history.’ Fri Jul 16, 2021 – 1:00 pm EST

Featured Image
An elderly woman looks on from her window on April 26, 2020 in Barcelona, Spain. Spain had one of the stricter lockdowns in Europe. David Ramos / Getty Images

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent By Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
Follow Jeanne


SPAIN, July 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Following a recourse by Vox, a popular conservative movement, Spain’s Constitutional Tribunal has judged that the first COVID-19 confinement in the country was illegal and unconstitutional and that the “fundamental rights” of Spanish citizens were violated by government measures against the sanitary crisis, even though they had been approved by successive votes in Parliament.

Vox and the Partido Popular both called on the government to step down after the decision.

The decision was made public by the court on Wednesday after a 6 to 5 vote by the Tribunal’s supreme judges, who have theoretically opened the way for all those who were fined for not complying with the severe confinement rules to ask for a refund of their money.

JVM Show

All fines that have not been paid are annulled by the decision, as well as penal procedures against those who did not comply with lockdown measures, but the Tribunal decided to protect the authorities from massive refund claims for fines by ruling that “citizens have the juridical duty to endure the material damages they have undergone,” which is curious, to say the least. Other sanctions can be revised, though.

Vox, not content with being the only political group in Parliament that consistently fought for citizens’ rights throughout the COVID crisis, is also responsible for this major victory, since it was Vox that took the matter to court, forcing the constitutional judges to disavow the socialist-communist government’s actions against the Spanish population last year.

A press statement released Wednesday by the Constitutional Tribunal revealed that the major grievances presented by Vox had been taken into account. The Royal Decree of March 14 setting up a “state of alarm” because of the “sanitary crisis” was declared null and void in several of its dispositions. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic

“The first of these points is the one that regulated the confinement, and therefore restricted the ability of citizens to move in terms that the Constitutional Court has considered contrary to the Magna Carta itself. This section stipulated that citizens could only circulate ‘on public roads or spaces’ for essential activities, such as the purchase of food and basic necessities, travel to health centers or to places of work that were still operational due to their nature and importance,” noted El País. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Say ‘No’ to COVID ‘Vaccine Passports’!

204,850 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 225,000! Add your signature:   Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.

Three fundamental rights were involved: the right to free movement within the territory, the right to choose one’s place of residence – by preventing travel – and the right of assembly among individuals, by prohibiting all social gatherings, even with relatives.

Pending the publication of the full decision, which is expected to be online “within the coming days” according to the statement, the Spanish press has widely commented on the spectacular victory. But the victory came “too late,” according to Vox leader Santiago Abascal. At a press conference following news of the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision, he said the political movement he leads “cannot celebrate the ruling because it demonstrates that the Government is prepared to disregard the law and to trample the Constitution.”

Speaking of the “worst violation of Spanish citizen’s rights and liberties throughout our history,” he recalled that Vox was the only movement in Parliament to vote against the particularly severe confinement rules set up by a government that was able to rely on the “complicity” of all the other parties who approved them six times running, leading to more than seven weeks of suspension of fundamental freedoms. Abascal also recalled that the government always professed to be acting within the limits of the Spanish constitution, which has now been revealed to be untrue.

JH Weston Show

Vox’s arguments against the measures were ridiculed at the time both by the mainstream media and the established political parties. It claimed that the degree of suspension of freedoms imposed by the authorities was not compatible with a “state of alarm” or emergency decreed by the government and merely approved every two weeks by Parliament, but could only have been set up under a “state of exception” in which the Congress of Parliament would have been competent to take the decision and circumscribe both measures and sanctions, in particular the maximum rate of fines for those who would not comply. Only a limited list of fundamental constitutional rights could be restricted for a maximum of 30 days in such a “state of exception.”

In other words, the government could not unilaterally impose restrictions by the equivalent of “executive orders” and later have them approved by Parliament without clearly setting up a “state of exception,” but should have presented its plan to the Lower Chamber and allow it to be debated. The ruling made evident that the government acted autocratically, without regard for the people’s representatives.

Abascal also remarked that the ruling came at the wrong time, and “grudgingly.” If another party than Vox had challenged the government’s decision, he said, the Tribunal would probably have unanimously condemned the government; the fact that it did not, he said, showed that it had acted as a political formation.

According to the conservative daily ABC, the eleven members of the Tribunal (the twelfth being at present suspended because of his implication in a case of “gender violence”) indeed voted according to their personal political affinities. The daily also noted that the Tribunal considered that “freedom of circulation” was not only “limited” during the confinement, but “suspended” indiscriminately.

The ruling also made clear that the government could not legally allow the Health Ministry to extend or reduce restrictive measures as listed in the original Royal Decree; this was also declared illegal and unconstitutional.

The Spanish government, led by socialist Prime minister Pedro Sanchez, has expressed “surprise” at the Tribunal’s ruling; Sanchez stated that “all countries in the world” had used similar measures to fight the coronavirus. But this works both ways, since Spain’s ruling could on the contrary underscore the fact that personal freedoms and fundamental rights have probably been illegally suspended in many other countries.

In comments sent to LifeSite by e-mail, Francisco José Contreras, member of Congress for Vox and a professor of constitutional law, stated: “Vox opposed the state of alarm from the first time it was extended: it warned from the start that it was a covert state of exception. We consider that the ruling of the Constitutional Court is a tremendous moral slap in the face of this government, which should resign and call elections.” about:blank


  coronavirus lockdowns, spain, vox, vox party

Keep this news available to you and millions more

Your gift will spread truth, defeat lies, and save lives


Share this article

Life Site:Former Pfizer VP answers Reuters ‘fact checker,’ calling it ‘a pack of lies

Former Pfizer VP answers Reuters ‘fact checker,’ calling it ‘a pack of lies’

Dr. Michael Yeadon described Reuters’ fact checking of his statements as ‘stupidity.’ Fri Jul 16, 2021 – 10:00 am EST

Featured Image
Dr Michael Yeadon, a former Pfizer vice president and co-founder of Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics The Last American Vagabond / Odysee

By Mordechai Sones


LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

July 16, 2021 (AFLD) – Former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Michael Yeadon recently told America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) that a Reuters “fact checker” article calling his statements “misinformation” is “a mixture of straw men and sheer invention,” saying the Reuters article was “well worth rebutting.”

This is not the first time Reuters has tried to discredit Yeadon by “fact checker” obfuscation, although past attempts have been less half-hearted. This time, Reuters called Yeadon an “anti-vax proponent” who “has made unfounded claims”.

MM Live

Relying on an entity that calls itself “Meedan’s Health Desk, a group of public health scientists working to tackle medical misinformation online,” the Reuters “fact check” addresses Yeadon’s statements on asymptomatic spread, variants, the COVID-19 vaccine, and its use in pregnancy.

The article’s concluding “verdict” tries to claim that “infected but symptom-free people can spread the coronavirus; vaccinated people are better protected but not 100% immune; research shows COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for adults and pregnant women.” SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic

Relating to the article, Yeadon said: “The narrative statements that have repeatedly been claimed by the authorities, which are a pack of lies, are:

“1. Asymptomatic transmission. It’s definitely a lie. Have you seen that video where Fauci states that ‘it’s always a symptomatic person who drives an epidemic and never people without symptoms’?

“A WHO doctor said exactly the same thing.

“There’s also a terrific peer-reviewed journal article showing that domestic transmission in asymptomatic cases was effectively zero.

“All marries up with the statements I’ve made, and with biological logic.

“2. Variants. They’re just being idiotic. I can show several good quality papers demonstrating that T-cells from a convalescent person or an immunized person each recognize all the then-available variants, again, as anticipated by fundamentals of immunology. The weak twaddle in their piece about antibodies is risible.

“3. Vaccines. The ba*****s are actually claiming they’re safe. Got them. We have VAERS, Yellow Card, and EMA monitoring. We have mechanism of toxicity. We have multiple open letters to EMA (warning of blood clots) which were immediately followed by vaccine withdrawals (for blood clots).

JVM Show

“4. Pregnancy/fertility. No one in their right mind thinks giving experimental treatments to pregnant women is other than reckless. Especially when reproductive toxicity testing is incomplete.”

Yeadon continued: “But on top of this stupidity, are two recent public disclosures: (I) the distribution of vaccine to tissues in mice shows a very disturbing concentration into ovaries. No one has followed it up, so the assumption has to be this is happening in humans too, and (II) our concern expressed in the December 2020 petition to EMA about immune cross-reactivity between spike protein and human syncytin-1 has been confirmed. A paper was very recently published showing young women making antibodies to syncytin-1 within days of vaccination.” — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus

1,048,093 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 1,050,000! Add your signature:   Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.

Summarizing, Yeadon concluded: “Of course this is wholly fraud. Imagine that the number of people in U.K. who’d actually been killed by the virus, instead of dying with it, was just a couple of thousand; you’d been on the streets with torches and pitchforks.”

You should be. Governments everywhere have lied and lied and lied about every one of the central narrative points about this virus.

The effect of compliance with their ludicrous policy responses has been to hollow out and arguably to have destroyed economically several G20 counties, and actually increased the number of avoidable deaths, not least by deprivation of healthcare.

These people all need locking up in that new high-security facility being built at speed at Wellingborough, Northants. The prima facie case against a dozen or so people in U.K. warrants their arrest pending criminal prosecutions.

“If these figures are of the same order of magnitude for other countries as well, and there is no reason to assume otherwise, then the plague is a deception of unprecedented proportions, and crimes committed against humanity on a huge scale have been committed here,” stated Yeadon.

Reprinted with permission from America’s Frontline Doctors

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 

Life Site:BREAKING: Pope Francis abrogates Pope Benedict’s universal permission for Old Mass

ws

BREAKING: Pope Francis abrogates Pope Benedict’s universal permission for Old Mass

The document, entitled ‘Traditiones Custodes,’ issues several restrictions on the celebration of the Latin Mass, with the opening point containing a direct contradiction of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s 2007 document ‘Summorum Pontificum.’ Fri Jul 16, 2021 – 7:27 am EST

Featured Image
John-Henry Westen / LifeSiteNews.com

Michael Haynes By Michael Haynes
Follow Michael


LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

VATICAN CITY, July 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis has today issued a new Motu Proprio restricting the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, and declaring that the liturgy of Paul VI, or the Novus Ordo, is the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

JVM Show

The document, entitled “Traditiones Custodes,” issues several restrictions on the celebration of the Latin Mass, with the opening point containing a direct contradiction of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s 2007 document Summorum Pontificum. Francis now declares that while Benedict had described an “ordinary” and an “extraordinary” form of the Roman Rite, now there is only one – the Novus Ordo.

“The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

Amongst the new restrictions, the Pope affords new power to diocesan bishops, effectively giving them the ability to stamp out centers where the Traditional Mass is being offered. 

Describing Latin Mass attendees with the peculiar phrase, “these groups of the faithful,” Francis orders bishops to ensure that no further groups are allowed to grow in dioceses. The local bishops are to additionally decide “whether or not to retain” the parishes which are currently offering the Traditional Mass. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic

The sting is in the final directive in the Pope’s text, in which he appears to abrogate Summorum Pontificum, with the words: “Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.”

The text has prompted widespread comment among Catholics worldwide. Popular Catholic commentator Deacon Nick Donnelly has described it as “The Wither and Die Motu proprio.”

This story is developing. LifeSiteNews will have a full story and analysis of the Motu Proprio shortly.

Vers où va-t-on?Soupe narrative;Les vraies raisons pour lesquelles les gauchistes californiens sont terrifiés par l’AR-1

Les vraies raisons pour lesquelles les gauchistes californiens sont terrifiés par l’AR-15 Posted: 16 Jul 2021 01:57 AM PDT Article original de Brandon Smith, publié le 11 juin 2021 sur le site alt-market
Traduit par le blog http://versouvaton.blogspot.frTout pouvoir politique vient du canon d’une arme. Le parti communiste doit commander toutes les armes, de cette façon, aucune arme ne pourra jamais être utilisée pour commander le parti. Mao Tsé-TungLa semaine dernière, un juge du district américain de Californie a invalidé l’interdiction imposée par l’État depuis 30 ans aux fusils semi-automatiques à grande capacité, que les gauchistes qualifient d’ » armes d’assaut « . Le juge a qualifié l’interdiction d’inconstitutionnelle (ce qu’elle est). En réponse, les médias progressistes ont perdu la tête, hurlant d’horreur à l’idée que les fusils AR-15 soient légaux à l’intérieur des frontières de leur État socialiste utopique soigneusement entretenu. Leur réaction la plus souvent exprimée semble être la peur. La peur est rarement une chose rationnelle. Lorsque quelqu’un fonctionne sur la base de la peur, il a tendance à prendre des décisions terribles et à soutenir des causes et des lois oppressives. La peur conduit à une obsession du contrôle. Les personnes craintives ont également tendance à rechercher de grandes foules d’autres personnes terrifiées afin de pouvoir se sentir en sécurité et anonymes. Ils veulent pouvoir agir impulsivement sur leurs peurs sans avoir à en subir les conséquences par la suite.Les gauchistes sont principalement motivés par deux facteurs : le narcissisme, et oui, la peur. J’ai longuement parlé de leur narcissisme dans des articles précédents ; je pense que nous devrions maintenant nous pencher sur leur peur.La réponse la plus courante de la gauche à la question « Pourquoi avez-vous si peur de l’AR-15 ? Parce que c’est une arme militaire conçue pour tuer beaucoup de gens rapidement… idiot ! ».Mais ce n’est pas un argument, c’est l’expression d’une peur irrationnelle. Pourquoi ont-ils, en tant qu’individus, peur de l’AR-15 ? Quelles sont les chances qu’ils soient un jour confrontés à une personne ayant l’intention de les tuer avec un AR-15 ? Et pourquoi croient-ils que le désarmement d’innocents Américains respectueux des lois les sauvera de leur paranoïa ?Examinons d’abord la question de la probabilité statistique : combien de personnes sont réellement tuées par des AR-15 chaque année ? Pas beaucoup selon le FBI, qui ne suit pas les statistiques sur des fusils spécifiques, mais suit les statistiques sur tous les fusils ensemble. Et il s’avère que seulement 6% de tous les décès par arme à feu impliquent des fusils aux États-Unis chaque année.Combien de ces 6% impliquent l’utilisation de fusils de qualité militaire comme l’AR-15 ? C’est impossible à dire, mais même si c’était la moitié, ou 3% de tous les crimes liés aux armes à feu, cela voudrait dire que vous avez beaucoup plus de chances d’être tué par un couteau ou un objet contondant que par un AR. Par extension, les fusils dans leur ensemble sont éclipsés par les meurtres par arme de poing, donc, encore une fois, pourquoi les gauchistes ont-ils si peur de l’AR-15 ?Qu’en est-il des fusillades de masse ? Il semble que l’AR-15 soit le favori des tireurs de masse en raison de son « efficacité », alors est-ce une raison suffisante pour avoir peur ? Selon l’analyse du New York Times, l’AR-15 a été utilisé pour tuer 173 personnes lors de fusillades de masse aux États-Unis entre 2007 et 2017. Cela signifie qu’environ 17 homicides par an sur une décennie peuvent être attribués à ce fusil. Encore une fois, l’AR est éclipsé par presque toutes les autres armes dans les homicides, y compris les couteaux, même en tenant compte des fusillades de masse.Avec le nombre impressionnant d’armes de qualité militaire entre les mains de civils aux États-Unis, il devrait y avoir des homicides de masse partout où l’on regarde, si l’on adopte la position commune du progressiste typique qui veut s’emparer des armes. Mais, ce n’est pas le cas. En fait, si vous voulez augmenter vos chances d’être tué par une arme à feu, déménagez dans une grande ville dirigée par des Démocrates comme Chicago, New York ou Philadelphie. À Chicago, il y a eu 4 033 fusillades et 784 homicides, principalement dans les quartiers noirs et principalement avec des armes de poing.Donc, statistiquement, l’accès aux AR-15 n’augmente pas les homicides par arme à feu. Mais qu’en est-il de la vie dans un quartier noir de Chicago dirigé par des gauchistes et soumis à des lois sur les armes à feu parmi les plus strictes du pays ? Oui, vos chances de vous faire tirer dessus sont BEAUCOUP plus élevées (mais pas par un AR-15).Puisque les calculs ne sont pas en faveur des gauchistes, peut-être devrions-nous examiner d’autres facteurs qui pourraient les pousser à se concentrer sur l’AR en particulier. Parlons de « précédent »…Voyez les choses ainsi : des États comme la Californie sont une boîte de Petri, un terrain d’essai pour l’avenir que les gauchistes souhaitent pour le pays tout entier. Il y a un vieux dicton qui dit que « Comme va la Californie, ainsi vont les États-Unis », et c’est parce que la Californie est souvent l’endroit où la plupart des législations expérimentales sont poussées ; des législations qui violent les limites de ce que la constitution permet. Parfois, c’est New York, le New Jersey ou un autre État bleu, mais la plupart du temps, c’est en Californie que les précédents inconstitutionnels sont établis. Sa population massive et son grand nombre de votes électoraux en font une cible parfaite pour conditionner le grand public à de nouvelles restrictions de ses libertés.Cela explique en partie la peur que les médias manifestent à l’égard de la dernière décision de la cour fédérale concernant les armes de qualité militaire comme l’AR. Les élites politiques considèrent la Californie comme leur propre petit royaume avec leurs propres lois spéciales, et elles prévoient d’étendre éventuellement ces lois à toute l’Amérique en utilisant la Californie comme modèle. Mais si ces lois sont déclarées inconstitutionnelles, le précédent fonctionne en fait à l’inverse. Les gauchistes craignent que si l’interdiction des armes à feu est annulée en Californie, cela signifie que d’autres États bleus suivront et que tout leur plan d’accaparement des armes à feu tombera à l’eau.L’esprit gauchiste pense en termes de « démocratie » incontrôlée et désordonnée. Cela signifie qu’ils croient que la majorité est primordiale ; la majorité fait la loi. Si la majorité d’une société veut vous priver de vos libertés, elle en a le droit car elle a la foule de son côté. 51% règnent sur la vie des autres 49%. Mais ce n’est pas ainsi que les choses fonctionnent dans une République constitutionnelle.En vertu de la Déclaration des droits, vos libertés sont codifiées et sacro-saintes. Elles sont inhérentes et offertes par Dieu (ou ce en quoi vous croyez) ; le gouvernement n’a aucun pouvoir sur ces droits. Le droit aux armes à feu et à la légitime défense est l’une de ces qualités inhérentes. Peu importe ce que pense l’État de Californie, ou même ce que pense la « majorité » des habitants de Californie. Si un Américain en Californie veut posséder un AR-15, alors il a le droit de posséder un AR-15.Nous ne pouvons pas non plus ignorer le fait que les gauchistes ont un appétit insatiable pour le collectivisme, généralement au nom du « plus grand bien ». Le collectivisme est fondamentalement un totalitarisme déguisé en humanitarisme. Ils savent ce qui est le mieux pour vous, et ils vont s’assurer que vous suiviez LEUR plan pour votre vie.L’AR-15 est en effet une arme de qualité militaire, et c’est peut-être ce qui effraie le plus les gauchistes. Non pas parce qu’ils sont personnellement plus susceptibles d’être abattus par l’une d’entre elles (nous avons déjà prouvé que cette notion est fausse), mais parce que les gauchistes veulent contrôler tout le reste, et avec des armes de qualité militaire dans les mains du public, le contrôle devient beaucoup plus difficile. TOUS les gouvernements totalitaires cherchent d’abord à désarmer les personnes qu’ils ont l’intention de réduire en esclavage ou de détruire. C’est un fait.Lorsqu’un groupe de personnes au pouvoir s’efforce de vous retirer des armes défensives ou même offensives, il est préférable de supposer que leurs intentions sont malveillantes. Ils n’essaient pas de vous aider, ils essaient de s’aider eux-mêmes.Ils nieront ce motif jusqu’à la tombe, mais regardez comment la gauche politique a agi ces derniers temps : Ce sont les seules personnes qui ont soutenu la censure massive des points de vue opposés. Ce sont les seules personnes qui sont soutenues par les conglomérats internationaux et les entreprises Big Tech. Ce sont les seules personnes qui ont soutenu les confinements pandémiques, qui ont été complètement inutiles pour arrêter la propagation de la Covid-19, mais qui ont été très utiles pour tuer des centaines de milliers de petites entreprises à travers les États-Unis. Ils sont également les seuls à soutenir les passeports vaccinaux, qui détruiraient le tissu même de notre société et effaceraient ce qui reste de nos libertés.Il n’est pas vraiment surprenant qu’ils veuillent également nous désarmer.Bien sûr, ils prétendront que cet argument est « stupide ». Après tout, que peut faire un AR-15 contre un hélicoptère Apache ou un char de combat Abrams ? Eh bien, ces fusils, dans les bonnes mains, peuvent faire beaucoup pour arrêter une armée technologiquement avancée, comme nous l’avons vu au cours des deux dernières décennies en Afghanistan. Ne jouons pas le jeu ; il y a une raison pour laquelle les gauchistes et les élites sont obsédés par notre désarmement. Si les fusils de qualité militaire ne constituaient pas une menace pour eux, ils ne s’en prendraient pas à eux de manière aussi agressive.Enfin, les médias grand public ont déployé tous les outils de propagande typiques lorsqu’il s’agit de tourner la décision fédérale en Californie, notamment en attaquant le juge et sa personnalité. Presque tous les articles sur cette question se concentrent sur le fait que le juge a comparé le fusil AR-15 à un « couteau suisse ».La gauche continuera à utiliser ce récit pour détourner l’attention du vrai problème, car les faux amalgames et les arguments de l’homme de paille ont fonctionné pour elle dans le passé. Il est clair que le juge n’essayait pas de dire qu’un AR-15 et un couteau suisse sont exactement les mêmes, ou qu’ils sont également capables de tuer des gens. L’interprétation logique est que l’AR-15 est un outil comme n’importe quel autre outil, et qu’il a de multiples usages. C’est un objet utilitaire, et non une machine de mort intrinsèquement démoniaque comme les gauchistes voudraient nous le faire croire.Les accapareurs d’armes adorent avancer l’argument selon lequel les armes à feu ne sont conçues que dans un seul but : « tuer ». C’est un mensonge. Ce sont également des outils d’autodéfense. Elles sont un moyen de désamorcer une situation violente avant même qu’elle ne se produise. Il existe des milliers de vidéos sur le web montrant des personnes aux intentions criminelles fuyant un bon samaritain armé. Il n’y a aucun moyen de dire combien de victimes potentielles ont été sauvées par la simple présence d’une arme à feu, mais les témoignages sont documentés et nombreux.Cela s’ajoute à toutes les autres utilisations des armes à feu, y compris la chasse et les activités sportives. Donc, oui, le juge a tout à fait raison ; un AR-15 est un outil polyvalent, tout comme un couteau suisse.À mon avis, le lobby du contrôle des armes à feu en Amérique est au milieu d’un déclin considérable, et peut-être même sur le point de mourir. La gauche politique a longtemps fonctionné selon le mantra « la roue qui grince obtient l’huile ». En d’autres termes, ils pensent que s’ils se plaignent assez longtemps et assez fort d’un problème, quelqu’un viendra leur donner ce qu’ils veulent juste pour les faire taire, même si ce qu’ils veulent est illogique ou sans morale.Cette stratégie a fonctionné pour eux pendant plusieurs décennies, il n’est donc pas surprenant qu’ils continuent à l’utiliser, mais les temps changent. Aujourd’hui, la roue qui grince n’obtient pas d’huile, du moins pas de la part des propriétaires d’armes à feu. La roue qui grince n’obtient rien.Le contrôle des armes à feu est la grande ligne dans le sable pour la plupart des conservateurs et des modérés respectueux de la loi, et nous sommes fatigués du débat parce que ce n’est plus un débat, c’est une imposition d’idéologie, un culte. Tous les faits sont du côté des propriétaires d’armes à feu. Toutes les protections légales sont du côté des propriétaires d’armes à feu. Toutes les dynamiques morales sont du côté des propriétaires d’armes à feu. Tant que nous restons sur nos positions, il n’y a rien que les gauchistes puissent faire.Ils peuvent continuer à mentir, à menacer et à exploiter les arguments émotionnels, mais ils n’auront JAMAIS les armes. Et, comme nous l’avons vu récemment, nous pourrions même commencer à rendre certains de ces droits sur les armes et les fusils à des États comme la Californie, où la peur a été utilisée pour obscurcir l’esprit du public et où les gens ont été dupés pour se conformer.De quoi les gauchistes californiens et leurs camarades des autres États bleus ont-ils vraiment peur ? Ils ont peur que leurs stratégies échouent, que le public se lasse de leurs jeux, que leur incrémentalisme ne fonctionne qu’un temps, que leurs véritables intentions soient devenues transparentes, que leur narcissisme les ait rendus aveugles à leurs propres faiblesses, que la loi ne soit pas leur jouet et que chaque parcelle de terrain constitutionnel qu’ils ont volée au fil des décennies puisse leur être reprise en un clin d’œil, aussi vite qu’une balle de fusil.Les gauchistes et les totalitaires craignent le fusil AR-15, mais ce qu’ils craignent le plus, c’est ce qu’il représente. Et avec chaque tir d’entraînement soigneusement placé dans chaque champ de tir à travers l’Amérique, ils entendent le son écrasant de l’inévitabilité.Brandon Smith
Soupe narrative Posted: 16 Jul 2021 01:52 AM PDT Article original de James Howard Kunstler, publié le 25 juin 2021 sur le site kunstler.com
Traduit par le blog http://versouvaton.blogspot.fr
Overseas ballot requests set record, but will votes reach U.S. shores?L’une des principales prémisses de mon livre de 2005, « The Long Emergency », était que le gouvernement au plus haut niveau deviendrait de plus en plus inefficace et impuissant à mesure que le mélodrame de l’effondrement national se déroulerait. Ce n’est donc pas sans ironie que les élites politiques en perdition ont choisi la figure pathétique de « Joe Biden » pour diriger symboliquement un gouvernement en perdition. Ils ont choisi l’incarnation même de l’effondrement pour inaugurer l’effondrement, et c’est pourquoi « Joe Biden » semble n’être rien de plus qu’un huissier, quelqu’un dont le seul devoir, disons lors d’un enterrement, est de montrer aux participants les plus importants leur place devant le sinistre cercueil. Personne ne croit qu’il est responsable de l’exécutif, ni même qu’il est responsable de lui-même, alors qu’il se traîne raide jusqu’à l’estrade, les yeux tout fendus, pour faire la seule chose que ses mentors lui ont appris à faire : lire un téléprompteur. Les dirigeants européens ont certainement été déconcertés par sa récente apparition parmi eux, comme si les États-Unis avaient envoyé un fantôme du XXe siècle révolu pour effrayer nos alliés et leur faire prendre conscience de l’importance de l’auto-préservation – message : la grande puissance qui vous a sauvés lors des deux guerres mondiales est partie, et vous êtes seuls maintenant.L’effondrement est universel, cependant, et se joue à l’échelle mondiale dans différentes saveurs de la culture et de l’économie, mais il est bien engagé, pour l’Europe aussi, et finalement même pour la Chine. C’est l’effondrement de la modernité et du cheval techno-industriel qu’elle a enfourché. Les narcissistes politiques extrêmes du moment, enivrés de fantasmes messianiques, voudraient vendre au détail un « Grand Reset » dans un effort désespéré pour empêcher la modernité de devenir le demain d’hier. Mais cela ne semble se résumer qu’à un désir obsessionnel-compulsif de bousculer tout le monde et de rassembler les populations dans des corrals contrôlables qui, selon certains, ne sont que le prélude à un Auschwitz mondial pas si lointain. « Vous ne posséderez rien et vous serez heureux » est à peu près aussi rassurant que « le travail vous rendra libre ».Les États-Unis, dont l’éthique est plus anarchique, ne peuvent offrir que des justifications risibles pour leurs échecs sur le chemin désordonné de la faillite et de l’effondrement. Naturellement, les responsables sont terrifiés par toute contestation de leurs règles peu convaincantes. L’audit des élections en cours en Arizona les pousse à bout. La dernière manœuvre désespérée est la décision du système judiciaire de l’État de New York de suspendre la licence d’avocat de Rudy Giuliani, comme une sorte d’avertissement à toute personne qui tenterait de mettre en doute la rectitude inébranlable des récentes élections.Le comité de doléances des avocats de la cour de New York déclare :… Il existe des preuves irréfutables que le défendeur [Giuliani] a communiqué des déclarations manifestement fausses et trompeuses aux tribunaux, aux législateurs et au grand public en sa qualité d’avocat de l’ancien président Donald J. Trump et de la campagne Trump, en rapport avec la tentative ratée de réélection de Trump en 2020. Ces fausses déclarations ont été faites pour soutenir de manière inappropriée le récit du défendeur selon lequel, en raison d’une fraude électorale généralisée, la victoire à l’élection présidentielle de 2020 a été volée à son client.Remarquez l’affirmation que la contestation du vote est nécessairement proscrite, et que tout argument en ce sens est au service d’un faux  » récit « , nécessairement irrecevable. Depuis quand est-il contraire aux règles d’avoir un point de vue ? Surtout un point de vue juridique sur des questions juridiques, dans les tribunaux et dans l’arène publique ? Il se trouve qu’un certain nombre de tribunaux d’État ont rejeté les affaires portées par M. Giuliani, sans prendre la peine d’examiner les preuves, en particulier les déclarations sous serment que M. Giuliani a présentées et qui détaillent les irrégularités du scrutin. Les tribunaux n’ont pas voulu les entendre. Si cela est une preuve de quelque chose, ce n’est peut-être que de la corruption des tribunaux de l’État. Quelqu’un a-t-il remarqué que le comité de réclamation fabrique son propre récit, très probablement faux ?En fait, il existe un examen juridique du scrutin de 2020 actuellement en cours en Arizona, sur ordre du Sénat de l’État de l’Arizona, comme il se doit puisque, selon la constitution américaine, les élections sont une prérogative des législatures des cinquante États. Ce n’est pas « un récit ». C’est aussi officiel que possible, et ils ont tout à fait le droit de le faire, et il y a une bonne chance que cela révèle à la fois la fraude des bulletins de vote et la fraude des machines à voter. Je suppose que tout cela semble « sans fondement » si vous refusez de regarder. De plus, cette semaine, un juge de Géorgie a approuvé un processus visant à desceller environ 145 000 bulletins de vote par correspondance dans le comté de Fulton (la région métropolitaine d’Atlanta) afin de les inspecter pour détecter toute fraude. Cette décision découle d’un procès intenté contre le comté qui allègue la preuve de bulletins frauduleux et d’un comptage incorrect. « Joe Biden » a remporté l’État par seulement 12 000 voix.D’autres États, notamment la Pennsylvanie, prennent des mesures en vue de leurs propres audits du vote de 2020, et ce par les voies législatives appropriées. La « preuve irréfutable » d’une élection juste et honnête est la fraude en question. Il n’y a que des affirmations selon lesquelles ce serait une erreur de la rechercher, et il est difficile d’imaginer un argument plus faible. Donc, le politburo derrière « Joe Biden » a peur. L’action du tribunal de New York contre M. Giuliani n’est qu’un acte de désespoir politique visant à mettre hors d’état de nuire un adversaire juridique. Cette action, ainsi que la menace du procureur général Merrick Garland d’interrompre l’audit de l’Arizona pour des raisons spécieuses de « droits civils », ne sont que des tentatives de distraction pour un régime qui commence à comprendre qu’il tourne en rond.À mesure que « Joe Biden » disparaîtra de la scène, le pays devra s’attaquer aux vrais problèmes auxquels il est confronté, non pas aux zélotes du racisme, de la misogynie et de la suprématie blanche, mais à la manière de faire face à la diminution de l’approvisionnement énergétique et à la baisse du niveau de vie, et à la manière de rester civilisé. Nous faisons un bon travail de destruction des institutions qui rendent la civilisation possible, en particulier le droit et les tribunaux.James Howard KunstlerPour lui, les choses sont claires, le monde actuel se termine et un nouveau arrive. Il ne dépend que de nous de le construire ou de le subir mais il faut d’abord faire notre deuil de ces pensées magiques qui font monter les statistiques jusqu’au ciel.

World in Chaos-Martin Armstrong

Font size

World in Chaos

Blog/Opinion

Posted Jul 17, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Spread the love

In South Africa, the currency has fallen hard as riots have devasted the country. They looted the mall, except for the bookstore. The former South African President Jacob Zuma turned himself in to begin a 15-month sentence for contempt of court. This has sent the country into a tailspin. Contempt of court is an abuse of judicial power, for they claim they can lock anyone up for any reason whatsoever.

In Greece, there are thousands of people protesting against the discrimination of people who have not been vaccinated and the mandatory vaccinations and other measures imposed by the Greek government to tackle the pandemic in Athens. There are far worse viruses that have taken place, yet governments have not destroyed the economies and taken such totalitarian measures. This in itself has raised skepticism as to what is really going on when the death rate is minimal.

In Britain, 47% of those with COVID have been vaccinated. In Australia, the mob stormed the government as in ancient Roman times resulting in chaos on the streets of Melbourne just hours before the city entered its fifth lockdown. The protesters have marched through the CBD, saying if they do not act, he will get away with it again. What I am hearing is that many are starting to say they would rather die in freedom than live in prison indefinitely. This is our problem. Governments will NEVER admit a mistake, and the fact that they are so involved with the vaccines, we have nobody to offer independent verification of anything. Video Player00:0000:59

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration wants to shut down all dissent and has been putting pressure on Big Tech to shut down people who disagree with the administration. Video Player00:0002:54

The greatest problem here is that Biden has stated UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE will he ever fire Fauci. That implicitly means he refuses to investigate anything about his research or the connection with Wuhan. That means the Biden Administration will NEVER provide the truth about COVID or anything else. The US will not admit that the origin of COVID might be linked to Fauci — he is above any investigation.

The ‘chip’ in the brain, prior to all other chips- Jon Rappoport

The ‘chip’ in the brain, prior to all other chips
Magic spilling over the edges of time, poetry and science
by Jon Rappoport
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Why isn’t every person acting as a shaper and artist of reality?
Why do people rearrange their pasts to omit that self-realization?
The ‘chip’ in the brain is: the non-creative.
The blind spot in the mind is the uncreative.
The false piece of consciousness is: ‘I don’t create.’
So-called Realists want people to pay total attention to What Is, and exclude all other impulses. This is their absurd game. They double down and triple down on it every day.
The realists have very convincing arguments. For example: “I’m your surgeon. You have a life-threatening blood clot, and I’m going in there to try to fix it in the next ten minutes. Do you want me to be a dreamer who fantasizes about mountains in the sky, or do you want me to know how to restore your blood flow before you don’t have enough oxygen to survive? After the surgery, when you wake up, maybe you’ll realize that nuts and bolts reality is what you should be focusing on from here on out, because that’s what I applied to save your life.”
THAT kind of argument.
How many people will refuse THAT kind of invitation and say, “When I wake up from the surgery, I want a pad and pencil, so I can continue writing my 10,000-page poem that spills over and drenches every realistic trap that tries to lock up my mind. A glass of orange juice would be nice as well. And please have the nurse open the curtain in my room so I can see the hills and the river and the old stone skyscrapers…”
Consciousness is not a stable structure. It’s not a structure at all. Therefore, as I’ve been writing, there are no maps. The pundits who claim there are, are kidding themselves. They want to soar and fly, but instead they’re peering through lenses at little shapes and thought-forms in drops of water in a vast unending ocean. And I don’t mean a Collective ocean. Let’s drop that pose.
Every individual soul wearing a physical form has that ocean of consciousness. It spills over edges of time and science and ‘realism’ and money and trinkets and possessions and the news. And yet it isn’t abstract at all. It’s not another realm where everything is pure and organized and perfect. That’s just a cover story. That’s conditioning, training, puerile education, and the out-of-control desire to control everything that moves. That’s one of the versions of the big sleep. That’s all the boring sermons you ever slept through. That’s a contraction of the mind trying to hold things rigidly in place—until the body responds with tremors.
Because THE SPONTANEOUS CREATIVE is trying to break out.
That’s more real than any realism.
The tech freaks and domeheads can try to analyze spontaneous Creative Force from now to forever, and they’ll never make a single inroad. Instead, they’ll just say, “Computers can compose poetry, and they can defeat humans at chess, so turn the universe over to us.”
I don’t think so.
Every religious organization in the world can say to its flock, “We have the pipeline to God, he is present with us in OUR temple, WE have the book that tells you what HE said. Get to HIM through US.” As if an individual soul wearing a physical form with an unending ocean of consciousness who believes in God can’t get through on his own, because it’s just too complicated or hard or it’s Tuesday or it’s raining or the Pope has all the phone lines locked up or a bottle of wine at the liquor store isn’t the bottle of wine with special symbolic portent, or you need a small enclave that’s gained nation-status surrounded by Swiss Guards to rate a look-in from the Deity, or the flock has to be in one place on Sunday singing a hymn, or the night is too long, or the worm can turn in the right direction only when the cliché-ridden minister delivers his candy corn from the pulpit, and the words have to be read from the sacred Book after 169 translations have passed through the hands of writers, most of whom couldn’t get arrested during a riot at a literary convention. Fortunate is the Church who lucked into a real poet who breathed life into its bible.
Because, as I’ve written, every religion starts out as a poem. A poet is working on a million-word Niagara that nothing to do with organized religion, and priests come in and steal it and look it over and edit it down and chop it up and pick the useful lines and insert volleys of vapid warnings and make THAT version THE WORD.
Today’s cutting-edge medical researchers are their own priest class. They, too, are editing and reducing, using genetic tools and nanoparticles they want to infuse with the ability to deliver calcifying messages to the human brain.
The real human experiment? To see what happens when 7 billion souls wearing physical forms bottle up infinity inside themselves and live shoulder to shoulder. They didn’t need to run that experiment. I could have told them before they started what would happen, and it’s what we’re seeing right now, what we’ve been seeing for the last year, the last 5000 years.
When I say THE POEM, I mean what happens in reverse, when the infinities emerge.
An ocean of consciousness turns stagnant if it isn’t EXPRESSED. CREATIVELY.
Just as freedom turns sour.
Just as an individual, decaying from the inside, decides to wave the flag of realism and say we’re all made out of atoms and we’re all doomed. Because he wants to make “the smart choice,” as if we’re operating a contest and the winner gets a new car. There are no points and scoreboards when we’re talking about infinity.
Neither is endless consciousness a placid summer sea on which you float on your back, while you wait for the big ship of Cheese to come along and pull you into a giant collective glob with all other souls.
Consciousness wants the electricity and dynamo of endless creating.
That Force which everyone has felt at one moment or another and then tried to kill off.
It doesn’t die.
And that’s today’s news. And tomorrow’s, too.
And that’s the reason behind the reason I’ve been exposing the machinations of the medical cartel for the past 40 years. By attacking and poisoning and altering the body and brain, they’re in essence attempting to cut people off from the connection to their own dynamic consciousness. And turn them into “REALISTS.