The History of the Decline and Fall of Conservatism

18 August 2021

by Dr. James Alexander

The Covid crisis is of great political significance. It may in fact mark the end of the Conservative Party.

The history of conservatism is usually told in terms of politicians – from Peel, Disraeli and Salisbury through Churchill to Thatcher, Major, Cameron, May and Johnson; or in terms of shifts in economic policy: from protection to free trade in the mid-19th century, from free trade to tariff reform in the early 20th century, from Keynesian consensus to monetarism in the late 20th century; or in terms of thinkers like Burke, Oakeshott, Scruton etc. But I want to propose something a bit different, not only for the sake of history itself, but in order to understand the contemporary crisis of the Conservative Party.

The history of conservatism, when seen from sufficient distance, falls into four, perhaps now five, stages. Conservatism was named in the 1830s for the politics of Peel. But it was not a happy politics. It was a reactionary, even late, politics, a politics of a belated and reluctant concession to the events of 1828 to 1832 in which the old order of church and state and of mixed government (King, Lords and Commons) was replaced by the English version of a revolutionary, enlightened order in which the sorts of ideas which had been espoused by oddities like Godwin, Wollstonecraft, Paine and Bentham would now be taken seriously. The origin of a named Conservative Party was the acceptance by certain figures of a revolution which they could never have accepted before it happened. This was also the origin of that famous pragmatism of the Conservative Party. It had to sell its soul in order to exist: no wonder it has continued to sell its soul since.

The first stage, therefore, of the history of conservatism is its prehistory. This is the world before 1832, when English politics was dominated by the binary of Whig and Tory. This was the era of king and church and country. The meaning of ‘Whig’ and ‘Tory’ varied across time – as even Bolingbroke noticed in the 1730s – but by and large a Whig was a descendant of Cromwell, a believer in constitution, progress and freedom, while a Tory was a descendant of Charles I, a believer in divine right, stability and order. This politics of ‘right and repulsive’ opposed to ‘wrong and romantic’ survived the revolution of 1832, but was restructured in far more explicitly ideological terms as the politics of ‘Liberal’ versus ‘Conservative’. For a great Victorian historian like J.R. Seeley what this meant was that, in effect, everyone before 1832 had been ‘conservative’, even if they had not used the name. After 1832 there was now a new political world of conscientious opposition in which conservatism could only take one side, the reluctant or resistant side.

The second stage is the era between 1832 and 1924 when, by and large, every Liberal government had a Conservative opposition and vice versa: this was established very clearly after the adjustments to politics in the 1850s made necessary by the decisions and death of Peel. Both sides accepted the original revolution, but the Liberals stood for the extension and advance of this revolutionary order (and in a more ambitious way than ever envisioned by their ancestors, the Whigs), and the Conservatives stood for the restriction and perhaps at least ideally reversal of that order. That was in theory: practice was different; and figures like Disraeli flourished by exploiting what were even then the accepted terms of combat, by outflanking Gladstone on the left in 1867. What was really going on during the 19th century was the advance march of a militant Liberalism, set on establishing a truly liberal order in Britain. Arguably, this was achieved by the end of the century: and so, though of course for contingent historical reasons, it is apt that the historic Liberal party faded out in the 1920s at the very height of its success. Liberalism was fully established: so the Liberal party died. Now the Conservatives had a new task, which was to defend the historic Liberalism of the 19th century against a new opposition.

The third stage, running from 1924 to 1997, was the era when the Conservatives were not opposed by Liberals but by another party, Labour, which was just as liberal as the Conservative party, but liberal in a different sense. Original liberalism was, in a word, about self-help; whereas the newer liberalism was the extension of the supposed benefits of liberalism to those who could not help themselves, but needed the help of the state. One of the most important intellectual events of the 19th century was the emergence of this new type of liberalism in the writings of J.S. Mill, T.H. Green and others. Unlike the old liberalism which had feared the state, the new liberalism advocated state intervention: supposing that the state would not obstruct individual flourishing but encourage it. This liberalism was, of course, allied to the rising socialism of the late 19th century, and played into the thinking of the Labour party. So what we had after 1924 was a new politics in which the Labour Party stood for an egalitarian liberalism while the Conservative Party stood for an inegalitarian liberalism. The Conservatives could still pretend to be on the side of king and country, like the old-fashioned Tories, but now the debate had shifted, and become general: it was now a debate about the extent of state involvement in ordering economic, educational, industrial, medical matters, and thus in extending the rule of the ideal of equality. As before, one side was in general on the side of advance, the other on the side of restraint. Thatcher, seen in this light, is not the unusual figure she used to seem: she merely reminded Conservatives who were drifting (after the chaos of the encounter of pomp and pyschedelia in the 1960s) that their true function in the 1970s was to defend the old 19th-century liberal ideals in 20th-century conditions.

The fourth stage – and it should be obvious now that the history of Conservatism is nothing but a history of reactions – begins in 1997 with the advent of the adjusted Labour politics of Blair. What New Labour espoused was no longer the extensive social and economic egalitarian aspiration of old Labour, but an adjusted cultural and international and therefore far more openly hypocritical politics which focused on perpetuating inequalities while offering benefits to the people who did not benefit from those inequalities. This confused the Conservatives again. What the Labour Party was adopting was the politics we have come to see more and more clearly since the 1990s: the politics associated with political correctness, identity politics and eventually complete wokery. This is liberal, but it is the liberalism of the recipient. It is a big-spending, big-borrowing politics: a slave-moralised politics, the politics of ‘our NHS’. So the Conservative Party continued to have a role, which was to defend the liberalism of the bestower: that is to say, the liberalism of the person who would want to defend a liberal order against those who were happy to receive something from it but would not make any attempt to defend it – or pay for it. So after 1997, as Cameron seems to have glimpsed, the Conservative Party was not the defender of one type of liberalism against another, but the only defender of liberalism – against those who were notionally but not actually willing to defend liberalism anymore (or who could only defend it in terms of its results). To its enemies, Conservative politics was condemned as ‘austerity’. It was a genuine politics, though, as some commentators saw, only very dubiously conservative. But then Cameron fell from his horse in 2016, much as Peel had fallen from his in 1850.

The fifth stage is the crisis which has resulted not so much from Brexit as from Covid. Brexit was a revolt of a new Country party against the Court party of almost all assembled authorities, including both Labour and Conservative authorities. After some dithering, Johnson chose to side with Country. Hence 2016. But Covid has broken all of the traditions of opposition I have sketched thus far. For it is the Conservative Party – no matter how reluctantly – which stands at the head of a unified Court party which has done more than anyone since Walpole has done to ignore the Country, and not only ignore it, but oppress it. Johnson has presided over the establishment of an entirely technocratic politics of problem-and-solution which is, alas, not a politics at all, but the substitution of technique for politics. In this situation, the Government appears to be as committed as the opposition is to a unified politics of Universal Lockdown and Universal Vaccination and Universal Carbon Elimination in which no one is defending any aspect of the old order (including the church or universities) or even liberalism itself. The Conservatives have no longer got anything to defend. They have capitulated to their enemies and done it with a grotesque hyper-Disraelian-Bismarckian-Maoist-Malthusian flourish by way of forcing us to take the knee, take the mask and take the jab. They are not Tory, not liberal, certainly not even ‘austere’. They have found a magic money tree. They are presumably waiting for the seas to turn into lemonade. They are locking us into a magnificently communist-corporate hybrid order which will make the public-private partnerships of Blair and Brown look extremely pallid. If this continues then the only conservative thing about the Conservatives will be their inclination to hold on to their name.

Dr. James Alexander is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.

Pour l’avocat Michael Brunner la vaccination des mineurs serait illégale

covid 19 dictature sanitaire Publié le 18 août 2021 – par Corail

L’avocat Michael Brunner : « Ce n’est pas une vaccination, c’est l’administration d’une substance expérimentale »

Michael Brunner est l’équivalent en Autriche de l’avocat français Carlo Brusa.

« Ce n’est pas une vaccination, c’est l’administration d’une substance expérimentale basée sur un gène. »

« Comme il ne s’agit pas d’une vaccination au sens classique du terme, je ne peux pas imposer la vaccination. »

« Si cette approbation est conditionnelle, je ne peux obliger personne à participer. »

Voir la video ici :

Transcription :

La vaccination, qui à mon avis n’est pas une vaccination, mais l’administration d’une substance expérimentale basée sur un gène. Ces substances ne peuvent pas empêcher une personne d’être infectée par le virus Sars-Cov-2. De là, cette substance ne peut pas non plus éviter que Sars-Cov-2 ne contamine une autre personne.  En ce sens, il ne s’agit pas d’une vaccination au sens classique du terme. Tout au plus, elle peut protéger contre un développement grave de la maladie. Et si je ne considère que cela, indépendamment de toutes les autres considérations juridiques que je voudrais évoquer brièvement, l’obligation de vacciner est hors de question. Une telle vaccination obligatoire ou une telle discrimination parce que quelqu’un ne veut pas être vacciné viole la résolution numéro 23-61 du Conseil de l’Europe du 27 janvier 2021. Le Conseil de l’Europe a déclaré que nul ne doit être discriminé s’il ne souhaite pas se faire vacciner (NDLR de RR : cette résolution n’est pas contraignante, donc on ne peut pas s’appuyer dessus).  Personne ne peut être contraint à se faire vacciner. La vaccination ne doit pas être une condition préalable à l’accès à une profession ou à la vie publique. Ce sont des paroles claires prononcées par le Conseil de l’Europe et les gouvernements des pays membres devraient s’y conformer.

Ces substances génétiques n’ont été approuvées qu’à titre provisoire, au sens du règlement n° 507 de 2006 de l’UE. Ils ne sont autorisés que provisoirement car des études essentielles manquent ou ne sont pas achevées. Il n’existe pas d’études sur les effets et les impacts à moyen et long terme. Aucune étude sur les effets sur la fertilité. Ceci est particulièrement important si vous souhaitez vacciner des mineurs.

Il n’existe aucune étude sur les effets de l’administration de ces substances avec une médication. Une approbation conditionnelle, où l’on ne peut prévoir l’essentiel, ne peut jamais servir de base pour inciter quiconque, même indirectement, à subir une telle thérapie génique. C’est carrément illégal.

Peut-être un mot sur la rumeur de la « vaccination » (entre guillemets) des mineurs, car elle est toujours présentée dans les médias comme s’il s’agissait d’une question très claire. Je ne le vois pas de cette façon. En tant qu’avocats des droits fondamentaux, nous avons examiné cette question en détail. En Suède, par exemple, qui est un pays relativement favorable aux vaccins, aucune personne de moins de 18 ans n’est autorisée à se faire vacciner. Et nous sommes arrivés à la même conclusion juridique. Un enfant qui est capable de comprendre, un mineur qui est capable de comprendre, qui a la capacité de jugement, peut décider de consentir à un traitement médical, c’est-à-dire s’il peut voir l’étendue du traitement médical. Il ou elle a alors le pouvoir de décision. Si ce traitement médical implique des effets néfastes ou graves sur son intégrité physique ou sa personnalité, il nécessite le consentement du représentant légal. Mais le paragraphe 42, comme la loi sur les produits thérapeutiques, interdit fondamentalement l’administration clinique de médicaments, de traitements aux mineurs, sauf pour des raisons exceptionnelles très particulières.

Une raison exceptionnelle très spéciale serait qu’il est nécessaire de détecter la maladie chez un mineur ou de l’en guérir. Et encore une fois, la condition sine qua non est que le bénéfice doit être supérieur au risque. Nous sommes dans la phase d’essai clinique de l’administration de ce traitement génétique. Il ne dispose que d’une autorisation conditionnelle, et les moins de 18 ans ne sont donc pas autorisés à participer à ces vaccinations. Si cela se produit quand même, et les tribunaux devront le préciser dans un avenir plus lointain, il s’agit d’une intrusion dans son intégrité physique, le consentement est nul et non avenu, et la responsabilité du médecin vaccinateur est alors évidente. Je ne veux pas que nous devions mener de telles poursuites en propageant qu’environ 1,5 million de mineurs doivent être traités avec ces substances.

medias-presse.info

Séminaire de Milan : Prêtre tu seras si tu es vacciné… par Francesca de Villasmundo

L’Eglise conciliaire n’est jamais en retard pour suivre le monde, ses préceptes et ses mœurs. En ces temps covidesques, c’est à la vaccination pour tous qu’elle s’attelle, qu’elle adopte et qu’elle chérit, à l’instar du pape François. Le prêtre de demain ne doit pas être saint, ni avoir de bonnes mœurs, mais vacciné.

Le séminaire de Milan donne le ton : il est le premier à imposer la vaccination obligatoire et permettre l’exemption de masques pour ceux qui ont terminé le cycle de vaccination. Et il écrit aux 120 séminaristes : «

Vous devez tous vous faire vacciner avant de rentrer de vacances ».

Le vice-recteur confirme au quotidien italien La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana :

« On le fait pour revenir à une vie plus apaisée ».

Sans étonnement, les séminaristes opposés à l’injection anti-covid sont qualifiés d’idéologiques :

« Nous évaluerons au cas par cas même ceux qui manifestent une opposition idéologique, mais je suis sûr qu’il n’y en aura pas besoin. »

La première condition pour un ‘bon’ prêtre conciliaire dorénavant sera donc d’être vacciné. C’est ainsi que le séminaire épiscopal de Milan a établi le vaccin comme une condition sine qua non pour les 120 aspirants prêtres pour leur retour de vacances le 12 septembre.

Une lettre du recteur Don Enrico Castagna parle clairement : vaccinez-vous et faites preuve de charité les uns envers les autres écrit-il en substance. Vaccin obligatoire, sans trop de raccourcis ni passe vert : même l’Etat n’est pas allé jusque-là. Vous voulez devenir prêtre ? Faites-vous vacciner et ensuite on en parle.

La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana a demandé confirmation de l’indiscrétion et après avoir contacté le recteur, il a pu parler avec son consentement avec le vice-recteur Don Michele Galli, covid manager du séminaire de Venegone Inferiore, dépendant du plus grand diocèse d’Europe. Et il a confirmé la mesure draconienne, actuellement prise uniquement par Milan.

« Compte tenu de la situation épidémiologique, nous modifions notre approche », explique Don Michele. « Nous nous sommes appuyés sur le décret-loi de l’État, notamment le décret scolaire et le décret universitaire […] et nous nous sommes adaptés en conséquence » en « tirant parti du vaccin. Nous avons demandé aux séminaristes de se faire vacciner à leur retour le 12 septembre, de cette façon nous pourrons vivre dans les salles de classe et les espaces communs sans masque puisque le décret scolaire autorise, dans les classes qui ont terminé le cycle de vaccination, l’exemption du masque. »

Mais que feront les séminaristes ? Tout le monde sera-t-il vacciné ? La question se pose spontanément, mais pour le vice-recteur ce n’est pas un gros problème. « Pour le moment, nous n’avons personne qui nous a fait part d’une quelconque opposition, mais si des cas se présentent, nous les évaluerons au cas par cas. Par exemple, si quelqu’un ne peut pas se faire vacciner pour des raisons médicales, nous l’envisagerons, si au contraire les raisons sont plutôt de nature idéologique… enfin… je ne sais pas, nous n’avons pas encore abordé la question, mais je ne pense pas qu’ils causeront des problèmes », coupe-t-il.

Le spectre de l’expulsion n’est pas évoqué, mais selon les propos du vice-recteur, il n’est pas totalement exclu puisque le séminariste no vax est stigmatisé comme idéologue : aucun raccourci ni aucune entente ne doit lui être prévu.

L’archevêque de Milan Mario Delpini, qui était également recteur de Venegono Inferiore, n’a pas été consulté. La décision, explique le vice-recteur « a été prise de manière autonome en tant que conseil de séminaire, mais d’un autre côté nous nous sentons encouragés dans cette décision également par la note de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi qui encourage expressément à se faire vacciner ».

Si, depuis la naissance de l’Eglise conciliaire et de ses sacrements « bâtards » comme les appelait Mgr Lefebvre d’heureuse mémoire, l’on peut douter de la validité de l’ordination Novus Ordo, de la doctrine reçue par les séminaristes, de leur esprit surnaturel, un doute est levé : le ‘prêtre’ de demain guidera difficilement les âmes vers la Jérusalem céleste mais, c’est sûr, « il sera armé de l’inoculum sacré » pour mener le troupeau apeuré vers le nouveau monde post-covid des Schwab, François, Gates, Soros and Co… 

Francesca de Villasmundo

HEALTH CARE COLLAPSE warning: Vaccine spike protein will unleash widespread neurological damage that overwhelms world’s medical systems

Wednesday, August 18, 2021 by: Mike Adams
Tags: badhealth, badmedicine, biowar, bioweapons, brain damage, chaos, Collapse, Dangerous Medicine, doctors, health care, Hospitals, nanoparticles, neurology, spike protein, toxicity, vaccine wars, vaccines
Bypass censorship by sharing this link:

https://www.afinalwarning.com/545833.html Copy URL 24KViews

(Natural News) Imagine living in a world where every hospital is overrun with vaccine-injured patients of all ages, suffering from extreme neurological damage that places previously able-bodied people in the category of requiring constant medical assistance to survive. Imagine so many people dying from covid spike protein injections (“vaccines”) that entire apartment buildings are abandoned and condemned even with the spike protein-infested dead bodies inside because no one is willing to remove the dangerous bodies.

This dark vision of society may soon come to pass as the full effects of spike protein damage are realized. With nearly 2.5 billion around the world already injected with spike protein bioweapons, and with nearly 200 million Americans having lined up to take the shots, the world is rolling the dice on a global medical experiment that risks the survivability of entire nations (if not civilization itself) in the years ahead.

We already know that as many as 500,000 Americans have already been killed by the “clot shot,” but importantly, those are merely the short term vascular effects from blood clotting. These deaths do not take into account the long-term, slow-acting neurological damage that appears to resemble the human form of Mad Cow Disease, a prion-induced protein folding disorder that irreversibly destroys brain tissue over time. In an interview conducted yesterday (and soon to be posted), Dr. Chris Shaw, an expert in neurology and elemental toxicity, warned me that widespread, accelerating neurological damage is now a very real possibility since the spike protein and mRNA particles cross the blood-brain barrier.

This means toxic nanoparticles are circulating among the brains of the vaccinated. Bio-distribution studies have further confirmed that spike protein injections do not remain at the injection site. Instead, spike protein nanoparticles (or mRNA instructions) circulate throughout most of the body’s organs, including the brain.

What happens when the brain is exposed to a weaponized spike protein, developed via gain-of-function research in a laboratory run by a communist military? (Wuhan lab, via the CCP.)

The answer shouldn’t be surprising: The spike protein disassembles healthy neurological tissue, destroying brain cells and impairing cognition in the process.

Imagine if millions of Americans suddenly collapsed to the cognitive level of Joe Biden. We might see homeless, desperate masses aimlessly wandering the streets of blue cities, crapping on the sidewalks and mumbling nonsensical things to themselves. Of course, we already see that in San Francisco and many liberal cities, but imagine the numbers of those afflicted exploding into many millions.

Even those who are closely watching vaccine injuries and vaccine deaths may be missing the longer term neurological implications of this insidious spike protein assault on humanity. What happens to society when tens of millions of people are injured or killed by a government-created biological weapon designed to attack human tissue? It seems we’re about to find out.

No matter what happens in the coming months, right now is certainly not a good time to need hospital care. We strongly urge all readers to do everything in your power to maintain a healthy lifestyle rooted in disease prevention and strong nutrition. Over the next year (or less), the health care facilities may be overrun with vaccine-damaged people, and “routine” medical services may collapse as a result.

Learn more in today’s urgent Situation Update podcast, which lays out the full details:

Brighteon.com/c5c1cbfc-0b83-4231-8c46-9f586b407be5

https://www.brighteon.com/embed/c5c1cbfc-0b83-4231-8c46-9f586b407be5

Get more podcasts and interviews each day at:

https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreportPrevious :VAXXED TO DEATH: Alarming study confirms vaxxers will face catastrophic Antibody Dependent Enhancement injuries and deaths

LE BLOG DE PATRICE GIBERTIE

DIDIER RAOULT ELIMINE DE L IHU/ LA PROPAFANDE BAT SON PLEIN POUR FAIRE OUBLIER LA STUPIDITE DU PASS VACCINAL ET L’ IMPERIEUSE NECESSITE D’ AUTORISER  LES TRAITEMENTS QUI SOIGNENT par pgibertie Il est mis à la retraite de professeur le 31 aout prochain mais espérait continuer à diriger l’ihu ( cumul emploi retraite) mais la créature de Veran qui dirige l’APHM refuse. Didier Raoult était Incorrigible dans ses vidéos  hebdomadaires, il a continué à dire la vérité et à faire part de ses doutes  sur les vaccins Raoult victime de la presse de caniveau, des médiocres incapables de lire la moindre étude scientifique a eu le mérite avec Thomas Borody de défendre dès le début de la pandémie , le repositionnement des molécules anciennes. Raoult fut le premier à démonter que les variants rendaient la pandémie imprévisible et les vaccins illusoires au delà de quelques semaines . Le Professeur Perronne  et  le docteur Fouché (un des premiers a  promouvoir la nouvelle utilisation de l’oxygène sans intuber) ont déjà été éliminé par le pouvoir. Le monde médiatico politique n’a cessé de caricaturer les scientifiques de haut niveau   sans faire la moindre analyse de la propagande  sur la vaccination . Seuls les retraités osent encore s’exprimer…c’est la démocratie du Nouveau Monde Et pourtant …. Le CDC américain  équivalent de notre direction de la santé a reconnu que les vaccinés contaminés avaient la même charge virale que les autres contaminés et donc que le vaccin ne protégeait pas de la contagiosité Fauci, le Véran américain a reconnu que le Delta changeait la donne  et qu’il fallait penser aux traitements Le Dr Walensky  du cdc: « des rapports en provenance d’Israël suggèrent un RISQUE AUGMENTÉ DE MALADIE GRAVE chez les personnes vaccinées tôt https://twitter.com/i/status/1428324405998927878 Gerard Maudrux  démontre combien notre gouvernement bidouille et rebidouille les stats Covid : quelques chiffres  Nous savons pourquoi les enfants et ados sont protégées de la covid, la vaccination ne représente pour eux que des désavantages . L’immunité innée antivirale préactivée dans les voies respiratoires supérieures contrôle l’infection précoce par le SRAS-CoV-2 chez les enfants https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-01037-9 « Nos données fournissent des preuves claires que les cellules épithéliales et immunitaires des voies respiratoires supérieures (nez) des enfants sont pré-activées et préparées pour la détection du virus.. entraînant une réponse antivirale innée précoce plus forte à l’infection par le SARSCoV2 que chez les adultes » Les antiviraux nouveaux de big pharma sont désastreus : tamiflu, remdesivir… sont inefficaces et dangereux https://t.co/wiKZKGm43N?amp=1        7) DES MOLECULES PEUVENT ETRE REPOSITIONNEES AVEC SUCCES          La proxalutamide réduit la mortalité de 84% chez les patients hospitalisés          L’ivermectine plus efficace que les vaccins pour prévenir (86%) et pour soigner au stade précoce, Fluvoxamine ( anti depresseur)  reduirait la mortalité de 30% chez les patients hospitalisés  d’après une étude financée par Bill Gate qui admet un effet de 20% de reduction pour l’ivermectine  même sous dosée. L’ivermectine permet de réduire le risque de décès de 62% dans 15 études » « Pour la prévention, nous avons constaté une réduction de 86% du risque d’infection » https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx « L’ivermectine permet de réduire le risque de décès de 62% dans 15 études » « Pour la prévention, nous avons constaté une réduction de 86% du risque d’infection » « Pourquoi une telle détermination à supprimer notre travail dans les médias grand public? » En effet, pourquoi? https://t.co/uhQc2If85Q pic.twitter.com/iT4o48bmTg— Ivermectine-covid.ch (@GabinJean3) August 19, 2021 « Nous avons tous fait l’objet d’une censure extrême, et vous devez vous demander: pourquoi ? » « Il y a beaucoup d’argent impliqué dans l’industrie du COVID. Et voilà qu’arrive un vieux médicament très bon marché… » « C’est un sacré choc pour le système » »David et Goliath! » pic.twitter.com/aBNBusXVuO— Ivermectine-covid.ch (@GabinJean3) August 19, 2021 https://cdn.lbryplayer.xyz/api/v4/streams/free/La-Dr-Tess-Lawrie-parle-de-l-efficacit%C3%A9-de-l-ivermectine,-la-censure-des-m%C3%A9dias-et-la-s%C3%A9curit%C3%A9-des-vaccins/617b7fc6cada38759c763c3950b2ed8547ae066c/fd2fd3 Des résultats d’une nouvelle étude sur la proxalutamide, anti-androgène aux résultats époustouflants, dans deux semaines si tout va bien. Nous sommes impatients. La précédente étude, qualifié comme d’excellente qualité par l’intraitable @McMasterU en charge des revues d’éviden… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…— Ivermectine-covid.ch (@GabinJean3) August 19, 2021 84% de réduction de mortalité pour les patients hospitalisés. Du jamais vu.

medias-presse.info

L’appel de Cassandre pour les manifestations du samedi 21 août par Pierre-Alain Depauw

Voici le message diffusé par Cassandre Fristot à l’attention de tous ceux qui se préparent à participer aux manifestations du samedi 21 août 2021 pour la défense de nos libertés fondamentales à l’heure où 43 % des Français estiment que la France est devenue une dictature

Ce DUO est INFERNAL

Stop au porno

À moi

View this email in your browser Pédophilie et pornographie : un duo infernal   Un édito de François Billot de Lochner

Rebecca a courageusement dénoncé les ressorts pédophiles de l’industrie du porno et du « charme ».  Résultat : elle a reçu d’innombrables menaces de mort …

C’est en se baladant sur des sites internet a priori normaux, que cette mère de famille a fait une bien étrange découverte : des images suggestives de jeunes adolescentes circulaient à la vue du plus grand nombre. Ce n’était pas vraiment pornographique, mais les clichés invitaient les internautes « à voir plus » sur le lien internet.   Rebecca, âgée de 30 ans, a alors compris qu’il s’agissait d’hameçonner des internautes pour leur montrer des images pornographiques, et surtout en faire de l’argent. Méthode immorale et répugnante, consistant à conduire de façon « douce » à la pédophilie !   En examinant de très près le fameux site internet, cette américaine a découvert que les « jeunes adolescentes » semblaient plutôt être de jeunes adultes. Rebecca a alors décidé de comparer les clichés et elle a compris les stratégies profondément perverses de l’industrie pornographique … Retrouvez la suite de l’édito de François Billot de Lochner sur notre site en cliquant ICI

La lutte contre ce tsunami pornographique, et ses conséquences néfastes, a un coût : nous avons besoin de votre soutien financier pour mener nos actions. Faites un don défiscalisé dès maintenant en cliquant ICI.

Are Parents Unintentionally Putting their Children at Risk?

Parents everywhere are gearing up to send their children back to school. Many parents may post those cute « First Day » photos/videos on social media. But when parents inadvertently share too much information — even a single photo with personally identifiable info — it can be used by a sexual predator or trafficker to track and harm that vulnerable child or teen. Listen as Enough Is Enough’s President, Donna Rice Hughes, addresses this concern and safety information on FOX News West Texas:

Highlights include: Predators Prey where Children Play During Covid, reports of online enticement of children increased by 97% 40% of kids in grades 4-8 are communicating with strangers online regularly Parents are the first line of defense to protect children online and must ALWAYS implement both common sense measures — « rules » and technical « tools » — on EVERY internet-enabled device and online platform. Download your copy of « Rules ‘N Tools« . -Do not share identifying details about a child when you post on social media, including: 1- Age or birthdate 2- Address (either written out or easily identifiable in a photo) 3- Name/Location of School/Teachers (this includes clothing showing school name) 4- Sports/hobbies that point to locations where your child spends time 5- Location sharing/ »Check-In’s » 6- Child’s e-mail or phone number 7- School uniforms Also, be sure to set social profiles to « private » or « friends » mode only.

3 VICTORIES! Progress is made as pressure from child safety advocates including Enough Is Enough and its partners in the movement, lawmakers and parents pays off!

Apple, TikTok and Instagram recently recently announced new safety measures and privacy controls. Each represents a big win, but as long as children and teens continue to be exploited on social media platforms, there’s much work to be done!

Apple to Scan iPhone for Child Sex Abuse Photos Apple said it will begin testing a new system to automatically match photos on iPhones and uploaded iCloud accounts to a database of child sexual abuse images and alert authorities as needed.. Click to see Apple Parental Controls, Content & Privacy Settings

TikTok to Add Privacy Protections TikTok said it will stop sending 13- to 15-year-olds push notifications after 9 p.m. and to 16- and 17-year-olds after 10 p.m. Teens under 18 will now have direct messaging disabled by default; users younger than 16 years old will not have any access to direct messaging. View TikTok Safety and Privacy Controls

Instagram Unveils New Safety Settings for Kids Under 16 When kids under 16 join Instagram, their accounts will be made private automatically. Posts will only be visible to people they allow to follow them. Despite this long overdue change, plans for an under-13 Instagram app are still in progress. Sign EIE’s petition demanding these plans be dropped! View A Parent’s Guide to Instagram

Let’s keep these victories coming! Please send your most generous gift today to help this momentum continue! Wishing you and your family and loved ones a safe, successful school year!

The Team at Enough Is Enough, Your Internet Safety Experts Enough.org InternetSafety101.org

STAY CONNECTED ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

We Can’t Keep Children & Families Safe Online Without You!

Enough Is Enough® is a national non-partisan, non-profit organization who has led the fight to make the Internet safer for children and families since 1994. EIE’s efforts are focused on combating Internet p*rnography, child p*rnography, sexual predation, sex trafficking and cyberbullying by incorporating a three-pronged prevention strategy with shared responsibilities between the public, Corporate America, and the legal community.

Dear Friend,   I’m writing this letter to you today because, quite frankly, David Daleiden cannot.   You may remember David as the undercover journalist who spent 30 months investigating and capturing video evidence of Planned Parenthood ‘s top leadership — medical directors, national program directors, even its Senior Director of Medical Services –­ callously negotiating the harvesting and sale of aborted baby body parts.   And now, he’s been charged with nine bogus felonies.   Which is why I’m asking you to make an emergency donation to the DAVID DALEIDEN DEFENSE FUND right away.   You see, after David released the shocking videos of the illegal and disgusting actions of abortion executives, Kamala Harris, then California’s Attorney General, colluded with Planned Parenthood to file felony charges against David…   … Kamala Harris even ordered the California Department of Justice to raid David’s home and confiscate his unpublished videos.   I won’t sugarcoat it. If not cleared of these charges, David faces steep fines and years in state penitentiary and the consequences of being a convicted felon. While Kamala Harris — a bought-and-paid-for ally of the abortion industry — is sitting one heartbeat away from the presidency.   That’s the bad news.   But here’s the good news… David is fighting back.   In fact, he’s taking another opportunity to drag more of Planned Parenthood’s dark criminality into the spotlight with two new federal lawsuits.   That’s right. The Thomas More Society has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in California on behalf of David against former California Attorney General and now Vice­President Kamala Harris for prosecuting David in bad faith, twisting and perverting California’s anti-eavesdropping law to persecute a citizen journalist because of his political views.   Then the Thomas More Society filed a defamation (libel) lawsuit in federal court in New York against Planned Parenthood, which said David created a « fake » and « false » « smear campaign » against Planned Parenthood.   In other words, the best defense is a good offense. The truth is we could no longer let David suffer such a trampling of his free speech and due process rights without a counterattack.    The timing couldn’t be more important.   This is a critical opportunity to put Kamala Harris, Planned Parenthood, and the rest of the abortion industry on trial for conspiring to silence David in order to cover-up their illegal activities.   That’s where your emergency donation to the DAVID DALEIDEN DEFENSE FUND comes in — by giving today you can stand with David in his hour of need.   The reality is. . .   You couldn’t be there when David entered the dark underbelly of the abortion industry — sitting across the table from abortionists haggling over the price of baby body parts with cold-blooded clarity… « I want a Lamborghini. »   You couldn’t be there as David saw with his own eyes the preborn children who had been killed with great precision and delicacy to preserve their organs for maximum profit.   You couldn’t be there when the videos were released and Kamala Harris and Planned Parenthood conspired to crush David with trumped up legal charges and an armed raid on his home in which they seized laptops, hard-drives, and recording equipment.   And you couldn’t be there with David (our criminal defense team was there) when he voluntarily appeared in both Texas and California for booking and processing — fingerprinted and photographed for a mugshot like a common criminal.   But, now, this is the reality… there is something you can do.   You can make an emergency donation to the DAVID DALEIDEN DEFENSE FUND to help vindicate this pro-life hero.   My name is Tom Brejcha.   I’m the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society — a not-for-profit law firm underwriting and helping to spearhead David’s criminal defense.   The Thomas More Society is proud to have defended many renowned pro-life and religious leaders in America’s pro-life movement such as Joe, Ann, and Eric Scheidler, the Pro-Life Action League, Shawn Carney and 40 Days for Life, Abby Johnson, the Susan B. Anthony List, David Bereit, Lila Rose and Live Action, Students for Life, Sidewalk Advocates for Life, Created Equal, former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, the March for Life, and many more.   Because when dark forces like Planned Parenthood unleash their full might to legally, financially, and personally destroy our clients — we fight back.   I have to tell you, despite all that David is facing, his spirits remain high. Of course, I’ve never known anyone in this kind of position who didn’t feel an empty pit in his stomach.   But David’s not giving up.  His willingness to fight back is a true profile in Pro-Life courage.   Now I’ll get right down to it…   We anticipate David’s legal defense will cost us more than $6 million. That’s right, SIX MILLION DOLLARS.   In addition to the criminal case and the new federal civil rights and defamation lawsuits, we’re currently representing David in THREE other cases.   The civil lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood where we are appealing the jury’s verdict, along with the judge’s order permanently banning David from doing any more undercover journalism against Planned Parenthood. Recently, we posted a $700,000 appeal bond to keep Planned Parenthood’s nasty collection agents from harassing him with collection agents and even seizing his belongings. We’re fighting back, but we’ll need your help.   The civil lawsuit brought by the National Abortion Federation and the « gag order » injunction that still prohibits David from releasing any more of his video evidence exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal fetal tissue business. And now, in light of the Planned Parenthood civil lawsuit, NAF has moved for summary judgment – they want a ruling against David without a trial at all!   And finally, the civil lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood personnel in federal court in Seattle, where we just achieved a victory for a second time on appeal, but it appears we may need at least a third victory on appeal before this case ends.   That’s why David needs your financial support today.   And that’s why I’m praying you will donate $35 or more to the DAVID DALEIDEN DEFENSE FUND right away.   I won’t guess how much you’re able to send today. Whether it’s $35, $50, $75, $125, $250, $500, $1,000 or more…   … I will only say that time is of the essence.   So I do ask that you make your donation as soon as you can.   This truly is a « David versus Goliath » type of battle — with Kamala Harris, Planned Parenthood, and the radical left arrayed against our « David. »   It’s a grave injustice that David is the one being hit with felony charges and massive civil penalties while Planned Parenthood (so far, at least) has gone unpunished.   By clearing David of these charges… you and I can allow him to continue with his incredibly important lifesaving work. Remember, over 12 million people on YouTube alone watched the shocking footage he captured. Since that time, 26 states — over half the country –­ have moved to strip Planned Parenthood of taxpayer funding.   It’s no wonder Planned Parenthood and their allies want to destroy David.   They’d love to see him rotting away in penitentiary rather than exposing their criminal and inhumane activities. You and I cannot let that happen.   So please don’t delay. Donate $35, $50, $100, or more to stand with David Daleiden today.   I’ve asked my staff to let me know as soon as we get it so I can let David know that you’re standing with him.   I know he’ll be deeply touched by your generous support.   May God Bless You,

Tom Brejcha
President & Chief Counsel

P.S. Kamala Harris, Planned Parenthood, and their allies want to destroy David. They’d love to see him rotting away in penitentiary rather than exposing their criminal, ghoulish activities. You and I cannot let that happen. Can I count on you to support the official criminal defense of David Daleiden?

David is a pro-life hero. Will you make a generous donation to the DAVID DALEIDEN DEFENSE FUND of $35, $50, $100 or more to stop this attempt to crush him?

Will the Unvaccinated Be Saved?

Jane Stannus

George Orwell once said, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” His point has been proven for him a hundred times over, not least in the past few weeks, as Dr. Joseph Meaney shows his July 30 article “The Rhetoric of ‘Vaccine Hesitancy.’“ Dr. Meaney, who serves as president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), explains how the ideologically charged language already being used against ordinary people who haven’t accepted a COVID-19 vaccine. Such language serves as a means to corrupt public feeling towards these persons, with a view to segregating and dehumanizing them.

By now we’ve all heard the phrases “vaccine hesitancy” and “vaccine hesitant” a hundred times. The notion of hesitancy, Meaney says, indicates that the unvaccinated are undecided as to their course of action, and are “in need of persuasion or even coercion from authorities who know better.” It implies that people who haven’t taken a vaccine haven’t thought the issue through and made a personal decision in light of all known factors. Instead it portrays them as “trapped by irrational fears” in a state of inaction or ignorantly opposed to science. It’s strongly suggested that such backward and weak-minded persons are worthy of contempt, especially compared with the enlightened, confident people who signed up for the vaccine immediately. Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Now, suppose you disagreed strongly with Dr. Meaney’s piece. Would you go out of your way to make his case for him—o demonstrate that such emotionally charged language actually is intended to stoke popular feeling against people who aren’t vaccinated?

That, oddly, appears to be the course favored by National Catholic Reporter columnist Michael Sean Winter in a blog post last week. “You know? Maybe Meaney is correct,” Mr. Winter writes. “Let’s start replacing ‘vaccine hesitancy” with ‘vaccine stupidity’ or ‘vaccine selfishness’.”

Hmmm. What other class of people is it OK to call “stupid” and “selfish” in a national newspaper column? Addicts? No, they are to be pitied, not judged. Suicides? Certainly not. Criminals? Again, not as a blanket group. Many, no doubt, are victims of circumstance driven to crime for social reasons beyond their control. Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

No: people who have not taken the COVID vaccine stand alone as Public Enemies. No one is asked to walk a mile in their shoes. No one is asked to empathize with them. Suggestions that they should be treated respectfully, like rational human beings are met with outrage—despite the fact that a little compassion might even help resolve some of their concerns about the vaccine, as Michael Brendan Dougherty recently wrote in a recent column for National Review.  No: we needn’t feel any shame at calling these fellow humans stupid and selfish.

Indeed, Winters agrees that the rhetoric used with regard to the unvaccinated is ideologically charged, intended (though he doesn’t say this in so many words) to segregate and dehumanize. What’s more, if another shutdown takes place, Winters says the unvaccinated will be to blame—not those who unleashed this virus on the world, nor those who failed to prepare their national health systems for emergencies, nor those who insist on pursuing impossible zero-COVID policies at the expense of every other social concern. That’s despite the fact that vaccinated people all over the world are still catching and spreading the disease, while those who contract and recover from COVID develop a robust immunity.

Where Mr. Winters and Dr. Meaney disagree is on the best climate for decision-making. The NCBC position is that “the best ethical decisions are made ‘in the moment’ based on a good understanding of the facts, when people are not subjected to pressure, or in the grip of powerful emotions.” It would appear Mr. Winters believes—together with many others in media and government—that applying high levels of pressure and emotional stress is the best way to help people make potentially life-changing decisions. Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

But what Mr. Winters is most annoyed about is Dr. Meaney’s statement that some might refuse the vaccines because of their link to abortion. Winters says that no Catholic can justify such a position, because both the Vatican and the Pope have stated that Catholics can take the vaccines in good conscience. Furthermore, the Pope said in an interview that he believes everyone must take the vaccine, that it is “the moral choice.”

Greater minds than mine disagree as to whether Rome’s deliberations on this matter demonstrate the theological rigors such an important issue deserves. In any case, the Pope’s casual comments in an interview can scarcely be invoked as imposing a universal obligation to be vaccinated under pain of sin.

“In doubt, liberty,” as the saying goes. Each individual has the responsibility to form his conscience and act accordingly. And the requirements of conscience apply not just to ethical concerns about the provenance of the vaccines, but also to the decision to accept for oneself or to direct those under one’s care to accept a new kind of medical intervention entailing a certain amount of risk and potential, as-of-yet unknown side effects. Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

In Robert Bolt’s play A Man for All Seasons, there’s a bit where the well-meaning Duke of Norfolk pleads with his friend Sir Thomas More to take the Oath of Supremacy, pointing out all the names of the great and good who have taken the Oath. “Can’t you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?” he implores.

Sir Thomas is moved, but his rejoinder is unanswerable: “And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?”

This is not to say that anyone is likely to face damnation for making the wrong decision about whether to be vaccinated or not. The issue is far from clear-cut, and there’s a great deal that we simply don’t know at this point. Rather, it’s to illustrate to people like Michael Sean Winters that individual responsibility is just that: individual.

So far, people are still free to consent to the vaccine or to refuse it. In fact, you actually have to sign a consent form. This means the individual must make his own decision, hopefully not in a frenzy of fear, but in an informed and thoughtful way. Pointing this out, as the NCBC has, is not libertarian, un-Catholic or anti-science. It’s simply a fact.

Nor has COVID created a new and unprecedented situation in which each person’s choices suddenly affect everyone. Individual choices, from the major to the mundane—who to marry, what job to take, what diet to choose, what medical treatment to pursue, which way to take to work—have always affected everyone, directly or indirectly. Having to live with the consequences of other people’s actions is both humanity’s agony and its ecstasy.

Unleashing a panicky witch hunt on the unvaccinated wouldn’t just be cruel and illogical. It would, and already has, set child against parent, brother against sister, neighbor against neighbor, worker against worker. It is an act of violence against the fabric of society—a greater evil, it seems to me, than the shared suffering of disease.

This is what Dr. Meaney is rightly calling out. The bishops are right to look to the NCBC for ethical guidance, and one hopes they will continue to do so. Its calm and rational stance is exactly what’s needed right now.

Tagged as Coronavirus, Joseph Meaney, National Catholic Bioethics Center

By Jane Stannus

Jane Stannus is a journalist and translator. Her writing has also appeared in the Catholic Herald of London, The Spectator USA, and the National Catholic Reporter.