Patrick Hetzel, député du Bas-Rhin, représentant des députés ayant saisi le Conseil constitutionnel a publié un communiqué de presse dès la publication de la décision. Gènéthique retranscrit ci-dessous sa réaction dans son intégralité :
La décision du conseil constitutionnel est surprenante : manifestement les juges constitutionnels ne veulent pas jouer leur rôle.
Quels sont les arguments à l’appui de cette critique ?
En premier lieu, s’agissant de l’objet de la recherche fondamentale sur les embryons en vue « d’améliorer la connaissance de la biologie humaine » la décision relève que celle-ci participera « toujours potentiellement de l’ambition de réaliser des progrès médicaux » admettant de ce fait que l’autorisation de la recherche pourrait ne plus être motivée par le droit à la santé, mais aussi que des recherches n’ayant pas cet objet sont potentiellement possibles. Les observations confirment pourtant que la « connaissance » n’est en rien limitative : quelle recherche n’a pas pour objet d’améliorer la connaissance ? Selon nous, le législateur méconnaît ainsi l’étendue de sa compétence dans une matière où l’objet et les suites de la recherche doivent fondamentalement être limitées par l’éthique.
En deuxième lieu, les observations en appui à la décision confirment que seuls des dispositifs légaux, dont la destruction des embryons utilisés à des fins de recherche, viennent fixer des limites et il s’agissait bien là de l’objet de notre recours. Les « garanties » mentionnées relèvent toutes seulement de la loi. Ainsi, à suivre le conseil constitutionnel : « les principes de primauté de la personne humaine, d’intégrité du corps humain et d’intégrité de l’espèce humaine ainsi que le respect de tout être humain dès le commencement de sa vie, mentionné à l’article 16 du code civil, n’ont en tout état de cause pas été reconnus en tant que tels comme des principes à valeur constitutionnelle mais tendent seulement à assurer le respect du principe constitutionnel de sauvegarde de la dignité de la personne humaine. ». En déniant ainsi la portée en droit positif, au niveau constitutionnel, des principes énoncés dans le passé par le conseil constitutionnel lui-même, ce dernier fait même sauter les verrous issus du respect de la dignité humaine par sa décision du 27 juillet 1994, qui ne trouverait donc plus à s’appliquer concrètement qu’à des champs restreints comme la prohibition de spectacles et non à la bioéthique. Il est également relevé que devraient être respectés les « principes fondamentaux énoncés aux articles 16 à 16-8 du code civil ». Or cette notion de principes « fondamentaux » seulement légaux, dont rien ne garantit le maintien, est juridiquement « transgénique ». Issue du droit administratif et empruntant de façon lointaine à la jurisprudence du conseil constitutionnel, elle ne ferait en tout état de cause nullement obstacle à des dérogations à la prohibition de l’eugénisme, ou au fait de ne pas porter atteinte à l’intégrité de l’espèce humaine, dès lors que ces principes ne seraient pas érigés en norme constitutionnelle. En affirmant ainsi que « tout le corps de règles relatives à l’autorisation des recherches sur l’embryon humain demeure applicable » tout en soutenant clairement qu’aucune des règles de ce corps n’a de valeur supra légale, les observations confortent pourtant la nécessité de réaffirmer la portée du principe de dignité humaine et d’étendre les garanties légales des exigences constitutionnelles qui en découlent : respecter l’intégrité de l’espèce humaine et prohiber tout eugénisme pour respecter l’égalité entre chaque être humain. Pourquoi le conseil constitutionnel ne le fait-il pas ?
En troisième lieu, l’autorisation de création d’embryons transgéniques serait justifiée par la seule « protection de la santé » et le développement de « thérapies géniques », ce qui ne résulte ni du projet que nous avions déféré, ni des limites supra légales qu’il aurait convenu d’y apporter, inexistantes dans le projet. L’absence de toute définition juridique de l’embryon aboutit ainsi à le ramener juridiquement à un simple matériau, auquel aucune limite liée à l’objet de la recherche, ou même à la possibilité d’en tirer des conséquences industrielles et commerciales, donc à la brevetabilité d’éléments issus de la recherche n’est apportée.
En quatrième lieu, le conseil constitutionnel semble indiquer que la suppression de la prohibition de création de chimères et l’ouverture de la recherche à des transplantations de cellules humaines sur des embryons animaux traduirait une réécriture « à droit constant », ce qui est textuellement inexact : il s’agit bien dans le dispositif que nous avons déféré d’autoriser une pratique aujourd’hui interdite. A cet égard, nous nous interrogeons : pourquoi le conseil constitutionnel n’a pas considéré comme indissociables de la disposition déférée celles des dispositions des articles 20 et 21 qui la mettent en œuvre, ces dispositions nouvelles prouvant d’évidence qu’il ne s’agit pas de maintenir un droit constant. On touche ainsi aux barrières entre les espèces, ouvrant la voie à la création de cultures animales, de réserves biologiques animales, ici encore sans limites autres que celles posées par des dispositions légales qui pourraient, à suivre la décision du conseil constitutionnel, être modifiées au gré des seuls aléas des évolutions scientifiques. A qui fera-t-on croire que de telles questions relèveraient de la seule appréciation du législateur, sans limites autre que celles qu’il se fixe et d’un contrôle « restreint » du juge constitutionnel ?
À cause d’une faille sur le site de Francetest, un logiciel transférant les données des pharmaciens vers le fichier SI-DEP, les données personnelles de 700 000 personnes ayant fait des tests antigéniques sont susceptibles de fuiter sur Internet.
Une faille sur un site transmettant les résultats de tests Covid-19 réalisés en pharmacie vers la plateforme gouvernementale a rendu potentiellement accessibles les données personnelles et les résultats de tests de milliers de personnes, a révélé mardi 31 août Mediapart.
700 000 personnes concernées
Les noms, prénoms, dates de naissance, adresses, numéros de téléphone, numéros de sécurité sociale et adresse e-mail, ainsi que le résultat des tests de 700 000 personnes étaient disponibles jusqu’à vendredi grâce à « un mot de passe trouvable, en clair, dans un dossier accessible à tous » sur le site de Francetest, écrit le site d’information.
Francetest est une société fondée en janvier dernier qui s’est spécialisée dans le transfert de données de tests Covid réalisés en pharmacie vers la plateforme SI-DEP.
Une faille sur un site transmettant les résultats de tests Covid-19 réalisés en pharmacie vers la plateforme gouvernementale a rendu potentiellement accessibles les données personnelles et les résultats de tests de milliers de personnes, a révélé mardi 31 août Mediapart.
La SI-DEP, une plateforme peu ergonomique
Le SI-DEP (système d’informations de dépistage) est une plateforme sécurisée où sont systématiquement enregistrés les résultats de tests Covid-19 afin « de s’assurer que tous les cas positifs sont bien pris en charge » et d’identifier les cas contacts, explique le ministère de la Santé sur son site.
Cette plateforme, « fabriquée par l’AP-HP (Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris) en urgence en décembre […] n’est pas très ergonomique », explique Philippe Besset, président de la Fédération des syndicats pharmaceutiques de France (FSPF).
Résultat : nombre de pharmaciens ont recours à des intermédiaires pour rentrer les résultats des tests réalisés dans le SI-DEP. Francetest facture ainsi un euro par transmission, d’après Mediapart.
Nécessité d’un logiciel sûr et agréé
Dimanche, la Direction générale de la santé (DGS) a envoyé un mail aux pharmaciens pour leur rappeler les logiciels agréés et compatibles avec le SI-DEP, dont Francetest ne fait pas partie.
« Cela fait des semaines et des semaines que nous alertons les autorités sur ces sociétés qui se présentent comme labellisées et facilitent la tâche des pharmaciens pour aller sur le SI-DEP », rappelle Philippe Besset.
« Nous avons absolument besoin que les autorités nous fournissent un outil permettant de transmettre les données au SI-DEP avec notre logiciel métier, qui est sûr et agréé », a-t-il insisté, précisant que même les logiciels autorisés par la DGS n’étaient pas suffisamment sécurisés.
Informée par un «signalement anonyme», la Cnil, gendarme français des données personnelles, a indiqué à l’AFP avoir lancé des investigations.
Contactée, la société Francetest n’était pas joignable dans l’immédiat.
They confess: they had no virus when they concocted the test for the virus; they “contrived” a model by pretending to find what they wanted to find; it’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy
This is the con and the crime that drove millions of lives, and economies, into ruin
by Jon Rappoport
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
The CDC has issued a document that bulges with devastating admissions. The release is titled, “07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.” It begins explosively: “After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.” Many people believe this means the CDC is giving up on the PCR test as a means of “detecting the virus.” The CDC isn’t saying that at all. They’re saying the PCR technology will continue to be used, but they’re replacing what the test is looking FOR with a better “reference sample.” A better marker. A better target. A better piece of RNA supposedly derived from SARS-CoV-2. CDC/FDA are confessing there has been a PROBLEM with the PCR test which has been used to detect the virus, starting in February of 2020—right up to this minute. In other words, the millions and millions of “COVID cases” based on the PCR test in use are all suspect. Actually, that statement is too generous. Every test result of every PCR test should be thrown out. To confirm this, the CDC document links to an FDA release titled, “SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data.” Here is a killer quote: “During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens [of the virus] were not readily available to developers of IVDs [in vitro diagnostics] to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation. While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.” Translation: We, at the CDC, did not have a specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when we concocted the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. Yes, it’s unbelievable, right? And that’s the test we’ve been using all along. So we CONTRIVED samples of the virus. We fabricated. We lied. We made up [invented] synthetic gene sequences and we SAID these sequences HAD TO BE close to the sequence of SARS-CoV-2, without having the faintest idea of what we were doing, because, again, we didn’t have an actual specimen of the virus. We had no proof THERE WAS something called SARS-CoV-2. This amazing FDA document goes to say the Agency has granted emergency approval to 59 different PCR tests since the beginning of the (fake) pandemic. 59. And, “…it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.” Translation: Each of the 59 different PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 told different lies and concocted different fabrications about the genetic makeup of the virus—the virus we didn’t have. Obviously, then, these tests would give unreliable results. THE PCR TESTS USED CONTRIVED SPECIMENS OF THE VIRUS WE DIDN’T HAVE. BUT, don’t worry, be happy, because NOW, the CDC and the FDA say, they really do have actual virus samples of SARS-CoV-2 from patients; they have better targets for the PCR test, and labs should start gearing up for the new and improved tests. In other words, they were lying THEN, but they’re not lying NOW. They were “contriving,” but now they’re telling the truth. If you believe that, I have Fountain of Youth water for sale, extracted from the lead-contaminated system of Flint, Michigan. Here, once again, I report virology’s version of “we isolated the virus”: They have a soup they make in their labs. This soup contains human and monkey cells, toxic chemicals and drugs, and all sorts of other random genetic material. Because the cells start to die, the researchers ASSUME a bit of mucus from a patient they dropped in the soup is doing the killing, and THE VIRUS must be the killer agent in the mucus. This assumption is entirely unwarranted. The drugs and chemicals could be doing the cell-killing, and the researchers are also starving the cells of vital nutrients, and that starvation could kill the cells. There is no proof that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup, or that it is doing the cell-killing, or that it exists. Yet the researchers call cell-death “isolation of the virus.” To say this is a non-sequitur is a vast understatement. In their universe, “We assume, without proof, we have the virus buried in a soup in a dish in the lab” equals, “We’ve separated the virus from all surrounding material.” Virology equals “how to spread bullshit for a living and scare the world.” Other than that, it’s perfect.
For months, I have been getting info from behind the curtain where there are still people who are against this entire agenda. I refrained from publishing most of what I heard not that it was wrong, but it was so far-fetched it certainly seemed like a conspiracy theory. This push using COVID for a pretend passport is far more than simply this vaccination. Absolutely everything about you even suspected anti-government feelings are to be recorded on your file PRECISELY collecting the same data as the Stasi of East Germany. I have done my best to try to inform everyone without seeming that it was over-the-top. I have stayed away from all the stories about implanting chips to track you because that was not what I was hearing from reliable sources.
They have used COVID, which I swear was deliberately released at perfect timing, to create a panic where people would surrender their lives and destroy the entire world economy. We are approaching the 2-year mark and this is NEVER going to end because they do not GIVE A SHIT about you, your family, or your future. Dates, who was indoctrinated by his father to believe the population of the world had to be reduced, is NOT interested in creating vaccines to save humanity. He and the Rockefeller Foundation want to REDUCE the world population as typical elitists often do because they think they are God. These are VERY dangerous people that history will one day catalog up there alongside Adolf Hitler for his belief also in Eugenics.
They have terrorized the people to create their own power base. They have many in the medical profession acting as drones attributing everything to COVID wiping out the deaths and cases of the seasonal flu. Hardly anyone dies of the flu anymore for everything is COVID to scare the hell out of people, keep them socially distant from one another, and destroy families and friends by creating divisions. They have the FBI acting like the East German Stasi instructing friends, family, and neighbors to report on one another. They have succeeded in these goals and the objective to keep the younger generation in isolation is working in many areas. The youth have fewer friends and the suicide rates have skyrocketed.
People are being denied normal healthcare all because of COVID. Now there are hospitals telling nurses that they MUST be vaccinated or they are fired. They have worked for over a year without being vaccinated. All of a sudden, they are a threat by staying unvaccinated? Those in the administration have lost their minds and this is now just a mee too movement void of common sense.
We face a very dark future ahead void of humanity as we have known it. They are trying to indeed create a world we own nothing – only the elite to whom BigTech believed they have entered the door to this lofty status as they help to censor everything to further this agenda. I believe they are using our models and are well aware of the Economic Confidence Model. They KNOW their window to take over the world is a short one closing in 2022. Never in the history of society has such a major effort been undertaken to seize control. I believe the election was rigged and Trump really won BECAUSE he was all that was standing in the way of this agenda. He simply had to be removed – not like JFK for he would have been a martyr and his followers would have been even more emboldened. They had to remove Trump by sheer corruption. I was warning the election was NEVER about Trump v Biden. I hope you now can see what I was fighting for. I was asked by someone in the Republican Party to convince Trump not to run in 2024 and to advise DeSantis because he was a “better administrator” as they said. I told them they had their head up their ass because they were clueless about the real agenda. But this has indeed seemed too far-fetched.
They will fail. It is up to us to wake up and stand for what is right. From the Russian Revolution of 1917, it was 72 years until Communism collapsed in 1989. If we remain complacent walking around like mindless drones with our masks frightened of death that will never come from this man-made virus, then they will collapse the world into dust in 13 years – 2032. Now is the time. If they succeed in retaining this power beyond 2022 (a 3 years reaction), then we will see the worst of the worst going into 2032 which will be 13 years of destruction of Western culture. People need to open their eyes. Look at these COVID passports. They are NOT about a mere vaccination. Stop arguing over what is in the vaccine. That is only the tool they are using to divide and conquer for a much larger agenda. They told you what they are doing. Read between the lines. Video Player00:0001:28
C’est un article de l’AFP repris par le Figaro concernant l’inflation en zone euro.
« Zone euro: l’inflation bondit à 3 % en août, au plus haut depuis 10 ans » voilà pour le titre, pourtant les chiffres dans cet article font peur.
Voici quelques citations !
« Les pénuries tirent l’inflation à la hausse, notamment dans le secteur de l’énergie qui connaît une hausse annuelle des prix de 15 %. »
« Le taux d’inflation annuel en zone euro a bondi en août à 3 %, au plus haut depuis près de 10 ans, dépassant nettement l’objectif de 2 % de la BCE, a annoncé mardi Eurostat, alors que la hausse des prix à la consommation inquiète les investisseurs. L’inflation en zone euro avait déjà augmenté en juillet à 2,2 %, après 1,9 % en juin ».
« En août, le secteur de l’énergie a enregistré la hausse annuelle la plus élevée, à 15,4 %, loin devant les biens industriels hors énergie (+2,7 %), l’alimentation, alcool et tabac (+2 %) et les services (+1,1 %) ».
« Parmi les grands pays partageant la monnaie unique européenne, l’Allemagne a connu une inflation particulièrement élevée (3,4 %), tout comme l’Espagne (3,3 %), tandis que l’Italie (2,6 %) et la France (2,4 %) sont restées en dessous de la moyenne du bloc ».
Officiellement, l’inflation restera modérée et temporaire.
De mon côté après consultation de mes Poules de Cristal, je vous confirme ma prévision annuelle d’inflation, la vraie, avec l’énergie et les prix du logement (immobilier) à un niveau proche des 10 % pour l’année 2021.
Je vous confirme également, qu’à mon sens, pour le moment, rien ne permet de penser que cette inflation sera modérée et encore moins temporaire.
Ceux qui veulent savoir pourquoi et sur quoi je base ces prévisions peuvent se reporter au dossier thématique ci-dessous pour en savoir plus.
Les crypto-monnaies ? « Une offre limitée de rien » !
Hahahahahahaha, je dois vous dire que j’ai beaucoup rigolé (important dans ce monde morne) lorsque j’ai lu ce que pense le milliardaire Paulson des cryptos, moi qui appelle et surnomme avec perfidie le Bitcoin du « rien ».
Je ne suis pas le seul à le penser.
“Je ne recommanderais à personne d’investir dans les crypto-monnaies“, a déclaré Paulson, cofondateur du groupe Carlyle.
“Je dirais que les crypto-monnaies sont une bulle. Je les décrirais comme une offre limitée de rien. Ainsi, dans la mesure où la demande est supérieure à l’offre limitée, le prix augmentera. Mais dans la mesure où la demande baisse, le prix va baisser. Il n’y a pas de valeur intrinsèque dans une crypto-monnaie, sauf qu’il y a une quantité limitée“, a-t-il déclaré.
“Les crypto-monnaies, quel que soit leur prix actuel, finiront par ne plus avoir de valeur. Une fois que l’exubérance se sera dissipée, ou que les liquidités se seront taries, ils tomberont à zéro. Je ne recommanderais à personne d’investir dans les crypto-monnaies“, a-t-il déclaré.
Pourtant, Paulson a admis qu’il ne pouvait pas parier contre les crypto-monnaies comme il l’a fait contre les prêts hypothécaires à risque.
“Si nous avons shorté les subprimes, c’est parce qu’il s’agissait d’une opération asymétrique : court-circuiter une obligation au pair qui a une durée limitée et qui se négocie à un écart de 1 % par rapport aux Treasuries. Vous ne pouvez donc pas perdre plus que l’écart de durée. Dans les crypto-monnaies, la perte potentielle est illimitée. Donc, même si vous aviez raison sur le long terme, sur le court terme, vous seriez anéanti. Dans le cas du bitcoin, il est passé de 5 000 USD à 45 000 USD. C’est trop volatile pour être court-circuité.”
Et cette réflexion est très intéressante, car cela montre aussi que, paradoxalement, la volatilité extrême des crypto-monnaies est aussi une forme de protection contre les paris baissiers à moyen terme.
Sacré paradoxe donc.
En attendant cet été, le Bitcoin a dépassé à nouveau les 40 000 dollars le rien, ce qui vous en conviendrez fait beaucoup.
N’oubliez pas de ne jouer sur les cryptos, que l’argent dont vous n’avez pas besoin. Cela évitera des déconvenues majeures !
De mon côté, malgré les espoirs de gains, je reste prudemment et sagement à l’écart de ce marché que je trouve stupide, mais trouver un marché stupide, ne veut pas dire qu’il n’y a pas d’argent à y gagner !
Rien que le titre de cette dépêche de l’agence Reuters vaut le détour.
« Allemagne : La croissance pourrait ne pas atteindre la prévision de la Bundesbank en 2021 »
« FRANCFORT, 23 août (Reuters) – La croissance économique de l’Allemagne pourrait ne pas atteindre l’estimation de la Bundesbank cette année et la pandémie de COVID-19 pourrait peser de manière inattendue sur l’économie à l’automne, a annoncé la banque centrale allemande dans son rapport mensuel publié lundi.
Le produit intérieur brut (PIB) de la première économie d’Europe devrait croître de 3,7 % cette année et de 5,2 % en 2022 mais la reprise plus timide que prévu au cours de ses premières semaines devrait peser sur la projection pour 2021, a indiqué la Bundesbank.
« Le variant Delta et une baisse de la dynamique de la vaccination pourraient conduire à un nouveau durcissement des mesures de protection », a annoncé la banque centrale. « Cela exercerait alors une pression plus forte sur l’économie au cours du trimestre d’automne. »
Une inflation… à 5 % !
« La Bundesbank a maintenu sa prévision d’une inflation pouvant approcher 5 % vers la fin de l’année, un chiffre bien au-dessus de l’objectif de 2 % de la Banque centrale européenne, avant de nettement retomber en début d’année prochaine ».
Et c’est sans doute cette partie qui est la plus importante.
Une inflation à 5 % en Allemagne, c’est du jamais vu depuis bien longtemps et depuis la chute du mur de Berlin avec l’épisode de la réunification des deux Allemagne.
Les Allemands, risquent de plaider pour un resserrement de la politique monétaire de la BCE plus rapidement que prévu si ce taux officiel se confirme ce qui devrait, évidemment, être le cas.
Je n’ai pas été absent mes amis, j’ai été silencieux, car le temps n’était pas aux paroles mais à l’écoute, à l’observation et à l’analyse. J’ai écouté. Beaucoup. Pendant des heures. J’ai travaillé. J’ai lu. J’ai parcouru les cortèges de manifestations de l’Auvergne à la Normandie.
Quand le monde se met à hurler, quand la raison laisse la place à la folie collective, lorsque les emportements deviennent la norme, il n’est pas dans ma nature d’aboyer avec la meute aussi rassurant soit-il.
La poussière commence juste à retomber et la rentrée s’annonce explosive à bien des égards.
Aujourd’hui, je peux revenir vers vous et vous dire.
Il y a ce que je vois, il y a ce que je sais.
J’ai vu pendant deux mois un déchaînement de violence et de haine se déverser sur les écrans, avec des affirmations terribles où il fallait « pourrir » la vie des non-vaccinés.
J’ai vu arriver le pass sanitaire et sa cohorte de mesures et de conséquences liberticides comme jamais.
J’ai vu les principes constitutionnels les plus sacrés de notre pays balayés en quelques semaines de propagande.
J’ai vu la science s’effacer.
J’ai vu l’hystérie devenir la norme.
J’ai vu les contre-pouvoirs prévus refuser de faire leur office.
J’ai vu, partout, abdication, lâcheté, et compromission.
J’ai vu des gens aller se faire « vacciner » contre leur gré, forcés par des mesures qui les empêchent de mener une vie normale.
J’ai vu tant de mensonges depuis le début de cette épidémie, tellement de mensonges et de contradictions de la part de ceux qui nous dirigent, des masques qu’il ne fallait surtout pas porter, au virus qui n’arriverait pas chez nous, au pays qui était préparé à tout, sans oublier qu’il fallait applaudir nos soignants qui n’avaient rien, ni masque, ni gants, ni blouses mais des sacs poubelles et qui montaient au front sans protection et évidemment sans vaccination. Et puis j’ai vu qu’il fallait les virer un an après s’ils ne prenaient pas leurs doses imposées parce qu’ils pouvaient contaminer leurs patients.
Applaudis hier, punis aujourd’hui.
J’ai vu tout cela et tant d’autres choses qu’il serait trop long de vous énumérer tous mes écœurements qui sont, sans doute, aussi les vôtres.
Enfin, j’ai vu des braves gens mangeant une glace ou buvant un café se faire contrôler, surveiller, vérifier. Il ne fait pas bon tomber en panne de batterie dans un restaurant par les temps qui sont les nôtres.
Il y a tout ce que j’ai vu et que je vois encore, et puis il y a ce que je sais.
Je sais que malgré un niveau de propagande jamais atteint dans notre pays par les médias, un niveau de mensonges jamais atteint y compris par les médecins de plateaux qui nous prennent pour des abrutis finis, ce que nous sommes devenus tant nos concitoyens sont nombreux à avoir débranché leur cerveau, la soif de liberté reste intrinsèque à l’homme.
Je sais aussi que la réalité est toujours froide.
Vous pouvez faire autant de propagande que vous voulez comme en ex-URSS en proclamant que jamais la récolte de blé n’a était aussi importante, dans la vraie vie, les Russes, eux, savaient bien qu’ils ne trouvaient pas une baguette de pain à manger !
Je sais que notre pays et ses « élites » bien petites vont se prendre de plein fouet le mur de la réalité et c’est ce que je vais essayer de vous démontrer.
Je sais aussi qu’ils habilleront leurs échecs et leurs manquements avec encore plus de mensonges et de propagande.
Je sais aussi que la presse et les médias mouillés collectivement de même que l’ensemble de la classe politique dans cette grande manipulation feront tout pour cacher les erreurs et les amoindrir dans un réflexe de caste et de protection du système qui les nourrit.
Je sais également qu’il n’y aura aucun retour au monde d’avant, et tous ceux qui pensent qu’il « suffit » de se faire piquer et vacciner pour que tout cela se termine enfin, se trompent.
Il n’y aura pas de retour au monde d’avant, parce que ma conviction qui repose sur des faits que je partage avec vous dans ces quelques pages, m’incline à penser que la vaccination est un échec relatif dans le sens où elle ne mettra pas fin du tout à l’épidémie, qu’elle ne fonctionne pas vraiment aujourd’hui, et ne marchera pas mieux demain.
Or, si la vaccination ne fonctionne pas, alors que nous avons, enfin, pas nous, mais les gouvernements et accessoirement les marchés ont tout misé sur une vaccination efficace et une promesse de sortie de crise définitive, que va-t-il se passer ? Que nous restera-t-il ?
Quelles seront les réactions, sociales, politiques et économiques ?
Cela sera-t-il susceptible d’entraîner un krach boursier par exemple ? Va-t-on devoir subir d’autres confinements ? Les voyages pourront-ils reprendre ?
Bref, finalement, presque deux ans après le début de la pandémie, nous pourrions bien nous rendre compte d’ici moins de 6 mois que la stratégie vaccinale a tout simplement échoué.
C’est en tous les cas, à cette hypothèse que viennent de me conduire mes dernières semaines d’analyses et de réflexions. C’est ce que je vous livre dans ce dossier spécial qui évoque la possibilité que l’année 2022 soit celle de l’échec de la vaccination.
Il n’y a dans mes propos rien de politique, pas plus que de conseils sur le fait de se faire piquer ou pas. Tel n’est pas mon sujet.
Si la vaccination est un échec ce que je crois, alors cela aura de très grandes répercussions sur la fonctionnement à venir de nos sociétés et bien évidemment sur l’économie.
Rentrée scolaire : une école sans liberté pour un élève mieux formaté Société
Rentrée scolaire : une école sans liberté pour un élève mieux formaté
En pleine crise sanitaire, Jean-Frédéric Poisson, président de VIA, la voie du peuple, dénonce les mesures gouvernementales qui permettent de créer un nouvel homme soumis aux délires économiques, matérialistes et idéologiques de notre temps. Tribune. Par Jean-Frédéric Poisson Publié le 31 août 2021 à 16h00
Jean-Michel Blanquer, ministre de l’Education nationale. Photo @ Jacques Witt/SIPA Partager cet article sur
À l’occasion de la rentrée scolaire, le ministre de l’Éducation nationale a effectué sa traditionnelle conférence de presse. Certes, les mesures sanitaires, toujours cafouilleuses et oppressantes, sont encore là, sur fond d’incitation sans alternative à la vaccination. Et plus graves encore, ces mesures qui remettent en cause la primauté de l’autorité parentale sur l’enfant, laissant le jeune isolé face à la pression ambiante, aux injonctions des « grands » et aux jugements de ses camarades sur ses choix sanitaires concernant le Covid.
Une autre liberté est elle aussi gravement mise en danger : la liberté de l’enseignement. Une véritable remise en cause du monopole de l’État sur l’éducation et une plus grande autonomie des chefs d’établissements permettraient de développer des projets spécifiques indispensables au pluralisme scolaire. Jean-Michel Blanquer, au contraire, souhaite proposer un projet uniformisateur imposé par l’école de la République et chapeauté par un « Conseil d’évaluation de l’École » chargé de noter les établissements. Cette mesure de mise sous tutelle est renforcée par la loi dite « contre les séparatismes », promulguée au cœur de l’été, qui soumet l’école à la maison ainsi que les écoles libres hors contrat au diktat d’une autorisation préalable des pouvoirs publics. À travers cette loi, l’égalité des chances qui passe avant tout par la possibilité pour les parents de choisir l’éducation de leurs enfants, est tout bonnement remisée au placard par le gouvernement.
À ce volet liberticide s’ajoute très logiquement un programme progressiste à peine camouflé sous les oripeaux d’une éducation classique et humaniste. Chaque orientation ministérielle démontre une volonté de faire de l’élève un futur bon citoyen du monde, consommateur soumis à des contingences sans transcendance. L’ensemble de son intervention est émaillé d’une vision idéologique aux antipodes de notre conception de l’instruction. Sa priorité est d’insister sur la « justice sociale », s’incarnant dans une grande campagne sur la laïcité, seul principe à même selon lui de nous permettre de « vivre ensemble ». Notre ministre ne semble malheureusement pas avoir compris que l’école était devenue, à cause d’un laïcisme exacerbé, un espace vide et un terreau propice aux radicalismes, Islam en tête. Là où l’apprentissage de l’amour de la France et la transmission de l’héritage civilisationnel européen et chrétien pourraient permettre d’enrayer les communautarismes et participer à refonder l’unité nationale.
Nous aurions souhaité que l’accent soit mis en priorité sur l’acquisition d’une culture française, de l’Histoire de nos ancêtres, et la mise en place de coefficients supérieurs pour la langue française.
Dans la suite de son intervention, Jean-Michel Blanquer a prôné une « ouverture d’esprit des élèves sur le monde » par l’acquisition d’une « culture universelle ». Pourtant, nous aurions souhaité que l’accent soit mis en priorité sur l’acquisition d’une culture française, de l’Histoire de nos ancêtres, et la mise en place de coefficients supérieurs pour la langue française. Le ministre a également évoqué le déracinement de la jeunesse et a vanté judicieusement l’apprentissage des langues antiques permettant de puiser au plus profond de notre civilisation pour nourrir leur « besoin d’ancrage ». Cependant, il a ensuite lié ce besoin aux « changements et transformations » qui impactent le pays, c’est-à-dire au multiculturalisme contre lequel il ne semble pas vouloir lutter. Un « en même temps » qui ne fait pas bon ménage !
Là où nous souhaitons une école qui transmette un savoir capable d’emmener nos enfants à acquérir une autonomie de pensée, ce programme semble au contraire vouloir rééduquer la nation : instauration d’une nouvelle « consommation culturelle » par la mise en place d’un passe culture, création d’éco-délégués dans les écoles pour « éduquer les élèves au développement durable », incitation aux voyages dans les seuls pays européens dans le cadre du programme Erasmus pour contraindre les étudiants à accepter la « nouvelle réalité » d’une Europe fédérale… Autant de dispositions permettant de créer un nouvel homme soumis aux délires économiques, matérialistes et idéologiques de notre temps. Cette rentrée n’a donc rien d’une rentrée normale, car la vision de l’éducation de Jean-Michel Blanquer porte un projet inacceptable, en totale opposition avec l’instruction classique française.
Interview with Bishop Schneider: COVID rules may be ‘a kind of prefiguration’ of the mark of the Beast
As a former citizen of a communist country, the bishop is very much opposed to the ‘sanitary dictatorship’ that is being set up in so many countries under the pretense of fighting COVID-19.
Paris, FRANCE (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Athanasius Schneider is certainly the most outspoken bishop on the subject of abortion-tainted vaccines, but as a former citizen of a communist country – having lived as a child in a member state of the Soviet Union – he is also very much opposed to the “sanitary dictatorship” that is being set up in so many countries under the pretense of fighting COVID-19. As France is sliding into an increasingly totalitarian system where COVID “vaccination” will be compulsory as of September 15, and where both the public and employees are being forced to exhibit a “sanitary pass” for many ordinary acts of life, Bishop Schneider answered LifeSite’s questions about the eschatological dimension of these unprecedented requirements.
“I do not say this is the direct sign of Beast, to be clear, but it could be already in part a prefiguration of this sign,” he answered, repeating several times that the measures being imposed are in a way making the state the “owner” of your body.
“If the government has absolute power to force you, and to say how your body should be, then you have lost you last privacy because your body belongs to you,” he said.
Bishop Schneider made very clear that we are under a double obligation to resist these developments: conscientious objection against the use of abortion-tainted vaccines must go together with practical resistance, for instance by creating networks that allow people to buy and sell, and also travel, without needing to obtain a sanitary pass.
“We have already now to seek all the practical possibilities to avoid this new forced dictatorship over our body and our freedom. If we do not do this, there will be a totalitarianism that will be complete, and this will be the end of every human society,” he said, more than once using the word “slavery” to describe the consequences of the measures being forced on French citizens.
But Bishop Schneider’s message is anything but pessimistic. Seen from the point of view of eternity, the present situation will be “to the benefit of the good of souls,” he underscored, recalling that all that God permits ultimately contributes to His greater glory.
Nor does Bishop Schneider believe that transhumanism will be allowed to prosper up to the point where a new kind of man would be created by the powers of science: “God will not permit it.”
Finally, he encouraged all the faithful to place themselves under the protection of the Virgin Mary, who has all powers of intercession on our behalf.
Here below is the full transcript of Bishop Schneider’s recorded video interview with LifeSite.
LifeSiteNews: The French government has introduced mandatory vaccination for the health professions and all those who work with sick people or the elderly. This ranges from firemen to home care assistants. There is a very strong mobilization against this “vaccine” mandate. For other people, the government has set up a sanitary pass; unvaccinated people can get one that is only valid for 72 hours after testing negative for COVID-19. This is in fact designed to prevent them from living a normal life, since without this test, which would have to be repeated every three days, they cannot access large shopping centres, cafés, restaurants, a large number of hotels, concerts, cinemas, etc. Fortunately, churches are excluded from this scheme, but visiting a person who is in hospital is prohibited, as is access to hospital for non-urgent care. With this QR code requirement, the unvaccinated person is effectively made an outcast, threatened with very heavy fines for any breach of the law. What do you think of this type of scheme?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: I think this goes fundamentally against human rights and human dignity because, as you mentioned, two classes of people will be established in society, and those who are not vaccinated are in fact becoming a kind of person who has almost no equal rights compared with the others. This means they become a kind of slave because they have no rights: substantially, they have no freedom. I consider this to be very dangerous – this establishing of a two-class society. As I said, this is fundamentally contrary to human rights and human dignity: we are returning to societies of totalitarianism. We have known totalitarian systems where a special kind of people for various reasons, or for racial reasons, were marked by an exterior sign, and did not have the same civil rights as the others.
So this is a really dangerous phenomenon. We are now approaching it under the pretext, of course, of sanitary measures and health care. This is only a pretext because there is no certain proof that the vaccination is really effective to prevent COVID contamination. There are even proven cases – this is not some conspiracy theory – of people whose names are known, who got the virus even after receiving COVID vaccination; they were tested positive and in some cases, people’s health conditions even got worse. Because we have those cases already, it should be a sign that this vaccination cannot be an absolute demand; therefore, we have to protest against these evident violations of fundamental rights and even against these violations of evidence which exist. When our society is turning into a place where evidence is simply denied, this is a sign that we are in a dictatorship because only a dictatorial political system denies evident facts in order to promote its program. It is clear that there is a program to vaccinate all the people in order to achieve a concrete political, social, or ideological objective. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Tell University of Pittsburgh to stop barbaric experiments using human babies 6292 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 7500! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
LSN: The Spanish Constitutional Court has recently decided that a theoretical vaccine, even in the case of a major epidemic, cannot be considered constitutional.
Bp. Schn.: That at least is good news: that no one can be forced by a government to be vaccinated. A similar decision was made by the European Council. This is already a good sign because if the government has absolute power to force you, and to say how your body should be, then you have lost your last privacy because your body belongs to you. With this forced vaccination, the government is, not in theory but de facto, declaring that it is the government that will become the owner of your body. For me, this is the ultimate expression of extreme communism because communism aims to say that all belongs to the state, such as the means of production and so on – education, family, all is common. But now even the body, your own body, is becoming the property of the state.
subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic
The communists were already beginning to [confiscate] parents’ own children, in order to take them to education camps, when parents did not obey state ideology. These parents were deprived of their children! Now some Western European countries are doing the same, taking away children from the family when they oppose gender ideology education in schools. Now we are witnessing something similar with de facto forced vaccination. When you have to have these green passes by being tested every third day; this is a practical, very cunning, and cynical violation aimed at forcing people to receive vaccination. I ask myself: now that the European Council and the Spanish court have issued that decision saying that the state does not have the right to force someone to be vaccinated, will the governments apply these decisions? Who will have the power to give us the guarantee that these decisions will be applied? But at least it is a beginning and a good step.
LSN: In France there are already 11 mandatory vaccinations for children under 2 years old including the Rubella vaccine which is often abortion-tainted. However, these are not associated with a pass or a QR code. Do you think that with the imposition of a QR code we are entering into something different?
Bp. Schn.: Of course, because you are completely controlled. You have no more freedom, even regarding the privacy of your body. Information about your body is in this code so, yes, it’s a substantial difference, and therefore we have to protest against this code that will affect the privacy of the body.
LSN: You have spoken out strongly against the use of fetal cells obtained through abortion for the development, production, and testing of COVID vaccines. As we all know, many experts in moral theology have explained that for the individual who would use these vaccines, this would be a mere remote cooperation with evil, and that, in view of the issues at stake, we can accept this injection. You have already addressed these questions in substance many times; you have explained your thoughts and opinions. I would like to ask you today if you do not think that these leaders are depriving Catholics of the support of the Church with regard to their right – not to say their duty – of conscientious objection, which can even extend to refusal?
Bp. Schn.: This is evident because … the church authority says okay, you can take this vaccination because there is a moral theory which says this is a remote material cooperation. They tranquillize and calm consciences with this; by this they are substantially weakening any resistance which we must oppose.
We have to resist and protest against the horrible phenomenon in our society which is the so-called “fetal industry.” We must distinguish between two different industries that are of course intimately connected: the abortion industry itself which is horrible, and the other: the so-called fetal industry, the use of tissues of aborted babies and the marketing of the body parts of the aborted babies. Here they are being used for research or for the production of several medicines including vaccines. So the vaccines which were produced by using these cell lines, or tested on them, are a de facto part of the so-called fetal industry. This fetal industry needs to be distinguished from the abortion industry even if they are connected; but the fetal industry is closer to us, so when you are using the product, the vaccine is a direct product of the fetal industry. So we are no longer remote to this fetal industry, and it is a very grave immorality to participate with full knowledge and full freedom in this horrible phenomenon of our society. For a Catholic, the fetal industry is immoral and very grave because we are de facto collaborating with it, and especially committing a great sin of omission, in failing to protest clearly and strongly, at least against the use of cell lines in the fetal industry and in vaccination.
Therefore, it is a great irresponsibility of the Church, even of the Vatican and of theologians who tranquilize and calm the conscience of the people, and who in this way are paralyzing the resistance. This is serious.
I have to add another phenomenon. I recently spoke with a woman who has converted deeply to God. In her past life, she committed abortions, and after converting to God she recognized all the horrors of abortion. I spoke with her about abortion-tainted vaccinations, and she said to me that she could better understand this horrible situation of abortion-tainted products and medicines than I, or than any woman who has never experienced an abortion. She told me: “I can say that all that is connected to abortion in medicines and in their production is so horrible for me because I was so deeply wounded by the fact of abortion.” She told me she can never accept any medicine or product or vaccination which is linked in some way to the … assassination of a child.
LSN: I meet many people now who, for various reasons, are absolutely opposed to the vaccine, but who risk losing their jobs, their families’ livelihoods, if they do not take it. They say: my duties of state are to ensure the survival of my family, and I cannot do otherwise than to receive this vaccine, even if I am totally opposed to it. Added to this is the fact that many medicines and other vaccines that everyone in France has received are already affected by this. What would you tell them?
Bp. Schn.: For other vaccines and medicines that are contaminated with abortion, we have to have the proof: the pharmaceutical companies have to give the proof that this medicine was tainted or tested. As to the currently famous anti-COVID vaccines such as Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, [and] Sputnik, the pharmaceutical industry has acknowledged this. For other medicines we have as yet no public acknowledgment, so we can use them because we have no proofs. But we should ask this about every medicine. From the moment I receive from the pharmaceutical company the proof that a medicine is tainted with abortion, I have the obligation not to use it and to use another medicine. We must choose good companies and doctors who can provide us with an alternative medicine that is not tainted with abortion, or at least a natural medicine that God gave us – and maybe this will be more helpful for us.
The second point is more difficult, involving people who know they will lose their job – especially parents who have to provide for their families. This is, of course, a very difficult question. But at least they should do all that is possible to avoid receiving such a vaccine. They can make a conscientious objection; perhaps they can even obtain a document from their doctor who will say that for a medical reason this person cannot receive a vaccination – because there is some allergy, for example. In such a case, they have to try to find all the possible means to avoid this, or even change jobs, even if this will leave them poorer. They have to choose this and not a vaccine because of this close support of the fetal industry – not of the abortionists but of the fetal industry.
I think that God will reward these people with many spiritual gifts if they choose to live a poorer life rather than to co-operate with the fetal industry. Surely they will not die from starvation, God will never permit it! This was our experience in communist times. My parents did not collaborate with the Communist Party, for example; therefore, my parents could not have a profession, this was not allowed. And so they were simple workers, they had a low salary, and we lived in a really simple way. But God did not abandon us; we were happy in our faith and this gave us riches for all our life – even when the others who had accepted the conditions of the Communist Party had better living conditions than we did, and than other people, Christians, for example. And so I think we have to give again the primacy to the eternal life which we have so largely forgotten in recent decades. Even in the Church, even the good Catholics, we were invaded by a kind of materialism because we were so very attached to the material life and giving it primacy over the eternal and the spiritual.
So this is a principle: I would say change work, and even if I have to do a simple job like cleaning the streets, I will still have some means to sustain my family, but in a poorer way. This is a decision of conscience, I think, but God will reward these people, of course, and it will be a sign of protest, and a witness that we are not collaborating with the horrible fetal industry.
LSN: What is your response to those who say that such measures, the sanitary pass, for example, and widespread vaccination, are absolutely essential so that we all together can recover public liberties, and that to refuse them is to show selfishness? We are hearing this a lot: people who don’t want the vaccine are being called egoists.
Bp. Schn.: No, this is not egoism. If you get the vaccine, you will only find apparent freedom because this so-called sanitary pass is transforming you into a slave, because with this pass your body will belong to the state and no longer to you, in some way, with these codes and so on, and that is how you are losing your freedom. How can you call it egoism when it is not proven that the vaccine protects from contamination of the virus? It’s not proven that when you have received the vaccine that you cannot develop or transmit COVID. We conserve more freedom when we do not receive it.
LSN: Is this QR code an attempt to impose the mark of the beast of which the Apocalypse speaks, or a sort of prefiguration of it, insofar as the non-vaccinated risk finding themselves the victims of a kind of confinement, which for many will make it impossible to earn a living or to pursue their studies?
Bp. Schn.: We can say that this is perhaps already a kind of prefiguration of the mark of the Beast. Maybe I would not say myself, directly, that this is already the mark of the Beast. I have not yet all the elements to say this, but at least we can say it is a kind of prefiguration because the Apocalypse says you cannot buy or sell if you have not the mark in your hand, on your body. It is very close when people who are not marked in their body with the vaccine – this is a mark – cannot enter certain shops or supermarkets: they cannot enter, they cannot buy or sell there, and this is literally already being carried out.
I think we have to be prepared to be excluded. Perhaps alternative systems can be established: for example, those who are against vaccination can perhaps make a new chain of exchange, the private exchange of products in a smaller manner, with small shops that are not submitted to the pass, or in the open air, or private chains of exchange of produce. I think it is possible to establish this. In France there are large protests against forced vaccination: I think these protests could lead to new mutual systems of buying and selling products that people need because so many people are involved. Hopefully in other places and in other countries such systems of selling products can be created.
We have to find alternatives; it is very important even for the buying and selling of products. When we are excluded from public transport, like trains, buses, and so on, we can create a system to travel with private cars. We must already seek all the practical possibilities to avoid this new forced dictatorship over our body and our freedom. If we do not do this, there will be a totalitarianism that will be complete, and this will be the end of every human society.
I appeal even to nonbelievers, all people of good will: please already start to plan alternative systems, in transportation, in buying and selling products, maybe for studying also, by having private study centers. We have to develop these at least theoretically and then practically, with all these good people who are demonstrating: how to survive. We have to make a world alliance of protest and alternatives; if we do not, we will have a complete totalitarian system. And this we have to avoid.
LSN: Can the QR code used to prove vaccine status already be in itself considered as a form of the mark of the Beast?
Bp. Schn.: Yes. This code will contain all your private information about your health that is already under control of the state. This code is linked, as I understand it, to the vaccine. The vaccination contains at least some “footprints” of abortion, even if they are very far from the horrible assassination of children which is already in itself a satanic act. The using of their bodies, of their tissues, is also in se satanic because it is a revolt against God, the Giver of life. In this case the abortion-tainted vaccines have some satanic footprints, even though they be remote, of the Beast. So the vaccine, with its corresponding code number, is a prefiguration of the sign of the Beast. I do not say this is the direct sign of Beast, to be clear, but it could be already in part a prefiguration of this sign and therefore we have to avoid this also. This code is immoral in some way as, I repeat, the government is completely taking possession of your body.
LSN: In your opinion, is it in theory permissible to find ways of circumventing the law in order to escape its harshness, for example, by means of a false certificate? I would not encourage people to do so because of the heavy fines involved.
Bp. Schn.: The de facto compulsory vaccine is an abuse of power on the part of the government; that is in itself immoral. By it, I repeat, the government is becoming the owner of your body and your privacy, and this is against fundamental rights. God ordered the structure of society which government has not the power to do. The intrinsically evil law of forced vaccination which is in some way connected or tainted with abortion and the fetal industry is immoral. Because it is a forced act, I think you can in this way present even a fake document.
I would compare this situation with the immoral laws when some totalitarian governments issued immoral orders against the Jews. We know that Pope Pius XII and the bishops, when the Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, permitted the use of fake documents to protect the Jews. It was allowed because the laws against the Jews were intrinsically immoral.
It would be a kind of self-defense: you defend yourself your body and your privacy from an aggressor who is [oppressing] you. In the same way you can defend your child or your family against an aggressor who would kill your children or take them into slavery. For example, when you are a mother and you have children in your house and evil people arrive who want to steal your children to put them into slavery: if they ask you if your children are there, surely as a mother you will say “no,” because you have to protect them. Telling them: “Yes, they are here, I will open the door and show you where they are” would be crazy if you were a mother. You say, “No, they are not here.” You will say an untruth, but because it is intrinsically evil to take your children into slavery. When there are no other ways, it is the last means of self-protection against the aggression of the state.
LSN: What would be the precise responsibility of an elected politician who votes for such measures? In France they obtained a positive vote of the Assembly and the Senate; each time, a large proportion of the parliamentarians were missing, they were absent. The law was adopted with very few voters. In your opinion, what is the responsibility of these elected officials who voted for these laws or who were not there to vote against them; or the responsibility of the policeman or the gendarme who is in charge of the implementation of these laws?
Bp. Schn.: The members of parliament have full responsibility, I think, because they are representing and are elected for the common good of the citizens. When they abstain or vote in favor of these dictatorial, totalitarian laws to control you completely, to disown you or your own body with this compulsory vaccination, they are committing evil because they are collaborating in making you slaves of the state, in making your body become a property of the state. It’s immoral to collaborate in making such laws, and also to abstain. As for the policeman who implements this, he has a lesser responsibility because he is only fulfilling the orders of the state. Maybe he is not even personally convinced, but he will be forced, so it is not so much his own responsibility as the fact that he is executing an unjust law. In some cases I think the police, as responsible citizens, can find some way to protect you, maybe not to be severe, for example, in checks and so on while formally obeying the law. In all dictatorships, even in Nazi camps, there are policemen who find a way to protect the people.
LSN: What is your spiritual advice for Catholics who are worried? I see many who are very afraid now of the situation that is arising. What would you tell them to do?
Bp. Schn.: First, I would give them the word of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel. He says, Do not fear those who kill your body, but fear those who will take your soul, or damage your soul. We must not fear the government; we have to give the primacy to our soul, to our spiritual life, to the life of prayer with the sacraments, and thus we should be deeply rooted in our prayer every day. We must be rooted in our faith, in our conviction that our life is ultimately in the hands of God and not in the hands of the government, even in a dictatorship, even in a totalitarian system! Our life is ultimately in the hands of God who is our heavenly Father. He is our Father even when we are, in certain periods of time, in distress and persecuted and humiliated as with this forced vaccination. This is a relatively short time, so we have to look wider and further because God permits this ultimately only for the benefit of our soul. Saint Paul says all will contribute to the greater benefit of those who love God, all things will contribute to the benefit of a greater good for those who love God. If we are rooted in our faith, in the trust of the Providence of our heavenly Father, knowing that our life is in His hands, this should give us confidence. We know the current sanitary COVID dictatorship, this totalitarianism is short, it is relatively short, it is not eternity! History has always shown that dictatorships did not last so long, and God will even show to these new “sanitary dictators” that their power is limited. We have to believe that God will intervene in history.
We must also concentrate deeply on the fact that maybe this is an appeal of God for us to go deeper in our prayer lives. We have to deepen our sacramental life with more regular confession, more regular Communion, and prayers. Maybe we should be more united with all those who are opposing this dictatorship, to make a chain. Maybe these difficult times are an opportunity to confess God, to be faithful to Him. But God is so good that He always gives the necessary graces, and He rewards us in difficult times and gives us His consolations. This is my counsel and my advice.
LSN: It appears to us that there is a will to take over the human body, a transhumanist plan that is being put in place, and even carried out. Is it conceivable that God would allow mankind to fall – for most people unwillingly – into something so contrary to His will for mankind?
Bp. Schn.: I think not because God reserves to Himself His divine powers of creation, and so there will not be a substantially new human being as transhumanists want to create. They will not succeed: God will not permit it. He is the Lord; we have to believe this. They will perhaps produce some things, but it will not be a human being, never, because God creates the soul which is the essential part of the human being. I repeat: I do not believe that God will permit this. His are the powers of the Creator, and they are reserved to Him. If they continue with these horrible things that blaspheme God, there will come the end of times as we read in the Apocalypse and the Judgment. And for us Jesus said: When this time comes, lift up your head because your salvation is close, lift up your head in confidence, your salvation is close! Once again, we must take this situation as an opportunity to deepen our faith, our prayer, and to be more rooted in the vision of eternal life, to be more supernaturally orientated to our eternal life because we are living here in the valley of tears, as we sing in the Salve Regina: hac lacrimarum valle. This is our situation, but there is also the deep joy that we have a Mother. She never abandons us, and she is always close to us. This is my advice, that never will she abandon us, she is the intercessional omnipotens, the omnipotens of intercession for us. She will take care of us; always, we have to flee under her mantle. Especially in these times, we must pray: Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genitrix: we will flee under her protection.
/image%2F1044304%2F20210901%2Fob_d0cdd2_e-ihou-xoaazlnr.jpg)
naufrage/sauvetage 