Merci Piotr Tolstoï

 

BIBDENISM

The always brilliant, and not only brilliant, but deeply honest, Yeshayahu Ben-Aharon:

"Bibdenism"

“Those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside”.

John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

In yesterday's post I coined the new political term "Bibibiden Coalition" or in short: "Bibiden Coalition", and in one word: "Bibdenism", to characterize the current stage in Israel's total enslavement to the anti-human interests of American global imperialism - which Bibi inherited and continued from the Labor Party governments before him. Since the establishment of the state of Israel, the goal of Israeli politics from the left, right and center has been one: to imitate the European catastrophe the best we can and make Israel a servant in the hands of the US global strategy that advocates a "clash of civilizations" fed by the blood spilled on the "bleeding fault lines" between them. (see how Washington creates and finances the present Ukraine catastrophe, to maintain and deepen the bloody fault line between what it calls "Western-Christian" and "Slavic-orthodox" civilizations). 

The purpose of the Israeli and Palestinian blood that we donate in endless abundance generation after generation, is to feed the fire of the bloody fault line between what Washington calls "Western Christian civilization" - to which the Jews are annexed - and "Islamic civilization". According to Washington and its metastases in Europe and Israel, not only must this bloody fault line not be bridged, but it is strictly forbidden to attempt to do so, and it must be nurtured and nourished with the blood of our best sons and daughters, slaughtered by the most advanced weapons of destruction that humanity has ever created, financed by the incessant flow of American dollars...

This is the place to go back and read the article again: "Riding the American tiger", to get the complete picture.

Riding the American Tiger after 21 Years

Yeshayahu Ben-Aharon 

Joël Sternheimer

 

Joël Sternheimer solved the problem of the mass of particles in 1964, generalised the theory to DNA and proteins soon after, and implemented it very successfully in medicine and agriculture. In a self-respecting world this would deserve 2 Nobel prizes: Physics and Medicine.

But we went the opposite way, put all our money behind Prof. Baric genocidal science, hidden behind his famulus Fauci, his sherpa Daszak, and his lab rats Kariko & Weissman.

Now we are into Nobel Prize winner COVID.

Don't get confused by useful idiots / irresponsible kids from the MIT media lab who recklessly put online the AI-generated  "melody of covid"! With an utterly confused narrative! Remember what AI is used for: "generate targets faster than humans can even verify" as demonstrated in Israel in the last 6 months...

So please read the original:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel-Sternheimer/3

And get in touch with Sternheimer's colleagues:

https://www.genodics.com/

The Fragile Sanctity of Being Female

A very good article by Antra Sharma, published in The Wire in September 2020, followed by the 3 comments that were published afterwards (all 3 by me):

The Fragile Sanctity of Being Female

Antra Sharma September 1, 2020

The process of news reading is not a leisurely activity when the news is dismal enough that “good news” needs its own channels, as if in contradiction. Amidst the usual pall of gloom that has descended on the globe, there are cases, bigger and tougher to cure than a virus.

Police brutality was caught by the throat in America, Lebanon suffered a scaled loss at the cost of deadly corruption, Belarus is paying the price of Russia losing a battle against the human desire for freedom. Running along (or under) these, is a silent humanitarian struggle that burns at the altar of all times, compromised or not – crimes against women.

Closer home, on August 11, three reporters from The Caravan visited Northeast Delhi to investigate a claim that three local Muslim women were sexually assaulted at the local police station. The reporters were taking photos of saffron flags when they were attacked by a mob of locals. The only woman reporter managed to get away, but was soon surrounded herself. According to her testimony:

“The men, who looked to be in their early twenties, began taking photos and videos of her, and ‘making cheap and lewd comments and started saying, Dikhao, dikhao’ (Show, show). As she walked away, ‘a middle-aged man in a dhoti and a white t-shirt, with a bald head and a slim pony-tail stood in front of me… He then opened his dhoti and exposed his genitals while looking at me. He proceeded to shake his [genitals] with his hand and started making objectionable and lewd expressions, while laughing at me.’”

The 21st century has seen women step out as independent beings, pursuing dreams built of their own accord. There’s something novel about this situation, where women are not just business leaders, political office holders, running newsletters, but most importantly, are using these platforms to represent the community as a whole.

It isn’t unnatural that we have an entire society circumspect of this wave. It would be strange if tradition had taken to this change lying down. Questioning and criticism are healthy pursuits in a democracy. You can answer questions and counter criticism with logical arguments in a healthy debate. But how do you fight resistance that is fuelled by an inflated ego, nursed over centuries of use and abuse?

The human love for status quo is not new. Alongside other identities like caste, colour, creed, religion, male superiority has similarly been a preserved legacy of hierarchy. So the uplifting of women is seen not simply as a change in the status quo, but as a disruption that comes at the cost of the all-we’ve-ever-known knowledge of ‘female submission’ to men. And that probably explains the reason why men are so threatened by this shift in the spirit of women everywhere. From workplaces to household responsibilities to partnership equations, women are rising up the ranks to ask for an equal space. But society won’t have it. So we have suppression, oppression and pushback in overt and covert ways.

The idea of honour continues to be the most common and also almost the strongest weapon in this battle. And the most evident manifestation of this idea is the female body. Assault the female body and you have not only successfully traumatised a being into forceful fear, but have also managed to avenge the enemy that the woman “belongs to”.

If this wasn’t atrocious enough, we also have the most bizarre form of violation – one where a woman is assaulted not by inflicting visible harm upon her, but by exposing another being’s genitals that could potentially destroy her modesty.

In a single stroke of flashing their penises, men intend to shame and threaten. The idea being sold here is that the penis is stronger than the vagina, because male is stronger than female. A flash is to spark a dread in the woman – of what the penis could possibly do to her physically, and as a result, empty her claim and ability to lead a life worth living.

This happens in metros, locals, restaurants, bars, hotels, poolsides, beaches, and any other “public spaces for all”. Yet there is something increasingly disconcerting and odd about these instances. Imagine a sanctity made so fragile that the sight of the opposite sex’s body part can be used to assault another from afar.

Women don’t typically build cases out of these instances. There are not many FIRs against men flashing women. Because the honour at stake is the woman’s – the only honour that matters. These instances serve as horrifying reminders of the fact that this honour is not awarded to women as the keepers of societal principles, but used as a trump card to oust them from society using these very man-made principles.

They serve as disturbing reinforcements that whether it is her body or his that is exposed, it is only she who needs to fear. They serve as lasting signs that if the oppressed design ways to raise a voice, the oppressor will evolve its manner of oppression – in competition with its own self.

The power play behind this act and its ability to freeze women in their tracks underlines the fact that this is a long fight to uproot systemic beliefs. I’m not sure how long this battle will last, but I do know that the rise of one will require and depend on a disruption of another – in this case, that of normative male superiority.

Antra Sharma is a researcher with Gartner, a research and advisory firm. She spends most of her free time reading and writing, with a limited desire to formalise the two leisurely habits.

Comment 1:

Beautiful article. The decision to defend with one's own body, human dignity and values, by choosing to be the one that will be offended by the immodest display of sexual organs, and therefore to be the keeper of the humanity of both sides, is suggested by the article as what makes a woman. If no one is offended then there is no offense. But the denial of human modesty is a loss of dignity. Therefore someone has to be offended if the human dignity (of both sides) has to be re-asserted and defended. This article suggests many other questions, like, is it a female attitude - and is it legitimate - for a man to be offended by a covert sexual provocation in a public place, like a molestation by a woman in a crowded metro? This seems to be a matter of choice. You take the responsibility to be offended - which is the only real way to take note that a breach has been done, which is damaging to everyone's dignity - or not. This comes at a cost. You can't take this responsibility without placing yourself, with your own body, in a relationship of power. First you take responsibility, then you realise there is a cost, and you become subject in a relationship of power. So you have to think in terms of power, because bodies are here, physically present, and you cannot wish them away. To identify the moment when power comes into play is important. It is the very moment someone takes responsibility. If you identify power with physical coercion you never find its origin. You find that it was always there, from the very beginning. Even and especially when no one was aware that power could even exist, or could be talked about. Unconscious power is the most intransigent and most insensitive power. But if no one is aware of power, does it still exist? Does it make sense to talk about what no one is aware exists? So we are not really talking about physical power, which origin we cannot find because it has always been there since the beginning, but of moral power, which appears just at the moment someone takes responsibility, and accepts the cost associated with it which is to be subjected to this power, and to start fighting it. This taking of responsibility is indistinguishable from defending human values. Ignoring this responsibility can make you a rapist, not because you decided to become one, but because you didn't decide to not become one. And this refusal of responsibility acts both ways, by relieving you from the responsibility to be offended by an agression - which out of lazyness or doubt, for example you chose to ignore - and by obscuring your possibility of yourself becoming a rapist. So if this taking responsibility is a female quality, an interesting question would be, what could be a male quality? Women's re-invention of themselves should push men to also re-invent themselves. This necessarily involves placing oneself in the other's shoes, understanding the male and female qualities in oneself and others.
Laurent Fournier
Kolkata

Comment 2:

It would be interesting to analyse the historical relationship between women and men, in different parts of the world, not just as a competition for power (most common assumption of those who write on the subject) or as an arrangement of convenience, a practical and efficient division of labour (second most-common assumption), showing that we are not yet past Darwin and Marx.

Yet this article, most remarquably in its title, points to something else. Who exactly is asked to respect the "sanctity" of women? Obviously, men. It is evident in the article that women are not asked to respect the sanctity of women. Either they do it automatically or it's not as important as men doing that, let's not examine the possible justifications of this implication, but just observe this point: This article essentially, in a very remarquable and beautiful way, makes a demand towards men in general, in the name of women in general. The general level at which this demand is formulated is highlighted by the use of the expression "being female". And further, the beauty of the article is in that it shows how this demand can guard the humanity of both, men and women.

So we should now read the relationship between men and women, and the multiple historical and geographical variations of this relationship, in a more interesting light than the rather mechanical and impoverished Darwinian or Marxian worldviews. We can read the multiple forms of this relationship in a context where the desire, and most crucially, the desire of the other and not one's own, plays the central role. Creativity, love and responsibility are suddenly re-introduced. Beauty is not a separate, abstract or imaginary entity, it is the reality of this world. A world where desire is a path to liberation and not to subjugation is not really explained by Darwin or Marx, but better by Deleuze (who had a huge respect for both).

Laurent Fournier

Comment 3:

This article also sheds a new light on the metoo movement. It is a demand of women towards men. The discussions about "not all men", or "there are women abuser also" are besides the point. Everyone is agreed, men and women, that this is a demand from women in general to men in general. This demand says, in fact shouts out loudly, in a great variety of tones and languages: "You are worth more than that!" Like this article by Antra Sharma exactly says, with a great clarity. You are worth more than that. More than what you are doing, more than what you believe you should be doing, more than what you believe you are. It is a stunning declaration. Someone who believe in you more than you believe in yourself. I mean, in a concrete, material way. Metoo is not a matter of vague ideals. It is always rooted in material facts and always says: "You are worth more than that!"

The only way a man accused of metoo can take this, is as a declaration of love. Not a glamorous romantic love but a deeply real one, a material one, the only one that matters, the only one that exists in fact.

In arguments between the metoo victims and perpetrators there is always a competition for interpretation of one's and the other's thoughts, similar to the thought process of Jacques Derrida. And in this process, like in Derrida's, the one who wins is the one who raises higher the level of humanity of both sides. (As Derrida said, the only thing that can't be deconstructed is justice).

It is a usual paradox that things appear in the conscience the very moment they are disappearing or weakening.

Men have always been what women wanted and vice-versa, and it is now that there is a demand for everyone to take primary responsibility in what we are and not take shelter behind social norms, that we realise that.

As Brenée Brown humoristically exclaimed: "Holy Shit! I am the patriarchy!"

Demand for individual responsibility which is also probably linked to the greater recognition of "gender fluidity".

We enter in uncharted territory where cross-desire is not alone to rule anymore, but also cross-responsibility.

Laurent Fournier

 

Some people want war immediately

Some people want war immediately, before they believe it's too late for them to "win" (whatever that means - "winning")

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/04/05/mechanism-how-order-based-on-made-up-rules-descending-into-savagery/

The end of terrorism

What is happening now in Russia is historical.

Compare these two events:

11 September 2001: A terrorist attack in New York results in a series of wars that have already killed 5 million people, more than 90% civilians, and are still festering.

23 March 2024: A terrorist attack in Moscow results in all the attackers arrested and produced in court in less than 24 hours, and no new war or revolution is started.

What a difference!

Otherwise, 2 aspects are the same: 1) A massive killing of innocents, broadcast live in the media, and 2) No consensus on the responsibilities, as different theories are competing.

What we are witnessing now is a great civilisational event, marking the beginning of the end of terrorism as we know it, since 2001 or even since the murder of Archduke Ferdinand on 28th June 1914 that triggered the World War 1, resulting in 20 millions deaths, half of them civilians.

It is an undeniable fact that the Russian people are teaching us how to deal, as a society, as a civilisation, with terrorism.

Also truly remarquable is the ratio of military to civilian deaths in the Ukraine war: Less than 10% civilians deaths. We need to look at the pre-Napoleonic wars to see such low casualties among civilians!

Again, whatever side our sympathy tends to favour and whatever propaganda each side would like us to believe, let's give the Russians and the Ukrainians the credit they deserve: They fight between soldiers, like the aristocrats of the very ancient times, and not against civilians.

This forces respect, and Russian and Ukrainian soldiers behave in a more civilised way than the Western promoters of this war for which, in the words of the half-crazy former advisor of the Ukrainian government, Arestovich, who sometimes says things that would send maybe anyone else to jail or worse, "Russians are barbarous with money and we are barbarous without money, that's why they (the West) can utilise us for their purposes"...

The West is unable to end terrorism because it is possessed by it. Even philosophically, René Girard has not really been able to "end Clausewitz", and the nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt remains, de facto if not openly, the dominant figure in the Western concept of politics and war.

Beyond rhetoric, if we look at the basic facts like the remarkable respect for civilians from the Russian and Ukrainian sides, we must admit that both countries are well on the way to "denazification".

Then the collective West will have to denazify itself also. Let's work to do that without a war. If possible.

New-born

Love is like a new-born: always naked,

and naked forever.

We put clothes on love, we educate and scold love, we are exasperated, angry, disgusted, in awe and laughing at love,

And we never disrespect and especially, never abandon love, the new-born baby that has gracefully visited us!

John le Carré, who wrote "love is whatever you can still betray", and Emmanuel Lévinas, who even more poignantly described our lives as "the always renewed postponement of the hour of betrayal", were perfectly accurate, especially Lévinas who rises so high above sentimentalism that very few people -and certainly not me- can understand him till now. But Novalis, 150 years before them, as in anticipation, entirely reversed this dark, sentimental and somehow complacent vision, and prepared a ground for our work towards an answer: "We must never admit that we love ourselves. This is the secret of the only true and eternal love". What Novalis describes here is the opposite of the physical and spiritual self-destruction that our lazy times call "self-love". Because we don't really understand yet what we mean by "ourselves", and we are in complete illusion regarding where and what is the boundary between "you" and "me", as we try to assimilate this to an international frontier, complete with its border posts, armed guards, visa and periodic shootings.

Questioning a terrorist

Here is a video of one of the shooters who killed more than 100 people in a concert venue in Moscow yesterday.

Shooter interrogation

So, that is really interesting:

In Russia, terrorists do not disappear in thin air, and they are not shot by the police. 

They are caught and interrogated.

Exactly the opposite of each terrorist attack in France in the last 20 years!

We in France should ask the Russians to train our police! Especially those at the very top. Remind them who they are supposed to serve: The people, and to whom they are answerable: The judges. Not politicians.

After cleaning the top police echelon we will finally find out who ordered the terrorist attacks of 2015 (Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan).

And honour the memory of Helric Fredou.

"for as long as it takes"

-1927: Standard Oil pledges to bring Hitler to power... 1945: Standard Oil stops supplying oil to Hitler!

-1964: The US pledges to support the military junta in Saigon till victory... 1975: The US abandons Saigon!

-1954: The US persuades Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to return to power and formed a secret police "savak" to protect him... 1979: The US abandons Mohammed Reza Pahlavi!

1969: The US persuades Lon Nol to overthrow King Sihanouk... 1975: The US abandons Lon Nol!

-1979: The US installs Saddam Hussein in Irak in exchange for antagonizing Syria and attacking Iran... 1992, 2003: The US abandons Saddam Hussein!

-1979: The US founded The Taliban... 2001: The US attack the Taliban!

-1988: The US nominates Osama Bin Laden as the first director of Al Qaeda, "the database"... 2001: The US abandons Osama Bin Laden!

-1999: The US supports Putin in Russia... 2014: The US abandons Russia and pledges full integration of Ukraine into NATO in exchange for attacking Russia... 2024: The US abandons Ukraine also!

-2011: The US founded ISIS in exchange of the destruction of Iraq and Syria... 2018: The US abandons ISIS!

-2014: The US nominates Ashraf Ghani as president of Afghanistan... 2021: The US abandons Ashraf Ghani!

-2023: The US promises forever support to Israel in exchange for attacking Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran... 2025: Israel stops its colonial policy and the US abandons Israel?

"US support is in the nature of the rope to the neck of a hanging person"

 

letter to the ICJ judges

Urgent Concerns Regarding the impending matter of South Africa v. Israel with the ICJ

Dear Madam President and esteemed panel of Judges,

I hope this message finds you well and resolute. My name is Laurent
Fournier, I live in Kolkata (India). I am reaching out to you with a
sense of urgency and sincere apprehension which prompts me to break my
customary silence.

I have always held the belief that individuals in positions of
authority, such as yourself, harbour the best interests of humanity at
heart. However, recent developments in the Middle East and the global
response to them have stirred doubt in my convictions, compelling me
to express my concerns directly to you.

As I explored the International Court of Justice's website, I took
solace in the fact that it consists of "independent judges, elected
regardless of their nationality from among persons of high moral
character." With this understanding, I address you regarding the
impending South Africa v. Israel matter, the provisional measures
hearing of which is scheduled for Thursday, 11th and Friday, 12th
January 2024.

I am sure that you are acutely aware of the gravity of the case before
you, and I believe that your ability to discern the truth, resist
external pressures, and deliver a just judgment is foremost on your
mind. The Genocide Convention, a cornerstone of international law, was
established in 1948 as a commitment to 'never again' allow atrocities
akin to those committed by the Nazi’s in WW2. 152 states out of 194
nations of the world honourably signed up to the convention. It is a
testament to our parents and grandparents that their generations
committed to a set of standards that constitute the basic principles
of right and wrong, which underpin the fabric of the world we live in
and form the basis of the lives most of us are lucky enough to lead.

The very fact that the responsibility of adjudicating on this case has
fallen upon your shoulders underscores a disheartening truth – the
failure of existing systems of checks and balances within the
international community. It is disconcerting that national interests
have tainted the operations of our global systems, allowing the mass
killing of civilians to persist without intervention. I find this
reality appalling, as do countless citizens around the world who have
expressed their horror through protests on the streets of cities
across the globe.

I humbly beseech you to approach this case with the utmost diligence,
impartiality, and commitment to justice. The eyes of the world are
upon you, and the outcome of this particular case will reverberate
through history, shaping perceptions of the ICJ's impartiality and
moral standing.

Yours sincerely,
Laurent Fournier
architect
Kolkata, India

to:

j.donoghue@icj-cij.org, K.GEVORGIAN@icj-cij.org, p.tomka@icj-cij.org, r.abraham@icj-cij.org, m.bennouna@icj-cij.org, a.yusuf@icj-cij.org, h.xue@icj-cij.org, j.sebutinde@icj-cij.org, d.bhandari@icj-cij.org, p.robinson@icj-cij.org, n.salam@icj-cij.org, y.iwasawa@icj-cij.org, g.nolte@icj-cij.org, h.charlesworth@icj-cij.org, l.brant@icj-cij.org

Thanks to Mohammed Akunjee for providing a great sample letter, and the emails of judges.

https://twitter.com/mohammedakunjee/status/1744119104921829438

Are you a Pathan? -The mobile scene!

Are you a Pathan? 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FvQdCZtpW2xk6WK296QPycWn-aydhRcz/view?usp=drive_link

fidélité

Camille Redon, par Odilon Redon

C'est la fidélité qui transforme le flirt en amour. L'attraction initiale n'est jamais innocente. Elle est toujours motivée. La fidélité sauve l'attraction, elle lui donne l'innocence qu'elle n'a jamais eue. Ce n'est pas une innocence vierge, d'avant le péché. C'est une innocence inventée, nouvelle, qui n'a jamais existé auparavant. Donc vierge finalement, mais pas au sens "comme avant", mais au sens "comme jamais auparavant". Inouïe. Toute fraîche. Un couple se sauve l'un l'autre. La fidélité sauve le monde en le re-créant.

Citizens action against neutron bombs

https://johnhelmer.net/new-evidence-that-israel-is-using-a-new-uranium-weapon-make-that-the-neutron-bomb/

The Pommer Inquiry

Dr. Heinz Pommer has conducted the most impressive and comprehensive inquiry into the physics of the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001 in New York.

His research is of interest to citizen-architects and citizen-engineers who are concerned with preserving the ethics of their profession.

A remarquable aspect of Dr. Pommer's work, in addition to the depth and breadth of his own research, is his unique effort to reconcile his own findings with those of other researchers like the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and several others. 

We can without a doubt call this entire body of work (Pommer and many others)"the public inquiry on 9/11", because unlike the NIST in the US or various government-produced, so-called "declassified intelligence reports" they disclose all their data, sources and references, enabling anyone willing, to verify whatever point they are interested in, all by themselves, and therefore also to add or correct any omission or error that may have entered, like it does into any human work. So this huge and humble effort, like the magnificent work done by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth since 2008, is a scientific, educational, and ethical effort all at the same time, and can only produce the best possible results.

This collaborative effort goes into the direction that science, education and ethics must take, if it want to thrive in the human culture.

The other aspects (administrative, political, financial, health, aviation...) of the public inquiry are treated very seriously elsewhere by other authors, in different formats (reports, books, articles, films...) and they are far too many to be listed here.

But as far as physics is concerned, you can read:

The Pommer Inquiry

http://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch01_en.html

"son of a bitch" attitude

 

recommendations on the immediate use of nuclear weapons

History article by Suvrat Raju

Another article by Suvrat Raju:

https://thewire.in/government/indias-lockdown-has-failed-heres-what-we-can-learn-from-it

Nature saved us from ourselves (Once more!)

It is becoming increasingly clear that the response to the covid virus has done the vast majority of the damage, and that at least ten times as many people have already died from lockdowns and incorrect medical treatment – including vaccines – than directly from the virus.

It is also becoming increasingly clear that not only was the virus designed as an unstoppable biological weapon (as explained in detail in the famous 2015 paper by Menachery, Baric et al.) but that most governments were informed by their own secret services or by foreign secret services that the virus was a very dangerous weapon. This may explain why government reactions were so extreme and unprecedented, and associated with a stubborn denial of the military nature of the virus. For if governments could continue to give their trust to the people who built the virus and who now offered a series of miracle cures - the vaccine being the icing on the cake - it was doubtful that the public would have been ready for such a bold gamble: Trusting the poisoner for offering a cure...

Ignoring the rational explanations of the most renowned scientists, such as for example Luc Montagnier, governments have therefore actively put forward all kinds of "influential" people, provided their theories could reinforce an alternative story about the virus.

One of these alternative theories was the idea that man had so destroyed the natural equilibrium of the planet that more and more dangerous viruses were now going to "escape" (as if nature was a "reservoir" as per the term employed by these people, of dangerous germs), and attack the human species, out of a sort of revenge maybe. An extreme case of this thesis was even put forward: That humans should from now on limit their personal interactions with "wildlife", so as not to "disturb" it in any way. The "personal" aspect and the notion of "wild" were crucial: First of all, it was not a question of stopping the production of pesticides or nuclear waste, nor the electric cars, mobile phones and mines necessary for the production of batteries. This nature was not "dangerous" because it was not "wild" or "virgin", but "humanized" and "domesticated" in a way. The danger came from the "wild" nature or from what is left of it, and which it was advisable not to approach, because it could, who knows, have the desire to "revenge" itself, for example of the collective sins of our species. That the "wild" areas of the planet have not changed for 12,000 years did not matter. It was more a modern dream, a nostalgia, than a scientific notion.

British filmmaker David Attenborough even made a video on this theme, a contemporary adaptation of the old “angry god” theme, funded by the British government channel BBC.

Another theme was that of sacrifice and obedience. Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jacinda Ardern and Narendra Modi were popular champions of this theme of the leader who punishes his people harshly because he loves them deeply. The Pope joined them, declaring, somewhat awkwardly, after a private visit from Albert Bourla, that getting vaccinated was "an act of love". A little awkward because love being in Christianity traditionally associated with sacrifice, it was a bit too visible suggestion that the vaccine could perhaps have ambiguous effects.

A variation on the theme of obedience was the respect for experts. It was a bit rich because top experts were actively ignored, and the government narrative was carried only by third-rate scientists, beginners, civil servants, students, unknown people from associated disciplines, journalists, and figures in the arts, sports, and entertainment. Obviously that was a lot of people, but solid scientists, those who had published a lot or made discoveries, were curiously missing.

A particularly divided profession was the medical profession. So many doctors and nurses were fired in France because they refused the vaccine or the administration of dangerous treatments, that Emmanuel Macron had to replace them with Lebanese doctors, attracted by a higher salary, with the condition that they obey and get vaccinated. There were no more doctors in the hospitals in Lebanon. This anecdote shows that the medical profession should not be collectively suspected of misbehaving. A large number of caregivers had the discernment and also had the courage to defend their Hippocratic oath even at the cost of their careers.

Now that the passions are subsiding, the dust is settling and we are beginning to realize the incredible extent of the damage, we can ask ourselves the question: Can this tragedy of covid shed light on our relationship with nature?

The virus was designed as a weapon. Top scientists and engineers, backed by immense funds, have been working on this weapon for decades. And then, probably during the world military games in Wuhan at the end of October 2019, the virus was released into the public. After that, it is not yet known who knew and who did not know that the vaccines were even worse than the virus. The United States Army has been fully vaccinated. It is hard to imagine that those who gave this order really knew the consequences, especially cardiac ones. No military leader, for example, would want the pilot of a fighter plane to have a heart attack when landing on an aircraft carrier. So it's likely that those who gave this type of order really thought that vaccines protected soldiers instead of disabling them.

But what is most interesting is that, even setting aside the catastrophic effects of lockdown on public health, even ignoring that many people have been routinely declared dead of covid even when the cause was not covid (like a car accident) simply because the RT-PCR test (which we now know is essentially incorrect) reported the presence of the virus, most people who died of covid died in hospital, following treatments that are now known to be often fatal. For example, 97% of people put on a ventilator died.

So the bioweapon didn't work that well. The government "response" did most of the killing.

More remarkably, its "efficacy" (a term used by Menachery et al. in the 2015 paper) deteriorated very quickly and its virulence decreased very rapidly, with each successive variant, to the point of becoming almost unnoticeable. As it spread more and more, the virus made people less and less sick.

To give a comparison, it is as if scientists had worked tirelessly, for decades, with a wealth of means and extreme confidentiality and security precautions (entire laboratories were built for this purpose, funding mechanisms were put in place to preserve confidentiality, international barriers were put in place to isolate political risks) to make the biological equivalent of the atomic bomb, a virus that is 90% lethal and without cure, and that the bomb, dropped on its victims, decides to transform on its own and becomes harmless.

Worse still for its inventors, the antidote designed in parallel, the mRNA injection, turns out to be much worse than the virus, and unlike it, shows little sign of improving over time.

It looks like a sort of repeat of the chemical weapons debacle on European battlefields in World War I, when we realized that the wind was unpredictable and could turn the weapon against those who deployed it.

The lesson of covid for ecology:

Nature saved us from ourselves. Nature is not a heritage that comes to us from the past, it is very much alive and evolving very quickly. And we are part of it. If only we want to.

Ce que le covid m'a appris sur l'écologie.

Il devient de plus en plus clair que la réaction au virus du covid a fait l'immense majorité des dégâts, et qu'au moins dix fois plus de gens sont déjà morts à cause du confinement et des traitements médicaux incorrects -y compris les vaccins- que directement à cause du virus.

Il devient aussi de plus en plus clair que non seulement le virus a été conçu comme une arme biologique imparable (comme expliqué en détails dans le célèbre papier de 2015 par Menachery, Baric et al.) mais que la plupart des gouvernements ont été informés par leurs propres services secrets ou par des services secrets étrangers, que le virus était une arme très dangereuse. Cela peut expliquer pourquoi les réactions gouvernementales furent si extrêmes et inusitées, et associées avec un déni têtu de la nature militaire du virus. Car si les gouvernements pouvaient continuer à donner leur confiance aux gens qui ont construit le virus et qui maintenant proposaient une série de remèdes miracles - le vaccin étant le cerise sur le gâteau - il était douteux que le public eut été prêt à un pari aussi audacieux.

Ignorant les explications rationnelles des scientifiques les plus renommés, comme par exemple Luc Montagnier, les gouvernements ont donc activement mis en avant toutes sortes de gens "influents", à partir du moment où leurs thèses pouvaient renforcer un récit différent sur la nature du virus.

Une de ces thèses alternatives a été l'idée que l'homme avait tellement détruit les équilibres naturels que des virus de plus en plus dangereux allaient maintenant s'en échapper, et attaquer l'espèce humaine, par vengeance si l'on ose dire. Un cas extrême de cette thèse fut même avancé: Que les humains devraient à partir de maintenant, limiter leurs interactions personnelles avec la nature "sauvage", pour ne pas "la déranger" en quelque sorte. L'aspect "personnel" et la notion de "sauvage" étaient cruciaux: Il ne s'agissait surtout pas d'arrêter la production de pesticides ou de déchets nucléaires, ni les voitures électriques, téléphones portables et les mines nécessaires à la production de batteries. Cette nature-là n'était pas "dangereuse" car elle n'était pas "sauvage", pas "vierge", déjà "humanisée" et "domestiquée" en quelque sorte. Le danger venait de la nature "sauvage" ou de ce qu'il en reste, et dont il convenait de ne pas s'approcher, car elle pouvait, qui sait, avoir le désir de se "venger", par exemple des péchés collectifs de notre espèce. Que les zones "sauvages" de la planète n'aient pas changé depuis 12 mille ans importait peu. C'était plus un rêve moderne, une nostalgie, qu'une réalité scientifique.

Le cinéaste Britannique David Attenborough a même fait une vidéo sur ce thème, une adaptation contemporaine du vieux thème du "dieu en colère", financée par la chaine gouvernementale Britannique BBC.

Un autre thème fut celui du sacrifice et de l'obéissance. Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Narendra Modi et Jacinda Ardern furent des champions populaires de ce thème du chef qui punit durement car il aime sincèrement. Le Pape les a rejoint, en déclarant, un peu maladroitement, après une visite privée d'Albert Bourla, que se faire vacciner était "un acte d'amour". Un peu maladroit tout de même car l'amour étant dans le Christianisme traditionnellement associé au sacrifice, c'était suggérer de manière trop visible que le vaccin pouvait peut-être avoir des effets ambigus.

Une variation du thème de l'obéissance fut celui du respect des experts. C'était assez culoté car les plus grands experts étaient activement ignorés, et le récit gouvernemental n'était porté que par des scientifiques de troisième rang, des débutants, des fonctionnaires, des étudiants, des inconnus de disciplines associées, des journalistes, et des personnalités des arts, des sports et du spectacle. Evidemment cela faisait beaucoup de monde, mais les scientifiques solides, ceux qui avaient beaucoup publié ou fait des découvertes, manquaient curieusement à l'appel.

Une profession particulièrement divisée fut la profession médicale. Tellement de docteurs et d'infirmiers ont été virés parce qu'ils refusaient le vaccin ou l'administration de traitements dangereux, que Emmanuel Macron a dû les remplacer par des docteurs Libanais, attirés par un salaire supérieur, avec la condition qu'ils obéissent et se fassent vacciner. On ne trouvait plus de docteurs dans les hôpitaux au Liban. Cette anecdote montre que la profession médicale ne doit pas être collectivement suspectée de s'être mal comportée. Un grand nombre de soignants ont eu du discernement et ont aussi eu le courage de défendre leur serment d'Hippocrate même au prix de leur carrière.

Maintenant que les passions s'apaisent, la poussière retombent et que l'on commence à réaliser l'ampleur inouïe des dégâts, on peut se poser la question: Est-ce que cette tragédie du covid peut nous éclairer sur notre relation à la nature ?

Le virus a été conçu comme une arme. Des scientifiques et ingénieurs de haut niveau, soutenus par des fonds immenses, ont travaillé durant des décennies sur cette arme. Et puis, probablement durant les jeux militaires mondiaux à Wuhan fin octobre 2019, le virus a été lâché dans le public. Ensuite, on ne sait pas encore qui savait et qui ne savait pas que les vaccins étaient encore pire que le virus. L'armée des Etats-Unis a été entièrement vaccinée. On peut difficilement imaginer que ceux qui ont donné cet ordre savaient vraiment les conséquences, notamment cardiaques. Aucun militaire ne souhaite, par exemple, que le pilote d'un avion de chasse ait un arrêt du cœur au moment d'atterrir sur un porte-avion. Donc il est probable que ceux qui ont donné cet ordre pensaient vraiment que les vaccins protégeaient les soldats au lieu de les rendre invalides.

Mais le plus intéressant c'est que, même en mettant de coté les effets catastrophiques du confinement sur la santé publique, même en ignorant que de nombreuses personnes ont été systématiquement déclarées mortes du covid même lorsque la cause n'était pas le covid (comme un accident de voiture) simplement parce que le test RT-PCR (dont on sait aujourd'hui qu'il est essentiellement incorrect) signalait la présence du virus, la plupart des gens morts du covid sont morts à l'hôpital, suite à des traitements dont on sait maintenant qu'ils étaient souvent mortels. Par exemple, 97% des gens mis sous ventilateur sont morts.

Donc l'arme biologique ne fonctionnait pas si bien que ça.

Plus remarquable encore, son "efficacité" (Terme employé par Menachery et al. dans le papier de 2015) s'est très vite dégradée et sa virulence a diminué très rapidement, avec chaque variante successive, au point de devenir presque invisible. En se répandant de plus en plus, le virus rendait les gens de moins en moins malades.

Pour donner une comparaison, c'est un peu comme si des scientifiques avaient travaillé d'arrache-pied, durant des décennies, avec un luxe de moyens et des précautions de confidentialité et de sécurité extrêmes (des laboratoires entiers furent construits dans ce but, des mécanismes de financement ont été mis en place pour préserver la confidentialité, des barrières internationales furent misent en place pour confiner les risques politiques) à faire l'équivalent biologique de la bombe atomique, un virus létal a 90% et sans remède, et que la bombe, lâchée sur ses victimes, décide de se transformer toute seule et devient inoffensive.

Pire encore pour ses inventeurs, l'antidote conçu en parallèle, l'injection mRNA, se révèle être bien pire que le virus, et contrairement à lui, ne donne guère de signes de s'améliorer avec le temps.

Cela ressemble à une sorte de répétition de la débâcle des armes chimiques sur les champs de bataille européens de la première guerre mondiale, lorsqu'on a réalisé que le vent était imprévisible et pouvait retourner l'arme contre ceux qui la déployaient.

La leçon du covid pour l'écologie:

La nature nous a sauvés de nous-mêmes. La nature n'est pas un patrimoine qui nous vient du passé, elle est bien vivante et évolue très rapidement. Et nous en faisons intégralement partie.

Trans

Je vais me mêler de ce qui ne me regarde pas...

Plusieurs femmes que je trouvais vraiment belles, et intelligentes ce qui ne gâche rien, sont devenues "trans".

Et je trouve ça tellement triste. C'est bien sûr entièrement personnel, je peut seulement espérer que leurs amoureux/amoureuses ont une opinion différente, mais je n'arrive absolument pas à les trouver aussi belles "transformées" en faux homme, avec leurs barbichettes, traits durcis et regard triste, qu'avant.

Nous ne sommes pas nés avec un genre, puisque le genre est une construction, mais avec un sexe, qui n'est pas une construction. L'organe de la reproduction est différent de tous les autres: C'est le seul qui n'existe pas chez une personne individuelle, mais, durant des moments plutôt courts et relativement rares (par rapport à la respiration ou la digestion) uniquement durant le bien-nommé "acte sexuel" entre un homme et une femme. C'est donc un organe partagé, éphémère, et de plus, pas indispensable à la vie de la personne, car l'organe sexuel ne peut exister que pendant une certaine période de la vie (entre la puberté et la ménopause/andropause), et pas forcément pour tout le monde. En dehors de ces courts moments proprement sexuels, l'organe sexuel n'existe pas, et ses deux parties séparées, chez l'homme et la femme, sont des organes incomplets, sans fonction, mais avec une existence quand même, qui mérite le respect.

La confusion entre "acte sexuel" et la formation de l'organe de la reproduction ne doit pas camoufler que la soi-disant "transition" est en fait une mutilation. C'est une ablation du "demi-organe sexuel", ablation qui interdit la formation potentielle, future, de "l'organe sexuel" proprement dit.

Il est devenu un lieu commun depuis le succès des idées de Freud de dire que "tout est sexuel", même les désirs des enfants, même la séduction (ou l'humiliation) sur les lieux de travail, même l'achat de marchandises symboliques, même nos rêves... Mais ces théories trouvent avec la soi-disant "transition" chimique et chirurgicale, leur test de vérité: Un homme "transitionné" n'est peut-être plus "vraiment" un homme, mais n'est pas devenu une femme non plus. Tout au plus, c'est un homme mutilé. Partiellement mutilé. Il continue d'avoir des maladies d'homme. Il peut toujours avoir un cancer de la prostate, mais pas un cancer du sein. Pareil pour une femme "transitionnée". Freud s'il était vivant nous dirait-il que "changer de sexe est aussi un acte sexuel" ? (mais Freud aurait-il pu être Freud à notre époque, avec ses idées et ses désirs tellement conditionnés par Freud ?)

Il semble raisonnable de supposer que même Freud n'aurait pas dit cela ! "Changer de sexe" est mal-nommé, c'est un changement de genre, et une mutilation sexuelle. Ce n'est pas un acte sexuel, c'est un acte anti-sexuel, c'est la destruction du sexe. Seul un "Freudisme" extrême, pour qui tout est "sexuel" sans exception, peut nous faire confondre la destruction du sexe avec un acte "sexuel".

Les soulèvements de la terre !

Les soulèvements de la terre !

https://lessoulevementsdelaterre.org/blog/nous-sommes-les-soulevements-de-la-terre

https://lessoulevementsdelaterre.org/blog/nous-sommes-les-soulevements-de-la-terre

https://reporterre.net/Megabassines-la-semaine-ou-tout-a-bascule

Covid, Chat GPT and The Consultant

The on-going covid-19 crisis is sowing confusion in our minds, and it is understandable. In the last 3 years, the overwhelming majority of authorities of all sorts (military, political, medical, scientific, educational, religious) and almost every media and all the large business corporations in the entire world and all governments baring in Africa and in Sweden, have acted in a way that looks coordinated. It is also becoming clearer every day how all these authorities and entities of power have acted in the last 3 years in a way that is harmful to humanity in every possible sense: Health, Economy, Children's rights, Worker's rights, Science, and Education.

Yet it is difficult to imagine a centralised leadership that would have ordered all these people to act the way they did. Some of them are declared enemies, yet they behaved the same way. Multi-party or one-party-regimes, military rulers or kingdoms, right-wing or left-wing governments, NATO block or regional powers, all were in unison.

Can we start asking, "Does The Devil exist"?

We are all excited by AI and Chat GPT, as adults would be in front of a baby who would have started speaking in an intelligible language immediately after birth.

We are asking Chat GPT all sorts of questions and publish the answers in newspapers! What is the news item here? The answers by Chat GPT? The fact that people ask questions and publish the answers? The questions that people ask?

To realise the gravity of what we are doing, maybe we can read (or read again) The Master and Margarita, by the Ukrainian author Mikhail Bulgakov.

A "Consultant", suave and elegant, spreads chaos and destruction targeting the most sophisticated and powerful people, in a way that nothing can be traced outside of these very people, attacking and destroying each-other and everything they claim to stand for, and the characters in the novel, and even the reader of the novel, all are looking for proofs of the physical reality of this "Consultant", and are left confused.

Chat GPT is funded by Bill Gates. Who said "of course"? But even if it wasn't him, he has so many candidates to step in his role! And we don't find much information about who controls it. Whatever "control" mean in this context. It is time to think again about this notion. What is control exactly, and does it exist?

We don't know what Chat GPT has access to. We are assured that Chat GPT is barred from politics and hate speech. Whatever that means. Just like the Gain-of-Function "research", it was never "intended" to create any harm, but on the opposite, to create "new vaccines" for the welfare of humanity. The utter confusion and self-destructive behaviour of authorities in our covid times mirror the behaviour of the society's elite, nudged by "The Consultant" in Bulgakov's novel.

It is time to keep our eyes wide open and think, as long as we have the luxury to do it. What does "intent" mean? What does "control" mean? Who wants What, actually?