Élections législatives 2024

François Asselineau, le seul candidat -hors extrême-droite- de la 11ème circonscription des Français de l'étranger qui n'aurait pas empoisonné ma fille en 2022. Il a mon vote.

En plus il est sympa :

Profession de foi

Vidéo

Site Web

Steve Kirsch and Science

Steve Kirsch has been, from 2020, one of these voices of reason in a time of panic.

His presentation below is extremely important.

https://open.substack.com/pub/stevekirsch/p/what-the-data-tells-us-presentation

Steve Kirsch's work is evidence that Bruno Latour was wrong. Science cannot be what scientific institutions produce. It is necessary that science is also produced outside of scientific institutions. Covid is an example of science escaping outside scientific institutions when they become too incompetent and corrupt. And we know that incompetence and corruption is a part of the life of any institution. Therefore Bruno Latour was wrong. Science defines what scientific institutions should do, not the other way round. Epistemology has bright days ahead!

1933-2024

 

1933: Reichspräzident Hindenburg dissolves Parliament 

2024: Président Macron dissolves Parliament 

When did Vladimir Putin become a "Putinist"?

 

1999: Russia brutally invades Chechnya, destroying entire cities. Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac liked Vladimir Putin very much, but I was upset at him. I even helped send a truck of food, medicine and relief material to Chechnya, ("Convoi syndical pour la Tchétchénie",  2000), which the Russian army let our truck driver and leader, Eric Aragon, distribute himself in the refugee camps, but the French media did not support us and observed a complete silence. I also donated some money to an outstanding team of Chechen performing artists in a fundraising tour in France, again in complete media silence.

(How I wish a single man was able to drive a relief truck 4,000km to Palestine, sleeping in the truck at night, without getting killed or robbed, without the food getting looted or destroyed, without the truck being bombed, to distribute the food and relief material himself with his own hands to families, and returning safely with his truck,  and redoing it again and again, year after year!)

Anyway... little could I have known that I was a "Putinist", already!

2001: The United States invades Afghanistan. Vladimir Putin officially supports the invasion.

Georges Bush liked Vladimir Putin a lot. I didn't.

2003: The US and the UK invade Iraq. Tony Blair, who fabricated fake intelligence and had the good fortune that his chief bioweapon engineer, Dr. David Kelly "suicided" in time to facilitate an invasion that would kill 1 million civilians, liked Vladimir Putin very much.

I didn't. 

On 26th June 2003, Putin and Blair sign an agreement on "Long-Term Energy Partnership", including a "North European Gas Pipeline", which became famous,

when it spectacularly vanished 19 years later.

Of course, Madeleine Albright, who famously declared that killing 500,000 Iraqi children was a price "worth it" for weakening the rule of Saddam Hussein, also liked Vladimir Putin very much. But her endorsement didn't change my poor opinion of Putin.

Neither did the high appreciation of war criminal and serial looser Henri Kissinger (Vietnam 1968, Cambodia 1970, Bangladesh 1971, Chili 1973) for Vladimir Putin change my mind.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy also liked Vladimir Putin a lot, especially after Russia didn't react when France bombed Libya after having extracted their signature at the U.N. on a "humanitarian intervention", but instead killed the Libyan President live on TV, along with more than 50,000 other Libyans, captured the Libyan gold, and finally installed religious fanatics at the new government.

My opinion about Vladimir Putin was at the lowest. He was a spineless client of the Western empire, like so many regional leaders before him, a non-descript character.

However, my bad opinion softened a bit in March 2012, when I received a online petition by Amnesty International-USA demanding my signature for:

"asking Russia to speak out against Syria atrocities".

It is still here, including some arguments in the comments section:

https://blog.amnestyusa.org/justice/19-reasons-why-russia-must-speak-out-against-syria-atrocities/#comments

This petition by "Amnesty International-USA" was the first public indication that this time, Russia maybe, maybe only, would not help the West commit yet another genocide. Russia had invaded Chechnya, approved the Western invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, remained silent when Libya was destroyed, but here for the first time I had some hope that the country of Dostoyevski, Bulgakov, Soljenitsyne and Tarkovski may not go along so easily.

And the greatest fear of Amnesty International-USA, and my discreet hope, turned out to become true!

Finally, after 3 years of hesitation, a few days after a visit to Moscow by Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, the vanquisher of the Western mercenaries called "islamic state", Russia decided to join forces with the Syrians and the Iranians, and to save Syria from the Western wolves, on 30 September 2015.

I remember this time. 

Just 3 months before, I had launched an online petition to ask the French President Hollande, to stop waging war against Syria. Only 20 people, probably "putinists" like me, signed it. I had no idea if Russia finally would take a stand.

But they did.

I realised that not only Serguei Lavrov, but probably Vladimir Putin himself, had also become a "Putinist", just like us!

After Putin became a "Putinist", I also changed. I started to respect him, and maybe even, to like him.

Megan Ganz's concept of humanity

Megan Ganz had a concise description of Dan Harmon, when asked by a journalist what she thinks of him:

"He's a work-in-progress"

She adds:

"That’s how I think of myself, too".

When you have a concept that encompasses yourself and others, you have nothing short of a working definition of humanity.

Here, that's not theoretical philosophy. This statement by Megan Ganz came 6 years after Dan Harmon harassed her at the work place, and a few days after he publicly apologised, without naming her. She felt so safe after his apology that she publicly forgave him, thereby disclosing her name.

A crucial part of Dan Harmon’s apology is this: 

"I certainly wouldn’t have been able to do it if I had any respect for women on a fundamental level. I was thinking about them as different creatures. I was thinking about the ones that I liked as having some special role in my life, and I did it all by not thinking about it".

Dan Harmon describes his earlier perception of Megan Ganz as a perfect entity, as someone who is completely described by what she is, and not as someone imperfect, in the process of becoming what she wants to be, with her own personal, secret trajectory. And Dan Harmon understands that his earlier perception was faulty. It took 6 years to people as intelligent as Megan Ganz and Dan Harmon, for him to understand this, and for her to calmly express it publicly (but she understood immediately, not after 6 years, as we can see in the links below).

This is of enormous consequences. It holds the key to reverse the weaponisation of identities, a trap many, if not most, of even our most accomplished intellectuals fall in, today.

That we are all work-in-progress, and at the same time, all helping each-other, makes all of us, everyone of us, a teacher of humanity.

It is one thing to deliberate about concepts from the comfort of a settled life, another one to create the concept out of your direct encounter with the forces of life. What you create then, is a new reality, a new world, a new space and a new language, that enables human encounter to happen and in fact, life itself, of which humans are a part, to grow. Concepts, when born out of life and lived truly, are the most powerful things we can create, and have a power that extends far beyond our individual lives.

We can be grateful to Megan Ganz and Dan Harmon for treading this path, not theoretically but by their own courageous lives.

Dan Harmon’s apology (starts at 18'):

http://www.harmontown.com/2018/01/episode-dont-let-him-wipe-or-flush/

The full transcript:

https://slate.com/arts/2018/01/dan-harmon-apologizes-to-community-writer-megan-ganz-on-harmontown.html

Some introduction and context:

https://www.vulture.com/2018/01/it-took-me-years-to-believe-in-my-talents-again-read-this-twitter-exchange-between-megan-ganz-and-dan-harmon.html

https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/dan-harmon-megan-ganz-apology-1201916560/

Loyalty vs Obedience

We have to think of loyalty not necessarily to someone or something, but as an intransitive verb. Being loyal is an action springing from the depth of the I, on its own ground, and for this reason loyalty always finds a just way to be loyal to everyone and everything together, even enemies. Loyalty always takes full responsibility for its actions.

By contrast, obedience is always to someone or something. It is a sacrifice of one's own ground, a renunciation of responsibility, and it is exclusive: You can never obey two enemies together.

Loyalty strengthens the I, obedience weakens the I.

This has a strong relationship to algebra: Defining one's loyalty to apparently conflicting people or agendas, is the same as solving a system of multiple equations, for which the "x" is the I. Clarifying the equations and solving them in action build the I.

By contrast, obedience has no agency in posing equations, even less solving them, because the "x" is already given, and one has to shrink oneself to fit in.

Only a strong I can defend morality.

Swissair

Jean-Marc Reiser, l'Hebdo Hara-Kiri n°85, 14 septembre 1970

Pierre Fournier, l'Hebdo Hara-Kiri n°86, 21 septembre 1970

C'est pas facile de trouver des dessins gentils pour les Palestiniens dans la presse Française... en voilà deux autres!

Si vous en connaissez d'autres, envoyez-les moi ou mettez un lien en commentaire. Merci!

Quand les Palestiniens ont bousillé des avions, ils étaient vides et au sol

 

Jean-Marc Reiser, Charlie Hebdo n° 121 du 12 mars 1973

C'est pas facile de trouver des dessins gentils pour les Palestiniens dans la presse Française... en voilà un autre!

Notice of Liability delivered to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Dr Maria van Kerkhove, Dr Janet Diaz and Jeremy Farrar

Notice of Liability delivered to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Dr Maria van Kerkhove, Dr Janet Diaz and Jeremy Farrar

https://open.substack.com/pub/drtesslawrie/p/the-notice-of-liability-delivered

Full text:

The Notice of Liability delivered to individuals at the W.H.O. this week Addressing both corporate and personal liability in wrongdoing DR TESS LAWRIE, MBBCH, PHD​ Below you will find the text of the Notice of Liability delivered to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Dr Maria van Kerkhove, Dr Janet Diaz and Jeremy Farrar this week. It was drafted with the help of specialist international lawyers and health scientists. Feel free to copy, paste and adapt for the purpose of notifying others of their liability in relation to the Covid-19 fraud. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: a man dba: Director General World Health Organisation (WHO) Office of the Director General Avenue Appia 20 1202 Geneva - Switzerland        6th day in the month of May in the year 2024 Dear Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (hereafter ‘you’), Re: Notice upon Harm and to Cease and Desist On behalf of living men, women and all their sons and daughters living right now and those yet to be born on Earth, we hereby place you: a man: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, doing business as the Director General of the World Health Organisation (hereafter W.H.O), on notice that: Your actions carried out in the capacity of Director General of the W.H.O during the Covid-19 chapter, principally consisting of falsely informing world governments of a so-called pandemic, thereby causing governments to declare non-existent medical emergencies, have been and are still an integral part of a chain of events that is resulting in mass loss of life, immense physical harm and untold psychological distress and trauma to the people on this planet; Said actions appear to have led to Governments deploying insufficiently tested SARS-CoV-2 genetically modified organisms (GMOs) falsely termed ‘vaccines’ being also gene therapies, mandating unscientific masking protocols, implementing inhumane and anti-scientific ‘social distancing’ measures, purchasing and deploying ineffective and fraudulent PCR tests subsequently used to create false ‘casedemics’ in order to justify unlawful ‘lockdowns’, business closures and house arrest; We demand that, with immediate effect, you cease and desist from taking further actions that would involve false and fraudulent communication to governments thereby causing or resulting in further instances of the kind of catastrophic outcomes outlined above. Notice upon Personal Liability We also put you on notice that failure to cease or desist from continued or repeated involvement or implication in the above harms shall render you liable both in your personal and corporate capacity. As a man, you shall be investigated for criminal conspiracy. As a corporate officer, you shall be investigated for gross negligence, serious misconduct in public office, corporate fraud and potentially even aiding and abetting corporate manslaughter. Further to the above Notices, and in order to clarify our position, may we take this opportunity respectfully to remind you of your own position and legal responsibilities. WHO Constitutional Obligation The objective of the World Health Organization (WHO), according to Article 1 of the WHO Constitution, is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.1 Thus, in your role as WHO Director-General, you are obliged to consult with a diversity of experts, including those who disagree with your recommendations on health, to ensure that best practice is ethically and objectively promoted to uphold the best interests of the public. As early as 2021, international experts were cautioning against the novel Covid strategies recommended by the WHO Covid team, especially but not limited to the experimental modRNA medical technologies developed at ‘warp speed’ to function purportedly as vaccines. The WHO Constitution states in Article 67 that members of the WHO may enjoy ‘such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.” Such privileges and immunity, whilst patently unfair, inequitable and dangerous, only apply when fulfilling the Article 1 objective. By your unilateral recommendation of harmful Covid strategies, The People, represented by the World Council for Health, do not believe that you acted in accordance with your constitutional obligations in Article 1. If your actions are found to be in contravention of Article 1, you will not be covered by Article 67 of the WHO Constitution that provides for the stated protection and immunity. In other words, you may be personally liable for the millions of deaths and immense suffering caused on account of your role in the unlawful authorisation of these harmful recommendations. Moreover, given the blatant conflicts of interest evident in the WHO’s activities, closely connected to commercial interests, immunity is not guaranteed when acting at the behest of those interests. Consequences of your WHO Covid Policies, Recommendations, Advice and Omissions 1. Immeasurable suffering and death In the past four years, billions of people who trusted and complied with WHO-based country government advice have experienced ongoing physical and mental suffering, illness, disability, loss of income, poverty, child abuse, other violence, and even death as a result. 2. Human rights violations Country governments worldwide implemented severe emergency measures directly based on WHO recommendations that consequently resulted in widespread violations of fundamental human rights. Boys, girls and babies were masked and injected. Living men and women expressing, or wishing to express their right to free speech, travel, bodily autonomy, and to choose, were threatened, intimidated, coerced, neglected, abused and in some cases assaulted, imprisoned or killed. The WHO did nothing to address the harm it caused. 3. Failure to recommend inexpensive, safe and effective treatments and remedies for Covid-19 Covid-19 can be effectively treated with safe and established multi-purpose generic medicines, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, and other immune-boosting, health-promoting and anti-coagulant treatments. Failure to disclose and raise awareness of these, and failure to recommend ivermectin widely in combination with zinc for early use, meant that millions of people suffered and many died as a result of not being offered effective early and late treatments. By recommending ivermectin only in the context of clinical trials and omitting sound and practical advice on how to attain the highest level of health during the Covid-19 scare, ivermectin and other effective treatments were withheld in many countries in favour of expensive GMO drugs, emergency-authorized patented pharmaceutical drugs without safety records. Thus, in your personal capacity, the world’s people may hold you responsible for the consequences of serious omissions related to safe, effective treatments for Covid-19, in preference for undisclosed GMOs. 4. Dangerous GMO gene therapies deployed in the guise of vaccines You may also be personally liable for death, loss and suffering in relation to the SARS-CoV-2 ‘vaccines’ as you have not advised people of the following: The long-term material risks of these ‘vaccines’ are unknown. The LNP-modRNA platform fulfils EU, UK, South African, Australian, and US legal definitions for being properly deemed a genetically modified organism (GMO), and a gene therapy, where material risks are identified over a period up to 15 years and perhaps into offspring. People were not advised as required by law that the so-called ‘vaccines’ are, in fact, GMOs. Pfizer used one process to manufacture the products that they submitted for approval but a different process to manufacture the product supplied for injection into the world’s people. The latter product was manufactured using E.coli bacteria and plasmid DNA which has resulted in excessive synthetic DNA contamination confirmed as able to integrate with the human genome. Moderna’s use of plasmid DNA in manufacture has also led to excessive synthetic DNA contamination. Pfizer products includes a SV40 virus-derived enhancer gene sequence. This gene sequence is known to facilitate the transport of the synthetic DNA into cell nuclei, posing a real risk of chromosomal integration. This threatens permanent genetic modification of inoculated people without their knowledge or consent and can only be harmful. The contents of these genetic injections do not stay in the arm muscle. Spike proteins are produced for a prolonged and unknown period of time, possibly indefinitely. These spike proteins trigger extensive microvascular blood clotting as well as large vessel blood clots. Spike proteins are deposited in many tissues and organs including the heart, brain, testis, ovaries, liver and spleen, causing tissue degeneration and disease. The large quantity of spike proteins may overwhelm the immune system, causing immune system dysfunction and worsening risk of all infections and cancers. The spike protein is toxic in itself, but this foreign antigen also marks the victims’ own tissues as non-self, triggering autoimmune disease within these tissues. The antibodies generated are non-neutralizing and worsen Covid disease; this is “antibody dependent enhancement” of infection. Undeclared plasmid DNA in these products carries further dangers; especially in the case of Pfizer and the concealed SV40 enhancer and promotor sequences. This includes the disruption of tumour suppressor genes, and adds to the list of mechanisms by which these products increase cancer risk. The artificial modRNA in these products is hyper-persistent due to the substitution of N1-methylpsudouridine in place of uracil. This prolongs the production of the toxic spike proteins, but also causes ribosome frame shifting, such that a variety of unpredictable proteins and polypeptides are also generated. These pose serious risk for triggering a large spectrum of autoimmune diseases. Additionally the pegylated lipid nanoparticles, which deliver the genetic payload into the victims’ cells, are toxic in and of themselves. 5. Violation of informed consent Based on your authority as the designated WHO Director General, the majority of people around the world trusted your words when you stated that Covid-19 GMOs and gene therapies were “safe and effective”. This claim cannot be substantiated and is further disproved by Covid-19 vaccine contracts. As such, the right to free and informed consent was violated for every human being who was injected with the experimental Covid-19 GMO gene therapy called ‘vaccines’. In addition, it appears that at no point did you appraise people of the risks associated with these experimental GMO injections, nor have you shared the mounting vaccine injury reports with the public. Vigibase, the WHO pharmacovigilance collaboration with the University of Uppsala, holds the records of over five million people suspected of harm due to the Covid-19 genetic ‘vaccines’, yet you have failed to demand and ensure transparent, independent and timely analysis of these data. This is in direct contravention of the Nuremberg Code, that was agreed to in 1948, to prevent non-consensual medical experimentation on human beings, following gross human rights violations during the Second World War.2 Your failure to advise on, recommend, promote and ensure free and informed consent for these Covid-19 GMO gene therapies can be prosecuted for both breach of your duty of care as well as for battery. World Council for Health Invitation It is our opinion that the health of the World’s People is much poorer for the actions that you have taken during the course of your work responsibilities at the World Health Organization. In the circumstances, we are morally obliged to invite you to defend your actions or apologise publicly with a plan for reparations. A World Council for Health Country Council General Assembly is scheduled to take place on May 21, 2024, to hear your response and to agree on further necessary actions. In the interim and in future, we demand that you cease and desist from spreading disinformation about the Covid-19 GMO gene therapy products with immediate effect. By the men and women named below: World Council for Health Steering Committee Shabnam Palesa Mohamed (WCH Africa), Fahrie Hassan (WCH Africa), Emma Sron (WCH N. America), Dr.Marivic Villa (WCH N. Americas), Dr. Mark Trozzi (WCH N. America), Izumi Kamijo (WCH Asia), Rev. Dr. Wai Ching Lee (WCH Asia), Dr. Gilbertha St Rose (WCH Caribbean), Christof Plothe DO (WCH Europe), Dr. Mazen Nasreddine (WCH Levant), Lucinda van Buuren (WCH Oceania), Dr. Anne O’Reilly (WCH Oceania), Prof. Héctor Carvallo (WCH Latin America), Marco Albertazzi (WCH Latin America), Dr. Tess Lawrie (WCH Chief Coordinator) ‘Notice to principals is notice to agents and vice versa’ Swiss solicitor, Philipp Kruse, delivered the notice in person to the WHO headquarters around midday on Monday 6th, 2024. Here he is confirming delivery: The WHO and its employees can no longer say they are ignorant of the issues and public concerns. Here is the signed receipt of the documents: The World Council for Health Steering Committee is extremely grateful to lawyers Philipp Kruse, Julian Gillespie, David Adelman and the many, many others who informed, assisted and supported this international collaboration toward truth, justice and accountability. Thank you for your support! If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber of this Substack or the World Council for Health Substack, if you have not yet done so. All proceeds go towards the humanitarian work of the World Council for Health.

If lies can start wars, truth can stop them.

There is an essential difference between truth and love, and it is the exact opposite of what people believe:

Truth can never exist alone. It is a joint effort between at least one person who expresses it and one person who understands it. Sometimes the effort is greater on the side of the one who expresses it, sometimes on the side of the one who understands it, and sometimes appearances are deceptive!

Which leads us to love, which can exist, not of course in isolation but always exclusively on its own foundations. To love is a completely sovereign decision, perhaps the only sovereign decision accessible to us.

Thus, expressing (or “doing”) a truth is an act of love, and understanding it is also an act of love. These 2 free acts are necessary for the truth to exist. But love began before, and above all, it does not depend, on either side, on any condition. She is free and sovereign.

So that's why Julian Assange said that:

"If lies can start wars, truth can stop them".

Julian Assange, indefinitely in jail in the U.K. while the judges of the Western Empire keep trying to clarify, since 14 years already, why they should put him in jail, maybe hoping he will suicide or get a fatal disease, Julian Assange is not only a courageous journalist but a philosopher. 

And maybe his courage and his philosophical clarity are the reason our corrupt western ruling elite is so much afraid of him, and these assholes at "The Guardian" insist he's not a journalist. Because if he's, then clearly they are not.

Today, news are on Telegram channels, substack and rumble. Opinions, admonishing, commentaries and counselling are in the legacy media. Vanessa Beeley, Eva Karen Bartlett, Donbass Devuschka, etc. etc. are all children of Julian Assange, our Socrates who will NOT suicide! ❤

WHO pandemic treaty

There is a lot of justified fear about the WHO pandemic treaty to be signed in May.

I just found in the ELIANT Newwletter a very interesting insight:

"Anyone who studies the online documents relating to the Pandemic Agreement will see from parts of the wording the extent to which there is scope for discretion and there are legal grey areas regarding the manner of interpretation and practical implementation. Here it is not reassuring either that, contrary to earlier fears, countries will retain their sovereignty. After all, this is not synonymous with their citizens' rights to self-determination and freedom of expression being respected in health matters."

The crucial point here is that the Pandemic Treaty is literally gifting every government on the planet a powerful tool of control of their population, and it is very difficult to imagine which government, however honest and well-meaning, would possibly refuse such an instrument of power, available at all times at their discretion.

We have seen since February-March 2020 that almost no governmental and non-governmental authority on earth had the courage to refuse the tremendous access to power that the covid provided them, and despite the unprecedented disaster that has ensued, no government or organisation has apologised yet, barring Daniele Smith the Premier of Alberta, Canada.

This is the link to the Eliant Newsletter:

http://mailings.eliant.eu/m/15270782/1380806-6b4c2e3f994bfddcf2a989da211530451fef64a74cdbb91198dbecaf5cf84573a2f069fd415afd4680edff504066a0b7

I strongly disagree with the wording of the first paragraph and with many other aspects of this newsletter, but the paragraph quoted above remains remarquable in its clarity.

Victims of genocide refuse to be weaponised!

 

When the victims of one of the worst genocides in history refuse to be weaponised for justifying yet another genocide! The compassion of victims of genocides for one another will defeat racism!

Hebdo Hara-Kiri, 31-8-70

 

Pierre Fournier, Hebdo Hara-Kiri, 31 août 1970

C'est pas facile de trouver des dessins gentils pour les Palestiniens dans la presse Française... en voilà un.

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