South Africa To Enter Permanent Covid Security State

 

 

This may well be one of the most important pieces I have written on the current global crisis. Please share widely. (CW)

Chris Waldburger

March 18th

At a time when countries like Britain, France, and Switzerland are easing their draconian restrictions, the ANC-led South African government has not only extended the official state of disaster, they are now looking to make good on the promise to reset the country permanently, into a dark new era of permanent masking, social distancing, quarantining, and vaccine passports.

The following restrictions would be made permanent with even some expansions from the existing regulations:

1. Isolation of anybody testing positive for any notifiable disease. To be allowed to isolate at home and not in a government facility, you will need to prove you have access to your own bathroom and the ability to order food online. (Thus excluding the vast majority of the population.)

2. All public events can only operate at half the capacity of the venue and only if all are vaccinated.

3. Masks will not have to be worn outdoors but will be maintained in indoor public areas. An official quote: “A person must, when in a gathering in an indoor public place, wear a face mask or a homemade item that covers his or her nose and mouth…” (Don’t you love science?)

4. PCR testing to exit and enter country, unless vaccinated.

5. Social distancing of one metre at all times in public.

In a separate proposal, the government is seeking to include compulsory vaccination at places of employment within perpetual health and safety regulations regarding the workplace. Mandatory vaccination and the disclosure thereof would become part and parcel of the ‘risk assessment’ regime which the country has already imported from the West.

What is always striking is the absence of discussion in the media as to how vaccines are meant to improve safety in the office or factory or workshop. It is more than likely they do the opposite.

Ominously, the health minister made it clear when tabling the new draft regulations that the guidance had come from what is called the National Joint Operational and Intelligence Structure, a body with no legislative oversight brought to the fore at the same time that the country’s National Coronavirus Command Council came to absolute power. There is no need for parliament to take a vote on this - the Health Minister can simply direct these new regulations after the time-frame for public comment is over next month.

The leading opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, has indicated they will challenge this new regime legally but not much hope can be derived from this liberal political party, considering how its top brass made buffoons of themselves during lockdown by posing for photographs such as this: 

 

South Africa had one of the harshest lockdowns in the world. Over 400 000 people were arrested for leaving their homes during the highest levels of lockdown, alcohol and cigarettes were banned, and a strict nightly curfew was maintained for over a year. Even today, the country, including all its schoolchildren, remains masked and crowds have not returned to beloved rugby and cricket grounds.

Despite this, the nation’s scientists believe mass immunity has been reached, largely because the virus continued to spread throughout the lockdown. In short, the lockdown had no benefits, yet its harms were historic, catapulting the unemployment rate to 35%, the highest in the world. In the middle of the lockdown, when the former President was briefly jailed for contempt of court, a fire was lit and resulting riots led to over 300 deaths, the looting of hundreds of malls, and destruction of over a billion dollars’ worth of property.

Bizarrely, these same scientists, while implicitly admitting the utter failure of their protocols, continue to call for mandated vaccinations and masking, whilst now criticizing the government from the other side of their mouths for the continued ‘hard’ lockdown.

Why should there be any restrictions if everybody has already contracted the virus? We are never told, and the media never asks.

The central mystery here is why the South African government is so willing to destroy the social fabric of its own country. The scientists who called for lockdown originally admit now that covid will likely kill far fewer people in 2022 than influenza. Other countries are easing the restrictions to try get some semblance of normal, healthy life back, particularly for their children. Meanwhile, the ANC is pushing ahead with the Great Reset many believed had been put on ice in the West.

One possible answer to this dark mystery lies in the pending World Health Organization treaty which would outsource virus management to extra-national bureaucrats, unaccountable to citizens. South Africa is a central player in the ongoing drafting of a new global accord which would give unprecedented power to an organization whose largest donor is Bill Gates.

In this theory, South Africa emerges perhaps as a kind of prototypical outpost of the liberal empire (much as its progressive constitution and devout faith in affirmative action served as a model), maintaining and testing the architecture of a new era of digital ID, mass compulsory vaccination, and a new society in which group activity and identity exists at the whim of global elites.

If this is the case, could it be that while covid fades everywhere, South Africa and WHO get ready for a new window of opportunity to ‘build back better’ when fr4esh Chinese and Korean variants and lockdown mania reaches the West and thus global consciousness once again?

China is already locking down major cities, whilst South Korea and Hong Kong, masked and triple-jabbed, is recording record highs in cases and deaths:

 

Previously, I noted that we are still living under the siege of our governments, in a permanent state of war.

This seems set to continue in perpetuity.

One feature of warmongering regimes is their desire to sacrifice the best of their young men.

This perhaps provides a clue to why such an obviously failed vaccine is still being mandated. (The failure made most obvious by simply looking at the Israeli covid death chart.)

Indeed, one former Wall Street executive has put his quantitative skills to some decent use and calculated that last year in the US, the millennial generation, ages 25 to 40, experienced a catastrophic rise in excess death. With the onset of vaccine mandates, young adults experienced what he calls an autumn of Vietnam War-level mortality:

 

61 000 extra deaths occurred in this age group - a demographic at virtually no risk of covid - and who were meant to have largely been immunized by the vaccine!

You can verify his findings here where you can find the following data:

 

I have already reported on this same phenomenon evident in Europe which was equally confirmed by German insurance data, which I reported on here.

Mass increase in death driven by vaccine mandates and aggressive perpetuation of bio-security regimes by the likes of South Africa point to something truly hideous being born right before our eyes.

South Africans should not really be to surprised however.

The de facto ruler of the country in a state of disaster is the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, former president Jacob Zuma’s ex-wife and former Chair of the African Union.

At the beginning of her reign she made no attempt to conceal the real agenda, stating:

“However, Covid-19 also offers us an opportunity to accelerate the implementation of some long agreed-upon structural changes to enable reconstruction, development and growth. These opportunities call for more sacrifices and – if needs be – what Amilcar Cabral called ‘class suicide’, wherein we must rally behind the common cause. The coronavirus knows no class, race, gender or geographical location.”

*Cabral was a Central African Marxist revolutionary who died in 1973.

Perhaps there is no real mystery here after all.

Just as the World Economic Forum has been promising us a future in which we will own nothing and be happy, in South Africa, we are told explicitly that the future will not include property owners outside of the global elite.

All the machinery of our new dictatorial regime points in one direction.

Welcome to the global endgame of class suicide and unlimited consumer freedom married with unlimited political despotism.

 

 

Source: https://chriswaldburger.substack.com/p/south-africa-to-enter-permanent-covid?s=r

To remove Macron: forget about your "credibility", it is useless!

 

Éric Verhaeghe 

April 13th

Many French people dream of freeing themselves from Macron. But there is a catch: terror surrounds them. "What? You would vote for Le Pen? No, don't do it... you're going to lose all credibility..." I'm going to explain to you why credibility, like an appendix, is absolutely useless, and that you can recover a normal and happy life as soon as you abandon it.

Two-thirds of French people want a change of the President of the Republic according to a poll published a few days before the first electoral round. This figure is quite consistent with the results of the election, which showed that Macron did not reach one third of the votes cast (with one quarter of the French abstaining…).

Will this desire for change translate into the ballot box?

Many would love to vote for Marine Le Pen, but the weight of censorship, shame, and collective vindictiveness ramped upl by the media and powerful caste influencers promises heavy punishment for anyone who gives in to their urge to remove the current hated President.

The caste is organising its resistance against these people.

Disrepute and cancellation: the two flanks of terror

To “hold the line”, the caste uses its favorite modus operandi, now deployed on all occasions to replace democracy with a regime of enforced consent. For all those who refuse the globalist order, the sanctions of disrepute and cancellation are pronounced with full force and ring in the average mind flike the summons of the Grand Inquisitor once did.

What must be understood is the combined power of this double whammy. If you want to continue to be "credible", that is to say worthy of being listened to at the adult table, you have to declare your faith in the Republic, in democracy, in humanism, all values now hackneyed by those who claim to defend them, and which serve as a convenient way of prohibiting people from voting for the National Rally.

Cancellation occurs when, in spite of the threats, you committ an act unapproved of. So, you are canceled from dinners in town, you lose your customers, your orders, and even your simple “hello” in the street. And it's not even that you're cannot be heard. It's simply that no one pays attention to anymore.

If there were a salt mine in Siberia to send you to, they would not hesitate.

An industrialised punishment system

You voted for Le Pen and you have become untouchable.

Or so you thought.

Because it happens that this system now has a major flaw. It has become so trivialised that it has less and less impact on reality. The caste has put itself in the progressive corner of its hatred of the other and freedom of thought.

By dint of intolerance, the caste has transformed democracy into a property-based, aristocratic regime, reserved for an increasingly small fraction of the population.

The trivialisation of disrepute and cancellation began with the Yellow Vests. The slightest inclination, even very discreet, for these angry devils was worth contemptuous looks and often cost a heavy dose of distrust.

It continued with the ban on Covid treatments and the virtual mandate to get vaccinated. From there, we went from blacklisting the "fachosphere" to blacklisting conspiracy theorists, with much worse a hell reserved for them than the rest.

From now on, we are instructed to vote Macron, no matter what, without asking questions, and without addressing the flagrant inadequacies of the man. We are urged to put up with the imbecilities of his supporters, who rave about their alleged intelligence.

Such is the democracy that we must praise every morning. We must never question official propaganda and accept anything and everything as revealed truth as soon as it is pronounced by one of the caste's priests.

Otherwise, blacklisting awaits you, followed by the Inquisition's torture.

On credibility

To free oneself from one's fears, from this fear of losing one's social status, it is essential to fully understand what credibility is... and the ineptitude it constitutes.

Credibility is the ability of others to believe in you, especially when you say something. It does not appeal to reason, but to social appearance, to the imagination, per Blaise Pascal.

In itself, therefore, credibility is of no importance or substance. It boils down to the representation that others have of you, and does not concern your personality in an of itself.

Credibility, the weapon of the caste

We understand here why credibility is the favorite weapon of the caste, since it allows people to be held not by force, but by the fear of being ostracised from society.

It assumes of course that individuals are afraid of the gaze of others, and this requires two conditions.

The first condition is that the gaze of others be manipulated by the caste. It is for this reason that, over time, the caste has industrialised its cultural hegemony and “imposed its narrative” on public opinion. This strategy has notably gone through an almost systematic appropriation of the major media, which “set the tone”.

Thanks to this arsenal, it is possible to ridicule or discredit any stubborn objector.

The second condition is that each individual feel that he is a member of a community upon which he depends (the famous Hegelian myth of civil society which is not limited to the sum of the individuals who compose it). This acquired need to not be banished becomes a crucial emotional issue.

It is the social application of the dialectic of master and slave. Slaves need the approval of the master, including the Master State, to be happy.

Emancipating oneself from the master's gaze

Everyone takes a big step in life when they stop adjusting their actions to the gaze of their imaginary masters, and when they become a free person, that is to say a responsible citizen who acts according to justice and indifferent to social censure.

In the second round of the presidential elections, I advise everyone to take this step.

In this case, what disapproval do you fear from fullfilling your desire to drive out an unworthy President who has regularly spoken contemptuously of his fellow citizens whilst abroad, and who has indebted the country to a level previously unknown? This sinister individual, surrounded by an impressive band of incompetent liars (remember the historic performance of Christophe Castaner at the Ministry of the Interior, the exits of Sibeth Ndiaye, and so on), was any of them justified in giving you lessons in credibility?

Everyone's life changes, when they understand what equality between humans means: no one is entitled to disqualify, to discredit, another, nor to forbid him to say or think what he believes to be right.

A just action does not suddenly become unjust because some paid hack from Le Monde or Liberation has declared it to be so.

The weakening of the caste and its cultural hegemony

Moreover, today it is easier to “confront” the system openly than ten years ago. Since the 2008 crisis, a growing number of people at leastvunderstand that something is fundamentally skewed in the organisation of society.

I know very few macronists today who tell me that they're voting for Macron out of conviction, or who think the condition of our country is alll shining and healthy. All of them are well aware that an infernal propaganda seeks to pull the wool over our eyes.

So, do not deny your own pleasure, since the price to be paid to achieve it has dropped considerably.

If you can't stand this moralising and greedy caste, get rid of it, even by voting for Marine Le Pen.

She will not do any worse than her predecessor. And forget about the gaze of those who seek to enslave you. 

                                                              ***

France’s Marine Le Pen Vows to Recompensate Workers Who Were Fired for Being Unvaccinated:

 

Source: https://lecourrierdesstrateges.fr/2022/04/13/pour-degager-macron-oubliez-votre-credibilite-elle-ne-sert-plus-a-rien/

Translation: David Montoute

Related:  French Despot tells the Unvaccinated: "You are no longer citizens!"

Autism Rate 1 in 14 Students in NJ’s Toms River District: A ‘Harbinger’ of Things to Come

 

The Vaccine Reaction

April 9th, 2022

Based on findings by an autism spectrum disorders (ASD) monitoring system at Rutgers University known as the New Jersey Autism Study (NJAS), the autism rate for four-year-old children in New Jersey is estimated at 1 in 35 children—the highest of any state in the United States. This figure, however, is at least eight years old. It is based on a 2019 report by Rutgers that found the ASD rate in New Jersey had increased 43 percent from 2010 to 2014. The rate is likely higher now.^{1 2 3}

A news report by the Asbury Park Press last summer noted that New Jersey’s autism rate was “still climbing.” The article referenced that, for the first time, data from the NJAS had been used to “compare a cross-section of [school] districts in the state” in order to help the government of New Jersey plan for the future needs of districts with “higher-than-expected rates of students with autism.”⁴ According to the article:

New Jersey’s ever-increasing number of children with autism has significant implications for the educational resources that will be needed in the future, since such students require smaller class sizes, intensive instruction, specially trained teachers and paraprofessional aides. And as adults, eventually they may need housing, job accommodations or financial support.⁴

New Jersey County Autism Rate Triple National Average

NJAS data from 74 school districts that were studied determined that the autism rate among eight-year-old children had continued to steadily increase. Of the 74 districts, the largest suburban school district—Toms River Regional Schools in Ocean County—had an autism rate estimated at 1 in 14 children, or more than twice the state average and triple the 1 in 44 rate for the country.^{4 5 6} 

The director the NJAS, Walter Zahorodny, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said, “It feels like some kind of science fiction, but in reality, this is true. And it can’t be explained.”^{4 7}

“We’re well aware of it because we live it every day,” said Joy Forrest, director of special education for Toms River. “The district is constantly planning to meet individual students’ needs. We have programs from preschool to age 21, and each year, we are adding additional programming because of increasing numbers of students.”⁴

Dr. Zahorodny reportedly believes that the autism rate at Toms River is likely a “harbinger” of the rate that all school districts in New Jersey will soon face. “It’s very likely we will find even greater numbers of children with autism in what we consider underserved communities,” he said.⁴

In the 1970’s, the prevalence of autism in the U.S. was estimated to be between 1 in 5,000 and 1 in 2,500 children, and by 2002, it had increased to 1 in 165 children.⁸ In 2011, autism prevalence was 1 in 110 children⁹ and by 2020, it was 1 in 54 among 8 year old children based on 2016 data.¹⁰

---

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

 

Source: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2022/04/autism-rate-at-1-in-14-students-in-njs-toms-river-district-a-harbinger-of-things-to-come/

 

A Warning From Shanghai

 

 

A staff member disinfects a temporary hospital in the National Exhibition and Convention Center Shanghai on April 8, 2022. (Photo by Jin Liwang/Xinhua via Getty Images)

A new California bill threatens to strip doctors of their medical licenses for saying things the state doesn’t like. We don't have to imagine what that would look like.

 

Jay Bhattacharya Apr 12th

Remember when we were told that China was a model for the world in controlling Covid? Sure, as a totalitarian state, it was able to weld people inside their homes and monitor its citizens via drone. But many in the West believed that such measures were necessary. They argued that the abandonment of personal liberty was an appropriate way to fight a respiratory virus. 

Now Shanghai is the model for the terrifying dangers of giving dictatorial powers to public health officials. The harrowing situation unfolding there is a testament to the folly of a virus containment strategy that relies on lockdown. For two weeks, the Chinese government has locked nearly 25 million people in their homes, forcibly separated children from their parents, killed family pets, and limited access to food and life-saving medical care—all to no avail. Covid cases are still rising, yet the delusion of suppressing Covid persists.

In America, many of our officials still have not abandoned their delusions about Covid and the exercise of power this crisis has allowed. As the Shanghai debacle demonstrates, of all the many terrible consequences of our public health response to Covid, the stifling of dissenting scientific viewpoints by the state might be the most dangerous. 

I would know: For the past two years I have been the target of a smear campaign aimed at demonizing those who dare to question official policy. Now, a proposed California law threatens to make such dissent career-ending by handing the state the power to strip medical licenses from doctors who disagree with government positions on Covid.

Before I get to this awful bill, let me explain what happened to me.

In October 2020, I, along with colleagues Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Martin Kulldorff, then of Harvard, issued an open letter called the Great Barrington Declaration. In it, we expressed deep concern about the damage caused by the international public health response to Covid through sweeping lockdowns, school shutdowns, business closures, and more. 

We urged a nuanced approach that focused on protecting those most vulnerable to Covid—primarily the elderly and those with certain comorbidities—and returning to normal life those more harmed by lockdowns than by the disease. 

Nearly a million people have signed our letter, including tens of thousands of doctors and scientists from over 40 countries. In other words, we were far from alone in our belief that this was the proper response to an unprecedented pandemic. 

But the official response was swift and brutal. 

Four days after we published the Great Barrington Declaration, Francis Collins, then director of the National Institutes of Health, wrote an email to Anthony Fauci calling the three of us “fringe epidemiologists.”  He called for a press “takedown” of us when an open discussion of our ideas would have been more productive. Big tech outlets like Facebook and Google followed suit, suppressing our ideas, falsely deeming them “misinformation.” I started getting calls from reporters asking me why I wanted to “let the virus rip,” when I had proposed nothing of the sort. I was the target of racist attacks and death threats. 

Despite the false, defamatory and sometimes frightening attacks, we stood firm. And today many of our positions have been amply vindicated.  Yet the soul searching this episode should have caused among public health officials has largely failed to occur. Instead, the lesson seems to be: Dissent at your own risk.

I do not practice medicine—I am a professor specializing in epidemiology and health policy at Stanford Medical School. But many friends who do practice have told me how they have censored their thoughts about Covid lockdowns, vaccines, and recommended treatment to avoid the mob. Though Stanford is supposedly a bastion of academic freedom, one junior untenured professor recently wrote to me: “I have heard you several times on television regarding the Covid issue and find myself resonating with your views. I am inclined to express those very same opinions to my colleagues and administrative members at Stanford. I have been reluctant to date because quite honestly, I expect that my faculty appointment would not be renewed. I have the perception that free speech is just not there.”

This forced scientific groupthink—and the fear and self-censorship they produce—are bad enough. So far, though, the risk has been social and reputational. Now it could become literally career-ending.

According to California Assembly Bill 2098, physicians who deviate from an authorized set of beliefs would do so at risk to their medical license. The bill, written by Assemblyman Evan Low, a Democrat in Silicon Valley, and currently making its way through the California Legislature, is motivated by the idea that practicing doctors are spreading “misinformation” about the risks of Covid, its treatment, and the Covid vaccine. It declares that physicians and surgeons who “disseminate or promote misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” shall be subject to “disciplinary action,” which could result in the loss of the doctor’s medical license.

The language of the bill itself is intentionally vague about what constitutes “misinformation,” which makes it even more damaging. Doctors, fearing loss of their livelihoods, will need to hew closely to the government line on Covid science and policy, even if that line does not track the scientific evidence. After all, until recently, top government science bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci claimed that the idea that Covid came from a Wuhan laboratory was a conspiracy theory, rather than a valid hypothesis that should be open to discussion. The government’s track record on discerning Covid truths is poor.

The bill claims that the spread of misinformation by physicians about the Covid vaccines “has weakened public confidence and placed lives at serious risk.” But how significant is this problem in reality? Over 83% of Californians over the age of 50 are fully vaccinated (including the booster).

Because the Covid vaccines protect against severe disease and because older people face a thousand-fold higher risk of death from Covid infection, it is most important that older people be vaccinated. But there is simply no evidence that more older people would have been vaccinated had this bill been in place over the past two years. 

What is abundantly clear is that this bill represents a chilling interference with the practice of medicine. The bill itself is full of misinformation and a demonstration of what a disaster it would be to have the legislature dictate the practice of medicine. 

For starters, it fails to note that people who have contracted Covid—by now a considerable number of Californians—already have substantial protection against severe disease if they get Covid again. High quality studies have shown that this “natural immunity” provides equivalent or even greater protection than immunity generated by Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines. If this bill passes, would a California physician be in trouble for taking into account a patient’s Covid history when making vaccination recommendations? 

Another statement in the bill’s preamble asserts that the “safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” But vaccine safety also depends on any given patient’s clinical circumstances. For example, there is an elevated risk of myocarditis in young men taking the vaccine, especially with the booster. 

The bill directs the California state licensing board to impose disciplinary penalties, which could result in the loss of a medical license, on physicians who disseminate “misinformation.” A loss of a license would be career-ending for doctors who spend their lives caring for patients. But since the examples cited in the bill are themselves misleading, even physicians who practice medicine responsibly or give public presentations grounded in solid scientific research on the evolving Covid science may face unjust license suspensions. 

The ultimate effect of the bill will be to chill public criticism by California doctors of mistaken government public health diktats since few will want to put their licenses in the hands of the very public health officials with whom they disagree over the interpretation of science. Even legitimate dissent from public health orthodoxy by licensed doctors may be excised from the public square as a consequence. Worse, the widespread distrust Americans now have in public health institutions will only deteriorate further.

And that’s to say nothing of the impact this bill would have on the practice of medicine. Doctors have an obligation to treat each patient as an individual. Yet the California Assembly bill turns doctors into agents of state public health rather than advocates for their patients. 

History provides abundant examples of what happens when the state regulates science. In the former Soviet Union, Stalin’s favorite geneticist, Trofim Lysenko, dominated biology and the agricultural sciences. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of his own theory that plants could inherit acquired characteristics. Stalin empowered him to destroy the careers and lives of geneticists who opposed him, causing many to suffer secret arrests and even death. When his theories failed, the consequence was mass starvation in Russia. The Chinese Communists also adopted his beliefs—at the cost of the starvation of 30 million. 

We are not the Soviet Union, of course, nor are we ruled by Chinese Communists. California lawmakers thankfully do not have the power currently being exercised in Shanghai. But this bill follows the same dangerous principle that government-authorized science should permit no opposition from people with the credentials and knowledge to oppose it. The false medical consensus enforced by AB 2098 will lead doctors to censor themselves to avoid government sanction. And it will be their patients, above all, who will be harmed by their silence.

 

5 videos that expose the Chinese nightmare: 

 

Source: https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-warning-from-shanghai?s=r

"I am a Muslim and I will vote for Marine Le Pen"

 

Tarik 
Le Courrier des Stratèges, 13 April, 2022

I will admit to being amazed at the magnitude of Macron's victory on Sunday night. Although the phenomenon is known and documented by specialists in psychology, I still do not understand how an abused person can love their sadistic tormentor in return.

As for me, although I am a Muslim, pro-Palestinian, and although I eat halal meat and think that preventing a woman from wearing the veil is an unjustified and unfair attack on her freedom, I will vote, without any kind of hesitation, for Marine Le Pen on April 24th.

Realising that this might seem insane, I will now explain the reasons why this choice is in fact natural and necessary. It's not only about convincing my co-religionists but also about reassuring the commendable but, in my view, exaggerated and, let us say, misplaced fears of non-Muslims who are sincerely concerned about what our fate would be if Marine Le Pen were elected.

MACRON IS DANGEROUS 

First of all, it is quite obvious that this vote is not an unconditional agreement. However, it is important to understand to what extent Emmanuel Macron constitutes the real danger.

FIVE YEARS MARKED BY AN UNPRECEDENTED DECLINE IN FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

First of all, we need to remember the liberticidal measures that have been inflicted on us during the last five-year term. This is in order to balance them against the most divisive measures of Madame Le Pen, and also to make it clear what awaits us if Macron is re-elected, since we know that he will understand his re-election as a plebiscite.

Let us remember that for about a year, Macron deprived the entire population of an incredible number of freedoms such as the right to move, the right to assemble and the right to work for a large number of French people, especially restaurateurs. Then from August 5, 2021, it was the health pass and then the vaccination pass. The Health pass still deprives part of the population of free access to the hospital because of their personal choice not to be injected with a medical product. We remember the images of poor people turned away from supermarkets because they didn't have the precious open-sesame pass.

If the vaccination pass were reimposed tomorrow, which is sure to happen in the event of the re-election of the outgoing president, we should realise that, with a vaccination schedule decided by decree and without parliamentary consultation, we may need 4, 5 or 6 doses to eat in a restaurant, to see our kids, to play tennis, to go to the gym or the library or to freely access a hospital.

Let us remember that patients and people in EHPAD (residential care homes) have seen their visiting rights severely restricted (sometimes only 30 minutes a day) when they were not simply revoked, in the event of a positive PCR test.

THE REAL RISK OF DICTATORSHIP

It is also important to realise how decisive the April 24th zero hour might be, not only for the next 5 years but possibly for several generations, or even the next half-century. Few French people are aware that in the event of Macron's re-election, the very existence of democracy and universal suffrage will be threatened in France.

Indeed, we have seen with what authoritarianism Macron reigned. Attempts to restrict the freedom of the press (Avia Law) have already taken place before these projects were interrupted by the arrival of the “pandemic”.¹

Let us also remember the submissions repeated ad nauseam by the Council of State and the Constitutional Council in the face of measures of confinement and discrimination by the executive. Let us remember the laws with fundamental issues (health pass and vaccination included) readjusted at 0:00 a.m. to be voted on again at 3:00 a.m. by a handful of exhausted and confused deputies.

Let us also remember the repeated trial balloons in favor of electronic or remote voting and even the postponement of the presidential election.² If Macron is re-elected, it is quite possible that electronic or remote voting will be approved.

Might we ask if la macronie, being up to its neck in extremely sensitive matters (suspicion of collusion with McKinsey, vaccines side effects, etc.) means that Macron will not risk a new presidential election in the traditional manner? Let us remember that Macron and Attal repeated to anyone who wanted to listen that they were going to “renegotiate” the social contract to put duties before rights,^{3 4} Is it possible that the right to vote might be subject to a sanitary pass / vaccination in 5 years time? I have doubts as to the Constitutional Council's determination to oppose any such measures if they are “justified” by the “need to protect the population”. 

THE GOOD IN MARINE LE PEN'S PROGRAMME: RIP AND PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION

Speaking of democracy, it is good to highlight the democratic measures that Marine Le Pen intends to put in place. Thus Marine Le Pen intends to institute the popular referendum initiative (RIP). If this measure were adopted, it would reinvigorate democracy in an unprecedented and positive way. This would ensure that vexatious measures could not be imposed against the opposition of the majority of the population. Similarly, proportional representation in the legislative elections would make it possible to obtain a much fairer representation of the political currents that run through French society and thereby to have a real parliamentary opposition capable of curbing the totalitarian thrusts of a freewheeling president and executive.

A PROBABLE EASING OF TENSIONS UNDER LE PEN 

Moreover, it is likely that an election of Marine Le Pen would paradoxically ease social tensions. First of all, it goes without saying that if Marine Le Pen acceded to the highest office, the media would indulge in shameless anti-RN propaganda. There is no doubt then that the black-blanc-beur (multiracial) France of 1998 (symbolised by its World Cup-winning team) and diversity will once again be celebrated, and racism will once again be slain on television, as we currently see between the two presidential rounds.

On the other hand, the election of Emmanuel Macron would actually increase popular resentment towards immigrant populations who will be considered the objective allies of a government mistreating the “native” French people. What's more, Macron, having been recognised by the whole of the left and benefiting from the benevolence of the media, will have a much freer hand than Le Pen to repress Muslims. What he will not fail to do is use the language of the RN (Le Pen's National Ralley) whilst allaying suspicion as he attacks movements that are deemed far right. Let us remember that it was under this government that the CCIF and Baraka City were dissolved,⁵ followed shortly after by... Génération Identitaire (a movement considered far-right).⁶ Let us also remember how Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin once reproached Marine Le Pen for her softness on the subject.

MARINE LE PEN'S PROGRAMME DEFENDS HUMANITY'S FUNDAMENTAL VALUES

Finally, it must be understood that, the values ​​of my religion (in my opinion) are much more compatible with the values ​​of Madame Le Pen or even Éric Zemmour than with those of Emmanuel Macron. Madame Le Pen and Monsieur Zemmour can indeed be considered as conservatives defending a vision of society which, in essence, would absolutely not offend any other culture outside the West. I know how shocking this can be, but in my opinion, the differences between Islamic values ​​and Judeo-Christian values ​​are superficial and artificially hyped up. This is what people like Patrick Buisson understood.⁷

If we're honest, a Muslim is much more comfortable with the idea of ​​sending his child to a school where Christmas is celebrated than to an institution where sexual initiation lessons and LGBT propaganda have free rein from primary school.

There is no doubt that a Muslim prefers to live in a society where the veil is forbidden but childhood protected rather than a country where a minor could choose to "change sex" with hormones and a scalpel, and without the agreement of his parents if necessary. Although we are not yet there in France, that is where Emmanuel Macron and La République En Marche are taking us. As proof, a bill for the teaching of sexual identity at school has already been tabled by an LREM deputy and the debate is already raging in Anglo-Saxon countries with regard to sexual transition therapies for minors, even against parental wishes, in California⁸ and the United Kingdom^,9 among others.

In summary, while Marine Le Pen's programme does attack certain concrete but actually superficial aspects of my religion, Macron's programme threatens the fundamental values ​​of all spirituality and threatens the bases of our humanity. Values ​​such as freedom, the sacredness of the human body and that of childhood are for me non-negotiable.

It is because I prefer women to be prevented from veiling rather than 6-year-old children being forced to wear masks, because I prefer ritual slaughter to be prohibited rather than being treated like cattle with health and vaccination passes, because I prefer to have Christmas celebrated at school rather than LGBT propaganda in school textbooks, because I prefer the popular referendum initiative to a concentration of all powers, and because I am afraid of the long-term establishment of a sanitary-technological tyranny if we let this opportunity pass, that I will be voting for Marine Le Pen on April 24th.

 

 

Notes:

1 :  https://www.lesnumeriques.com/vie-du-net/loi-avia-les-mesures-phares-du-texte-contre-la-cyberhaine-n146363.html

2 : Présidentielle : pourquoi le vote à distance ne se fera pas en avril 2022 (lejdd.fr)

3 : https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/peut-on-dire-avec-gabriel-attal-que-les-devoirs-passent-avant-les-droits-20220131

4 :  https://www.bfmtv.com/politique/elysee/emmanuel-macron-sur-la-vaccination-les-devoirs-valent-avant-les-droits_VN-202112310319.html 

5 : https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/09/25/le-conseil-d-etat-valide-la-dissolution-du-ccif-et-de-barakacity_6095981_3224.html

6 :  https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2021/05/04/le-conseil-d-etat-confirme-la-dissolution-de-generation-identitaire_6079089_823448.html

7 : https://www.bfmtv.com/politique/patrick-buisson-exhorte-la-droite-a-ne-pas-s-enroler-dans-une-croisade-contre-l-islam_AV-202105080282.html

8 :  https://www.citizensjournal.us/minors-may-get-sex-changes-without-parental-consent-if-californias-teachers-union-has-its-way/

9 :  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/11/transgender-nhs-doctor-prescribing-sex-hormones-children-uk

Source: https://lecourrierdesstrateges.fr/2022/04/13/je-suis-musulman-et-je-voterai-marine-le-pen-par-tarik/

Translation: David Montoute

South Africa’s ‘Show Us the Virus’ Court Case Dismissed — “Let’s Go to Parliament!”

 

Ricardo Maarman

April 8, 2022

Original video available at HWP Report Brighteon channel.

[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee & BitChute channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]

Transcript provided by Truth Comes to Light [not being from South Africa, there was one government minister* that was unintelligible to us — possibly referring to Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs]

Good day South Africa. My name is Ricardo Marmaan and today is the 8th of April 2022, exactly three days after the Western Cape High Court dismissed our ‘Show us the virus‘ court case application, an application for an urgent interim interdict against the lockdown regulations.

It was dismissed with a punitive cost order against me. This judgment came after a 2-month long delay and exactly one day after Ramaphosa made his speech in which he so-called ended the lockdown. We know he did not end it; he merely escalated it by deceptive means.

This is a very strange coincidence. May be no coincidence all.

We asked the Western Cape High Court to grant the people legal protection against being forced by Ramaphosa and the big businesses into these harmful lockdown regulations — like the wearing of the suffocating masks, the use of these poisonous hand sanitizers, and to be forced into taking these deadly vaccinations.

Ramaphosa and these vaccine producers and big businesses already enjoy such legal protection because they are protected by the regulations. They are acting under the regulations.

We asked the Western Cape High Court, in a reasonable and just application, that the people of South Africa be granted the very selfsame legal protections.

But the court unfortunately dismissed our application with a punitive cost order against me.

South Africa, at the very beginning of this process, we asked Ramaphosa to show us the virus. He failed to do so and, therefore, he is perpetrating a virusless pandemic against the people of South Africa.

Parliament, through its silence, is consenting to Ramaphosa and now the judiciary, through its legal — using its legal power and its judgments and rulings protecting and I’m up also protecting the vaccine producers — are protecting Ramaphosa, protecting the vaccine producers, and protecting the big businesses, and depriving the people of South Africa of the very selfsame legal protection.

South Africa, it is time that we see this for what it is. Our beautiful nation has been completely, or more or less completely subverted.

Subversion means that our beautiful nation has been infiltrated by foreign aggressive actors and their local agents. And they are, through lies and deception, leading us to our own self destruction.

The National Health Act amendments will make this subversive and self destructive measures permanent. But Parliament can stop these amendments. Parliament have taken an oath to represent the interests and protect the interest of the people of South Africa, to represent the people of South Africa, to hold Ramaphosa, the Minister of —–* , and the Minister of Health accountable.

It is time that we wake Parliament up and instruct them because they are our representatives.

I suggest that you go to the Parliament website, parliament.gov [parliament.gov.za], and find the members of Parliament, identify them, contact them and go to them in droves. They live amongst us.

It is time that we instruct them that we the people of South Africa do not want these amendments because they are subversive and self destructive

— that the members of Parliament have a duty to protect the people of South Africa and to stop Ramaphosa

— that if they fail to obey our lawful instructions then it is clear that they are agents of subversion.

South Africa, do not let them divide you. Wake everyone you know up and let us act together. South Africa, do not let them distract you.

Parliament has the power to stop these amendments and we have the lawful authority to instruct Parliament to do so.

South Africa, let us all act together and let us go to Parliament, to the members of Parliament. Let us phone them, let us email them and let us go to them.

And let us say to them that we the people of South Africa say no to these amendments.

Thank you and God bless you.

 

Source: https://truthcomestolight.com/ricardo-maarman-south-africas-show-us-the-virus-court-case-dismissed-lets-go-to-parliament/