Europe may soon face a new wave of the migration crisis. Since the beginning of the year, the influx has reached a record for all six years – almost 200 000 illegal border crossings of EU countries.
Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from Africa and the Middle East calling themselves the “Convoy of Light” are approaching the Turkish city of Edirne. And it looks impressive.
The caravan of migrants formed a few weeks ago.Information is that tonight they are preparing to storm the border with Greece, and then move north through the Balkans. The final destination is the countries of Western Europe, mainly Germany.
They say this is just the beginning: in total, up to ten such “convoys” can be formed this fall…EU can thank the USA for this for creating so much conflicts in those regions…EU should soon say “thank you” to the USA for creating the energy crisis in EU…
More videos attesting to the authenticity of the migratory assault on Europe.
Acrowd of migrants decided to storm the border with Bulgaria from Edirne. The Turkish police are trying to direct the flow precisely at the Greek border.
🇮🇷 Protests in Iran. What is behind the riots in the country? Mass unrest continues in Iran for the ninth day. In many Iranian cities, the rebels are trying to create chaos and anarchy. The most intense clashes with law enforcement agencies are taking place in provinces with a predominantly Azerbaijani and Kurdish population.
🔻What is happening now?
▪️Representatives of the opposition, first of all, members of the Organization of the Mujahideen of the Iranian People (OMIN) banned in Iran, together with the Kurdish groups Kumele and the Democratic Party of Iraqi Kurdistan, are trying to ignite the conflict and unleash a full-scale revolution using the media.
▪️Western media and politicians from Europe and the USA actively help them in this. Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi “the butcher of Tehran” and criticized Joe Biden for inviting Raisi to a meeting of the UN General Assembly. At the same time, Pompeo met with UMIN leader Maryam Rajavi in Albania in May.
▪️Anti-government channels use disinformation and ignorance of the Persian language by the majority of the population of Western countries to publish false information, including about the transition of military personnel and law enforcement officers to the side of the protesters and the loss of control over some cities.
▪️The Iranian government is jamming the Internet to extinguish the unrest. During hours of special protest activity (after the working day), access to the network slows down. The Internet is not completely blocked yet.
▪️ US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said the US will provide free Internet access for “democracy supporters in Iran.” We are talking about the Starlink satellite Internet, the launch of which in Iranian territory was announced by the head of the American company SpaceX, Elon Musk.
▪️The Iranian leadership has begun using the regular forces of the Army and the IRGC to fight riots and rebellions. Tear gas, stun guns, batons are used against protesters, and small arms are used in the cities of violent clashes.
▪️According to government media, more than 700 people were detained, of which 60 were women. Opposition media are talking about more than 100 deaths during the eight days of protests.
▪️In addition, the IRGC artillery attacked the positions of the Kumele militants in the border regions of Iran with Iraqi Kurdistan.
🔻 What are the prospects? Despite the fact that the protests do not subside, the situation is under relative control. The disinformation about establishing control over cities and administrative buildings dispersed by the opposition information centers is not true. The authorities have not yet used regular troops to suppress the riots, which means that the situation is still far from a critical level. Law enforcement forces are still coping with the situation. Most of the country’s population still supports the state system.
Demonstrations were held in major Iranian cities in support of Ayatollah Khamenei and President Raisi. However, the propaganda published by various media, including the Soros Foundation and various Ukrainian sources, indicates a serious intention to shake Iran from within and overthrow the current authorities by force.
Turning off the Internet in the future to combat disinformation will deprive opponents of the power of coordinates and communications. However, this is not enough: in the future, this will actually be leveled by the satellite Internet from SpaceX.
The Iranian leadership needs to address the current crisis as soon as possible. The conflict de facto froze at one stage, and the opposition is unable to transfer it into the format of a civil war.
Nevertheless, attempts will continue: due to its geographical position, Iran today is too convenient a place to wreak havoc in the Middle East. If the situation in Iran can be shaken up to a full-fledged civil war, then all neighboring countries will be hooked. Large resolution map Russian version
Editor’s Note: This is quite very worrying. Mr. Xi has staked his reputation on so-called “Zero Covid”. Is the West possibly playing this inflexibility to his disadvantage?By persisting in this fallacy, the Chinese President risks losing the support of his population. This reminds us of the fate of Romania’s Ceaușescu. Most admired by his countrymen in 1968, hated and killed in the end after draconian deprivations of the population in order to develop the country and pay it’s debts at any cost. Is the West using the same playbook against Xi?
In continuing with China’s completely rational and totally not suspect “Covid Zero” policy, reports are now coming in that Chinese authorities are building “cages” around some homes.
This week, people living in Shanghai woke up to “green fences that had been installed by authorities overnight to restrict people’s movement,” according to a new report by The Mirror.
People with fences around their homes are not permitted to leave their properties, the report says.
Shanghai has had its 25 million citizens on lockdown for weeks due to a spike in Covid cases in the country. 39 people in the city died of Covid on Sunday, April 24, when the lockdowns began in full force.
Photographs of the green fencing being used to keep people in are making their rounds on social media. Meanwhile, citizens in Shanghai are already protesting and rebelling against the latest tranche of Covid lockdowns.
The Mirror writes that people are “shocked” by the latest step of putting up fencing. Residents had no clue the measures would be taken until they woke up one day to see it.
One foreign national told The Mirror that green fencing “popped up” a couple days ago and that the main gain to his complex was “chained up” three weeks ago.
The foreign national said: “There is a long corridor in our compound, and within the long corridor they put up another green fence three days ago. No one told us the reason it was installed.”
“No one can get out. I feel helpless. You don’t know when the lockdown is going to end. If your area gets fenced off, what if a fire breaks out? I don’t think anyone in their right mind can seal people’s homes.”
One Twitter user, a documentary filmmaker from China, wrote: “We all have heard stories of residents and even entire buildings refusing to go outside for mass testing. Some are fatigued, others fear that being together brings infection risks.”
““Some think sealed-off entrances like this are to separate these folks. The hope being that other residents of a community would not be punished for the lack of co-operation from a few. This might be wishful thinking,” they continued.
Image above:Marine Lepen had 14 millionvotes at 9.20 pm, and she had only 11 millionvotes left at 10.45 pm. Where did all these votes go?
How France 2, the national French channel exposed the truth (Marine Lepen won the 2022 presidential elections) before being told to pretend it was a “technical error” (while the results where given live and in real-time)…
Ms Le Pen is the only candidate in elections history to have less vote at midnight than she had at 9 pm. Such technocratic miracles are only possible in macronistan .
“Sorry technical error”…
Image below (link to the actual video on TV channel France 2). On the left, the real-time spread of the number of votes counted on France 2(state TV channel) at 9.15 pm (polling stations closed at 6 pm and at 8pm for few big cities).
Number of votes for Marine Lepen at 9.15 pm on the 24th of April = 13,899,494
Number of votes for macron at 9.15 pm on the 24th of April = 13,697,236
Tied, but Ms Lepen is leading. On the right, the final “results’ according to the ‘ministry of interior’
Number of votes for Marine Lepen according to the ‘ministry of interior‘ (after midnight or next day):
13, 223, 898 votes (compared to 13,899,494 at 9pm). In few hours, she lost675,596 votes. It also means that on top of this sudden loss, no more votes were counted for her. Welcome to the 4th dimension….
In the same time macron miraculously gained a staggering 4, 236,699 votes! All day long he couldn’t lead over Ms Lepen but in the odd hours after the voting ended, and behind closed doors, he gets 4 million votes…
At 9pmMs Lepen had 13,899,494 (more votes than macron), then only 13, 223, 898 once the ‘ministry of interior‘ announced THEIR results…
It gets worse, the same national channel, France 2 shows much more votes for Mrs Lepen . She is now at 14, 432, 396at 9.20 pmand still leading over macron. Then the final results from the ‘ministry of interior‘ give 13, 223, 898 votesfor Ms Lepen!
3 MILLION VOTES REMOVED FROM MRS LEPEN IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS. (France 2 screen copies)
ALLEGED FINAL ‘RESULTS’ FROM THE MINISTRY OF FRAUD. WE NOTICE A BANANA REPUBLIC SCORE FOR MACRON.
We believe Marine Lepen won this election, by a slight margin perhaps (51% to 49%), but the establishment falsified the numbers.
Algora Editor’s Note: What the coronavirus hysteria revealed more than anything else is the existence of a divide between two fundamental types of humans:
— on the one hand, the low IQ, the stupid, emotion-driven, cowardly, fearful for their life, Me-Me, dishonest and disingenuous, free riders, opportunistic, hypocritical and treacherous, for any small gain, etc.
— on the other hand, the individualistic, independent, self-reliant, honor above gain, trail blazers, leaders, rational thinkers and cost analysts, doers, etc.
Ever since Marx defined society by the economic divide, the modern mind has attempted to address economic inequality. In the end, it appears that the elites figured out that the fundamental divide is not economic but a divide among two human species. They can enroll the stupid class any time for their own use and there is no end to such reservoir of “human” support . . . until the destruction brought upon the entire society by the low IQ is complete.
The sad thing is that this divide, the true source of inequality, cannot be remedied, made to disappear, but can only be deal with by a social system that takes it into account.
Well, if you ask them they won’t deny their love affair with the memory hole. In fact, most leftists will vehemently defend censorship as absolutely moral and for the “greater good.”
Their position is basically this: We live in a “society”, and some ideas, thoughts and words are “dangerous” and destructive to that society. Therefore, those ideas and words must be eliminated from open discussion so they can protect society from itself.
But who gets to decide which ideas are dangerous and destructive? It’s rather convenient that the political left has anointed themselves the pure and objective arbiters of our culture. Purity within leftist groups is measured by expressions of “empathy” (virtue signaling). They are the thought police because, somehow, they believe they are the most empathetic.
True empathy is of course impossible to measure in another human being. You could very well be dealing with a narcissist or psychopath that is very good at pretending they care and have a conscience. They might say all the right things and have all the right opinions in public, but in their private lives they are malicious and take pleasure in causing pain in others. Humans are utterly fallible, which is why all systems of freedom seek to decentralize power through checks and balances and avoid mass censorship. All systems that value freedom and peace seek to eliminate the existence of thought police.
Leftists (and globalists) have sought to circumvent checks and balances as well as free speech protections through a number of tactics. In much of the western world they pay lip service to free speech rights when it is convenient for them, but most European nations and countries like Australia have NO legitimate constitutional measures that restrict governments from easily initiating speech suppression laws whenever they want. The draconian restrictions put in place over covid have proven this beyond a doubt.
This is what makes the US so unique as a culture, and it is the reason why leftists have pursued other methods to silence dissent.
In America, the left has partnered with the corporate world and is attempting to use “business rights” as a means to attack and diminish conservative voices. That is to say, they think that if they can harass and pressure a business to deplatform their opposition then this is a technically legal tactic because a business has a right to associate or not associate with whoever they choose. If the power of government cannot be used to muzzle their opponents, then the power or corporations and Big Tech can be just as effective.
Of course, most Big Tech corporations are NOT private businesses. They rely heavily on government subsidies and tax incentives in order to survive. If Google had to pay for the massive amount of bandwidth that it has used in the past decade they would have gone out of business a while ago, but with federal government incentives Google is given an immense advantage over its competition. In terms of state subsidies companies like Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook rake in billions.
That’s your tax dollars going into the pockets of the same corporations that claim they have the right to censor you for your political views. If they want to censor the public, then we should take away all the subsidies and the tax dollars; it’s that simple. We can let those companies implode without our money to support them.
We have seen Big Tech and social media companies silence tens of thousands of conservative’s over the past few years. The whole time these companies and the media have denied that they specifically target people on the political right (which these days means anyone to the right of full bore communism and globalism). This gaslighting has been debunked over and over again. It is undeniable that conservatives are far more likely to be blocked or banned from social media than people who express leftist views.
Once confronted with the data that proves Big Tech is biased in favor of the left, they switch gears to the same old circular argument: “Well, conservatives are banned more from social media because they are the people always posting dangerous and destructive ideas…” And we’re right back to where we started.
So let’s just establish some basic facts here before moving forward in order to avoid any misunderstandings about the left…
FACT 1: Leftists are rabidly pro-censorship. This is not up for debate. As the leftist New York Times argued in 2019, “free speech is killing us,” specifically in reference to conservative speech. They will say conservatives do the same thing and this is simply not true. We are not living in the America of the 1960’s when religious suppression of language was prominent; we are living in the America of the 2020’s where leftists have insinuated their own bizarre cult of Puritanism into US life and are viciously seeking to silence anyone that disagrees with them.
FACT 2: Leftist censorship almost always aligns with the policies and desires of establishment elites. It is a mistake to assume that corporations are being “bullied” by the left. On the contrary, corporate elites and globalist foundations are the people influencing leftist activists and molding social justice movements to serve establishment interests. Look into the background of any SJW movement and your will find hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and so on.
Leftists take their marching orders from the corporate elites. Why are leftists so aggressively pro-vax mandate, for example? Because the establishment media told them they must be – When Trump was in office and the media was anti-vax, leftists were mostly anti-vax. When Biden entered the White House the media became militantly pro-vax and so did the vast majority of leftists. They have no individual autonomy and no original thoughts; they are a hive mind waiting around for the establishment to tell them what to think.
FACT 3: Leftists believe the ends justify the means no matter the consequence, and they view contrary facts and evidence with disdain. You will almost never see a leftist argue on the basis of merit, logic or results. They will ALWAYS argue based on emotional justification, righteous indignation and the projection that anyone that disagrees with them MUST be a terrible or evil person that has malicious intent.
This is why their go-to attacks are consistently personal; they use accusations of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. in order to avoid discussions on facts and evidence. Because if facts and evidence are being presented by a “literal Nazi” then all of those facts become null and void and the person can be ignored.
FACT 4: Leftists believe the mob is the law and all other laws and principles must be subservient to the dictates of the “majority.” Leftists are obsessed with majority rule and obsessed with manufacturing consent by manufacturing a false consensus. In other words, leftists believe that if they can trick or coerce 51% of the population to think the way they do, then they have won and all of their actions are sacrosanct by the virtue of the majority. They actually believe that the other 49% of the population must submit to their dictates because the majority is god.
In truth, the mob is almost always wrong and the “majority” has a tendency to be the lowest common denominator and the most ignorant within a society.
If they can’t obtain that precious 51% of the population, then they will try to pretend as if they are the majority anyway. They will use coordinated mob attacks on their opponents to make it appear as if millions of people are against them when the mob is actually only in the hundreds or thousands. Exposure of their true numbers is like Kryptonite to leftists and they would rather disband than admit being in a tiny minority. They will respond by claiming the group “never existed” and is a “figment of conservative paranoia.”
FACT #5: If leftists could rule at the barrel of a gun, they would. Leftists are absolutely in favor of imprisoning political opponents and anyone that speaks against them, and many of them openly applaud the idea of murdering conservatives because of their ideals. Just look at how they defended the Waukesha mass killing by a BLM activist as “karma” for the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. There is no such thing as a peaceful end game for the political left. The violent direction their ideology is traveling is obvious.
But what is all the subversion and chicanery meant to accomplish? Why not confront their opponents directly instead of using subterfuge? Because they are afraid. They are terrified of legitimate debate on fair ground based on reality instead of emotional fantasy. They will do anything to avoid direct confrontation because they know they will lose.
Their common tactics include subversion, bait and switch, ambushes, and always choosing the ground that a confrontation takes place so they can control the debate and shut down their opponents whenever they start losing. This does not mean that I think that every website and platform out there is supposed to exist with no rules and no restrictions; that’s impossible by the simple fact that trolls and saboteurs exist. But leftists don’t engage in case-by-case censorship, they rely on mass censorship and enormous corporate partners to strong arm people. They aren’t interested in an honest disagreement with a respectful platform user, they are interested in silencing everyone that disagree regardless.
I can’t help but once again use the example of the leftist Jihad against Joe Rogan to illustrate my point. The left hates Rogan because he allows both political sides to have a voice on his show, and his show is bigger than anything the leftists and the mainstream media can hope to achieve. Leftists believe that if they cannot control something, then they must destroy it. An open platform that treats conservatives and their views fairly cannot be allowed to exist, so Rogan becomes a top target of the political left.
Rogan is targeted over his position on the covid pandemic and the vaccine mandates, but these are merely vehicles that leftists think they can use to rationalize the mass censorship they wanted long before the pandemic was a thing. They believe that the argument that “millions of lives are at risk” supplants all other debate. That is to say, the more people that die from covid, the happier they are because those bodies can be used are fuel to push their ideological cult forward to greater power.
The interesting thing about covid, however, is that it turns out NOT to be a very effective vehicle for the leftists in terms of using bodies to buy control.
As we saw when Joe Rogan confronted CNNs top medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta on his show, the political left is easy to destroy when it comes to debate on the response to covid, and it is a prime example on why leftists usually avoid debate on fair ground. When Rogan contracted covid the leftists were practically dancing in the streets looking forward to his imminent death. These people are so stupid they don’t seem to realize that on average over 99.7% of ALL PEOPLE that contract covid will easily survive it.
I have now had the virus twice, about two years apart, and survived both times without any treatment and without vaccination. Rogan fared even better than I did, beating back covid in just a few days, most likely because he had access to Ivermectin. The leftists and the media went into a rage after Rogan’s easy recovery. Instead of admitting defeat and admitting that vaccines are not necessary when dealing with covid, they attacked Rogan’s method of treatment, accusing him of spreading medical misinformation and promoting “horse paste” (Ivermectin). To clarify, Rogan is living proof that easy treatment of covid is possible, and this made the left angry enough to spread lies about him and his treatments.
During his debate with Sanjay Gupta, Rogan annihilated CNN’s assertions on Ivermectin and treatment for covid in general. Remember, Gupta is CNN’s top medical correspondent, Rogan is not a doctor at all, yet, Rogan wiped the floor with Gupta because the leftists have no leg to stand on when it comes to covid. When the debate ground is fair and these people have to actually defend their claims based on facts and evidence, they lose every time. They can’t beat Rogan on the facts, so they seek to beat him through censorship.
Multiple studies have now been released which prove that Ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment for covid, greatly reducing the number of hospitalizations and deaths. But, because leftists and the establishment only want vaccinations (for some reason…), millions of lives have been lost that could have been saved. What this shows is that leftists do not actually care about saving lives, they only care that people submit to their agenda. The covid vaccines are ineffective and unnecessary, but they represent public fealty to leftist authority, and that is all that matters.
There is even less logical support for the vax mandates, which are designed to force people to accept vaccines through coercion. Leftists claim this is not force because they think force only entails holding a gun to someone’s head (which they would do if they thought they could get away with it). This is not reality. Force also includes taking away people’s rights and removing them from the economy. It includes making people’s lives miserable until they “choose” to comply.
The biggest leftist lie when it comes to covid and the primary justification for the authoritarianism and censorship is the claim that unvaxxed people are a threat to everyone else, and they have no right to put other people at risk. Again, you will never see a leftist try to defend this moronic claim in a fair debate forum because it cannot be supported. If the vaccines worked, then vaxxed people should have nothing to fear from the unvaxxed. If vaxxed people still have to worry about contracting covid and dying from covid, then the vaccines MUST NOT WORK.
And this is the reality leftists and the media do not want to talk about. Vaxxed people are just as likely to transmit the virus to others. Vaxxed people are just as likely to contract covid as the unvaxxed. Vaxxed people still end up in ICU and still die from covid, and some state numbers indicate that vaxxed people are more likley to die from covid. As a point of reference, in the state of Massachusetts alone there have been over 262,000 fully vaccinated people who still ended up infected with covid and 1054 deaths according to official numbers. That is an infection fatality rate of 0.4%, which is HIGHER than the national average IFR of 0.27%.
To summarize, the vaccines are pointless and vax mandates are criminal. Leftists cannot defend either one on scientific or moral grounds. Their only option is to silence anyone who has the guts to talk about the truth. They are weaklings with no reason in their heads, and these are the types of people that always turn to mass censorship as a tool to legitimize their ideology.
Search Console has identified that your site is affected by 1 Coverage issues:
Top Warnings
Warnings are suggestions for improvement. Some warnings can affect your appearance on Search; some might be reclassified as errors in the future. The following warnings were found on your site:
We recommend that you fix these issues when possible to enable the best experience and coverage in Google Search.
Is that the first warning before deplatforming Algora Publishing to be followed up by the so-called “cancel “? Google, a private company, is doing the bidding for the unconstitutional censoring of free speech? Is Google now the new unelected government with dictatorial power operating as the Thought Police?
We all have the word “Democracy” in our mouths and our media warn us against the authoritarian drifts of illiberal countries. However, some of us refuse to organize contradictory debates on the attacks of September 11 as well as on the reaction to the Covid-19 epidemic.
The three monkeys at the Toshogu Shinto temple. They illustrate the precept of a Chinese sage: “Say nothing wrong, see nothing wrong, hear nothing wrong. They could also illustrate Western cowardice: “Say nothing of the Truth, see nothing of the Truth, hear nothing of the Truth.”
The celebrations of the 20th anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001 give rise to two absolutely contradictory narratives, depending on whether one refers to the written and audio-visual press or to the digital press. For some, Al Qaeda declared war on the West by plotting a high-profile crime, while for others the same crime masked a domestic coup d’état in the US.
Any debate is impossible between the supporters of these two versions. Not because both sides refuse it, but because the supporters of the official version -and only they- refuse it. They consider their opponents as “conspiracy theorists”, that is to say, in their mind, at best fools, at worst evil people, accomplices -willing or not- of terrorists.
From now on, this disagreement applies to any major political event. And the worldview of the two camps keeps distancing itself from each other.
How could such a fracture between fellow citizens occur in societies that aspire to democracy? Especially since, not this fracture, but the reaction to this fracture makes any democracy impossible.
The continuous news channels prioritizes speed over event. They do not have the time to contextualize it and even less to analyze it; functions which are the proper of journalism. The viewer becomes a voyeur of things he does not understand.
A CERTAIN CONCEPTION OF JOURNALISM
We are assured today that the role of journalists is to report faithfully what they have seen. Yet when we are interviewed by a local media outlet about a story we know about and see how they have handled it, we are often disappointed. We feel that we have not been understood. Some of us lament that we have come across the wrong journalist and retain our trust in the mainstream media. Others feel that while a little distortion is possible on small issues, a lot more must be done on more complex ones.
In 1989, a crowd attending one of his speeches heard the Romanian dictator, Nicolae Ceaușescu, accuse the fascists of having invented the Timișoara massacre attributed to his regime’s torturers. Revulsed by this denial, the crowd revolted, chanting “Ti-mi-șoa-ra! Ti-mi-șoa-ra!” and overthrew him. The local television station in Atlanta (USA), CNN, broadcast live the few days of this revolution. It thus became the first live news channel and turned into an international channel. However, we know today that this massacre never existed. It was only a staged event using corpses taken from a morgue. It was later learned that a propaganda unit of the US Army had an office adjacent to the CNN newsroom.
The Timișoara manipulation only worked because it was live. Viewers had no time to check or even think. Professionally, no journalist ever drew any conclusions from the event. On the contrary, CNN became the model for the live news channels that have sprung up everywhere.
During the Kosovo war, in 1999, I was producing a daily bulletin summarizing the information from NATO and the regional news agencies (Austria, Hungary, Romania, Greece, Albania, etc.) to which I had subscribed [1]. From the beginning, what Nato was telling us in Brussels was not confirmed by the regional agencies. On the contrary, they described a completely different conflict. It was strange to see that the regional journalists, from all countries except Albania, formed a block, writing texts that were compatible with each other, but not with those of NATO. Week after week, the two versions were moving away from each other.
I n response to this situation, NATO put Jamie Shea in charge of its communications. He told a new story every day from the battlefield. The international press soon had eyes only for him. His story became the media story and the regional news agencies were no longer covered except by me. In my mind, both sides were lying and the truth had to be somewhere in between.
When the war was over, humanitarians, diplomats and UN soldiers rushed to Kosovo. To their surprise – and mine – they found that the local journalists had accurately reported the truth. Jamie Shea’s words had been nothing but war propaganda. They had been the only “reliable” source for the international media for three months.
Western journalists who went to Kosovo also found that they had trusted people who had lied to them with aplomb. Yet few of them changed their tune. And even fewer managed to convince their editors that NATO had deceived them. The narrative imposed by the Atlantic Alliance had become the Truth that the history books would repeat despite the facts.
ANCIENT GREECE AND THE MODERN WEST
In ancient Greece, plays caused strong emotions in the audience. Some feared that the gods would drag them into dark destinies. So gradually the chorus, which narrated the story, also began to explain that one must not be fooled by what one saw, but to understand that it was only a staged show.
This distancing from appearances, which is paralyzed by the myth of live information, is called in psychology the “symbolic function”. Small children are incapable of this, they take everything seriously. However, at the “age of reason”, at 7 years old, we can all make the difference between what is true and what is only a representation.
Reason here is opposed to rationality. To be rational is to believe only in things that are proven. To be reasonable is not to believe in impossible things. This is a very big difference. Because we don’t find the Truth with beliefs, but with facts.
When we see airplanes hitting the World Trade Center in New York and people jumping out of windows to escape the fire, we are all very moved. When the Towers collapse, we are ready to weep. But that should not stop us from thinking [2].
We can always be told that 19 hijackers hijacked four airplanes, but since these people were not on the airline’s lists of passengers on board, they could not hijack these planes.
One can always tell us that the fuel from the two burning planes slipped onto the pillars of the buildings and melted them, which would explain why the Twin Towers collapsed, but not on themselves, and not the collapse of the third tower. For a building to collapse, not on one side, but on itself, you have to blow up its foundations, then blow it up from top to bottom to destroy the floors on themselves.
One can always tell us that panic-stricken passengers phoned their relatives before dying, but since the telephone companies have no record of these calls, they did not exist.
One can always tell us that a Boeing destroyed the Pentagon, but it could not have entered through a porte cochere without damaging the doorframe.
The testimonies contradict each other. But only some are contradicted by the facts.
WHY WE ACCEPT TO BE DECEIVED
There remains a big problem: why do we accept to be deceived? Usually because the Truth is harder for us to accept than the lie.
For example, when for years the son of the president of the National Political Science Foundation denounced the rapes he was subjected to by the president, everyone pitied the poor delusional boy and praised his father for enduring his madness without saying a word. When the victim’s sister published a book of testimonies, everyone realized who was telling the truth. The president was forced to resign. The rapist owes his escape from justice only to his status: former European deputy, president of the emblematic institution of the entire French political-media class and president of the Siècle, the most exclusive private club in France.
Why do we believe that Al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Because the Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, came before the United Nations Security Council and swore it. It doesn’t matter that he lied years earlier when he validated the story of the incubators stolen from Kuwait by the Iraqis and the babies left to die. Or that he lied later about President Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. He is a Secretary of State and we must believe him.
On the contrary, if we question his word, we should not only ask why we invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq, and so on. But also and above all why he lied.
The irremovable Anthony Fauci has managed every major epidemic in the US. He does not work as a doctor, but as a senior civil servant. He does not care about the Hippocratic oath. He has not hesitated to embezzle public money to sponsor illegal and dangerous research in a distant country. Or to promote the compulsory confinement of healthy people.
THE REACTION TO COVID-19: ANOTHER 9/11
The enigma of 9/11 is not a question of the past. Our understanding of the last twenty years depends on how it is answered. As long as we do not have contradictory debates between the two versions, we will reproduce this fracture on all global issues.
We are currently experiencing another catastrophe, the Covid-19 pandemic. We have all seen a large laboratory, Gilead Science, bribe the editors of the medical journal The Lancet to denigrate a drug, hydroxychloroquine. Gilead Science is the company formerly headed by the 9/11 Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. It is also the company that produces a drug against Covid-19, Remdesivir. In any case, no one dared to look for drugs to treat Covid anymore. Everyone turned to the hope of vaccines.
Donald Rumsfeld had instructed his staff to develop protocols in case of a bioterrorist attack on US military bases abroad. Then he asked one of them, Dr. Richard Hachett, who was a member of the US National Security Council, to extend this protocol to an attack on the US civilian population. It was this man who proposed the compulsory confinement of healthy populations, provoking an outcry from American doctors, led by Professor Donald Henderson of John Hopkins University [3]. For them, Rumsfeld, Hatchett and their advisor, the senior civil servant Anthony Fauci, were enemies of the Hippocratic oath and of humanity.
When the Covid-19 epidemic occurred, Dr. Richard Hatchett had become the director of CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations); an association created at the Davos Forum and funded by Bill Gates. It was Hatchett who first used the expression “We are at war”, which was taken up by his friend President Emmanuel Macron. It was he who advised confining healthy populations as he had imagined 15 years earlier in the “war on terror.” Anthony Fauci, on the other hand, was still at his post. He had embezzled federal money to finance illegal research in the United States. The research was conducted for him at the Chinese laboratory in Wuhan.
Normally, the medical professions would have risen up again against the compulsory confinement of healthy people. This did not happen. They overwhelmingly considered that the situation required violating the Hippocratic oath.
Today, the Western countries that followed Dr. Hatchett’s advice and believed Gilead Science’s lies have a terrifying record of this pandemic. The United States has 26 times more deaths per million people than China. And its economy is devastated.
This would deserve some debate and explanation, but no. We prefer to see our societies fractured again between supporters of Anthony Fauci or Professor Didier Raoult.
CONCLUSION
Instead of talking to each other, of confronting our arguments, we organize false debates between the supporters of the dominant doxa and those of the most grotesque opinions possible.
It is useless to aspire to live in a democracy, if we refuse to really discuss the most important subjects.
President Biden has announced the forthcoming creation of an international organisation of democracies in the face of the rise of authoritarian Russian and Chinese regimes. Contrary to the official rhetoric, this is not about defending democracies, but about promoting US imperialism. This fight is futile because it has chosen the wrong opponent.
The President of the United States, Joe Biden, has announced that he is convening a virtual summit on December 9 and 10, 2021 to defend “Democracy”. Three main themes will be discussed: “defending against authoritarianism, fighting corruption and promoting respect for human rights”. During the meeting, the leaders present will commit themselves “to improving the lives of their own people and to addressing the greatest challenges facing the world”. This will be followed by a second summit in 2022, at which leaders will report on progress made relative to their commitments.
These meetings were announced by Joe Biden during his election campaign. At the time, he said that the aim was to defeat Russia and China. The real objective is therefore to define a criterion that distinguishes the two blocks in formation, as in the past a capitalist world was distinguished from a communist world.
DEMOCRACY AS A POLITICAL REGIME
If in the 19th century, the United States was perceived as a new democratic model – see in particular Alexis de Tocqueville’s work, De la démocratie en Amérique -, today it is nothing more than an oligarchy: effective power is held by a tiny group of hyper-billionnaires outside public institutions, while the political personnel is reduced to the role of extra.
In practice, the United States has never recognised popular sovereignty, and therefore democracy. Instead, its constitution is based on the sovereignty of governors, although an electoral system has gradually been put in place. In the 2000 presidential election, there was a dispute between two candidates, George W. Bush and Albert Gore, over the recount in Florida. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that constitutionally it did not need to know the election results in Florida, but only the opinion of the local governor, Jeb Bush (the candidate’s brother). As a result, George W. Bush was declared the winner, while the Florida recount gave Al Gore as President.
Today, democracy as a political system is challenged by the Woke ideology that President Biden claims. Equity between ethnic groups, which he has made his pet subject, is opposed to equality between all [1]. The democratic institutions of the United States are being challenged in practice by the secret counting of ballots, which has given rise to the legitimate assumption of massive electoral fraud. Finally, the mob assault on the Capitol attests to the fact that democratic institutions have lost their sanctity.
ALL POLITICAL REGIMES COME AND GO
In the eighteenth century, Western monarchies had run out of steam. They no longer had any recognised legitimacy. They still claimed to be of “divine right”, but their subjects no longer believed in them. Regimes based on “popular sovereignty”, democracies, emerged. The remaining monarchies adapted, not by renouncing their ’divine right’, but by combining it with ’popular sovereignty’.
In the 20th century, when the economic crisis of 1929 hit, the Western press claimed that capitalism was dead and that a new political system had to be invented. First it was communism, then fascism. It should be remembered that Benito Mussolini had been Lenin’s representative in Italy before he came up with fascism. Capitalism was thoroughly reformed by Franklin Roosevelt, fascism was militarily defeated, communism collapsed with the USSR, and democracy survived.
In the 21st century, and more particularly since the Covid epidemic, we have witnessed the sudden emergence of some fifteen very large IT groups, around the GAFAMs (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft). Their power is now greater than that of most states. They do not hesitate to censor the ideas they want and the people they want. This includes information from states about Covid’s medical treatments, and even messages from heads of state and government themselves, right up to the sitting US president. No political leader keeps Bill Gates (Microsoft) or Jeff Bezos (Amazon) waiting if one of them phones him, but he can delay or even refuse a communication from the US President. They are imposing their agenda, transhumanism, which should turn us into computerised animals and their leaders into superior beings who go out to conquer space.
Under these conditions, all democracy has become impossible. Western voters are going to the polls less and less because they have understood this. Only a third of those registered to vote in the last French elections did so. The institutions are still democratic, but democracy is a practice and the French have become detached from it.
This situation is absolutely new. It is true that the disappearance of the Western middle classes began with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the transformation of the European Common Market into a supra-national structure dates from the same period. But nothing, absolutely nothing, foretold what is happening to us.
Democracy is, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “Government of the People, by the People and for the People”. Today, nowhere does the People govern themselves. Even if some states are resisting, such as Iceland or Switzerland, the fact is that the democratic ideal has become impossible to implement in the face of GAFAM. In the absence of democracy, i.e. the participation of the People in political life, the most important thing is to ensure that the decisions taken are in the general interest, which is what we call the Republic.
This situation is changing month by month. We have to fear terrible developments for our freedoms and for our means of living. In any case, the current facts are already unacceptable.
We cling to our formerly democratic regimes because we do not know what to replace them with. But we increase our problem by denying the obvious. So, just as we have kept monarchies alive beyond the end of “divine right”, we keep our democracies alive beyond the failure of “popular sovereignty”. However, the situations are not identical: no one believes in divine right power any more, but we have all experienced the validity of the principle of popular sovereignty. It is not a question of making a revolution against the GAFAMs, but of waging a war to make them give back the Power they have stolen from us. It is not a question of imagining a new type of political regime, but of defining rules that make democracy possible again.
Henry of Navarre intervened in the civil war in France. He managed to make Catholics and Protestants live together. He did not present himself as a monarch of divine right, but as a man who dedicated his actions to serving the general interest. On the advice of the jurist Jean Bodin, he was the first French sovereign to declare himself “republican”.
DEMOCRACY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON
Just after the dissolution of the USSR, US President Bill Clinton asked himself the same question as his successor Joe Biden: how to distinguish the Western bloc from the others? He devised a ’Global Democracy Strategy’ and set up a secret group in the White House to implement it.
We do not know who constituted this group, but we have identified its evolution during George W. Bush’s term. It was led by Liz Cheney (daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney) and Elliott Abrams (who organised the parliamentary overthrow of Hugo Chavez at the end of Bush Jr’s term [2] ). This group oversaw several overthrows at the National Security Council, such as that of the constitutional president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya. It did not practice the military methods of the CIA, nor the pseudo-revolutionary methods of the NED, but invented a model for parliamentary coups. What followed was an epidemic of parliamentary overthrow of governments in Latin America.
Experience shows that democracy is now only a form, not a reality. One can trample on the Constitution and overthrow a government ’democratically’ as long as one puts a parliamentarian in charge.
We have no doubt that this office in charge of the Global Democracy Strategy still exists and will soon be in the news.
Already, this Strategy again rekindles the project of an “Alliance of Democracies” promoted by the essayist Francis Fukuyama, which the Bush Administration had imagined replacing the United Nations. The former Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, created in 2017 a Foundation for the Alliance of Democracies.
OUR POLITICAL FUTURE
We need to admit that Russia and China are not worse than us, but rather face the same problem with a different culture. We need their help just as they need ours.
Together or separately, we will not find the solution immediately. We have to start fighting without knowing what form our victory will take, but we already know the basis. We must therefore specify the principle on which we want to build new democracies for ourselves or our children: the Republic.
Summary
States are being overtaken by new giant corporations, the GAFAMs. As a result, governments, whoever they may be, can no longer meet our expectations. It is wrong to speak of a “crisis of democracy” when it is a crisis of all political systems.
President Biden’s efforts to defend democracy are doomed to failure because they no longer correspond to the problems of the contemporary world. At most he can continue under this false banner to promote his country’s imperialism.
We can refuse the illegitimate power of GAFAM and defend ourselves by promoting not a political regime, but a decision-making criterion: the Republic.
In 1951, Solomon Asch conducted his first conformity laboratory experiments at Swarthmore College, laying the foundation for his remaining conformity studies. The experiment was published on two occasions.[1][11]
Results
In the control group, with no pressure to conform to actors, the error rate on the critical stimuli was less than 1%.[1]
In the actor condition also, the majority of participants’ responses remained correct (63.2%), but a sizable minority of responses conformed to the actors’ (incorrect) answer (36.8 percent). The responses revealed strong individual differences: Only 5 percent of participants were always swayed by the crowd. 25 percent of the sample consistently defied majority opinion, with the rest conforming on some trials. An examination of all critical trials in the experimental group revealed that one-third of all responses were incorrect. These incorrect responses often matched the incorrect response of the majority group (i.e., actors). Overall, 75% of participants gave at least one incorrect answer out of the 12 critical trials.[1] In his opinion regarding the study results, Asch put it this way: “That intelligent, well-meaning, young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern.”
Haiti, refused a donation of 756,000 doses of AstraZeneca vaccine proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) via the Covax mechanism, reported Tuesday April 6, according to the Spanish news agency EFE who quotes a high-ranking source requesting the anonymity within the Haitian Government.
According to this source the Haitian Government refused to receive the AstraZeneca vaccine, manufactured under license by “Serum Institute of India” because of “the global unrest surrounding this vaccine”, considering that the population of Haiti “would not accept it”.
The Haitian authorities have asked the WHO to send vaccines from other laboratories to Haiti, including the vaccine from Johnson & Johnson laboratories which requires only one injection and which can be stored at temperatures between 2 and 8 degrees Celsius. But the World Health Organization is “reluctant” to accept Haiti’s demands, reminding Haitian authorities that “the deadlines are running out”.
Note that Haiti is one of the four countries in the world (out of 192 infected with Covid-19) not to have started to vaccinate its population against the coronavirus according to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director General of WHO.
Search Console 
Henry of Navarre intervened in the civil war in France. He managed to make Catholics and Protestants live together. He did not present himself as a monarch of divine right, but as a man who dedicated his actions to serving the general interest. On the advice of the jurist Jean Bodin, he was the first French sovereign to declare himself “republican”.