The path to freedom

The provax/antivax divide: elementary my dear Watson!

Whether one thinks that the current restriction of our freedoms is due to a nasty virus or to the Machiavellianism of the politicians in power, it is all the more urgent to open the investigation on a crucial question: can we believe that public and even private freedoms — going to see our parents in Ehpads or in hospital, moving freely, etc… — can be reduced for health concerns? And if the answer is yes, as long as the government claims that we are still in a democracy, wouldn’t it be the least we could do to not ostracize individuals whose words contradict those of politicians with arguments that are based on common sense? Could the road to freedom be paved with voluntary servitude? The question already decided negatively by La Boétie in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1574) deserves to be asked again if the time is not so far away, as illustrated by the photo at the top of this article, when the Nazis claimed to re-educate a child-people by intimating to them the unquestioning obedience that would make them free.

The mainstream media, which since March 2020 has devalued/censored the word of doctors and citizens who question the government’s anti-Covid policy, has been busy for months accrediting the existence of a seemingly major debate: that of the anti- and the provax. On my right are the provax, disciples of Pasteur, of Progress and Science; on my left, the antivax, disciples of obscurantism, of superstition, in short, indecrottable, conspiratorial and anti-Semitic rednecks. Such is the simplistic presentation that the official vision of the political news in France has been selling us for months. It is therefore worthwhile to find out more and especially to ask what exactly this divide means, which would be laughable in other times but which is very worrying in the current context.

The first observation is the fact that the demonstrations that take place week after week in 220 cities of France mix pro and anti-vax people who, neither for the one nor for the other, recognize themselves in the binary propaganda of the government, propaganda unfortunately relayed by muddled or dazed plumbers who think they are informed without having taken the trouble to come in contact with the demonstrators. What do they want? They are asking precisely to regain their natural rights, including the right to be the sole judge of what is good for their health; most of them do not recognize themselves at all in the anti-provax divide because they are duly vaccinated by the compulsory childhood vaccines and tested in a safe way so as to have obtained marketing authorizations for decades. Some of them are doubly vaccinated with anti-Covid injections. For them, the debate is not about the benefits of preventive vaccination, as one of their leaders, Dr. Christian Perronne, has often reminded us. On the one hand, it concerns the mRNA injections that are the anti-Covid pseudo-vaccines that are still in the experimental phase until 2022, 2023, depending on the brand. On the other hand, it concerns the discriminatory character of the so-called sanitary pass, which they call « Nazi », because it inaugurates a second-class citizenship, something that had not been seen since the fall of the Vichy regime in France. A major taboo has thus been transgressed by the Macron regime and this, of course, as always in such cases, under cover of the best intentions in the world. The demonstrators, both vaccinated and non-vaccinated, have seen and denounced. They do not intend to be convinced by this pretext of the government’s best health intentions. This is what the government and its supporters do not forgive them. This is where the insult of « conspiracy theorists » comes from, in place of a debate that cannot take place without unmasking the power grab on the civilian population. Let’s make an incision here to question how this question of government intentions should be addressed.

The quarantine of critical speech.

Much has already been written about the counterproductive and even aberrant nature of the health policy followed by the French government in recent months. This is the most commonly chosen line of analysis, as it allows one to criticize this policy while not risking social ostracization for the sin of conspiracy, or even the accusation of defamation of government members. However, we must recognize the problems that this option raises: it excludes in principle an intention to do wrong on the part of the government, whereas guiding texts exist such as the 2030 Agenda on the World Economic Forum website⁽¹⁾the manifesto of the President of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, assisted by Thierry Malleret: Covid 19: The Great Reset⁽²⁾a project of the French Senate⁽³⁾- that raise questions about the benevolent nature of the intent behind the government’s actions. Not to mention the books of Jacques Attali who has long been announcing the entry of the West into a New World Order, an iron market order with no counterweight⁽⁴⁾. These texts accessible to the general public are extremely worrying: they argue massively against all our hard-won liberties in the name of a supposed reinforcement of our civil, sanitary and ecological security thanks to Artificial Intelligence and a regime of close surveillance of each individual at every moment of his life. They demonstrate without a doubt that some of those in the levers of power ardently desire that the Republic and the natural rights of Man and Citizen be replaced by a global totalitarian regime, a dystopia increasingly impossible to perceive as such by a humanity under absolute technological control. 

Secondly, this « benefit of the doubt » reading tragically delays civil society’s awareness of what the government is preparing, leaving it defenseless and as if permanently stunned by a conflict of loyalties whose tension is extreme since it consists of endlessly wondering what to believe in a government that claims to be acting for its health while destroying the economy, solidarity and conviviality — all the compulsory vaccination measures currently concern convivial social life — restaurants, café terraces, swimming pools, TGV, inter-city trains, cinemas — and health with the banning of non-injected people from hospital care — but not the subways, jobs and sleep.

Without understanding the trap that is set for them by the government’s nerve, which they deny, some people think they are defending the progressive option of the vaccine when they are actually helping the government to make us all fall into the hardest totalitarianism of all times, since it is technologically assisted like no totalitarianism of the past has ever been. They do not understand that one day they, who have fallen into angelism, will in turn be worried, because the government is not looking for progressives or blind believers in Pasteurian science who will eventually wake up, but for followers with the obedience of corpses; Is it not already asking citizens to pretend not to notice the lies it has been telling for months about the uselessness and then the obligation of masks, about the virtue of confinements that have no other effect than to create infection hotbeds within overcrowded houses and today about the extortion of consent to the injections of spike proteins of the virus disguised as free and informed consent for the naive? A good subject of a totalitarian regime is not a rationalist progressive but an individual who is aware that the regime asks him to sacrifice his conscience and who willingly consents in exchange for certain symbolic and material benefits.

Progressivism on the fritz

Already the simple creation of a status of non-vaccinated citizens of second zone is a sign that should have provoked the exit of progressive and lucid citizens by millions in the streets of France and Navarre. It must be recognized that many citizens who have received one or even two doses of these mRNA injections are out in force Saturday after Saturday, alongside those who do not want to comply with the law because of the lack of hindsight, but also because of common sense considerations about the outbreak of the pandemic in countries that have injected en masse, such as Israel and Iceland. But the intellectuals, the unions and the so-called progressive political parties have abandoned the people. History will one day have to look at this new strange defeat in the land of the Enlightenment… The majority of the injected people only want one thing : the quiet enjoyment of the terraces, etc… even if it means closing their eyes to what the injecto-skeptics have been trying to tell them for months — those who have decided that the urgency in this matter was to wait, given, as the officials themselves say, that these injections do not protect against contamination by the new variants and that, even after being injected, one is still contagious to others in case of a new contamination The return to normal life, free, equal for all and fraternal is therefore for … never.

What is worrying in this situation is the dogmatic, even sometimes fanatical assurance that the vaccinologists claim, assurance that sweeps aside the so-called Kouchner law of 4 March 2002⁽⁵⁾- to name but one — but it is obvious that it is the direct heir of the Nuremberg Code (1947)⁽⁶⁾- making the free and informed consent of citizens to receive experimental treatment an inviolable dividing line, unless we are to fall back into the crime against humanity. But suddenly, and notwithstanding the failure of injections to create a collective immunity, the vaccinologists advocate a kind of complete disregard for the principles and laws still in force, as if no doubt were allowed and as if efficiency should prevail over individual freedom. But how effective can it be when, according to official Israeli figures⁽⁷⁾, the end of freedoms does not even get the immunity expected? On the other hand, when we look at the satisfactory health situation in countries like Sweden and Estonia, where individual freedoms still have a voice, at least temporarily, we can see that the vaccine passion is just that, passion and nothing more. And that it should not be taken seriously except to wonder about the denial that seems to animate its thurifers: denial as to their hasty and unreasoned desire to get out of a painful situation certainly but which does not oblige anyone to sacrifice freedom to adhere without more to the dogmas of the State, especially given the suspicious character of the one-sided propaganda activated by the media This is obviously a way of closing the debate before opening it and is very bad form in a democracy worthy of the name.

Guilt, stress, demonization, exclusion: the Judaization of the non-injected?

It is good to criticize the very real miasma of anti-Semitism that invades the anti-sanitary pass and anti-freedom measures demonstrations; this reality I have always denounced as vile and simultaneously counterproductive: while the islamo-leftists and neo-fascists of the proletariat and the middle class conspire against their Jewish fellow citizens of the same modest social spheres, the cynical and corrupt oligarchs of all origins, delighted to see once again the people venting their anger on the most vulnerable of the minorities, easily take the chestnuts out of the fire: the traditional scapegoat has once again fulfilled its function as a lightning rod for the elites in power Especially since these unscrupulous elites include people of Jewish origin who, as Evelyne Tschirhart so aptly put it in her latest article⁽⁸⁾They are going to make a double profit: on the one hand, populist anti-Semitism will allow them to decry the enemies of Big Pharma and the monumental profits of GAFAM (Google, Amazon, Facebook). They will benefit twice: on the one hand, populist anti-Semitism will allow them to decry the enemies of Big Pharma and the monumental profits of GAFAM (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft) as neo-Nazis — they who transgress the Nuremberg Code: great art! — on the other hand, they will allow themselves to endorse the false opinion that the government’s health policy goes hand in hand with the rejection of the Final Solution; in short, that experimental injections — none of which have received definitive authorization to be placed on the market, which is why the manufacturers decline all responsibility in the event of side effects, and moreover the European Commission does the same — imposed without the free and informed consent of the population are equivalent to a … humanitarian measure !!! The intellectual and moral confusion is at its peak!

The memory of the independent Jewish ex-deportees and their children: whistleblowers for today

However, discordant voices are being heard from the ranks of the victims of the Shoah, such as Vera Sharav or another Jewish survivor of the anonymous camps⁽⁹⁾ which establishes a clear link between the mistreatment of civilian populations by the governments invested in this policy, including that of Israel, and the premises of the extermination of the Jews in 1939–45. Israeli citizens demonstrate by denouncing the genocidal nature of the « vaccine » obligation on their swastikas. Are they by any chance to be classified as anti-Semites or is it rather that the most conformist of the Jews — there are conformists everywhere — would like to stifle their voices? 

Social networks are overflowing with the anguished cries of Australian and Chinese citizens forcibly separated from their families and placed in the narrow cells of quarantine camps; we also know that the death by Rivotril of many residents of Ehpads, the prohibition of doctors to prescribe by practicing a classical liberal medicine which is and remains a clinical art and not a science or a technological exercise, the masks imposed on children all day long at school, the lowering of the level of the recruitment exams for secondary school teachers⁽¹⁰⁾ and even the deliberately shocking vocabulary of the Minister of Education Blanquer, who wished to « evict » unvaccinated students from school — all of this argues in favor of a comparison of the current situation with the three-stage strategy of the Nazi regime, as the Shoah historian Georges Bensoussan has recalled. First the Nazis said to the Jews: « You can’t live like us anymore » which was made official by the Statutes of the Jews, also considered, at the time, as defilers of the good race, lice, vermin and today by the sub-citizenship of the non-injected who are sometimes left to suffer like dogs in front of the hospitals under the pretext that they don’t have a sanitary pass Then the Nazis told them: « You can’t live with us anymore » and they were locked up in concentration camps under the pretext of better forbidding them to pollute the air of the non-Jews; today quarantine camps are opening all over the world, a measure out of all proportion for a virus that kills 0.03% of the infected. Finally the Nazis said to them: « You cannot live any more », and they carried out their genocidal project. 

Can we decently deny that the authorities have forbidden the treatment of patients with Covid before they reach death’s door, i.e. in intensive care, and that they persecute doctors who intend to exercise their freedom to prescribe? Can we deny that the authorities have asked for the euthanasia of people in Ehpads via the administration of Rivotril without collegial consultation or consent of the families? Can we decently hide the ravages of wearing masks on the physical, cognitive and socio-emotional development of children? Can we really forget those who died for lack of care for other illnesses for which the hospital, in which 8000 beds were cut in the last few months, refused to accept them, overloaded as it was with Covid patients who landed there as a last resort after having been left at home with a Doliprane during the first week of their illness? And the ignominious condition of the dying, isolated without permission to receive their families for a last goodbye? And the hasty cremation of the dead by the thousands? Is this a health policy?

Today, a sort of false religion of the Shoah should not be used as a pretext to accept the unacceptable and forbid to point out the abominable and highly worrying character of the loss of individual liberties and equality with other citizens of those who do not accept the governmental narrative on Covid and the totality of the so-called « anti-Covid » measures — and what about fraternity trampled on by this government as an outdated scrupule? — and prevents intellectuals from thinking and committing themselves frankly to democracy and humanity and against the new barbarism in progress. Since when did it become a crime to use one’s brain to do anything other than glorify the powers that be? 

We know, listening to Lechypre, Blachier, Moreau, Bachelot and other vaccinators on TV, that the signal for a massive demonization of those who resist the State propaganda has already been sent and that it will be relaunched in an ever stronger manner in the weeks and months to come. We know that the immune escape of the newly infected will be disguised as contamination by the unvaccinated and that the spiral of media lynching has only just begun. Expecting worse if we accept this. It is about humiliating and damaging the self-esteem of human beings who value their freedom and the truth over and above the spin of government propaganda — in order to make everyone internalize that a terrible fate awaits them if they refuse to obey and admit that the way to freedom is through total submission to power. This is how the power relayed by the media wants to bring the mass to separate from them, even to howl with the wolves in order to be safe. When their image is completely degraded, they will easily become scapegoats and they will be animalised or even chosified like those « rag dolls » that the Nazis saw in the Jews. They will be nothing more than viruses on legs. In this case one kills easily because the other has been completely dehumanized.

I present here an unflattering but true mirror to all those who take up the government’s fallacious and dangerous pro-/antivax divide in order to urge them to get their act together and understand what their responsibility is today. It consists in finding the way back to the understanding of a point of view which is not necessarily theirs but which has allowed, until now, that democracy, made of critical thinking and debates, survives year after year. There is no freedom without responsibility. By continuing to play the ayatollahs of experimental injections, they lend themselves — for reasons that are only sanitary in appearance — to the criminalization of the debate of opinion and, in fine, of non-conforming citizens and of democracy itself, all this for ends that go far beyond them but that they do not take the time to know or understand.

Any demonizing word is a performative word, accompanying an action of social and then physical exclusion, as Colette Guillaumin shows in L’Idéologie raciste⁽¹¹⁾. It is therefore hardly possible to trivialize this demonizing word at the risk of allowing the next step to be taken. And don’t talk to us about conspiracy! There was a time, not so long ago, when those who foresaw the introduction of compulsory vaccination and the health pass were treated as conspirators: it is to them and not to their detractors that current events are proving right. And, even if it makes me look bad, I would rather make a fool of myself today in the eyes of the ostriches by speaking of planetary genocide than to find myself an accomplice tomorrow because I would have preferred to hide my face rather than to warn my fellow citizens.

But I will be told that your analogy with the Shoah is not valid! Yesterday’s Jews were guilty of nothing in the eyes of the Nazis except for being born, that is to say, being struck by a supposed biological curse, that of the race, whereas today’s opponents of injections could easily find peace and serenity just by accepting a small injection of nothing at all: my God, what a deal! However, the notion of « race », defined by the Nazis, was as unscientific — as we know today — as the obligation of mRNA injections without visibility on their side effects and the disproportionate liberticidal measures. On the other hand, fanatical hygienism, medical experimentation violating Habeas Corpus, euthanasia of the « useless » and the destruction of individual liberties under the guise of protecting the community were, yesterday as today, already part of the ingredients of oppression, as was the systematic hunting of opponents. Should we — and in the name of what? — refuse to see it and denounce it? The path to freedom is not, and never has been, for adults, unfailing obedience to the political power in place. The principle of a  duty of disobedience in case of orders that contravene the law and the general interest is, moreover, inscribed in the Code of Ethics of the Police, in the Code of Defense of the Army and in the Le Pors Law of July 13, 1983, governing the Public Service.

Nadia Lamm