Lockdown Harms Impossible to Cover Up
BY MICHAEL SENGER | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | JUNE 26, 2022
According to a recent study by the World Bank, published in the journal Nature, lockdowns and the response to Covid-19 have pushed an additional 75 million people into extreme poverty, living on less than US $1.90 a day.
In the typical Walter Duranty style that’s become a kind of twisted journalistic norm since March 2020, the World Bank and Nature of course blame this on “the pandemic” rather than lockdowns. I remain baffled as to how seemingly well-meaning people are able to sleep at night repeating such nonsense—are they somehow blind to the role of their own sycophancy in perpetuating these policies?
Nonetheless, there are signs that the political mainstream is starting to realize lockdowns were a disaster. Today, the Wall Street Journal published an excellent piece titled The Revenge of the Locked-Down Voters, noting the growing political backlash against lockdown politicians from voters at the lower end of the income scale.
This comes shortly after the New York Times quietly acknowledged a study showing that Covid lockdowns and mandates led to over 170,000 excess deaths among young Americans.
Likewise, today the Daily Telegraph, the UK’s centre-right newspaper of record, published an excellent piece titled Basket-case Britain is the definitive proof lockdown was an epic mistake.
And, as in America, this comes shortly after the London Times, the UK’s centre-left newspaper of record, published a cautiously-introspective piece on its support for lockdowns.
These are promising indications that the political mainstream, especially on the right, is coming around to the fact that lockdowns were a policy catastrophe more quickly than some might have worried.

Still, there’s much more to be done. Currently, the mainstream left and right are starting to realize lockdowns were a big mistake, while many career bureaucrats are still stuck pretending lockdowns were the greatest medical breakthrough since penicillin. There really needs to be a bipartisan consensus that lockdowns were an unprecedented policy catastrophe before we can start to see justice and have undue foreign and financial influence taken seriously.
An Iron Curtain descends on Europe and the USA
By Gilbert Doctorow | June 26, 2022
In recent weeks, I have received a number of complimentary emails from readers of my essays who took note of what they consider my even-handed approach to the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian military conflict which is at variance with the fired-up Russophile and Russophobe positions that we find daily in alternative and mainstream media respectively. Some have gone on to say that they have profited from my reporting on the content and changing views aired on Russian political talk shows these past few months, all of which is rarely featured in mainstream Western news and analysis. My intent in such reporting was to ensure that at least some people here understand what Ukraine and its Western backers are up against, so as to better understand the course of the fighting on the ground and who may be winning.
In this context, I announce with sadness that the job of even-handed reporting has just become much more difficult as a result of Eutelsat’s implementation yesterday of a policy decision announced just over a month ago, but which went unnoticed by most everyone, myself included.
I quote from Google Search:
“Eutelsat to remove banned Russian channels. Eutelsat ready to immediately stop the rebroadcasting of the Russian channels RTR Planeta and Rossiya 24 on its satellites on June 25. 13 May 2022”
Indeed, the main state news channels of the Russian Federation can now no longer be received via satellite antennas here in Belgium or elsewhere on the Continent. They are partially and sporadically accessible on the internet via www.smotrim.ru but the level of interference from Western censors makes such viewing a dismal exercise. “Freezing” of frames seems to be most common with respect to the talk shows “Sixty Minutes” and “Evening with Solovyov,” two programs which I had been following and reporting on most regularly. However, it also is applied against Russian shows which might be characterized as being simply entertainment, such as the currently running historical serial about the life and times of the 18th century tsarina Elizabeth. I dare anyone to get more than a minute or two into the broadcast before the curtain comes down, so to speak.
The curtain in question is an updated Iron Curtain, which this time has been dropped on our heads by the powers that be in Washington. After all, it is Washington that pressured the French controlled Eutelsat rebroadcaster of television channels that dominates the European and other global markets to throw out the Russians.
The argument behind that demand was to exclude “Russian propaganda” from the airwaves.
In the spirit of fairmindedness with which I opened this essay, I agree that Russian state television is practicing propagandistic methods insofar as it withholds certain information from viewers while promoting other information favorable to its paymasters. For example, on Russian state television news you will not find a word about the civilian casualties and damage to residential buildings of Russian artillery and rocket attacks on Kharkov. You are shown only the civilian casualties and damage to residential buildings in Donetsk and towns of the Donbas caused by Ukrainian artillery and rocket strikes.
On the other hand, however, European and U.S. newscasts feature the damage caused by Russian strikes on Ukrainian towns while saying not a word about the sufferings of the Donbas population from military assaults by Ukrainian forces. Just as they have been entirely silent about such suffering and death among the Donbas population that Kiev has inflicted on them for the past eight years, since the outbreak of the civil war in 2014.
Each side in the Ukrainian conflict accuses the other side of using cluster bombs and other internationally prohibited weapons against civilian populations. These accusations are put on air by Russian and Western news programs only as they are set out by their favored respective side.
My point is very simple: by silencing the so-called Russian propagandists, Western propagandists have the field to themselves here in Belgium, in the broader European Union and in North America. The possibilities for the public to form an independent view of what is going on are choked off, and with that there is no basis for informed policy discussion in the expert community. As The Washington Post so nicely puts it: democracy dies in darkness.
And what about the Russian side? Are they also cut off and ignorant as my remarks on coverage of casualties above might suggest? I commented on this question in my travel report on my six week stay in Petersburg that began in May: Western news channels have been removed from the cable television distributors in the city. For this I blame not Russian government prohibitions but the commercial decisions of Western content providers who terminated their contracts with Russian distributors just as did the Hollywood studios. Meanwhile, Western stations remain accessible on the internet without interference and they remain accessible on satellite television.
At my dacha, I had no difficulty receiving the BBC and Bloomberg for free courtesy of my parabolic antenna. How long this will be the case given the tit-for-tat nature of the relationship between the West and Russia generally I cannot say. But if someone does pull the plug on Western ‘propaganda’ in Russia, it will be in response to the West’s dropping the Iron Curtain on Russia, not the other way around.
It is sad that Western leaders are destroying with their own hands the underpinnings of democracy at home through this censorship. The only likely result will be total shock and surprise throughout the Western world when the Russians complete their liberation of Donbas, take the Ukrainian Black Sea coast including Odessa and declare victory over what will by then be an utterly destroyed Ukrainian army.
In the meantime, under greatly constrained conditions, I will try my best to follow the Russian side of the story on talk shows, on news reports of Russian war correspondents embedded with their forces on the front lines, and to share with readers what appears to be afoot on the other side of the barricades.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022
EU Commissioner Claims Bloc NEVER Pushed People to Get COVID Vaccine

Save Britain | June 23, 2022
On Tuesday, a senior EU official shocked observers when she asserted that the bloc had never required its citizens to receive a COVID-19 vaccination in order for them to have access to public services and that claims to the contrary had primarily been made by what she called “anti-vaccine activists.”
It happens as the EU gets ready to update its transnational COVID-19 passport system – a tool that allows EU member states to lock down their own people and shows whether or not a bearer is vaccinated and/or boostered against the disease.
Vra Jourová, the EU’s commissioner for “Values and Transparency,” asserted during a meeting of the bloc’s Special Committee on COVID-19 Pandemic that the organisation had never even considered pressuring people to get vaccines, despite the planned renewal of the EU’s COVID passes and the bloc’s prior public interest in implementing a union-wide regime of mandatory vaccination.
The commissioner told the committee that the EU has never even “considered or even set in stone in any regulation or… requirement to get vaccined,” adding that “We were never pressuring the population to acquire the vaccinated as a condition for access to public services or health services.”
Jourová, on the other hand, claimed that those who made the contrary assertion that “if you are not vaccinated you will not get… to the public areas or [get] access to the services (sic)” were primarily “anti-vaccine activists.”
While Jourová seemed rather certain of her assertion, others did not share her confidence. In particular, elected representative Cristian Terhes MEP questioned whether the commissioner was genuinely being “serious” when she made her claim.
“Madame Commissioner I have to tell you — and please look at me — Madame Commissioner, are you serious with what you just said right now?”, posed the politician from Romania.
“… we are talking about the fundamental rights of every EU citizen, and we just heard right now that through this green certificate people were not forced to be vaccinated,” he continued. “Are we serious? Can we look people in the eyes, citizens of the European Union telling them that?”
Terhes went on to say that, during periods of lockdown, he had to regularly “fight” with EU security to even get access to the European parliament without a COVID pass, a claim that appears to directly contradict the spirit of the commissioner’s statements.
EU Renews Digital Covid Pass Despite 99% Negative Public Feedback
BY ROBERT KOGON | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | JUNE 24, 2022
Acting on a proposal of the European Commission, the European Parliament, as expected, voted yesterday to renew the EU Digital Covid Certificate for another year. The vote was 453 for, 119 against and 19 abstentions.
The certificate regulation had been scheduled to expire on June 30. Earlier this month, a delegation from the parliament had already reached a “political agreement” with the Commission on renewing the certificate, thus making yesterday’s vote virtually a foregone conclusion.
The certificate regulation was originally adopted in June of last year, ostensibly to facilitate “safe travel” between EU member states. But the EU digital certificate quickly evolved into the model and sometimes infrastructure for the domestic “health” or Covid passes that would serve to restrict access to many other areas of social life over the following year.
The EU has opted to extend the covid certificate despite the overwhelmingly negative results of a public consultation on the subject that was launched by the European Commission under the heading of “Have Your Say” and that was open to the public from February 3 to April 8. The consultation elicited over 385,000 responses – almost all of which appear to be opposed to renewal!
In a letter to the European Ombudsman that the French member of the parliament Virginie Joron posted on her Twitter feed, Joron writes:
I read hundreds of responses at random with my team. I did not find any in favor of extending the QR code [i.e. the digital certificate]. Based on this large survey, it seems obvious that virtually all the responses were negative.
The overwhelmingly negative tendency of the responses was indeed evident from the outset. The first full page of responses, all of them dating from February 4, is available here. They are, of course, in a variety of European Union languages: French, German, Italian, and also one in English.
To provide readers an idea of the tenor, here is a translation of just the first line or two of the first several responses (starting from the bottom of the page):
I am completely opposed to the establishment of this certificate given what is currently happening with the EU’s disastrous handling of Covid…
I want this cst [probably a reference to Belgium’s “Covid Safe Ticket”] or vaccine passport simply to be eliminated…
There are claims made in the draft document that are not scientifically supported. For example, it is claimed that the Covid certificate represents effective protection against the spread of the virus – what data can support this claim?…
Hello, I am shocked and disgusted by the freedom-killing decisions taken in the EU … as regards this “European certificate” …
The covid certificate or green pass SHOULD BE ABOLISHED immediately as discriminatory and unconstitutional and not supported by any scientific data, because it is exclusively based on PUNITIVE measures for citizens…
I am opposed to the extension of the green pass, which serves no purpose other than creating discrimination…
I never want to be subjected to a discriminatory certificate again…
And, finally, the English-language entry:
The digital Covid certificate should end immediately. There is so much data that supports the fact that digital passports have zero positive impact on transmission rates and in fact in the most vaccinated and highly regulated countries, there [sic.] covid rates are insane…
And so on and so forth through 385,191 responses.
The renewal of the Digital Covid Certificate does not mean that it will be immediately applied, but that the infrastructure will remain in place and that it can be applied if and when member states see fit to do so.
The current rules for holding a valid EU Digital Covid Certificate do not only, needless to say, discriminate against the unvaccinated, but also against natural immunity, which is treated as more ephemeral than vaccine-induced immunity.
Proof of completed primary vaccination makes a certificate valid for 270 days; proof of having received a booster dose confers unlimited validity for the moment. On the other hand, proof of “recovery” – with a positive PCR test being the only accepted proof – only confers 180 days of validity.
Is “Roe v. Wade” REALLY about abortion?
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 24, 2022
A few hours ago the Supreme Court of United States (SCOTUS) confirmed their ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the case which set the precedent for abortion as a human right in the US back in the 1970s.
As soon as this decision was first “leaked” a few months ago it became the trending topic all across the US and to a certain extent the rest of the anglosphere. Since it was confirmed this afternoon, the already supercharged dialogue has reached new heights.
Pro-choice pundits, politicians and celebrities have been flooding the cyber public square with comparisons to the Handmaid’s Tale and other forced memes. They argue abortion-on-demand is a fundamental right, and take up the rather unsettling position that having an abortion is a point of pride.
On the other side of the divide Christians, traditionalists and republican politicians argue for the sanctity of all life, regardless of context or complication.
Both sides are entrenched to the point of hysteria, and not really looking like budging.
As with most things, the reasonable ground is somewhere in the middle.
Regardless of the law, women will sometimes seek out abortions, and it’s probably best they have access to safe, clean places to do so. That said, the use of abortions as a form of contraception is both obscene and impractical, and aborting viable mid or late term babies is revolting – both in concept, and in practice.
None of that really matters though, because the Roe v Wade finding isn’t even about abortion, it’s about Federal overreach. The Justices made that clear.
Though it has gotten lost in 250 years of ever-expanding centralization, the USA originated as a loose federation of quasi-independent states, with the central federal government having strictly limited powers to overrule local legislation.
Simply put, the Constitution lays out all the powers of the federal government, and anything not specifically mentioned therein is de facto a matter for states on an individual basis.
For decades federal governments used SCOTUS decisions to get around these limitations, relying on precedents rather than actual legislation in order to control state laws from Washington DC.
Roe v Wade is a classic example of this, and reversing it changes only one thing: abortion law will revert to a state-level matter, not a federal one.
… but is it even really just about that?
On a deeper level, there seems to be a prolonged campaign in place to violently divide the United States, perhaps to the point of outright civil war.
From Black Lives Matter to January 6th, the 2nd amendment to Roe v Wade, there is an increasing supply of hot-button issues accompanied by a deluge of divisive rhetoric.
Both sides are being encouraged to take to the streets, protest, mock, yell and scream without any search for common ground.
The office of the Presidency is degraded more every term, with a crass blowhard followed by a jittering dementia patient.
Some states are even openly talking about seceding.
At the end of the Cold War, Russia was economically raped and globally humiliated. It came within inches of shattering into a dozen or more failed states. As the big money players head East, and the hegemonic powers turn from the US Empire to a new globalist powerbase, you have to wonder if the US is destined for the same fate.
Just as the USSR had to fail, and be seen to fail pour encourager les autres, perhaps the US – with its history of individualism and personal liberty – is considered surplus to requirements in the new age of faux collectivism.
Whatever America became at its Imperial zenith, its constitutional foundation has always arguably been the most egalitarian on Earth. Could it be that those ideas enshrined in the Bill of Rights are considered an impediment to the “progressive” New World Order?
The US falling into failed statehood could even act as a moral lesson to the rest of the world, and be held up as a warning about what can happen when “liberty is taken too far”, or when people are allowed to “selfishly put their own rights ahead of the public good”.
Perhaps the US being torn apart – or encouraged to tear itself apart – is key to bringing about the next stage of the great reset.
One thing is for sure, no matter the endgame, US politics are dry tinder piled high, waiting for a spark.
Ottawa announces police checkpoints for Canada Day

TCS WIRE | June 24, 2022
The City of Ottawa has announced several restrictions for Canada Day, including a motor vehicle control zone with police checkpoints to ban protesters’ vehicles.
“Getting around downtown on Canada Day will be more complicated than usual this year,” a City of Ottawa news release reads.
Unsurprisingly, the motor vehicle control zone only applies to roads leading to or surrounding Parliament Hill — an apparent attempt by City officials to prevent another Freedom Convoy incident, even if they don’t state so outright.
As per the news release, the motor vehicle control zone will be in place from June 29 to July 4 and will affect travel within the city in several ways.
Firstly, all vehicles belonging to people taking part in any form of demonstration, event, protest, or rally are outright banned from going near Parliament Hill, while local and business traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit will be permitted to move through the control zone freely.
Moreover, those who do not comply with the protester vehicle ban will face ticketing, and “barricades, heavy equipment, or police officers and vehicles will be at various access points surrounding the control zone, to filter lawful traffic onto those streets.”
It isn’t clear how a demonstrator’s vehicle will be distinguished from someone just looking to go to a shop, other than obvious freedom signs.
Signage will also be posted in the motor vehicle control zone that prohibits street parking and stopping.
Additionally, while authorities plan to lift the control zone on July 4, they say they have no problem extending the control zone “should conditions warrant it.”
As for July 1, the City says there will be additional restrictions:
“Some roads within the control zone will be closed to all traffic from 12:01 am on July 1 until 2 am on July 2. There are also some pedestrian and bicycle restrictions.”
Before this latest announcement, the Canadian Press reported, “An Ottawa police officer says this Canada Day will be “unprecedented and unique” with a never-before-seen security posture as the main events take place off Parliament Hill, and protests are planned throughout the day.”
“Police are aware of the demonstrations and are “planning accordingly,” said the officer.”
We now know what those plans entail.
Canada Heritage also announced that they would not allow Canadians to participate in the annual Canada Day celebration at Parliament Hill due to construction after two years of cancelling it due to COVID.
They added that the Canada Day party, which usually sees thousands flock to Ottawa, is being moved to the LeBreton Flats approximately 1.5km Westwards.
As for the planned demonstrations, there are several protests against the remaining COVID mandates planned for Canada Day, which are expected to be attended by many Freedom Convoy protesters from February.
Additionally, this is the same day CAF veteran James Topp will complete his cross-country march to the capital city.
Journalist Andy Lee has also stated she plans to host a campout on Parliament Hill despite the ban and has given police a heads up.
French Elections, Round 2: What Actually Happened?
Resisting the Intellectual Illiteratti | June 24, 2022
As has been reported abundantly by the French and international media, Sunday’s results — with Macron’s party and coalition losing its absolute majority — were indeed momentous and have the potential to restore a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government. (The French courts, as I’ve mentioned before, are almost a lost cause when it comes to performing the duties of judicial review, and in my view there is no point in including the judiciary in the French checks and balances model anymore).
But I think caution is still called for too. There is no reason to assume that immediate reversals or changes to the worst laws of the recent past will be forthcoming or are guaranteed at any point. Just as we have seen in the US in recent congressional votes of generational-defining importance, ideological or partisan differences don’t usually make much, if any, difference when the result is ordained in advance by the executive and consent is manufactured dutifully by the media.
I think it’s also important to recall that while it is true that it has the last word in the lawmaking process, the lower house in France, L’Assemblée Nationale, needs only a relative majority for a bill to become law. Except for amendments to the constitution, where an absolute majority of members is required to be present, there is no minimum number of deputés that have to be in attendance for a bill to be voted on. If only 5 members happen to be in the lower chamber when a vote is held and 3 vote in favor, the proposed legislation passes.
I mention these facts not to be a killjoy but rather to draw attention to the fact that throughout the coronavirus delirium (which continues, albeit in muted fashion, in France), the French Parliament first voted, in early 2020, with an overwhelming majority and across partisan lines, to declare a state of emergency and confer dictatorial powers to the president. For the following two years, every time the parliament had an opportunity to revoke or limit those powers by, for instance, ending the state of emergency, it not only didn’t do so, but actually went on to codify the worst of the totalitarian covid restrictions, for example, ushering in legalized discrimination with health passes and later, vax passes.
And while it is true that the entirety of the far-left and far-right minorities in the lower house proclaimed themselves opposed to the post-lockdown measures such as health and vax passes, when it was time to put their money where their mouths were, most did not even bother to show up to vote. On two of the most important votes held over the last year, concerning a law that would require the use of health and vax passes for access to transport and places of leisure and culture, as well as to hospitals and retirement homes, Macron’s ruling party’s presence was so weak in the lower house that had every member of the far-left and right oppositions actually made the trip to vote (or voted by proxy), the bills would not have passed. One wonders if the exemptions they enjoyed, as members of Parliament, from the coercive, live-ruining measures that are health and vax passes had anything to do with their being largely absent from the votes.
Either way, the fact that these totalitarian policies didn’t have to become law, that they could have been torpedoed last year, even while the president’s party held an absolute majority in the lower house, doesn’t inspire confidence that they will be done away with now that the balance of power has shifted.
That said, the composition of the recently elected lower house will create many opportunities for the now much larger opposition parties to stop Macron in his tracks. I won’t get into the numbers too much except to say that Macron’s coalition party (which is made up of four centrist parties) is 44 seats shy of the absolute majority necessary to govern unfettered and, having only a relative minority, will need to wheel and deal and seriously compromise in order to get anything it puts foward passed.
At the same time, both Marine Le Pen’s far-right Rassemblement National (National Rally) and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s far-left La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) won enough seats to significantly expand their power and influence. However, of the two, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally emerged as the clear winner and most powerful single party opposition group. Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed chose to form a coalition with three other left-leaning parties in the hopes of acquiring an absolute or relative majority, and while their Nupes coalition won the most seats after the president’s own coalition, it was not enough to secure any majority positions or allow Mélenchon’s France Unbowed party to surpass Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in seats.
On the upside, both far right and far left, having surged in numbers, are now able to call for a motion of censure of Macron’s government, which can lead to a no-confidence vote — a measure Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed promptly resorted to yesterday.
In the case of Marine Le Pen’s far right Rassemblement National, however, having surpassed the critical threshold of 80 seats, her group can now request positions on various important committees, as well as have bills sent to the constitutional court for judicial review. This is a milestone and historic achievement for her much maligned party.
In the case of Mélenchon, as mentioned above, his France Unbowed successfully formed an all-left and left-leaning coalition, which includes the socialist, environmentalist and communist parties. While this coalition won the most seats after Macron’s own coalition, it is believed to be a tenuous alliance in which the individual groups will not see eye to eye on a range of issues. The hope is, however, they will remain united on the most important ones.
The funny thing in all this is that Mélenchon, elected to the lower house in 2017, did not stand for re-election this year in his Marseille district, a seat he would have won handily. It seemed that he bet the house on his coalition pulling off a landslide victory, in which case their numerical superiority in the lower house would force the president to appoint him as Prime Minister. Sadly for Mélenchon (and us), he lost his wager and will now have to direct the operations of his party and coalition from outside the halls of the Assemblé Nationale.
The upshot of all this is that Macron is looking at a Parliament that may not pass any of his upcoming reforms into laws — and he has a pack of the vile things he’d like to ram through. In the short term, the future will not be easy for the impatient monarch. His government is already facing a motion of censure on the 5th of July (introduced Monday by Jean Luc Melenchon’s France Unbowed party), and three of his cabinet ministers who were in the running for parliamentary seats lost their bids. According to convention, their unsuccessful attempt to get elected to the lower house while working in the president’s cabinet as ministers will require them to resign from their positions, leaving Macron scrambling to appoint replacements. He will have to do this while also meeting with the leaders of the opposition parties, whom he hopes to begin negotiating with, ahead of the upcoming parliamentary session.
Macron is also under great pressure from the EU in Brussels to continue the EU-wide project of neoliberal reforms. Until now, the French president has had a free hand in pushing through some of the most politically, socially and economically destructive and divisive policies ever seen in modern France, the last two years of totalitarian public health policies and the continued dismantling of France’s public health service being the prime examples. Will he be able to continue? It seems the answer is: yes, but perhaps not so easily.
Macron does have one card left he can play, however; though it’s a risky one: he can dissolve the Assemblée Nationale. Yes, you read that correctly. The constitution of the 5th Republic gives the French president the power to dissolve the lower house and call new elections (which have to be organized within 60 days) if he deems the parliamentary configuration to be an impediment to effective lawmaking. (Can you imagine Biden — or better, Trump — announcing to the house of representatives, after one-too-many government shutdowns, “That’s it — You’re all fired. Everyone out of the capital! We’re gonna have new elections, and we’re gonna get it right this time!”)
Not surprisingly, though, such an un-democratic move is not popular and the last time it was used, by Jacques Chirac in 1997, it blew up in the president’s face when the new vote results were worse than the first time around and forced him to appoint a socialist (and formidable political rival) as Prime Minister. That said, the chattering classes are predicting Macron will indeed resort to this measure at some point in the future. But when?
For us, the main concern remains that of the state of emergency (under which we have been living for two and a half years), which allows Macron to act like a dictator and close businesses, confine people to their homes, impose curfews, force the population to wear facemasks, and make the restitution of these once unconditional rights (to work, to assemble, move and breath freely, etc.) contingent on the injection of experimental drugs that no one needs and only a fraction of the population actually wants.
Though many of its most oppressive measures have been (temporarily) lifted, the state of emergency is still in effect and will remain in effect until July 31 of this year. One of the biggest casualties of the president’s irrational, totalitarian covid policies has been the healthcare workers, 15 thousand of whom (doctors, nurses, orderlies) as well as hundreds of gendarmes, remain suspended from their jobs, without pay, having been deprived of their right to work last September 15th because they refused to take an experimental medicine that, by the government’s own admission, does not prevent transmission of a disease deemed to be a major threat to public health.
Despite the bleak situation, there may be cause for some hope. As mentioned earlier, Macron’s ability to govern by decree is set to end at the end of next month, with the lapsing of the state of emergency. In order to extend it and make possible the return in the fall of vax passes, lockdowns, curfews, travel restrictions, business closures, mask mandates and all the other totalitarian horrors that serve no public health benefit in relation to upper respiratory viruses that spread like the common cold (and therefore can’t be stopped from spreading), but which the leaders of Europe desperately want to retain and make permanent, Macron will need to get a new covid law passed by the parliament before the end of July.
The French president was in fact supposed to present said covid bill at a ministerial meeting today (the first step in the legislative process before the bill reaches parliamentary committees and debates), but had to cancel the meeting because of the aforementioned resignations of three of his ministers. This delay will presumably push the start of the legislative process for this bill back another week. But next week Macron will be out of France on a NATO-related trip, so perhaps it will get pushed back an additional week. When it is eventually presented to the parliament, the bill will need to be debated and put to a vote by the newly elected lower house — and that’s where the rubber should meet the road.
It will indeed be the first and most important test of the new assembly, and one which will no doubt come with an unprecedented amount of pressure and propaganda from Macron and the media. Will the opposition parties finally say no to the president dictator and all his lies and send this disgraceful piece of legislation into the garbage where it belongs? Or will the new Assemblée play ball as the last useless lot did? L’espoir fait vivre, as they say over here.
Postscript:
Europe is slowly transitioning into a bio-security and surveillance state. Tomorrow, the EU parliament is expected to rubber stamp the EU commission’s decision to extend the use of the EU Digital Covid Pass for another year for all travel to and within Europe.
This will mean that, until the end of June 2023, in order to board a plane, train or boat into or within Europe, you will need to show either a negative PCR or antigen tests 24 hours before traveling, a certificate of proof of recovery from covid (which may be valid for 3 months), or proof of experimental injection.
The law reads like a Pfizer press release, and is just as fraudulent and circular in its reasoning. This digital covid certificate measure, we are told, is necessary to ensure the free and safe movement of Europeans within Europe, a right that is guaranteed by the European Union’s various treaties and conventions…but which was illegally taken away two years ago by the European Union.
There are protection rackets that are more sophisticated than this…I don’t understand how Europeans will submit to this for another year. It’s an ominous sign.
@diedsuddenly Dies Suddenly
By Andrew Anglin | Daily Stormer | June 24, 2022
Twitter’s @diedsuddenly has suddenly died. Without warning, I woke up and it was dead for no reason.
All this account was doing was reposting news articles about people who have suddenly died for no reason. As far as I saw, he was not even saying “the vaccine” at all, he was just documenting this developing issue of “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” (SADS). The phenomenon is also called “Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome,” as it relates to a cardiac event. The word “arrhythmia” means what it sounds like – lacking in a rhythm, and is typically used in connection to cardiac phenomena involving an irregular heart beat. I don’t think the term is appropriate, as we are usually talking about cardiac arrest or a heart attack in someone without any form of heart disease. A better name would be “Spontaneous Unexplained Deadly Heart Failure Syndrome” (SUDHFDS), but Sudden Adult Death Syndrome is fine. They seem to be using “Arrhythmic” interchangeably with “Adult” for the purposes of confusing the issue, but it does show that these deaths are believed to be related to heart failure.
It’s not a conspiracy theory or tabloid hysteria that SADS is happening. The fact-checkers themselves are admitting it is happening at an increasing rate and simply claiming without evidence that it is not related to the vaccine. Snopes’ argument was simply that young people have been recorded as having had spontaneous unexplained heart failure before the vaccine was distributed, so it can’t be the vaccine.
Snopes does not address the massive increase in these deaths. We are talking about many orders of magnitude. We don’t know how many orders of magnitude, because like with deaths admittedly caused by the vaccine, both the government and media are refusing to keep track. But we see it in the news, because it is happening to famous people or their loved ones. I am not aware of a single case of a celebrity dying in their sleep for no reason. I’ve also never seen this in my personal life, ever. The closest thing to this that I’ve heard of was a hapa friend in Southeast Asia 15 years ago whose healthy 40-year-old mother got sick with dizziness and went to the hospital and died less than 48 hours later. It was extremely bizarre, but it was believed to be from a mosquito-borne virus that causes brain swelling. The Philippines also does not have great emergency care. (For the record, she was in the middle of divorcing her husband, who was a kindly old American guy in his 70s who was himself sick and on the way out. I just sort of assumed it was the wrath of God.) Regardless, there is a very, very big difference between having symptoms of serious illness and then dying than just dying completely randomly in your sleep.
Aside from fact checkers, it is getting relatively little coverage for some reason. One would think that a new disease that is just randomly killing healthy young people would be a pretty major story of interest. This could of course be caused by anything, technically. It could be caused by some unidentified radiation in the atmosphere, it could be caused by 5G, it could be caused by solar activity, it could be related to Havana Syndrome, which the US claims is the result of some kind of sonic beam weapon. There are all kinds of different possible reasons you could come up with that would cause this. But the thing that has changed in the last two years is that people took a vaccine that is confirmed to cause heart complications, including causing life-long heart conditions.
Another point of interest is the fact that so far, everyone who has suffered from this new wave of SADS has received the coronavirus vaccine. For example, the Democrat Congressman whose healthy 17-year-old daughter died in her sleep from SADS bragged about how he was forcing his children to be vaccinated.
There are others we can’t confirm got the vaccine definitively, but they are in positions where they would have been required to, or they are leftists. We’ve yet to see anyone from QAnon get hit with SADS.
Another data point is again: the media is not talking about it. They are not denying that it is happening and that it is unexplained, they are just not bothering to mention it, except to claim without evidence that it’s not the mRNA vaccine. If it wasn’t the vaccine, they would be talking about it.

Now, you have Twitter banning someone simply for compiling the deaths. That means you are banned from talking about SADS, presumably under Twitter’s policy against questioning the vaccine. By banning an account that did nothing but keep a record of SADS, Twitter is tacitly implying that they themselves believe it is caused by the vaccine.
As far as I’m able to tell, the only other possible reason that the media would refuse to proportionally address SADS or that Twitter would ban you from talking about SADS is that they don’t believe it is the vaccine, but they believe it is very easy for someone who doesn’t trust the science to mistake this phenomenon as being a result of the vaccine. That would be a pretty convoluted explanation.
We should really be pressing this issue. I have been trying to think of ways for the vaxed to start openly expressing regret, and anger at being lied to about the deadliness of the virus or the efficacy and safety of the vax. Most people probably just completely shut off if you tell them the vaccine almost certainly took decades off of their lives, and at any point, they could be feeling fine and go to bed and not wake up.
Unlike with the companies that manufactured asbestos (and really every other company of any kind), vaccine manufacturers are totally legally protected from any form of liability, so a class action lawsuit is off the table. But what I’ve been thinking is that people should start demanding that the government do an “Operation Warp Speed Part II,” where they try to find a solution to the damages caused by the vax. If people think they have hope, they are less likely to shut down and not be able to think about it. I don’t really think they have any hope, unless they happened to get shots from a placebo batch (there were a lot of placebo batches, or at least batches with something else in them – there is no other way to explain why the deaths all came from the same batches, while others had none, something that was confirmed in a VAERS database analysis).
The right-wing should be pushing the SADS issue and then demanding that the government research it and find a cure for this and other injuries and deaths happening as a result of Coronavirus Vaccine Syndrome.

