Il nostro paese ha partecipato alle operazioni militari dal 18 novembre 2001. Nell'ambito della missione Nato ci è affidato il quadrante di Herat. Con la International Security Assistance Force il contingente ha perso 52 membri
Quella dell’uranio impoverito è una strage silenziosa, che continua a mietere vittime. È una delle più scandalose conseguenze della guerra. L’ultimo, in ordine di tempo, a morire per un cancro al cervello provocato dalle radiazioni, a distanza di anni, è stato Luciano Cipriani, di professione militare. Aveva 47 anni e una carriera da maresciallo dell’Aeronautica alle spalle, tra cui figuravano missioni in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, in Albania. Era padre di due figli.
La storia del maresciallo Cipriani. Pochi giorni prima che il maresciallo Cipriani morisse per quello che i medici hanno definito essere un glioblastoma multiforme di IV grado, la sua storia è balzata agli onori delle cronache, con la sorella che ha rilasciato un’intervista in cui punta il dito contro la sanità militare, accusata di non aver mai ammesso la correlazione tra il tumore del fratello e l’uranio impoverito. «All’ospedale del Celio» – ha denunciato la signora Maria Grazia – «ci dissero che nostro fratello era inoperabile e aveva dai 3 ai 6 mesi di vita. Nessuno fece cenno all’uranio. L’altro mio fratello, anche lui militare, mi suggerì di sentire l’Osservatorio militare, l’ong che si occupa di assistere le vittime. Loro ci dissero di inviare le indagini cliniche ai dottori Gatti e Montanari di Modena, esperti di nanodiagnostica. E loro, a ottobre, hanno trovato la correlazione. Siamo rimasti senza parole».
I familiari di Cipriani non risparmiano critiche neanche al ministero della Difesa, che non avrebbe contribuito alle cure in Germania, unico centro deputato alle terapie alternative, che hanno reso possibile qualche miglioramento nella salute dell’ex maresciallo: «L’Asl diceva che mio fratello poteva fare chemio e radioterapia in Italia – continua Maria Grazia – ma non davano speranze. Dicevano: ha al massimo 6 mesi. Comunque, ci abbiamo provato. Abbiamo fatto un primo ciclo di chemio e radioterapia all’Humanitas di Milano, ma le condizioni peggioravano e così abbiamo tentato terapie alternative all’estero, in particolare dall’oncologo-virologo Arno Thaller, in Alta Baviera. Luciano migliorò, ancor più dopo il secondo ciclo. Ma i costi crescevano ed erano a nostre spese: 60mila euro, le fatture sono state vistate dal consolato italiano a Monaco. Abbiamo chiesto un rimborso, ma la Asl Roma B ci disse che per loro sono terapie prive di evidenze scientifiche. Così abbiamo consumato i risparmi e i debiti son saliti a 35mila euro. Abbiamo fatto un ricorso d’urgenza, ma è stato rigettato. Adesso abbiamo chiesto un ulteriore accertamento medico peritale. Speriamo». Mai, comunque, il maresciallo Cipriani ha voluto gettare la colpa sulle missioni in cui lui e altre 322 persone prima di lui ci hanno rimesso la vita a distanza di anni. Ma adesso la famiglia ha avviato una causa legale contro il Ministero della Difesa per vedere riconosciuti i propri diritti e onorare Luciano come vittima del dovere.
I numeri dei militari morti. Cipriani è solo l’ultimo dei tanti morti tra i militari italiani che hanno combattuto per esportare il modello occidentale di democrazia in Paesi che si sono rivelati essere poi focolai del terrorismo jihadista, come i Balcani. Nel corso degli anni, questi commilitoni, si stima oltre 3700 in poco più di dieci anni, sono tornati malati di tumore dalle missioni all’estero, dal Kosovo all’Afghanistan passando per Nassirya. E i danni delle polveri, dei metalli, dei veleni che le bombe all’uranio impoverito provocano li hanno trasmessi anche ai loro figli. Vittime terze, vengono definite, perché l’esposizione alle radiazioni da parte dei genitori ha ha avuto effetti anche sulle loro vite.
L’angelo di Nassirya. Come il maresciallo Cipriani, congedato e beneficiario di una pensione arrivata mesi dopo la diagnosi di cancro, ci sono moltissimi altri militari. Prima di lui, la sera del 27 dicembre scorso, è morto Gianluca Danise. Ad aprile avrebbe compiuto 44 anni. Era a Nassirya, e fu uno dei pochi che riuscì a ricomporre i corpi sventrati dei suoi compagni dopo l’attentato del 12 novembre 2003. Anche lui era un maresciallo dell’Aeronautica, ed era stato in missione in Kosovo, Albania, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gibuti.
Pochi giorni prima era morto Giovanni Passeri, 41 anni, originario di Scafati e residente a Pompei, in servizio nel reggimento Cavalleggeri Guide di Salerno. Lo ha ucciso un tumore ai polmoni, scoperto di ritorno dall’ultima missione, quando iniziò ad accusare strane febbri e tosse. Anche lui vittima di quella che viene chiamata la Sindrome dei Balcani, quella lunga serie di malattie – per lo più linfomi di Hodgkin e altre forme di cancro – che hanno colpito i soldati italiani al ritorno dalle missioni di “peacekeeping”, che altro non sono che guerre. I primi casi segnalati in Italia risalgono al 1999 quando il militare cagliaritano Salvatore Vacca morì di leucemia al ritorno della missione in Bosnia. Successe lo stesso anche con la prima Guerra del Golfo, di cui in questi giorni ricorrono i 25 anni.
OLTRE A QUESTA PER TE C'E' SOLO LA PENSIONE IN AFGHANISTAN
MEDIA, 9 Aug 2021
Maram Susli | RT - TRANSCEND Media Service
7 Aug 2021 – Big Tech censors are shutting down voices like mine, because they don’t like me exposing the truth of what’s going on in Palestine. But they’re happy with tweets about killings in Xinjiang, even when there’s no evidence for it.
Twitter has a bizarre new policy of censoring political discourse around ‘violent events’. On the 21st of July, I woke up to find my account was locked for supposedly violating “rules against abuse and harassment”. I have had my account for 10 years and amassed a following of 150,000. I use it, or rather used to, to share my articles and interviews. The flagged tweet stated:
“There is a genocide against Palestinians. But there’s no Uighur genocide. There is evidence for one but not the other. We can see Palestinians being slaughtered. On top of which Israeli leaders have admitted they want to exterminate Palestinians. The truth shall set you free”.
The only thing that was wrong in this tweet was that “the truth shall set you free”. Turns out, the truth shall send you to Twitter jail. I do not believe my tweet violated Twitter’s terms and conditions, which makes this scenario all the more insidious. It means that any tweet in the future, no matter how innocuous, could get you censored. Rather than accept Twitter’s demand to delete the tweet and get back my Twitter after 12 hours, I decided to take a stand by appealing the decision.
I’m no stranger to censorship by Big Tech. In 2018, I woke up to find that my Facebook account of 40,000 followers had vanished alongside a slew of headlines that the British government had deemed me a “Russian bot”. After a series of videos and interviews which proved that I am, in fact, human, my account was restored without any acknowledgement of, or apology for, what had occurred.
I’m not unique in my experience of such censorship. I am one of many people who have been unceremoniously silenced on social media, sometimes without a reason given. The demand for censorship by special interest groups has increased to the point that Big Tech have had to relegate the job to artificial intelligence, which gets things wrong about half the time.
This is what I had initially assumed had occurred with my tweet, that it was all a mistake that would quickly be rectified once a human moderator reviewed it. Wrong. That was almost two weeks ago, and my tweet is still, apparently, under appeal. A quick Google search revealed that many people have waited months without any human oversight over the appeals process. I decided to email Twitter support. But what I heard back was even more shocking.
“We’re writing to let you know that your account features will remain limited for the allotted time due to violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules against abusive behaviour and denial of violent events.”
It appears Twitter has now deemed questioning the lack of evidence for a “Uighur genocide” as a “denial of violent events” and hence a thought crime. Yet there is currently no United Nations body which has concluded that there’s such a Uighur genocide going on. Even journalists writing in The Economist and the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) have questioned whether the genocide label is the right fit for what is happening to Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang province.
In fact, no one is even accusing China of conducting mass killings of Uighurs, or a ‘violent event’ in Twitter’s terms. What has been claimed is that China is putting Uighurs in a prison camp. China says the men are being put in “vocational education and training centers”, and says they have terrorist sympathies; the US contends that they are being put into the camps simply for being Muslim.
I am originally from Syria, so I know all about war and genocide. I also know that up to 5,000 Uighur fighters joined Al Qaeda to fight against Syria and that terrorism has been a real threat faced by both Syria and China. Regardless, a prison camp does not constitute a genocide; if it did, the US would be charged with genocide for having put Uighurs in Guantanamo Bay for the last 20 years. Let alone the mass incarceration of its own peoples, many of them disportionately black, in ordinary jails.
This goes to show the hypocrisy of how Twitter selectively implements its rules. You will not be censored off Twitter for denying the genocide of Palestinians. Even though there is decades of undeniable evidence of systematic massacres and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the state of Israel. Palestinians are kicked out of their homes, thrown in jail or killed simply for the ‘crime’ of being Palestinian. They’re not allowed to raise their own flag, retain their identity or even move freely in their own land. In contrast, there is no evidence nor even an accusation of massacres against Uighurs. Ironically, it is the existence of this double standard that my tweet tried to highlight, and Twitter’s censorship has proved my point.
The narrative of the ‘Uighur genocide’ is the latest humanitarian crisis thought up by Washington to justify the next war, and Twitter is selectively censoring anyone who dares question that narrative. Lest we forget how many millions have died across the Middle East thanks to the US, based on exactly such lies. The babies in incubators that sold the first Gulf War. The non-existent WMDs that sold the war in Iraq. The lies about Gaddafi using black mercenaries in Libya. The lies about Syria’s chemical attacks which were used to justify multiple bombing campaigns and the current occupation of that country by the US and its stooges. An occupation that, along with sanctions, is starving 17 millions Syrians of bread and fuel. These lies, that Twitter is denying us the right to question, are what cause real violence. By selectively choosing which claims of violence can and cannot be denied, Twitter has become an echo chamber of the US State department.
It would be remiss not to mention the pro-Israel lobby’s involvement in this. It’s possible the reason for my censorship has more to do with the declaration of a Palestinian genocide than the lack of evidence for a Uighur genocide. My Twitter account was recently mentioned in the Israeli media for defending former Senator Cynthia Mckinney’s right to free speech. It cannot be a coincidence that my Facebook account was also recently locked twice for posting a video that compared Israel to ISIS. I’m also a frequent target of the infamous pro-Israel wikipedia editor “Philip Cross”, who attempts to defame me and many other prominent anti-war voices. It’s possible we are being targeted for our pro-Palestine stance, and any excuse will do to silence us.
What’s the solution to this censorship? It is inevitable that we must migrate to social media alternatives to Big Tech. Twitter alternatives such as PanQuake and GAB, and YouTube alternatives such as Bitchute and Odysee, could eventually overtake the giants. In the meantime, we must take a stand for free speech wherever possible. I reached out to Twitter to give them a chance to comment, but I have not heard back. If you’d like to question them on their censorship, please feel free to tweet this article at @Twittersupport.
__________________________________________
Maram Susli is a Syrian-Australian political analyst and commentator. She has written for Journal New East Outlook and Sputnik UK as well as being interviewed by France24 and Sky News, among others. Follow her on Twitter @partisangirl (when she’s not banned) and YouTube SyrianGirlPartisan
INDIGENOUS RIGHTS, 9 Aug 2021
Justin Podur | Globetrotter – TRANSCEND Media Service
2 Aug 2021 – Canada is developing a new image: one of burning churches, toppling statues, and mass graves. There are thousands more unmarked graves, thousands more Indigenous children killed at residential schools, remaining to be unearthed. There can be no denying that this is Canada, and it has to change. But can Canada transform itself for the better? If the revelation of the mass killing of Indigenous children is to lead to any actual soul-searching and any meaningful change, the first order of business is for Canada to stop its all-front war against First Nations. Much of that war is taking place through the legal system.
Canadian politicians have said as much, adopting a motion in June calling for the government to stop fighting residential school survivors in court. A long-standing demand, it has been repeated by Indigenous advocates who have expressed amazement in the face of these horrific revelations that the Canadian government would nonetheless continue to fight Indigenous survivors of systematic child abuse by the state.
To get a sense of the scope of Canada’s legal war on First Nations, I looked at a Canadian legal database containing decisions (case law) pertaining to First Nations. I also looked at the hearing lists of the Federal Court of Canada for ongoing cases. My initial goal was to identify where Canada could easily settle or abandon cases, bringing about a harmonious solution to these conflicts. Two things surprised me.
The first was the volume and diversity of lawsuits Canada is fighting. Canada is fighting First Nations everywhere, on an astoundingly wide range of issues.
The second thing: Canada is losing.
The Attack on Indigenous Children and Women
In his 1984 essay “‘Pioneering’ in the Nuclear Age,” political theorist Eqbal Ahmad argued that the “four fundamental elements… without which an indigenous community cannot survive” were “land, water, leaders and culture.” Canada fights Indigenous people over land, water, fishing rights, mining projects, freedom of movement, and more. The assault on Indigenous nations is also a war against Indigenous children and women.
In the high-profile case of First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, laid out in detail by Cindy Blackstock, “the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations filed a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act alleging” in 2007 “that the Government of Canada had a longstanding pattern of providing less government funding for child welfare services to First Nations children on reserves than is provided to non-Aboriginal children.” The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) found in favor of the First Nations complainants in 2016.
Note that this isn’t about the history of residential schools. It’s about discrimination against Indigenous kids in the present day. “In fact, the problem might be getting worse,” writes Blackstock, compared to “the height of residential school operations.” As evidence, she refers to a 2005 study of three sample provinces showing a wide gap between the percent of First Nations children in child welfare care (10.23 percent) compared to a much lower rate for non-First Nations children (0.67 percent). In 2006, following the Canadian government’s repeated failures to act on the inequity described in this report (which also included comprehensive suggested reforms that had both moral and economic appeal), Blackstock writes, “the Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations agreed that legal action was required.” The CHRT was very clear in its 2019 decision that the federal government should compensate each victim the maximum amount, which addressed the victims as follows:
“No amount of compensation can ever recover what you have lost, the scars that are left on your souls or the suffering that you have gone through as a result of racism, colonial practices and discrimination.”
In May 2021, Canada, which has spent millions of dollars fighting this case, tried to overturn the CHRT’s ruling.
Canada’s war on Indigenous children is also a war on Indigenous women. The sterilization of Indigenous women, beginning with Canada’s eugenics program around 1900, is another act of genocide, as scholar Karen Stote has argued. Indigenous women who had tubal ligation without their consent as part of this eugenics program have brought a class-action suit against the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, both of which had Sexual Sterilization Acts in their provincial laws from the 1920s in Alberta and 1930s in British Columbia until the early 1970s, and Saskatchewan, where sexual sterilization legislation was proposed but failed by one vote in 1930. A Senate committee found a case of forced sterilization of an Indigenous woman as recently as 2019.
The Legal-Financial War on First Nations Organizations
As Bob Joseph outlines in his 2018 book 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act, Canada first gave itself the right to decide Indian status in the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857, which created a process by which Indigenous people could give up their Indian status and so become “enfranchised”—which they would have to do if they wanted to attend higher education or become professionals. The apartheid system was updated through the Indian Act of 1876, from which sprang many evils including both the residential schools and the assertion of Canadian control over the way First Nations govern themselves. In 1927, when Indigenous veterans of World War I began to hold meetings with one another to discuss their situation, Canada passed laws forbidding Indigenous people from political organization and from raising funds to hire legal counsel (and from playing billiards, among other things). The Indian Act—which is still in effect today with amendments, despite multiple attempts to repeal it—outlawed traditional governance structures and gave Canada the power to intervene to remove and install Indigenous governance authorities at will—which Canada did continuously, from Six Nations in 1924 to Barriere Lake in 1995. As a result, at any given moment, many First Nations are still embroiled in lawsuits over control of their own governments.
Canada controls the resources available to First Nations, including drinking water. In another national embarrassment, Canada has found itself able to provision drinking water to diamond mines but not First Nations. This battle too has entered the courts, with a class-action suit by Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, and Neskantaga First Nation demanding that Canada not only compensate their nations, but also work with them to build the necessary water systems.
Canada dribbles out humiliating application processes by which Indigenous people can try to exercise their human right to housing. When combined with the housing crisis on reserves, these application processes have attracted swindlers like consultant Jerry Paulin, who sued Cat Lake First Nation for $1.2 million, claiming that his efforts were the reason the First Nation received federal funds for urgent housing repairs.
Canada uses the threat of withdrawal of these funds to impose stringent financial “transparency” conditions on First Nations—the subject of legal struggle, in which Cold Lake First Nations has argued that the financial transparency provisions violate their rights. Canada has used financial transparency claims to put First Nations finances under third-party management, withholding and misusing the funds in a not-very-transparent way, as the Algonquins of Barriere Lake charged in another lawsuit. An insistence on transparency is astounding for a country that buried massive numbers of Indigenous children in unmarked graves.
Win or lose, the lawsuits themselves impose high costs on First Nations whose finances are, for the most part, controlled by Canada. The result is situations like the one where the Beaver Lake Cree are suing Canada for costs because they ran out of money suing Canada for their land. When First Nations are winning in court, Canada tries to bankrupt them before they get there.
Land and Resources Are the Core of the Struggle
The core issue between Canada and First Nations is land. Most battles are over the land on which the state of Canada sits, all of which was stolen and much of which was swindled through legal processes that couldn’t hold up to scrutiny and are now unraveling. “[I]n simple acreage,” the late Indigenous leader Arthur Manuel wrote in the 2017 book The Reconciliation Manifesto, this was “the biggest land theft in the history of mankind,” reducing Indigenous people from holding 100 percent of the landmass to 0.2 percent. One of the most economically important pieces of land is the Haldimand tract in southern Ontario, which generates billions of dollars in revenue that belongs, by right, to the Six Nations, as Phil Monture has extensively documented. Six Nations submitted ever-more detailed land claims, until Canada simply stopped accepting them. But in July, their sustained resistance led to the cancellation of a planned suburban development (read: settlement) on Six Nations land.
Many of the First Nations court battles are defensive. Namgis, Ahousaht, Dzawada’enuxw, and Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw First Nations have tried to defend their wild fisheries against encroachment and pollution by settler fish farms. West Moberly, Long Plain, Peguis, Roseau River Anishinabe, Aroland, Ginoogaming, Squamish, Coldwater, Tsleil-Waututh, Aitchelitz, Skowkale, and Shxwha:y Village First Nations challenged dams and pipelines. Canada has a history of “pouring big money” into these court battles to the tune of tens of millions—small money compared to its tens of billions subsidizing and taking over financially unviable pipelines running through Indigenous lands—including that of the Wet’suwet’en, whose resistance sparked mass protests across Canada in 2020. The duty to consult First Nations on such projects is itself the outcome of a legal struggle, won in the 2004 decision in Haida Nation v. British Columbia.
First Nations who were swindled or coerced out of their lands (or water, as with Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation’s case against Winnipeg and Ontario for illegally taking their water from Shoal Lake for use by the city of Winnipeg starting in 1913) fight for their land back, for compensation, or both. The Specific Claims Tribunal has 132 ongoing cases. In Saskatchewan in May, the tribunal awarded Mosquito Grizzly Bear’s Head Lean Man First Nation $141 million and recognition that they never surrendered their land as Canada had claimed they had in 1905. In June, Heiltsuk First Nation won a part of their land back.
First Nations also fight for their fishing rights in courts and out on the water, as settler fishers have physically attacked and tried to intimidate Mi’kmaw fishers on Canada’s east coast. In June, on the west coast, after the British Columbia Court of Appeals found against Canada, the federal government announced it wouldn’t appeal, dropping a 15-year litigation that restricted Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations fishing quotas.
Decolonization Just Might Be Inevitable
Why does Canada keep fighting (and losing) even as its legitimacy as a state built on theft and genocide crumbles? It’s not merely the habits of centuries. It’s also the absence of any project besides the displacement of First Nations and the plunder of the land. Canada could take the first step to ending all this by declaring a unilateral ceasefire in the legal war. Too few Canadians understand that this would actually be a very good thing. First Nations lived sustainably for thousands of years in these extraordinary northern ecosystems. Then the European empires arrived, bringing smallpox and tuberculosis among other scourges. Local extinctions of beaver and buffalo quickly followed, as well as the total extinction of the passenger pigeon. Today’s settler state has poisoned pristine lakes with mine tailings, denuded the country’s spectacular forests, and gifted the atmosphere some of the world’s highest per capita carbon emissions (seventh in the world in 2018—more than Saudi Arabia, which was 10th, and the U.S., which was 11th). Indigenous visionaries have better ideas, such as those presented by Leanne Betasamosake Simpson and Arthur Manuel, or for that matter the Red Deal and the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba.
Under Indigenous sovereignty, Canadians could truly be guests of the First Nations, capable of fulfilling their obligations to their hosts and their hosts’ lands, rather than the pawns of the settler state’s war against those from whom the land was stolen.
_______________________________________________
Justin Podur is a Toronto-based writer and a writing fellow at Globetrotter. You can find him on his website at podur.org and on Twitter @justinpodur. He teaches at York University in the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change.
This article was produced by Globetrotter.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 9 Aug 2021.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Canada Is Waging an All-Front Legal War against Indigenous People, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
Share this article:
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES, 9 Aug 2021
Dr Pascal Sacré | Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation - TRANSCEND Media Service
30 juillet 2021 – La question, pour moi, n’est pas de diaboliser la vaccination comme les intégristes de celle-ci diabolisent toute alternative à leur Dieu, généralement en s’attaquant aux gens qui osent en parler.
La question, pour moi, est de dire la vérité aux gens :
Il y a des alternatives plus sûres, plus efficaces et moins dangereuses pour trouver la porte de sortie de cette crise.
Nous sommes dans une phase de totalitarisme intégriste à caractère religieux.
Dans cette phase qui atteint son paroxysme hystérique, le Vaccin est le nouveau Dieu. Le parallèle avec les religions dans ce qu’elles ont toutes eu d’extrême est saisissant.
Je ne parle pas des religions au sens original, dont l’une des étymologies admises est religare, relier [1]. Toutes les religions ont été utilisées par une partie de leur hiérarchie pour contrôler, dominer, séparer, exterminer, détournant le message religieux de son ambition originelle qui est rassembler, expliquer, rassurer, inclure, protéger et donner un sens à nos existences.
Derrière ce spectre de l’intégrisme vaccinal se cachent des personnes cyniques, qui vont jusqu’à faire croire qu’elles sont concernées par votre bien-être. Il y en a toujours eu, y compris derrière les religions qui prônaient le pardon, l’inclusion, la justice, la bonté en paroles mais qui dans les faits, tuaient, séparaient, jugeaient, emprisonnaient et exterminaient au moyen d’exécutants zélés sadiques, psychopathes, fanatiques.
Pour autant que les gens veuillent des gouvernants dignes de confiance, des politiques honnêtes, ils devraient toujours juger les gouvernants, les élites financières, les politiques à leurs actes plutôt qu’à leurs paroles.
Un exemple démonstratif en Belgique fut la nomination en 2020, au poste de ministre de la santé d’une personne qui avait pourtant déjà fraudé, menti, trahi [2] des années plus tôt.
À la décharge du peuple, il faut dire qu’en Belgique, élections ou pas, les citoyens n’ont aucun contrôle sur les nominations ministérielles.
De même, en France, le ministre de la Justice est … mis en examen tout en conservant son poste [3]. Il garde évidemment le soutien de son gouvernement.
Poursuivons le parallèle entre le Vaccin et Dieu.
Dans cette histoire de Vaccin Tout-Puissant, il y a également un grand nombre de croyants sincères. Certains sont même les fanatiques, les extrémistes de service.
Ils croient.
Quoi que vous disiez, études sérieuses ou raisonnements solides à l’appui, ça n’y changera rien.
Un ministre français l’a dit dans ces termes intégristes en 2015, « la vaccination, ça ne se discute pas » [4].
Je vous l’ai dit, beaucoup des croyants sont sincères. L’Enfer n’est-il pas pavé de bonnes intentions ?
Pour le Dieu Vaccin, ils ne demandent pas de preuves.
« On » a dit que la Vaccination avait sauvé l’humanité, qu’elle avait éradiqué la polio, cela suffit, pas besoin de chercher ni lire les études, les rapports originaux qui le prouvent. En fait, ils n’existent pas ou ont été tronqués (cf. les travaux du docteur Edward H. Kass de Harvard : Enquête Choc — Les vaccins ont-ils vraiment sauvé l’humanité ? — Santé et Bien-être — Sott.net).
Peu importe.
Confiance aveugle.
Par contre, pour des médicaments qui ont fait leurs preuves, 70 années d’utilisation pour l’hydroxychloroquine, plus de quarante années pour l’ivermectine considérée comme essentielle par l’organisation mondiale de la santé, plus de quarante années pour l’azithromycine, molécules défendues dans le traitement du COVID-19 par des scientifiques renommés fiables, et utilisées sur le terrain par de nombreux médecins avec succès, méfiance maximale.
Rien n’y fait.
Le croyant ne tolère aucune entorse à sa foi.
C’est même sur cette caractéristique qu’on l’identifie, qu’on distingue un croyant d’un véritable scientifique qui doute, qui s’appuie sur une vérité provisoire pour avancer, de question en question, jamais satisfait des réponses toutes faites.
Pour le « Vaccin » ARN/ADN, toutes les indulgences sont permises alors que, si la technologie est étudiée depuis plusieurs années, ces produits sont inconnus en thérapeutique humaine à large échelle, les études des firmes pharmaceutiques sont en phase III [5], leur autorisation de mise sur le marché est conditionnelle et les effets secondaires, voire décès, s’accumulent [6]. Même cela est contesté par les croyants et tous les vérificateurs de faits sont sur le coup. Vérificateurs de faits payés par qui ?
Pour un médicament aussi essentiel que l’ivermectine, avec aujourd’hui une accumulation de preuves sur son bénéfice dans le traitement du COVID [7-8-9-10], à tous ses stades, le nombre d’études randomisées double aveugle avec revue par des pairs ne sera jamais assez élevé pour le croyant du Vaccin.
Jamais aucun article, aucun scientifique même Nobélisé cinq fois ne convaincra le croyant du Vaccin.
Par contre, pour le Dieu Vaccin, toute information contradictoire sera fake new, désinformation, automatiquement démolie par les vérificateurs de faits, avant même d’être analysée, ce qu’elle ne sera de toute façon jamais par les croyants du Vaccin.
La religion Vaccination se nourrit de l’aura scientifique, se drape dans l’objectivité, la rationalité mais dans le cas de la Vaccination, ce ne sont que ça, des haillons, de l’apparence, du brouillard. En réalité, la croyance en la Vaccination n’est que subjectivité, qu’émotivité, que Foi.
La « science » de la Vaccination, telle qu’elle est répandue parmi l’intégrisme actuel, est un parasite de la véritable Science, une tumeur envahissant la véritable médecine.
Ce que je dis des intégristes de la Vaccination, d’autres pourraient le dire des antivax et c’est vrai, pour certains.
Les intégristes de la Vaccination comme religion exclusive ont beau jeu de faire des amalgames, de mettre tous leurs opposants dans le même panier, le panier le plus facile à critiquer.
Pour ma part, je considère la vaccination, même cette manipulation génétique ARN/ADN comme une option, pourquoi pas, à condition de respecter toutes les phases d’autorisation, de tenir compte des signaux d’alerte et de prendre le temps de la sécurité.
La question, pour moi, n’est pas de diaboliser la vaccination comme les intégristes de celle-ci diabolisent toute alternative à leur Dieu, généralement en s’attaquant aux gens qui osent en parler.
La question, pour moi, est de dire la vérité aux gens :
Il y a des alternatives plus sûres, plus efficaces et moins dangereuses pour trouver la porte de sortie de cette crise.
Ces alternatives ne rapporteront pas d’argent aux grands laboratoires dont les actions boursières ont monté en flèche grâce au Dieu Vaccin, elles ne permettront pas aux gouvernants tentés par une prise de pouvoir absolu sur nos vies de parvenir à leurs fins.
Mais ces alternatives plus sûres, plus efficaces, moins dangereuses marcheront, elles écarteront le danger, y compris des variants, sans exposer une partie de l’humanité à des effets secondaires inadmissibles [11], à des décès inacceptables [12], à un verrouillage irréversible de nos libertés.
Ces notions sont essentielles pour comprendre comment combattre ce fanatisme, comment sortir de ce cauchemar sanitaire et de ce totalitarisme qui a pour Dieu le Vaccin et qui se sert de ça pour arriver à ses fins.
Il est tout à fait acceptable pour les croyants du Vaccin de sacrifier des ouailles au bien commun, y compris des jeunes en bonne santé qui donnent leur vie pour que le nouveau Dieu puisse sauver l’humanité.
Ce qui choquerait n’importe qui d’esprit sain, est vu comme sanctification par les croyants du Vaccin.
Nous ne pouvons nous adresser de la même manière aux cyniques, à ceux qui ne font qu’utiliser cette situation pour leurs profits (politiques, financiers, narcissiques), et aux vrais croyants, ceux qui ont la Foi, ceux qui croient sincèrement dans leur nouveau Dieu dénommé Vaccin, même si en l’occurrence, il n’en pas vraiment un.
Les premiers, lâches comme d’habitude, se cachent derrière les seconds.
Les premiers ne méritent ni dialogue, ni pardon. Nous devons nous en occuper comme un corps humain en bonne santé s’occupe d’un parasite, d’une cellule cancéreuse ou d’un pathogène.
Les seconds doivent être abordés en tenant compte de leur Foi sincère. Se vacciner est leur droit, mais peut-être qu’en apprenant qu’il y a des alternatives plus efficaces et moins dangereuses, ils finiraient par entendre raison.
Quant aux éléments les plus fanatiques qui ne seraient pas des cyniques opportunistes déguisés en croyants, pour ceux-là qui veulent que tout le monde soit vacciné, aucune issue n’est possible, aucune issue autre que celle de nous en protéger, pour le bien commun, en les éloignant et en les aidant psychologiquement.
L’humanité est réellement en danger aujourd’hui, pas en raison de ce que la plupart des gens croient.
Pas en raison d’un virus.
En raison de la psychopathie cynique de quelques-uns, de la Foi aveugle de certains, de la croyance basée sur la tromperie d’un grand nombre et de la passivité spectatrice de la majorité.
Quelle que soit la catégorie dans laquelle vous êtes, vous serez responsables du destin de l’humanité.
Vous pouvez encore agir, choisir.
Notes / Sources :
[4] La vaccination, ça se discute (lemonde.fr)
[5] Oui, les vaccins contre la Covid 19 sont expérimentaux ! Dr Gérard Delépine, revue Sapiens numéro 9, mai 2021, pages 14-20
[7] The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro – ScienceDirect
[10] L’ivermectine atténue les symptômes de la Covid-19 dans un modèle animal (pasteur.fr)
[11] Sur CNews, Brigitte Milhau : « 1 enfant sur 5 000 aura un problème cardiaque » (lemediaen442.fr)
[12] Maxime Beltra, 22 ans, meurt suite à la vaccination anti-covid. Son père raconte (lemediaen442.fr)
_________________________________________________
Pascal Sacré est diplômé en médecine, en Belgique, depuis 1995. Il a entamé une spécialité en anesthésie-réanimation en 1997, terminée en 2002 et complétée par une spécialisation en soins intensifs (critical care) en 2003. Il travaille en milieu hospitalier depuis cette date, en soins intensifs, avec un passage de 2,5 ans dans un centre pour grands brûlés (l’hopital militaire Reine Astrid HMRA à Bruxelles) entre 2009 et 2011. Depuis 2011, il travaille dans un centre de soins intensifs médico-chirurgical à Charleroi, Belgique. Il est formé en hypnothérapie en milieu médical depuis 2014 et à ce titre, il est responsable de formations en gestion du stress pour le personnel de son hôpital. Il collabore pour le Centre de recherche sur la Mondialisation depuis 2009.
Images : Pixabay.com
Go to Original – mondialisation.ca
ZZZ, 04.07.2020 C.A. deputato Luigi di Maio sia nella sua funzione di deputato sia nella sua funzione di ministro degli esteri ...