ER Editor: We can only repeat the judgement of mental health professionals personally known to us who describe Macron and his government as ‘crazy’, and this isn’t a throw-away word. To these people, it has a very clear, specific meaning.
As a reminder, healthcare workers are being required to be vaccinated or lose their job; teachers may be targeted next; and from September 15, it will be possible to be fired if you’re not vaccinated. From August 1, the non-vaccinated (or without a negative PCR test) won’t be able to go grocery shopping in a big supermarket located in a shopping centre or drop into their local cafe for a coffee. July 31 yes, August 1 no. The month of August is when many French take their holidays and need to relax… The atmosphere here is truly surreal.
By identification with the character or by simple fatality, would Emmanuel Macron expose himself to the fate of John-Fitzgerald Kennedy?
Who knows exactly who ordered the assassination of John Kennedy, the youngest president of the United States (as Emmanuel Macron is in France)? Few people, certainly. General de Gaulle, a conspiracy theorist before his time, had a strong opinion. On his return from the funeral, he summed up his impressions to Alain Peyrefitte as follows: Lee Harvey Oswald was only a “fake assassin,” Jack Ruby an “informer” acting on behalf of police officials “in league with the ultras.” And he concludes: “We will never know the truth. Because it is too terrible, too explosive: it is a state secret. They will do everything to hide it: it is a state duty. Otherwise, there would no longer be a United States.” (Wikipedia)
John Kennedy apparently had no knowledge of the conspiracy that was being hatched against him, otherwise he would certainly not have been driving through the streets of Dallas with his wife in a convertible at low speed. Unless, of course, he had a disbelief forged by repeated and abusive warnings in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs crisis and the Cuban missiles, or a foolish temerity that made him brave the danger.
If such an international context is absent in France, the situation is nevertheless exceptionally tense. And despite this, Emmanuel Macron showed himself to be just as confident when he rushed, without warning his bodyguards, towards the small audience that was cheering him, before getting slapped. A slap that the extravagant and reckless Francis Lalanne could only qualify as “a little caress on the cheek of the President” compared to the coup d’état that he had called for in January 2021. A call for an undifferentiated military insurrection, urging (without specifying whether it was addressed to Alexandre Langlois or Noam Anouar of the army) the “highest dignitaries of the army to come to the rescue of the people” seriously endangered by the delusional management of covid-19, and “by way of consequence, to put an end to the exercise of the mandate of the current president of the Republic.”
The author of the slap was condemned in an immediate court appearance to 4 months in prison and a 14 month suspended sentence, deprivation of his civic rights for 3 years, and an obligation to get psychological care, which is truly paradoxical since the existence of a psychological disorder at the time of the offence usually leads to a reduction or even an absence of sentence. I recall that the more energetic aggressor of Nicolas Sarkozy was given a 6 month suspended sentence.
Doesn’t this insane race towards danger belong to a quasi-suicidal impulsive movement on the part of Emmanuel Macron, a head of state who cannot be unaware that many signals are at red?
Starting with the unprecedented appeal launched by retired soldiers, so threatening that it left the authorities and the media speechless until JL Mélenchon returned from Bolivia, and published in Valeurs Actuelles on the day of the sixtieth anniversary of the Algiers putsch . An appeal qualified as seditious, followed by a counter-appeal hardly less problematic by other officers , and finally by a last call from military personnel, still serving this time and anonymous, dated May 9, supporting their elders unreservedly . Nor was he unaware of the escape of the Belgian soldier Jürgen Conings, a sniper who, unlike his French colleagues, denounced the management of covid-19. His targets were the representatives of the State and the alarmist specialists of the coronavirus, in particular the very mediatic virologist Marc Van Ranst. He evaded the tracking of several hundred European soldiers for more than a month. On June 2, Ouest-France headlined: Military on the run: he “will strike in a place where he will not be expected“. He finally committed suicide .
All of these elements clearly constitute a threatening climate, to say the least. Why has the President ignored this? Is he unaware of the deep and widespread hatred of him?
Does he still think that his eloquence and ability to charm are enough to make him a person adored by all the people, just like his fascinated ‘court’? Has he come to believe that in politics, facts and actions are finally secondary, that politics is definitely just a matter of speech? Has he not realized that he has hardly brought any satisfaction to the French people except to the richest, and that he is destroying the social, economic and ideological heritage of France for the benefit of transnationals made drunk by hubris? Would he, the President of France, have forgotten that the motto of the country he is in charge of is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, updated for a few decades to Solidarity? Is he suffering from a generalized denial that is putting him in serious danger?
Especially since this hostile climate was accentuated by exasperated media personalities. Jean-Marie Bigard, the vulgar comedian as he calls himself and popular to the point of having already filled a stadium in France, was thus able to publicly and very calmly express his wish to see Agnès Buzin and Olivier Véran “die” (ER: successive health ministers since the beginning of 2020), without, however, being the object of an emergency legal procedure. Similarly to Francis Lalanne, also a Yellow Vest, his legal action seems impossible, too much feared by a Power trapped in its own violence deployed against this populist movement. Invited onto a Cyril Hanouna show to comment on Bigard’s remarks, the journalist Richard Boutry, out of his mind with anger, called the very disturbing and contemptuous Laurent Alexandre, creator of Doctissimo and fervent transhumanist, a murderer (Debate around Jean-Marie Bigard’s polemical remarks on the health crisis and the government – YouTube). While on another stage the venerable historian and philosopher Mona Ozouf called Didier Raoult a criminal. A poisonous atmosphere ignored even in the time of the detestable Sarkozy.
And despite this climate of unprecedented hostility since de Gaulle, Emmanuel Macron is rushing to reach out to an unknown audience. Does he still have all his faculties?
Hadn’t he previously triggered a collective delirium by using fear of an epidemic, an act that is truly a political taboo? Didn’t he use an unprecedented and perfectly senseless general confinement for the purpose, among others, of neutralizing social protest? And finally, is he not also affected by the delirious contagion for which he should bear overwhelming responsibility? It is a matter of the most elementary political requirement to question such behavior.
Especially since he repeated on June 3 those mysterious and threatening words first put forward last December in his long interview with the online media outlet Brut: “Maybe I will have to do some things in the last year, in the last months. Hard, because the circumstances will require it, and that will make it impossible for me to be a candidate”. Repetition on which Florian Philippot wonders at length and not without concern in one of his daily videos: “Hard decisions this summer that will prevent my candidacy”: the enigmatic phrase of Macron.
These words must be compared with those of the various parliamentarians in Serge Faubert’s video column: “Hysterization of politics: that’s enough“, and who predict armed violence. This is also mirrored by the convictions formulated by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, also found in this column, heavy with implicit meaning, whether on the Mehra affair (has he become a “conspiracy theorist”, i.e. legitimately suspicious, or the holder of unknown information?), or on the occurrence of a hypothetical murder in the week preceding the presidential election. These insinuations, which have no chronological link with the political agenda defined by the President of the Republic’s dark threats, testify to the perception of a disturbing state of mind in Emmanuel Macron on the part of an old hand in politics. It should be noted that, curiously enough, no journalist, inclined as usual to mock Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has questioned the deep meaning of these explosive assertions.
Emmanuel Macron is increasingly seen as a politician with a psychological balance and violent projects that are, to say the least, disturbing. Are they properly apprehended by a political class concerned with democracy? What could be these serious events known to him, of which he knows the date of occurrence and which would require exceptionally “hard” answers? Why don’t the parliamentarians demand clarifications? What new dramas, added to the countless damages caused by his delirious political management of covid-19, will they wait for, instead of seizing their power now? Is it not their basic duty to obtain at all costs a clear answer as to what is behind the threats made by a President of the Republic who is clearly overwhelmed by the events he has been trying to create for the past four years, and to which he is trying to respond in a very disturbing manner? Don’t they realize that such threats are possibly insane, or decoys, since against all logic he persists in keeping them under the seal of secrecy, and that they are in any case profoundly anxiety-provoking, and as such can only aggravate an already untenable general situation? If they were to prohibit themselves from using their constitutional power, they should not be surprised and indignant with absolute hypocrisy at a violent outcome already predicted by them, when it is not clearly announced by the President himself. Whether this violence is that of an isolated individual (Brutus, Georg Elser or other Claus von Stauffenbergs have dotted history), that of a fascist or fascist fringe of the army and the police (the military democrats have not spoken out), or conversely of a state violence unleashed by Emmanuel Macron.
And apparently a completely different kind of violence than the one to which the population has been subjected for more than a year through the crazy management of covid-19. Since June 15, against all medical logic, young people from 12 to 18 years old, in whom the lethality of the respiratory infection is almost nil, are the target of an experimental vaccination whose lethal risk is far from nil. Can we not objectively qualify it as criminal for them? And there is now talk of targeting infants as well. When will this delirium, which must obviously be understood in the truly pathological sense of the term, stop?
Parliamentarians, your full responsibility is very seriously solicited by the events: WAKE UP!
Information on the collective delirium:
Click on the image below to visit site:
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.