¿Miente el lenguaje?

A friend told me, not long ago, that I was selfish, that I didn’t think about others, about those who might have a serious Covid. She knows me, knows the time I give to others, to my relatives, to my friends, to strangers, to those in need. She knows that my life has been directed only towards that, the others.

Linguistic as well as Philosophical Reframing

Because I refuse to participate in a flawed experiment, without any scientific or health basis, all this no longer exists, I become an egoist. Words have a meaning. And when our society comes to this point to deviate to the definition of words, it is that we enter a dark and dangerous era. It is thus urgent to rekindle the Enlightenment: dear fellow-citizens, I implore you to go by yourselves to seek the information at the source on these treatments that one wishes to impose to us by force, to reapply to yourselves the precise definitions of the meanings that separate us, civism, citizenship, selfishness, experimentation, human dignity.

It is indeed to my fellow citizens that this aside is addressed that our elites, our leaders in France, Emmanuel Macron, Jean Castex, Olivier Véran, Gérard Larcher, the members of the Senate and of the National Assembly, those of the Constitutional Council and of the Council of State, the numerous journalists, media streamers and intellectuals, doctors and TV experts, would not know how to hear. This would destroy their virtuous pretensions. It is on purpose, dear fellow citizens, that they have deviated the French language, that they have ploughed up to the definitions of the words which found our democracy, our living together, our fundamental rights and our duties.

Dear fellow citizens, for this linguistic as well as philosophical reframing, we will focus on the speeches of our president, Jupiter, whose verbiage is the standard in the editorial offices and other social salons. Indeed, at the same time, Emmanuel Macron tries to make speeches with an apparent philosophical content, while trying to justify politically what he knows to be an attack on human dignity, to incite vaccination, he says.

This word, incitement, has been taken up by our highest courts and our highest state officials. The media, doctors, experts and the rest of the political world are not left out, so this is incitement. It is therefore important to return to the definition, sensu stricto. Incitement : Action of inciting, of pushing to do something. To push to do something, is that what our president did? Let’s be more precise. Incite: To urge someone to do something: advertising that encourages the customer to buy. It is thus a question of bringing, in a more or less insistent way, somebody to do something. But it is not about coercing. The best way to define the meaning is to refer to the synonyms used by the Larousse: call – advice – exhortation – inspiration – instigation – invitation – solicitation – suggestion. It is thus a question of bringing, from the simple suggestion, to the exhortation.

Extorsion de Consentement

Emmanuel Macron decided, on July 12, 2021, to make life impossible for French people who refuse to be vaccinated. This is about imposing constraints and not the least: the French work hard, often for a minimum wage, and the few small pleasures they can afford, such as going to a bar for a coffee, are confiscated. We even saw people being turned away from shopping malls when they went to do their basic shopping. Some of these people were elderly, with reduced mobility, women with children, for whom it is not always easy to find another place to buy food. This is called compulsion.

The word that seems appropriate is extortion. Extortion of consent. That’s the qualifier. That will be the main charge. Infringement of human dignity by extortion of consent for experimentation on humans, not scientifically based. Let’s go back to the definitions. Extortion: Offence consisting in obtaining the handing over of funds, of any property whatsoever, or a signature, a commitment, a renunciation or the revelation of a secret, by means of violence, threats or constraint. As you can appreciate, this is indeed extortion. An extortion of consent.

We are in front of a violation of the constitution and of our fundamental rights by a preliminary violation of our language, the French language, the base of our living together, the base of our nation, because this extortion of consent is an attack on the human dignity recognized by all the international texts which frame the experiments on the human. You can continue to quibble about the term experimentation, but the latest discoveries on the significant decrease in the production of anti-Spike antibodies demonstrate, by their very existence, the fact that we are dealing with an experimentation since the results are not reproducible over time, which is the prerequisite for any validation of an experimental protocol.

I quote the government spokesman following the health pass law: “There is no vaccine obligation, there is an incentive”. Is this the definition used for a nurse who is a single mother with three children to feed, who must choose between being vaccinated or being unemployed? Is this the definition that is used for an elderly person with reduced motor skills and on the minimum old age pension who is denied access to the shopping center next door where she does her food shopping? Is this the definition used for the thirteen year old child who was promised after two years of confinement that he could go to kayak camp with his friends? Is this the definition used for the mother whose child is seriously ill and who will not be able to accompany him to his consultations and see him during his hospitalizations if she does not vaccinate herself? And for this son who would like to accompany his mother, very old, hospitalized, until his last breath?

The president of the Senate, Gérard Larcher, also considers that it is a question of incitement, to claim that the vaccine passport is “a good lever”. A good lever, where a bludgeon is looming. We could cite many more situations to demonstrate that we are indeed in the business of coercion. It is nothing else than an extortion of consent in all its meanings, moral, philosophical, political, legal.

There too, it is interesting to refer to the synonyms retained by Larousse for extorting: barboter (colloquial) – carotter (colloquial) – steal – swindle – subtract – extort – steal. We can’t be more appropriate: Emmanuel Macron has extorted the free and informed consent of the French people by carrotting them through a swindle. Another meaning of the word extortion is blackmail. Here we are, a marriage of blackmail and swindling. If you don’t do what I say, you won’t be able to live a normal life, you won’t be able to drink your morning coffee before work at the local pub, you won’t be able to do your shopping where you’ve always done it, you won’t be able to take your child to the amusement park or visit your relatives in serious condition in hospital. Why this blackmail, on what basis? This is where it confers to the swindle: as we will see, this blackmail, this extortion of consent is not based on anything scientific, nor more health.

An attempt to make the Language Lie

Emmanuel Macron multiplies, as if to justify himself, the supposedly philosophical lyrical flights of fancy about rights and duties, about what it means to be a citizen, about civic-mindedness and solidarity. In the same way that he tries to make the language lie, the content of his speech betrays his autocratic dispositions. Here again, he hijacks what is the foundation of our Nation, the notions of citizenship, of right, of duty.

I quote, “To be a citizen is not to always ask for additional rights, it is to ensure first of all to keep one’s duties towards the Nation.” – Macron August 17, 2021. Besides the fact that the definition of the term citizen does not imply a hierarchy between rights and duties, both being fully constitutive of citizenship, this sentence is worrying for the future of public liberties: is it an additional right to dispose of one’s body and thus to refuse to take part in a medical experimentation, to refuse to put one’s physical integrity at stake? Is it normal to consider it a duty to the Nation to inject oneself with a treatment that has just come out of the laboratories? The fact of having one’s body at one’s disposal is the prerequisite for any common life in a State governed by the rule of law.

How could we accept to live in a Nation that would dispose of our bodies whenever it wants? Even when we send men to be killed at the front, we need their consent, if we do not want to be routed. Moreover, in this same conference, Mr. Macron dares to make this reference to the resistance: “those who fell did not ask themselves about their rights, they had no more rights, they only had duties to reconquer the freedom of the Nation”. This reading of the Resistance is once again disturbing, as much on the definition of the exercise of citizenship as on the autocratic temptation of our president. The Resistance fighters asked themselves the question of their right in the first place: it was their right to oppose the power in place that founded their fight for freedom.

Their duty towards the Nation was based on this right: Article 35 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen – When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties. This seems too complex for our president, but rights and duties do not oppose each other in a democracy, better, they marry each other, quarrel intelligently in a beautiful balance until they merge. My duty towards the Nation is to defend it to the point of offering my body to it because it defends my right to live free. Conversely, my right to live free rests on my duty to defend it. Rights and duties are intimately intertwined, to oppose them is surprisingly simplistic for a President of the Republic. It is even confounding of incoherence: the resistance fighters opposed the power in place, estimating that it had since the beginning of the conflict made the bad choices.

Free Will and Critical Thinking

Our president recently praised this rebellion against the staffs and their choices. He commemorated one of the most beautiful defeats in the history of France: the battle of Montcornet, fought by General de Gaulle against the German troops. This heroic battle saw de Gaulle override orders and denounce the infamy of military strategists who were more courtiers than strategists. In his speech, Emmanuel Macron “honored the refusal of resignation and the spirit of resolution and resistance” that the high ranking officer had shown in the face of “the spirit of defeat” of some French military and political leaders. What allowed all Resistance fighters to oppose these staffs was their right to use their free will, their critical spirit and thus to question the orientations taken by Marshal Pétain. At the time, government propaganda was based on civic-mindedness, beyond personal convenience, which was to be translated into an absence of criticism:

Far be it from me to compare the two periods and the two executives, but it is clear that the discourse is precisely the same, follow us blindly without question, without criticism and in silence. What would have happened if voices, very largely in the minority, had not risen to denounce the imposture, to fight for France?

I am a citizen. I have my free will and I exercise my critical spirit for the well-being of my Nation, in responsibility. My critical spirit imposes me to notice that our President of the Republic is hardly more judicious in his choices than the executive of the time: the epidemic of Covid-19 represents for France a rout: thirtieth in term of mortality out of 193 countries, among the richest countries most affected and this, in spite of the most money spent in the world.

It seems that the criticism of the management of the epidemic by Emmanuel Macron and his executive is more than necessary. It is a duty towards the Nation in front of this rout. Even more so if we take stock of the Jupiterian blunders since the beginning of this epidemic:

– A chief of staff, the Minister of Health, who lies about everything, hospital data, masks, confinement, curfews, treatments and who systematically despises any opposition.

– Scientific councils, Pasteur Institute and Inserm, whose models are all denied by reality, systematically promise the apocalypse with one million five hundred thousand deaths predicted since the beginning, which seems to have for objective only to sow fear and thus participate in this regime of terror imposed by our supreme leader since one year and a half. It should be remembered that France has been among the countries that have imposed the most restrictive measures with the result that we know. How many deaths have been caused by confinements, curfews, bludgeoned fear, stolen destinies?

The Citizens that We Are

To oppose the management of the epidemic by Emmanuel Macron and his executive is a duty. And the measures taken on July 12 to extort the consent of the French to vaccination, with the complicity of the highest institutions, the Council of State and the Constitutional Court, make this duty urgent. It is urgent that the French people fulfill their duty and oppose these scurrilous laws which represent, by their promulgation, a real coup d’état which undermines the very legitimacy of our institutions.

These high jurisdictions have endangered the Republic by approving that our fundamental rights are scorned for an electoral instrumentalization of the epidemic by Emmanuel Macron. The Republic will not be able to recover from this violation of the Constitution because it reduces the French citizen to cattle to be managed according to dubious sanitary strategies: vaccines are only a dogmatic sanitary choice not based on anything medical or scientific and the epidemic does not require that such an experimentation on humans take place, even less without informed consent.

Because the citizens that we are intend to exercise their free will in responsibility and thus with a critical spirit, whatever the censorship and the propaganda that are imposed to us daily. The citizens that we are, read, inform ourselves, dissect, and this in a rigorous and disinterested way. We, the citizens, have nothing against vaccines, a treatment like any other, but we know that they are not vaccines but vectors of gene therapy in that they are vehicles to deliver a genetic message to our cells, which will produce the vaccine molecule. Citizens know the limits and risks, as well as the promises, of these gene therapies. The citizens that we are know that Covid-19 is, in its severe form, an inflammatory disease with little immunity, especially since it is an RNA virus that mutates easily, and that the vaccine is therefore probably not the right therapeutic strategy.

The citizens that we are know that this virus kills few people with a maximum mortality of 0.05% and, in the vast majority, fragile people who would succumb and will succumb to many other diseases, and that immunizing everyone will not save them. The citizens that we are have been saying this since the beginning without being listened to, without being given any scientific answer. And the citizens that we are see the reality proving them right: the most vaccinated countries, Israel, Malta, Iceland, the United Kingdom are experiencing an epidemic wave more violent than a year ago at the same time. Israel has now exceeded 55 deaths in 24 hours, which is significantly higher than the maximum number of deaths observed during the summer 2020 wave, when the management was less good. Israel has widely vaccinated its population, especially the most fragile. Even the New York Times, totally devoted to the vaccination campaign since the beginning, has come to doubt the effectiveness of the vaccines:

Whatever the reasons, it is factual and increasingly recognized that mass vaccination to achieve herd immunity was foolish. These facts have been emerging since the beginning of the summer, long before Mr. Emmanuel Macron’s martial address of July 12. Was our president unaware of them? Were the Constitutional Council and the Council of State also unaware of them? Was it the role of our highest institutions to base their decisions on the alleged efficacy of vaccines based primarily on marketing?

Ultimate Imposture

Here again, words have a meaning. To make them lie, as one makes data lie, betrays the intention of the one who pronounces them. Marketing is not science. This is the fundamental lie in this strategy that has seen our President of the Republic hand over our health security and our fundamental freedoms to a few private interests who, instead of medical sciences, do nothing but Lobbying: to be convinced of this, it is enough to analyze the different treatments whose study has been supported by the government. From remdesivir, through the Discovery trial and Bamlanivimab, from the Lily laboratories directed by a close friend of Emmanuel Macron, all therapeutic choices have been the result of intense lobbying that has nothing to do with medicine, health security and the protection of the French. It is enough to see the results that are close to nothing, results that were largely predictable in view of the molecules tested.

It is in this marketing perspective that our president of the Republic, like my friend, calls us selfish. Ultimate imposture. To call us selfish when for the irrational fear of a hypochondriac minority, we have accepted to be deprived of our liberties for a year and a half, to disfigure ourselves, to deprive our children of their childhood, to lock up our old people, we have accepted absurd certificates and useless measures. Who is the selfish one? Is it not the one who demands that we stop living so that they do not take the tiny risk of dying and who wants to impose a treatment on us when we are convinced that it is dangerous and useless? Wouldn’t it be all these new inquisitors who want us to give our serological status to go and drink a coffee? Is it selfish to make sure, voluntarily, that the treatment given to millions of our fellow citizens is effective and not harmful?

Is it not, on the other hand, selfish not to verify these elements, out of laziness, lack of time or casualness, relying on a marketing approach that has nothing scientific about it? Our president asserts, in order to justify the sanitary pass under the aegis of the freedom of some stopping where that of others begins, that it is the freedom of the vaccinated not to be contaminated. We are in agreement. And it is on this postulate that our reasoning should be based: it is the freedom of each one to be afraid or not of the virus and thus the freedom of each one to isolate himself and to take all the measures to manage his fear. There are millions of us who have no fear of this virus. The freedom of the frightened ends where the freedom of others begins.

And the freedom of others begins with their right to dispose of their bodies, to come and go, to work, to undertake, to enjoy life. When we choose to be casual about this virus, we don’t force anyone to be around us, there are many barriers, masks, distancing, hydroalcoholic gel, and we have nothing to do with the abuse of power that has become normal, which the government uses to confine us. It is your fear that justifies this abuse of power. It is your freedom to refuse this abuse of power. Do not expect our fundamental freedoms because you are afraid of a virus and of repression at the same time. To live free, you have to know how to face your fears, this is what our ancestors did so that we are still a nation. If tomorrow, Emmanuel Macron urged you to go and get shot at the front for a result that he knew would be a butchery, and an assured defeat, would you accept being called selfish because you would refuse to go and serve as a detonator in a minefield? The vaccine won’t stop the virus, any more than containment, curfews and masks have stopped it. The only thing it will do is cause more deaths. We know this for a fact. We have gone underground against this vaccination and against all the liberticidal measures, confinement, curfews, attestations, health passes, mandatory masks. Join us, be citizens, show civic-mindedness and solidarity, confront this irrational and unfounded fear. Do your duty, regain your rights.

Language does not lie and Time will tell the Truth

By making words lie, our President of the Republic betrays his intention: to use this crisis to impose himself as the father of the Nation. These measures have only one vocation: the cult of personality. Macron, the courageous man who will have imposed the vaccination against obscurantism. For this, our president, in addition to deviating the French language, twists reality to make it fit this propaganda. To this end, instead of responding to the legitimate opposition of his constituents, he chastises them and decides to make the life of the opponents a nightmare in order to better designate them to the vindictiveness. Not being vaccinated is a lack of civic-mindedness, a lack of solidarity, a lack of citizenship, an obscurantist attitude. Language does not lie and this rhetoric is nothing but a declaration of war against a significant part of the French population, if we trust the rate of vaccinated people before this extortion of consent is implemented.

It is caustic to think that the president who claims to fight separatism has just definitively split France in two: those who will believe in the official narrative of the management of Covid-19 and in any effectiveness of these vaccines in the fight against the epidemic, and the others, much more numerous, who, to different degrees, know the many lies that have been continuously distilled by Emmanuel Macron and his executive. This separatism, Emmanuel Macron, you are the incarnation of it. And this is a serious strategic error: science is not a perpetual exercise in personal interpretation, it is based on facts, on reality. Time will tell reality. Time will tell the truth. It has already begun and it does not correspond at all to your comments on vaccination. The French will soon realize this. It is therefore a race against the truth for you. And since we are vaccinating faster than you are lying, even if you are defending yourself very well on this point, it might be a bit short for the electoral spring.