Stéphane Ravier: “A Cultural and Civilizational Great Replacement”

Stéphane Ravier is a French senator, formerly of Rassemblement National, Marine Le Pen’s party. In 2022 he endorsed Éric Zemmour and joined Reconquête.

Below are two videos featuring Stéphane Ravier. Many thanks to HeHa for the translations, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling.

In the first video Mr. Ravier addresses the Senate, confronting his fellow senators with horrifying consequences of allowing France to be invaded by millions of culture-enrichers:

In the second video, Mr. Ravier has a close encounter with culture-enrichers on the street:

For more details, see the report at RAIR Foundation.

Video transcript #1:

Continue reading

Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime. — Chapter 13

Below is the thirteenth chapter in the serialization of Paul Weston’s book Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime. Previously: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime.

by Paul Weston

Chapter 13: Does it work?

No, the Covid-19 vaccines are not effective at all. They don’t stop infection or transmission, contrary to what we were told at the time. When it became apparent they didn’t do what a vaccine is supposed to do (stop infection and transmission) we were then told the vaccine was effective in minimising the infection and keeping us out of hospital.

This was a lie. No one actually knew if this was the case. Nothing in the vaccine trial suggested this might be true and, more to the point, the claimed minimisation of infection was never actually tested or evaluated in any of the trials. As I say, this was simply a lie.

Do you remember the fanfare in late 2020 when we were told vaccine redemption was close to hand? Do you remember the adulation and the frenzied gratitude toward those lovely, thoughtful, deeply caring people in the Big Pharma Industry who arrived like the heroic cavalry at the 11th hour to save us all from certain death?

The vaccine is 95% effective we were told. Hoorah for the vaccine! And out most of us duly trudged to wait in line for our jab of salvation. What did they mean by 95% effective, though? Effective against what, exactly? If the vaccines didn’t stop infection, transmission, severity of illness or death, where on earth did the “effective” in 95% effective come from?

We were led to believe it simply meant that out of every one hundred vaccinated people, ninety-five could happily get Covid-19 and shake it off in a jiffy, whilst five unfortunate people would not. This is not the case at all, though, and has to do with Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) and Relative Risk Reduction (RRR).

Approximately forty-two thousand people were involved in the Pfizer vaccine trial. Twenty-one thousand were given the vaccine, and twenty-one thousand a placebo. The latter is known as the Control Group. A few weeks later both groups were tested for signs of Covid-19 symptoms such as a cough, cold, fever etc, which were “confirmed” by a positive PCR test.

Continue reading

Where Talahons Rule

I’d never heard of the word “talahon” before this translation came in. According to the Urban Dictionary:

talahon comes from the arabic sentence (ta3la hun) meaning come here, but in modern times its used in germany to describe young people who are extremely loud, shout things at you, wear gucci caps and laptop bags.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Junge Freiheit. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

“Stone Age mentality”

Talahons: Islam expert Mansour warns of problems with young migrants

They are young migrants, pretend to be Muslims and boast about criminality. Talahons are now also a concern for politicians. While Islam expert Mansour is sounding the warning, the Commissioner for Integration has a completely different view of things. [She would, wouldn’t she?]

Berlin

The Islam expert Ahmad Mansour has raised the alarm about the problems that so-called Talahons cause in schools every day. “Girls are forced to wear headscarves. Boys who do not have such a masculine image are bullied,” he told the newspaper Bild. Talahons are mostly young Muslims who represent an aggressive masculine image combined with Islamic morals. The word itself is a neologism, but probably comes from Arabic. “Taeal huna” means something like “come here” in the language.

Mansour said of the integration of the Talahons: “If someone thinks that his wife should do his housework and not have any contact with other men, he has not arrived anywhere in the modern world. He is bringing his Stone Age mentality with him.” Even if not all migrants are like that, this group is still growing and becoming louder, he said.

Mansour believes that the solution to the problems with this group is to convey local values. But that is not being done. He recalled: “We are dealing with structures here that we have ignored for years. Anyone who has raised this issue has been accused of using racist clichés.”

Are Talahons at risk of stigmatization? [And so it should be, since they and their attitude do NOT belong there in the first place.]

Talahons have recently become very present on social media, boasting about violent acts and other crimes.

Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the integration commissioner Reem Alabali-Radovan (SPD) expressed a different view of things: “We are currently observing the Talahon trend on TikTok among young people with and without an immigration history.” However, her concern is different from Mansour’s: “Young people who are socially and economically disadvantaged are stigmatized here. We view this very critically.” [Then it should be young Germans doing it, not these invaders who live like parasites in hog heaven at the German taxpayers expense.]

Afterword from the translator:

Continue reading

Lying Liars and the People Who Believe Them

The serialization of Paul Weston’s book about the COVID-19 scam (most recent chapter here) has made me ruminate on the official mendacity that has been the main feature of whole deadly process. We were lied to about how dangerous the disease was. We were lied to about its origin. We were lied to about the PCR testing regimen that putatively detected infection with the disease. We were lied to about the effectiveness of the measures used to mitigate and contain it.

And above all we were lied to about the safety and effectiveness of the alleged “vaccine”, the experimental mRNA treatment intended to mitigate the effects of infection with the Wuhan Coronavirus.

Most of the liars who told the official lies could fall back on some sort of plausible deniability, no matter how flimsy, to allow themselves to evade responsibility. “Mistakes were made,” “We didn’t know that at the time,” “It was judged to be the best course of action, based on the available data,” etc.

But that wasn’t the case with the promise that the “vaccine” was safe. There is no plausible deniability for those who confidently asserted the safety of the experimental mRNA treatment.

The vax was not proven to be safe. That was obvious to me from the moment I first heard the government’s reassurances. It didn’t require any special scientific or medical knowledge to determine the falsity of statements that the vax was safe. All that was needed was common sense and the ability to think.

If you look at the history of the development of vaccines prior to the mRNA treatments, you’ll discover that a new vaccine typically takes at least five years, and sometimes ten or even fifteen years, before it is fully tested and approved for use. That’s due to a requirement that clinical trials show the new vaccine’s long-range adverse effects — out as far as five years — remain within acceptable limits.

The clinical testing of the mRNA “vaccines” went on for at most a few months before the treatments were given an emergency use authorization (EUA). In order to get around its own regulations, the government could only issue an EUA, because the requirements for general approval had not been met. It was on the basis of that EUA that millions upon millions of people were injected with an experimental new treatment — making them unwitting test subjects in the largest clinical trial in history.

Now that we’re more than three years in, the results of that clinical trial don’t bode well for the mRNA treatment ever being granted full approval for general distribution. The mountain of evidence for the harm caused by the vax just keeps getting higher and higher, with no end in sight. However, from the point of view of the health authorities and the pharmaceutical companies, it doesn’t really matter, because just about everybody who might decide to take the vax has already been injected with it. Massive amounts of money have been transferred from government coffers to Big Pharma’s bank accounts. Additional lucrative mRNA vaccines for new, improved diseases are in the works, so the future looks rosy for Pfizer and Moderna.

In summary: we were lied to about the vax. But not everybody was actually lying — that is, when they said the vax was safe, they thought that what they said was true. Ordinary citizens thought the vax was safe because their doctors told them it was safe, and they trusted their doctors (that trust has now been severely eroded, but that’s a different story). I assume some of those doctors actually believed it themselves, because they trusted the WHO, CDC, NIH, etc. There’s no excuse for not thinking it through in a similar manner to what I described above. But then, most people, including doctors, have never really learned to think.

Way up at the top of the medical food chain, however, people were lying. Scientists and clinicians who had been trained in the development of vaccines and then moved into the highest levels of administration knew all too well that the experimental mRNA treatment intended to mitigate the effects of infection with the Wuhan Coronavirus could not be said to be safe. But they said it was safe anyway.

They were LYING.

I’m thinking specifically of Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, and Rochelle Walensky, but there were many others. They looked the camera in the eye and told the viewing public that the injections they were pushing on them were safe, but they knew it wasn’t true. They knew as well as I did that the safety of the treatments was not yet proven.

But they don’t care. They don’t have to care; they’re Big Medicine.

Continue reading

Silvia Sardone: “They Spit in the Face of Rules and Practices”

Silvia Sardone is an Italian MEP for the Lega (Matteo Salvini’s party). In the following video, Ms. Sardone describes the way the established parties in the European Parliament have closed ranks against Viktor Orbán’s new “Patriots for Europe” group, denying its members the offices which would normally be allocated to them.

I apologize for the all jump cuts, animations, and rapid-fire editing in this clip, but such things are outside of my control.

Many thanks to HeHa for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The Hinge of History

With yesterday’s assassination attempt on former President Trump, we’ve arrived at a hinge of history. It’s a chaotic moment, in a mathematical sense — impossible to reliably predict what will come next. The differential equations describing the current flow of events have no exact solutions, and the successive approximations have not yet converged on a new basin attractor.

I can’t possibly keep up with the rapid flow of new information, so I won’t be live-blogging any of this.

For the best coverage, I recommend (as usual) Vlad Tepes. Scroll down to the comments for new updates, which he has been adding fairly frequently.

Simplicius has posted some very good site diagrams from Butler, including maps and aerial photos with lots of useful annotations, better than anything else I’ve seen. He also closes his post with these remarks:

It’s clear things are on the brink for the globalist deepstate as they see no further way to tread water without simply eliminating all ascendant resistance leaders; their backs really are against the wall. We are entering a time of great troubles but also great hope, because given their desperation levels it’s clear the final battle is approaching and a grand turning point or realignment is almost upon us.

The big question is whether the Secret Service was guilty of gross incompetence, or something much worse. I don’t have any opinion yet on the matter, but these data points should be noted:

1.   A building whose rooftop provided a clear sniper shot at the stage was left outside the security perimeter, and had no Secret Service agents on top to guard it.
2.   The former president’s security detail had repeatedly requested additional security from the Department of Homeland Security, but was denied it.
3.   The Secret Service sniper team on the rooftop opposite the gunman had him in their sights, but did not squeeze off any shots before he winged the candidate and killed a bystander.
4.   More than one eyewitness reported that they had seen the man on the roof and attempted to alert law enforcement and/or the Secret Service, but to no avail.
 

Make what you will of those facts.

According to The New York Post, the shooter has now been identified as Matthew Crooks. However, that may not be the final word, because there are uncorroborated reports that it was different guy named Maxwell Yearick. I assume that there are massive amounts of disinformation being injected into the media and the web by players that have a vested interest in pushing the narrative in one direction or another.

The MSM is, of course, useless. Legacy media outlets went out of their way to avoid using the word “assassination”, and even delayed reporting “gunshots” for as long as they could.

And then there the many example of prominent politicians and media people calling for Trump to be liquidated, with varying degrees of explicitness. Keep an eye on Vlad’s place for those, but they are all over the place on other sites.

I expect Conservative Tree House to have extensive coverage today, and WRSA is a great place to keep up with the memes.

Feel free to leave further links in the comments. If you paste a quote that is at all controversial, please include a link showing where you got it.

Marion Maréchal: “France is Ungovernable”

In the following excerpt from a panel discussion on French TV, Marion Maréchal, the niece of Marine Le Pen, talks about last weekend’s legislative elections. Many thanks to the anonymous translator, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Our Democracy™: In Counting There is Strength

Electoral fraud is a venerable tradition in these United States, with a history going all the way back to the founding of the Republic.

With control of the public purse, representative government provided lucrative opportunities for both elected officials and the corporations that did business with them. Baroque levels of corruption became the norm, and public policy was devised to maximize profits for all involved while concealing the dirty deals behind a scrim of public rectitude.

Controlling the outcome of elections was essential for the smooth operation of the political machinery, in order to make sure that lucrative enterprises continued to generate lucre for everyone involved. The political cartoon below by Thomas Nast features William M. “Boss” Tweed, the head of Tammany Hall and the most powerful man in New York City in the late 1860s and early 1870s. Boss Tweed was able to guarantee results through an elaborate patronage network, lavish bribery, and his control of the ballot-counting process.

So how has the ballot-counting process evolved in the century and a half since the heyday of Boss Tweed?

There is widespread concern among elite opinion-makers that the current electoral process poses a threat to Our Democracy™. One of the most recent public figures to sound the alarm is Rob “Meathead” Reiner, according to Variety:

“It’s time to stop f***ing around,” Reiner wrote. “If the Convicted Felon wins, we lose our Democracy. Joe Biden has effectively served US with honor, decency, and dignity. It’s time for Joe Biden to step down.”

Whether Joe Biden steps down or not, it’s obviously important to elect the Democrat, whoever that might be. Our Democracy™ is in danger if voters are allowed to vote for the wrong candidate (in this case, Donald Trump). With so much at stake, we must do whatever it takes to ensure the election of the approved candidate.

In my previous posts I highlighted the role that propaganda and the suppression of dissent play in this process. But these alone are not sufficient to guarantee the desired outcome — hence the imperative to control the voting process itself.

This requires a multi-pronged approach. The traditional emptying of the cemeteries to produce votes on election day is still part of the effort. But the implementation of the widespread use of absentee ballots and “mail-in voting” — for which we can thank the Wuhan Coronavirus — created an opportunity for ballot fraud at an unprecedented level. The vote-counting process in major cities is controlled by Democrats, with vestigial or non-existent Republican supervision. The Democrat precinct workers — in most cases part of the African-American political machine — are able to ensure that a reliable supply of ballots marked for the correct candidate can be delivered as needed.

The methodology used to produce the necessary results is complex. To gain a better understanding, I highly recommend Conservative Tree House, where Sundance has done extensive research on the intricacies of the ballot-counting process. Here’s an excerpt from a recent post:

Continue reading

Our Democracy™: Alternatives to the Ballot Box

I posted on Friday about the consternation expressed by bien-pensants all across the West about dangers to “our democracy”. If you pay attention to what the globalists who claim to represent our interests tell us, the survival of Our Democracy™ requires us to follow the directives of people and organizations that are collectively identified as “stakeholders”. Stakeholders include a fairly large cabal of organizations, political leaders, and representatives of various corporations, NGOs, and charitable foundations. It goes without saying that ordinary voters are not considered stakeholders.

“Stakeholders” is a buzzword that has emerged in the last couple of decades to describe the dirigistes who plan for the future of Our Democracy™. If we were referring to Russia, they would be called “oligarchs”, or further afield in the Third World, perhaps “warlords”. But since these estimable folks are here in the enlightened West, they are simply “stakeholders”.

And we know, of course, that they have our best interests at heart.

The problem is: those pesky voters don’t always understand what their best interests are. When confronted with the difficult issues posed by our advanced technological society, they often make the wrong decisions. That’s why they need the help of those stakeholders, who are better informed about the nuances of our high-tech 21st-century civilization.

On the other hand, it’s important to maintain the polite fiction that the ignorant voters are the ones making the decisions. They’re guaranteed a voice by the universal franchise that was so painstakingly won more than a century ago. It is their right and duty to decide the direction of their affairs via the ballot box.

So what is to be done?

The stakeholders have developed three major strategies for directing the hoi-polloi in their electoral choices.

1. Propaganda

Up until 2016 this was the principal method used to generate the desired result in any given election.

First of all, it’s crucial that the major media be brought under stakeholder control. In Europe and Canada the process is simplified by state ownership of all the major television and radio outlets. In the USA the situation is somewhat more complicated, since most media are ostensibly in private hands. Funnily enough, however, all the major outlets move in lockstep on the most important issues, reliably promoting the line pushed by the stakeholders. Even Fox News is controlled opposition — it is set up as the despised right-wing alternative, yet it never veers far from the acceptable center. And that center has been moving inexorably leftwards since the end of the Second World War.

Various agencies of the permanent administrative state can bring pressure to bear on media outlets to persuade them stick to the preferred narrative. The explosion of official media regulations over the past few decades has guaranteed that every media corporation is breaking multiple laws every day, whether it intends to or not. Selective prosecution is an effective tool to keep the MSM in line. Those who stay within the accepted boundaries are left unmolested, while any outfit that strays too far from the narrative risks being hauled into court and tied up for months or years for violating various FCC regulations. The federal government’s pockets are bottomless, and any media corporation that runs afoul of it will eventually be slapped with a big-time fine, and will have to pay its own legal expenses. So it’s much easier just to stick within well-understood limits.

That’s the stick. The feds can also deploy multiple carrots: subsidies, tax breaks, lucrative contracts, concessions granting exclusive coverage of major public events, etc.

I don’t know all the exact ins and outs of this control system. All I can say with certainty is that the results are obvious: we have compliant media that move in lockstep on every important issue. This was made abundantly clear during the COVID-19 “pandemic”, when all major print and broadcast media simultaneously got with the CDC/NIAID/WHO program and never veered from it. It was uncanny.

The media control system generally worked well up until 2016. One of the legacies of the Second World War was that people had developed an ingrained trust of their national governments, which were perceived as beneficial institutions. As long as that reservoir of good will was still sufficiently deep, people could be herded and “nudged” into the desired behavior patterns, and would vote for candidates that were considered acceptable. The cherished illusion of the ballot box in Our Democracy™ could thus be maintained without having to resort to obvious coercion and fraud.

During every election the democratic process ran its course. The stakeholders would guide the selection of the candidates, and voters would be allowed to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It didn’t matter which one they voted for — both were considered acceptable to the Powers That Be, otherwise the stakeholders wouldn’t have put them in place.

Relentless media propaganda would always demonize one of them as “far right”, however — otherwise the center couldn’t be pushed relentlessly to the left. Statistically speaking, the media barrage had its intended effect: on balance, voters opted for more state control, more socialist policies, and more destruction of traditional cultural practices. And the bright shiny progressive Utopia thus drew ever closer.

Unfortunately for the stakeholders, the usual process got derailed in 2016. Tweedledum and Tweedledee were supposed to be Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Hillary would have won easily, but it wouldn’t matter if the voters resisted the leftward ratchet and chose the “far right” Jeb instead — the latter was fully captured, and posed no threat to the system.

But Donald Trump upset the applecart. He was not under the stakeholders’ control, and it wasn’t supposed to be possible for him to win the nomination, let alone the general election. When he did, the system was threatened. A tremor ran through the foundations of Barad-dûr.

And Mr. Trump wasn’t the only threat: Brexit also caused the earth to shake under the rules-based order of the West. The ignorant, turbulent voters on both sides of the Atlantic had gone against their programming and made choices they weren’t supposed to make.

The stakeholders closed ranks after 2016 and pulled out all the stops to make sure that nothing similar could ever happen again. In the process they were forced to reveal themselves — they had to step out from behind the curtain and wield an iron fist with its velvet glove removed. It was a salutary moment: what had once been a vague outline in the shadows now stood out sharp and clear, red-eyed and fanged.

People became aware they had been manipulated. As a result, the customary propaganda began to lose its effectiveness. It was no longer so easy to fool the Lumpenproletariat. Different tools for control needed to be selected from the stakeholders’ toolbox, which brings us to…

Continue reading

Saving Our Democracy

In the past few years the phrase “our democracy” has gained near-universal currency in the West. Politicians and media talking heads continually invoke “our democracy” when urging or discouraging action on this or that significant political initiative. Every crisis is a “threat to our democracy.” Any reformer with a conservative agenda is charged with “attempting to overthrow our democracy”. Major political leaders sound the alarm about the need to “save our democracy.”

But what does saving Our Democracy™ actually involve?

In Ukraine, to cite one example, democracy is saved by not holding elections. President Volodymyr Zelensky’s term expired a while back, but there will be no new elections until the war with Russia is over. Somehow the West managed to hold elections during World Wars One and Two, but the Ukrainians are incapable of doing something similar.

Democracy is also being saved in Ukraine by banning opposition political parties, closing down Russian Orthodox churches, and jailing Mr. Zelensky’s political opponents. Evidently democracy can only thrive in a one-party state where all dissenting points of view are suppressed.

But that’s Ukraine, which is not, strictly speaking, Western. What about the bastions of the Free World that lie further west and across the Atlantic pond?

Opposition to mass immigration is the most frequently cited “danger to democracy” in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States. Those who want to close the borders and stop illegal immigration are identified as “far right” and denounced as “populists”. But populists are political leaders who want to do what is popular, that is, what the people want. Why isn’t that seen as the very essence of democracy? What could be more democratic than the popular will?

Ah, but you don’t understand what real democracy is. Real democracy isn’t about what the people want, but what the people need. Which, unfortunately, they are too stupid and too ignorant to figure out on their own. They need the help of their betters — who are not “populists” — to determine what is best for themselves.

The esteemed worthies who make those decisions are loosely classified as “stakeholders”. The system which uses their inputs and preferences to guide public policy is referred to in WEF-speak as “stakeholder capitalism”. Under stakeholder capitalism, a group of loosely-affiliated policy wonks collectively makes the decisions about what people will produce and consume, where they may live, how they must travel, and what their attitudes must be towards various protected identity groups.

Who are the stakeholders?

Continue reading

A Little Bit Nutty and a Little Bit Slutty

A German Twitter user got himself into a heap o’ trouble for using an insulting word (nuttig, “slutty”) to describe the outfit worn by a trans “woman” who serves as an MP for the Green Party.

The offending Twitter user is a gay man, but that doesn’t earn him any protection. In the hierarchy of privileged identity politics, “trans” trumps mere homosexuality. As far as I know, the only more privileged category these days is Muslim, which of course trumps everything.

The referenced photograph is so grotesque that I’m not willing to display it here; this is the link to it. In my opinion, “Ms.” Ganserer is too unattractive to be “slutty”. But maybe I’m just a transphobic male chauvinist pig.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from the online news portal Nius. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

If you call this outfit “slutty”, state security will get in touch

An X user was summoned by the state security service for “insult, slander and defamation against people in political life”. The reason: He had described an outfit that the Green Party MP Tessa Ganserer wore in the Bundestag as “slutty” in a tweet.

It was February when Mike Gick posted the tweet that has now, five months later, led to his being charged with defamation under paragraph 188 of the German Criminal Code.

This is what happened: In February, the AfD member of the Bundestag Martin Reichardt held up a German flag during a speech in the Bundestag. Bundestag President Bärbel Bas then reprimanded Reichardt and imposed a fine of €1,000 on him.

Gick to NIUS: “When I heard that, I was stunned. While Tessa Ganserer is sitting in the Bundestag in an outfit that I could never afford at work without getting into trouble, a call to order is made because a German flag allegedly violates the dignity of the House.” [A government that despises its own national flag has lost, in my eyes, any shred of legitimacy.]

“As a gay man, I don’t feel represented”

He tweeted: “A member of parliament receives a reprimand for holding up the German flag… but when another member of parliament spreads his ideology in the plenary as a man in a slutty women’s outfit, this is apparently perfectly fine with the Bundestag presidium. Germany, quo vadis?”

Gick had already been annoyed by Ganserer’s inappropriate behavior. “As a gay man, I don’t feel represented by what Tessa Ganserer and the queer community are doing. On the contrary: everything that we gays, lesbians and bisexuals have fought for over the years is being trampled on: that we might be seen as normal people.”

Because of this tweet, he is now supposed to appear before the police.

Although the tweet was reported, X has not to date deleted it. Gick to NIUS: “The tweet appears to have been correctly classified as an expression of opinion.”

Continue reading

Burned Out From Exhaustion, Buried in the Hail

The following post is based on a Skype conversation I had with Vlad in the wee hours of this morning. It was prompted by my post last night of Hellequin GB’s translation of the story about German leftists who went to Hungary and violently attacked a German they identified as a right-winger.

The translated article featured a Twitter video of the attack. I found it disturbing because the modus operandi of those lefties is the same as that of Muslim culture-enrichers:

1.   Attack from behind without warning.
2.   Only attack lone victims or people in pairs who are vastly outnumbered.
3.   Use grotesque, excessive ultraviolence.
 

All that’s missing is the Allahu Akhbar.

Knock them down and kick them in the head to further social justice and/or establish the rule of sharia.

I think I may be burning out. This stuff is getting to me.

I posted that translation about the attack by German leftists in Hungary. Then I collated the items for last night’s news feed. This is the intro I wrote for the feed:

Two police officers suffered serious head injuries as they escorted an AfD politician in the German city of Essen. The officers were kicked in the head by attackers, and had to be hospitalized. Seven other officers suffered less serious injuries. The assailants were able to escape.

Meanwhile, a court in Munich ruled that the state of Bavaria may place the AfD under surveillance as a suspected extremist group. Also, Dusseldorf Administrative Court ruled that members of the AfD cannot legally possess firearms because the party has been deemed a suspected extremist group.

There’s no word yet on whether the people who kicked the policemen in the head in Essen are suspected extremists.

I’m telling you, this [excrement] is really, really getting to me.

Hooligans for a Ceasefire

Speaking of Palestine…

Student supporters of Hamas did significant damage to the buildings they occupied at a university in Belgium. The university now has to foot the considerable bill for repairs, and is not happy with the prospect.

Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this article from 7sur7:

Pro-Palestinian action at ULB [Université libre de Bruxelles]: Damages estimated at more than 500,000 euros

The action by the pro-Palestinian students at ULB visibly generated significant damage inside the buildings occupied by the group, RTBF [Belgian Radio-Television in French] reports with supporting images. One estimate of the cost of repairs is between 500,000 and 700,000 euros. The university has announced its intention to file a complaint.

June 28, 2024

Walls covered with tags to be repainted, “broken” doors to be replaced, damaged teaching materials to be purchased, and an “upside down” auditorium: The buildings occupied by the pro-Palestinian student group of ULB from May 7 to June 25 have demonstrably suffered much damage. A colossal bill for the university, which has to pay the costs.

ULB points out that if the students’ cause, grouped under the name “People’s University of Brussels,” is obviously legitimate, on the other hand nothing justified such acts of “vandalism”, especially since the building in question, which is “unusable in its present state”, had been renovated barely two years ago, RTBF states.

The rector of ULB, Annemie Schaus, has announced her intention to file a complaint. The student group has not yet reacted at this point.

Queer Liberation is Palestinian Liberation

Fredericton is the capital of New Brunswick. I guess it’s no surprise that a kind-hearted Canadian city such as Fredericton would have a thriving Queer community. Nor is it a surprise that the city would show solidarity with the liberation of Palestine.

Those two beneficent movements have joined forces this summer: Fredericton Palestine Solidarity has the honor of being Grand Marshal for the Pride Parade. Perhaps participants will gather afterwards for a gala rooftop celebration, just to make it easy and convenient for the Hamas supporters to engage in their customary activities.

No further comment is needed:

2024 Grand Marshal Announcement

Fierté Fredericton Pride is happy to announce that Fredericton Palestine Solidarity is our Grand Marshal for our Pride Parade taking place on Sunday, July 21st at 3pm.

We believe, as Fredericton Palestine Solidarity does, that queer liberation is Palestinian liberation.

We have taken the following actions to show our solidarity and support for Palestine and our Grand Marshal.

Fierté Fredericton Pride will not be accepting any sponsorships from businesses or organizations listed on the Canadian BDS Coalitions website. This extends to arms manufacturers as well.

We have also made the decision to refuse banks and other businesses listed on the Canadian BDS Coalitions site from marching in the parade. Military and arms manufacturers likewise are not permitted to walk in the parade.

Though UNB is not included on the BDS list, Fierté Fredericton Pride stands in solidarity with UNB students, faculty, alumni and staff activists asking for the university to disclose and divest from all Israeli investments and partnerships, as well as those with any arms manufacturers. As such, UNB as an institution is not welcome to march in the parade, but student organizations (sports teams included) are welcome to participate.

In terms of programming, we are hosting a panel on Queer Liberation and Decolonization featuring queer Palestinian panelist May (Queers for Palestine TO) on Wednesday, July 17 at 8:30pm via Zoom webinar.

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.