French President Emmanuel Macron has reiterated his belief that the conflict in Ukraine will inevitably be resolved at the negotiations table, and that the West and NATO in particular will have to come up with security guarantees not only for Kiev, but Moscow as well, to secure a lasting peace.

“The day of peace will involve discussions. First and foremost for guarantees to Ukraine, for its territorial integrity, its long-term security. But also for Russia, as a party that it will be to an armistice and peace treaty,” Macron said in an interview with the TF1 and LCI channels broadcast on Tuesday.

The French leader first voiced the idea of “security guarantees” for Russia earlier this month, arguing that one of the “essential points” NATO had to address is Russia’s concern that the military bloc “comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia.”

His comments triggered a barrage of criticism not only from Kiev but also fellow EU leaders from Poland, Slovakia and the Baltic states. French diplomats tried to downplay the comment, insisting that it was taken “out of context,” while Macron himself urged European allies not to “create controversy where there is none.”

In the latest interview, Macron urged critics to explain what kind of alternative to eventual talks with Moscow they are proposing.

“What the people who refuse to prepare this and work on it are proposing is full war. It will involve the whole continent,” he said.

Last December, Russia presented a list of security demands to the US and NATO, asking the West to impose a ban on Ukraine entering the military bloc, while insisting that NATO should retreat to its borders of 1997, before it began to expand.

In January, the US and NATO refused, saying they would only be interested in strategic arms control talks. Since the conflict in Ukraine escalated in February, the bloc has also moved to welcome Sweden and Finland into the military alliance, though the expansion has yet to be finalized.

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/568631-macron-russia-security-guarantees/

READ FROM TOP.

see also:

https://www.rt.com/russia/567788-ryabkov-talks-security-west/

always the bloody ruskies.....

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

by Dr. Pascal Sacre 

(SEE ALSO: https://en.reseauinternational.net/echec-de-la-strategie-sanitaire-francaise-vive-les-traitements-precoces/)

« Inside the body exists an unknown agent 
Who works for the whole and for the parts, 
Who is both One and Many »

Hippocrates

We are at the height of this era in which all truths have been falsified, completely reversed.

We are there, arrived at the last summit of Kilimanjaro of the lie disguised in truth.

This could only work if it went hand in hand with the extreme infantilization of the human being, with his progressive stupidity which also reached its culminating point.

Everything has contributed to this destruction of human intelligence and all its parts, physical, rational, emotional, spiritual.

Crossfire fed by nonsense dressed in obviousness, nerve, arrogance, contempt, violence, distractions, saturation, paradoxes, terror, bad faith, corruption, laziness, inertia, incessant stimulations and constant noises…

• Television.
• School.
• Written media.
• The advertisement.
• The operating methods of companies, both private and public.
• Religion.
• Video games.
• Digital tools as numerous as grasshoppers in a devastating cloud1.

The human spirit is kept boiling.

All disciplines have been contaminated by this disease which consists in corrupting the truth, sometimes in an obvious, visible way, more often in a subtle way like a cancer which exhausts as slowly as surely the healing capacities of the organism violated without its knowledge.

It is a vast coalition of agendas and decisions, spanning generations, which alone demonstrates the organized malevolent intent behind this enterprise of controlled demolition of human potential.

In this sense, what to do?

Already, notice then accept this evidence.

How many still fall into the trap of maintaining a dialogue with the broadcasters of illusions, these people dubbed by the system, self-proclaimed supporters of THE truth, called "experts". 

Understand what this is all about: “The experts have never been wrong. They have always lied. » 

This is a big difference, an important nuance. I'm not talking to a patent liar like I would to someone who was just wrong.

Besides, I'm not talking to a licensed liar. I dismantle his lies and try, with tact and gentleness, to alert my deceived fellow citizens.

You don't have to be the malicious instigator of the system to defend it tooth and nail. Moreover, these often remain in the background, barely visible or even invisible to the majority of humans. They have given their orders, distributed rewards or threats, and then attend the spectacle.

Many of the Illusion System's defenders are honest and benevolent people, deceived or clinging to their beliefs, not realizing that by doing so they are unwittingly serving the system they think they are fighting.

Juddi Krishnamurti2 is a Hindu sage who advocated total independence from any system of thought which, as valid as it was for a time, ended up locking its followers into a truth that had become obsolete. Sooner or later, supporters of any school prefer to ignore contrary facts, avoid contradictory debates, focus on what confirms their vision of things and stubbornly switch to the defense of their ideas, rather than pursue the quest for truth.

Because the truth is an unattainable goal. It is a permanent search, a perpetual questioning.

Truth frozen into an idea, into a system of thoughts, is like a stream that has stopped flowing, transformed into a stagnant, dead pond.

No school.

No system.

Indeed, whoever adheres to a school, to a system of thoughts, even more if he is a founder, will cling to his school, to his system, even as the evolution of knowledge and human maturity have rendered obsolete, misleading or limiting.

Human history proves it.

Unless there is an effort of lucidity and enormous will, it is very difficult to renounce ideas with which we have identified ourselves all our life, for which we have dedicated our lives.

This is even more true for the founders, for those who earn their living thanks to the way of thinking that they defend and sell, for those who derive power, fame, rewards from it.

All schools of thought, no matter how well founded, at first become finite systems, limiting ever-evolving truth, becoming comfortable but deceptive shackles.

Next to that, we find the impostors, the licensed liars, those who tamper with their studies, steal the work of others.

The prototype is certainly Louis Pasteur, the usurper, and his antithesis is Antoine Béchamp, a true honest, honest, passionate researcher, repeating his work dozens of times in all conditions, over years, before drawing conclusions and publish, ready to question himself, as his entire life has proven.

However, if you ask around you who knows Antoine Béchamp, even among the doctors you know, very few will say yes. Even fewer will know what this man, at once extraordinary and modest, humble and rigorous, brought to light.

It's quite simple.

It invites you to completely forget everything you thought you knew.

He shows you, proves to you that life is not at all a war as these “experts” present it to us today, even less a conflict with the outside which would be threatening.

Life is a powerful harmony, yin and yang, between the internal and the external, maintained from the depths of the human body itself.

Today, the COVID crisis, the war in Ukraine (overshadowing all others created by the West), climate variations used as an alibi for more control and austerity, energy crises made by some man make me say that if humanity does not seize the opportunity, that if enough humans do not rise up not to demand an end to the current system (it destroys itself) but to regain control over their life, their health, to resume the path towards the truth, then, this humanity will have missed its chance.

Let's start from real models of virtue, integrity, rigor and benevolence.

Among these models, Antoine Béchamp shows us the way.

I'm confident.

« You must learn to permanently unlearn everything you have learned »

source: globalization

READ FROM TOP.

GUS MAINTAINS THAT DECEPTION IS AT THE CORE OF HUMANITY'S SUCCESS VERSUS NATURE... THOUGH DECEPTION IS "NATURAL" AMONGST MANY SPECIES, WE HAVE TURNED THIS CHARACTERISTIC INTO A STYLISTIC ACTIVITY BEYOND MERE SURVIVAL.... WE DECEIVE OUR SELF AS WELL... SEE: 

 (PUBLISHED ON THIS SITE IN 2006)

AND YES, WE CAN DO BETTER. BUT THE TRUTH IS HARD WORK. IT IS FAR EASIER TO LIE. 

GUS IS A RABID ATHEIST WHO UNLEARNT A LOT AND BECAME A CARTOONIST (APART FROM MANY OTHER THINGS) SINCE 1951.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

by Dr. Pascal Sacre

I am again summoned by the College of Physicians, in Belgium, in Mons, on January 11, 2023, hearing at 19:30 p.m.

Physician committed to the use and dissemination of effective early treatments for COVID, for freedom of expression, for public and balanced scientific debate, for the true informed consent of patients, for a moratorium on experimental injections falsely called vaccines including the current morbidity and mortality is alarming, and in defense of the Hippocratic oath recalled on page 14 of the book " The doctor's ethics of the Belgian national vice-president Philippe Boxho and in particular these points:

« When I become a member of the medical profession, I make a solemn pledge to always do my best for quality medicine, at the service of people and society.

I will consider the health and well-being of my patient as my priority.

I will correctly inform the people who call on my care. (…) I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity...

I will update and share my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient...

I make these promises on my honor... »

I appear before the provincial order of doctors of Hainaut in Belgium for, according to this, I have exceeded the limits of freedom of expression by widely spreading, in particular on social networks, allegations which are more personal convictions than factual data. and validated by science.

How does a medical order guarantee factual data validated by science?

Science and knowledge are constantly evolving.

How can they ignore all the factual and convincing data underlying all my remarks, as well as those of illustrious colleagues around the world and this since 2020?

Are they the only ones to define what is factual and validated by science?

How would an Order of Physicians, in principle competent in terms of ethics and relations between doctors and their patients, guarantee factual data validated by science?

Meeting them does not scare me and I will go there without backtracking, without denying my words, by exploiting on the contrary this opportunity to provoke a debate that the authorities have forbidden us so far.

How to respect my Hippocratic oath, priority over everything else? How to correctly inform the people who seek my care, in a space where any debate has been prevented, denied, refused, rejected, ridiculed?

I will ask them the question.

I am proud of what I have done. I would do it again.

I am proud, from 2020, to have correctly informed my patients, these people for whom we doctors are responsible for true information and correct care. 

My priority as a doctor, my first duty was neither to please the Order nor to follow political or media directives, but to treat and properly inform my patient. This is the most important duty of a doctor.

It was and always will be.

Be numerous to support worried doctors around the world. Be thousands around these brave doctors.

This is your strength! To show that such a symbol, the search and defense of the truth, can still mobilize thousands of honest citizens who want democracy not to be an empty word. This is our strength: numbers! The power of a citizens' assembly of enlightened people who regain power over their lives and their health.

Through official institutions such as the Order of Physicians, the system wants to make us, Alain Colignon, Laurence Kayser, Frédéric Goaréguer, Gaëtane Beeckaert, Éric Beeth, Cécile Andri, me and others in Belgium, examples to scare to all the therapists who do not go in their unique direction.

You, citizens, make us examples, yes, symbols of integrity, courage and truth. Models, examples to follow.

Don't do it for us as a person or as an individual, do it for the values ​​we stand for for you.

I will go there without hatred, without anger, without reproaches.

It is not a war of science, truth, nor justice because all these fields are largely corrupted. It's not a war at all.  

It's an occasion. A chance. A mad hope to make humanity evolve.

Little hotbeds of courage and stubbornness are kindling all over the world right now.

I will go alone with the peace that reigns in my heart, with the will to help them see what they don't want to see, with the empathy that all these trials have taught me.

If everyone invites two people, and each of them in turn invites two people, imagine the number of voices and hands, enough to finally reverse the balance of power and cause fear to change sides.

Come from all over Belgium or elsewhere, rent cars, buses. Do this wherever truth, benevolence is attacked.

Be silent when they sound batons. Make noise when they impose omerta.

Be united in the mighty calm and solidarity that none of their guns, none of their aggression can shatter.

source: globalization

READ MORE:

https://en.reseauinternational.net/la-verite-contre-lordre/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Patrick Lawrence
Special to Consortium News

Two U.S. universities have recently taken the cultivation of ignorance to new lows, although at this point one hesitates to make any assumption as to where the bottom lies.

Somewhere along the line, the thought seems to have taken hold among the cliques who rule America that an ignorant populace is more easily governed. Good old Bertie Russell made this general point with an eloquence almost too piercing to take in “Free Thought and Official Propaganda,” a lecture he delivered in London 101 years ago:

“But the utility of intelligence is admitted only theoretically, not practically; it is not desired that ordinary people should think for themselves, because it is felt that people who think for themselves are awkward to manage and cause administrative problems.”

You see the consequences of this perverse belief every day in the mainstream press and among the corporate-owned broadcasters. You can read headlines such as “10 Ways to Be Happy in the New Year” or “Where Did All the Bargain Bourbon Go?” 

But you are not going to learn much from these media about the world in which you live. Your intelligence will not be enhanced or elevated; insult is the norm.

But mass media are merely mirrors reflecting the established ethos of the polity in which they operate. They do their best to keep Americans ignorant, certainly. If the ruling cliques wanted America to boast an intelligent populace, the press and broadcasters would do their part — as Jefferson understood this part to be — to inform them.

No, even a press critic as severe as your columnist must look further down in the factory to understand where the process of manufacturing American ignorance truly begins. It begins in our schools and universities, with the administrators, teachers, and professors who run them. 

The New York Times or The Washington Post would have the damnedest time getting readers to take them seriously, I am certain, unless those who take them seriously were not first conditioned to become “excellent sheep” — a phrase William Deresiewicz picked up from one of his students at Yale and later used to title his 2015 book, Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life.

Russell, who singled out America “not because America is any worse than other countries, but because it is the most modern,” was again savagely to this point:

“It must not be supposed that the officials in charge of education desire the young to become educated. On the contrary, their problem is to impart information without imparting intelligence.”

My thoughts on these questions are not new. I have for many years found the state of young people’s brains — a generalization with many, many exceptions — to be not short of appalling for their want of knowledge, of depth, of subtlety and especially of history. And I am quick to note in conversing with those of my own generation that the fault here lies very largely with us: It is we who have imparted so poorly the principles of “free thought,” known among the Jesuits as discernment — we who have insisted everyone gets a prize and no one ever fails, we who have sent young men and women who cannot read off to universities, where no-one-fails remains the norm. It is we who have failed.

Let us now give two more well-deserved “Fs.” One goes to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and one to Hamline, a small Methodist university in St. Paul, Minnesota. Both of these institutions have recently taken the cultivation of ignorance to new lows, although at this point one hesitates to make any assumption as to where the bottom lies.

Harvard & Kenneth Roth

The Harvard case concerns Kenneth Roth, who stepped down last spring after 29 years as executive director of Human Rights Watch. Sushma Raman, executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Kennedy School, shortly thereafter offered Roth a senior fellowship. 

It seemed a perfect fit, Roth’s notion of human rights conforming very closely with the American orthodoxy. All went well until the offer landed for formal approval on the desk of Douglas Elmendorf, the chinless wonder who serves as the Kennedy School’s dean.

No, Elmendorf replied to the Roth candidacy. It soon emerged that it was Roth’s record on Israel that sank his ship, notably HRW’s report last April, “A Threshold Crossed,” wherein the organization officially designated Israel an apartheid state. 

Michael Massing reported all this in great detail in “Why the Godfather of Human Rights Is Not Welcome at Harvard,” published in The Nation’s edition dated January 2023.

Let us be instantly clear about various matters. HRW made some admirable judgments in the course of Roth’s years running it. The designation of Israel as an apartheid state is a standout among these and took guts given the howls of “anti-Semitism” Roth had to know were to come. But there have not been overmany of these good calls, and some of them have been so obvious and ideologically safe as to resemble shooting at the side of a barn.

Roth, a former Justice Department lawyer, is in truth a creature of the American imperium, an apostle of its right to judge the conduct of all others and intervene when it sees fit. It was The New York Times that honored him as “the godfather of human rights.” 

It is true, as Massing reports, that HRW grew hugely in size and ambition during his 29 years atop it. This does not interest me in and of itself. Roth’s were the years the national security state shifted the subversion and coup functions from the C.I.A. to the National Endowment for Democracy and the “civil society” scene, and when HRW became, accordingly, a chief sponsor of “humanitarian interventionism” as a cover for many of America’s unlawful intrusions abroad.

It is, in the end, a matter of where one stands on the question of American righteousness. I have long mistrusted the position on this that HRW assumed under Roth’s stewardship.

Having said these things, let us now set them entirely aside. Under no circumstance would I count my criticisms of Roth as ground for rejecting his candidacy. It is the same with Elmendorf’s objections:  They are profoundly anti-intellectual. 

Were he any kind of intellectually qualified administrator, he would have run a mile in the opposite direction — declaring Roth a welcome addition to the faculty because he would fertilize the school’s discourse on matters such as Israel and prompt its students to seek their own conclusions on Israel and numerous other matters.

“Education,” to cite Bertrand Russell once more, “would aim at expanding the mind, not at narrowing it.” Elmendorf, I will give odds, has never read Russell. He has lumped education together with “propaganda and economic pressures,” just as the British philosopher had it with Elmendorf’s kind.

Harvard got poorer with the Roth decision last year — poorer in the ways that truly matter.

Hamline University did, too, in a very different context. Both institutions, eager to protect endowments and tuition income, impoverish themselves and their students such that deepening ignorance, and so a weaker nation, can be the only results.

Hamline & Erika López Prater

Erika López Prater, is that most pitiable of scholars, an adjunct professor — underpaid, expendable, defenseless against any and all attacks on their teaching methods, the complaints of discontented know-nothings in their lecture halls, on their academic freedom altogether. If her story is smaller bore than Roth’s, it is at least as craven in its details.

Last autumn López Prater was giving an art history class wherein she proposed to widen the field of study beyond the Western canon to give “world art history” something closer to its true meaning. In this cause she determined to show students slides of various non–Western images, some of them religious. 

Among these was a 14th–century painting, an acknowledged masterpiece of Islamic art. It was a depiction of Muhammad found in a book called Jami al–Tawarikh, Collector of Chronicles. This was written by a Persian statesmen, historian and physician named Rashid al–Din, who was a curious figure: He was a Jew who converted to Islam and rose high in the court of the Mongols who ruled Persia at the time.

López Prater took all the precautions that could be expected of her in our age of vicious wokery, political correctness and censorship. She advised in her syllabus of her intent to show such images. She invited students to go to her with any misgivings they may have. 

No one approached her. When the day arrived to show the painting from Jami al–Tawarikh, she announced her intent a few minutes in advance and invited students who might object to sign out of that day’s lecture, which was online. No student did so.

Then she showed the image. Then a student named Aram Wedatalla, a Sudanese Muslim, complained. And then the Hamline University administration fired Erika López Prater. 

“It was important that our Muslim students, as well as other students, feel safe, supported, and respected both in and out of our classrooms,” Fayneese Miller, Hamline’s president, said in a statement, having by then signed an email message saying respect for Muslim students “should have superseded academic freedom.”

I invite readers to follow the logic of these statements out to the horizon. There you will find not only is Hamline University in trouble, but that we all are.

The jaw drops. First, given all the hoops López Prater jumped through to clear the way — more than I would’ve bothered with — this looks awfully like a case of entrapment fashioned by a student desperate for attention and overflowing with misplaced righteousness. Second, the administration at Hamline seems at least the match of students such as Aram Wedatalla as measured by weakmindedness.

As a scholar named Todd Green, an expert on the subject of Islamophobia, put it, Hamline’s administration “closed down conversation when they should have opened it up.” Well said, Professor Green.

López Prater’s case was well-reported in The New York Times on Sunday under the headline, “A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Mohammad. She Lost Her Job.” I waited in anticipation to see if the Times would publish the image in question or duck out the side door. It did the right thing. And the painting is indeed a splendid work of art.

At this point, the people advocating all this reprehensible conduct are tripping over their own feet. We must “decolonize the scholarly canon,” they say, but we must oblige those who insist that certain images must not be shown. 

The Qur`an, I should note, contains no prohibition against images of the Prophet, as should be obvious given the provenance of the painting in question. These proscriptions were added in the teachings of later centuries.

The human rights program at Harvard, the art history department at a small liberal arts university in the Midwest: Where are we headed here? Are we opening American minds or closing them?

In an address to some seminarians six years ago, Pope Francis, a Jesuit, took up the question of discernment, which I count among the vital topics of our time given how short of it we are. Here is a little of what he had to say:

“Discernment is a choice of courage, contrary to the more comfortable and reductive ways of rigorism and of laxness, as I have repeated many times. To educate to discernment means, in fact, to flee from the temptation to seek refuge behind a rigid norm or behind the image of an idealized freedom; to educate to discernment means to ‘expose’ oneself, to go out of the world of one’s convictions and prejudices… .”

López Prater seems to me a discerning professor, and may she find work at a worthier institution. She is, in the way Russell used the term, an awkward person. May she remain one.

And Kenneth Roth? With reluctance born of the aforementioned mistrust, I suppose I must acknowledge he has proven capable of discernment on certain occasions. But he is too much the bureaucratic player, too easily managed, to be counted among the admirably awkward.

Two different kinds of people, they both should nonetheless be defended against the forces that arrayed against them this past year, those dedicated to dimming lights and reducing American minds to their narrowness.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. His Twitter account, @thefloutist, has been permanently censored. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site.  His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site. 

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

READ MORE:

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/01/09/patrick-lawrence-dimming-the-lights/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....