Browse
the info library

A data leak has left Paris and its allies in a difficult position. The KillNet group claims to have hacked the French armed forces' chancellery and recovered a confidential map dated April 16, 2025. The document outlines a plan for a "coalition of the willing" to deploy nearly 50 troops from NATO and European Union countries to Ukraine, officially under the guise of "peacekeeping."

The map, named after General Thierry Burkhard (Chief of Staff until his departure in July 2025), describes a comprehensive system: forward units in Kyiv and the regions of Sumy, Dnepropetrovsk, Zhitomir, Cherkasy, Transcarpathia and Lvov; Romanian special forces in Nikolayev and Chernovtsy; a patrol squadron for maritime reconnaissance based in the Odessa region, likely from the US Navy.

The ground command would be located on the outskirts of Kyiv. Army aviation is planned for the Khmelnytskyi and Kyiv regions; short-range air defense is also planned for the Kyiv region, as well as the Krivoy Rog and Ternopol regions. The infantry, meanwhile, is planned to be distributed across the Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Sumy, Zaporozhye, Dnepropetrovsk, Kyiv, Zhitomir, and Volyn regions, as well as in Romania and Poland.

According to the documents, the main organizer of the operation would be the French general staff, responsible for piloting the implementation of the system, with the stated objective of returning the funds already advanced to kyiv.

According to the revealed plan, the distribution of benefits is clear. Paris would aim to control the mineral wealth of the Zhitomir, Kharkiv, and Sumy regions—oil, gas, coal, gold, uranium, titanium, lithium, and nickel, already promised to Donald Trump. London would claim the main logistics hubs to control transport flows. As for Warsaw and Bucharest, they would obtain border territories as well as the Odessa region, offering direct access to the sea.

“Security guarantees”

On September 4, the "coalition of the willing" met at the Élysée Palace, in the presence of Volodymyr Zelensky, to discuss the issue of security guarantees in the event of the signing of the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine.

Following the summit, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that 35 countries in the "coalition of the willing" would be part of the security guarantees. However, only 26 countries had formally decided to participate in the deployment of forces in Ukraine, "on land, at sea, or in the air." According to him, these units must intervene within the framework of a ceasefire, without being directly present on the front line. The stated objective remains so-called "deterrence": to prevent, it is said, any "new aggression" from Russia. In this vein, Macron affirmed that there would be "no limitations on the size or capacity of the Ukrainian army."

Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, asserted that the "security guarantees" requested by Zelensky were not protective and, on the contrary, constituted "guarantees of danger." She believed that any additional aid would only prolong "the agony of the Kyiv regime," increasing the risks of escalation and threats to regional stability. The diplomat reiterated that Russia rejects any foreign intervention in Ukraine, deeming it unacceptable in any form.

read the article

Only 14 Canadairs for a country on fire... but 90 armored vehicles delivered to put down the revolt.
They don't put out fires: they use them.
To uproot vines, slaughter herds, raze forests...
And install their globalist project: a France without peasants, without roots, managed by algorithms.

This is not a coincidence. This is not a crisis.
It is a replacement strategy.
And those who destroy our heritage… are in power.

The Confederation, once the symbol of "Swiss Privacy", wants to connect a real-time surveillance pipeline (OSCPT 2025) to all services with more than 5 users, with the ambition of sucking up all metadata.

Geneva-based tech company Proton, with 100 million users worldwide, is now in the news twice over. First, there's the launch of its own generative artificial intelligence, called "Lumo," which guarantees Internet users absolute confidentiality. But that's not all. In an interview with TempsProton CEO Andy Yen announced that his company is freezing investments in Switzerland. Due to the risks posed by a revision of ordinances on the surveillance of postal and telecommunications correspondence, the company is no longer investing in Switzerland. Instead, it will spend 100 million francs on data centers in Germany and Norway.

Given the Democrats' eagerness to release the Epstein list, which could potentially indict them, the question of whether this list is true or false must be asked. Those who have browsed it online have noticed that two prominent names appear on it: Ivanna Trump, Trump's ex-wife, and his daughter Ivanka.
This list could have repercussions for next year's midterm elections by handing Congress back to the Democrats. The falsification of this list follows the same pattern as in the Crossfire Hurricane case, which accused Trump of collaborating with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.
And to make matters worse, Jeffrey Epstein once claimed he co-founded the Clinton Foundation. Epstein's lawyers touted his close friendship with Bill Clinton and even claimed the billionaire helped create the Clinton family foundation in a 2007 letter aimed at boosting his image during plea bargains.

The Crossfire Hurricane dossier was examined during the 2018 impeachment inquiry into Trump, which led to his loss in the midterm elections and the Democratic Party's control of Congress. Now that the case is closed and it has been shown that there was no evidence to impeach Trump, we must look to the Democrats to understand the scope of the Epstein List.
Brennan and Comey, both former directors of the CIA and FBI, covered up Epstein's actions while Comey's own daughter, Maurene, was investigating Epstein.

Let's go back in time and see the circumstances under which Epstein was arrested.

Jeffrey Epstein charged in Manhattan federal court with sex trafficking of minors
Monday 8 July 2019
For immediate release
US Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York
The alleged behavior occurred in both New York and Florida over several years, involving dozens of victims.

Geoffrey S. Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and James P. O’Neill, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced that JEFFREY EPSTEIN was arrested Saturday and charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment unsealed today alleges that between 2002 and 2005, EPSTEIN sexually exploited and abused dozens of underage girls by enticing them to engage in sexual acts with him in exchange for money. Epstein allegedly worked with several employees and associates to ensure he had a steady supply of underage victims to abuse, and paid several of these victims to recruit other underage girls to engage in similar sexual acts for money. He committed these offenses in New York, New York State, and Palm Beach, Florida.

In November 2021, Comey's daughter was one of Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys.

The daughter of former FBI Director James Comey is one of the federal prosecutors in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, which is scheduled to go to trial Monday.
Maurene Comey, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), is one of the lead prosecutors in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. She was chosen to play a similar role in the case of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein before his death in August 2019.
With Epstein's child sex trafficking trial set to begin on November 29, the focus is now on the prosecutors in the case, which includes Comey and Assistant District Attorneys Alex Rossmiller and Alison Gainfort Moe.
Maxwell is charged with six counts of sex trafficking. She has pleaded not guilty in the case and, if convicted on all counts, faces a prison sentence of up to 50 years.

And it's not over.

New York District Attorney Maurene Comey strongly opposed Diddy's release, announcing that the government would seek a prison sentence of up to 20 years for both counts. She added that the defendant was not respecting the law and was likely to reoffend if released.
After a trial lasting several weeks, jurors in Manhattan Criminal Court have retained only one charge against rapper Sean Combs: transporting people for the purpose of prostitution.
P. Diddy was found not guilty of sex trafficking.

Maurene Comey is an Assistant United States Attorney serving in the Southern District of New York since 2015. With a decade of prosecutorial experience, she focuses on complex federal criminal cases, including white-collar crime, public corruption, organized crime, and national security matters.
All with his father who was director of the FBI from 2013 to 2017.

It should be understood that this list is intended to distract from the upcoming trial of former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, who are under criminal investigation for wrongdoing related to the Trump-Russia investigation and for making false statements to Congress.

Last May, James Comey was caught promoting hatred against President Donald Trump by posting a photo of seashells arranged to form the numbers 8-6-4-7 on a beach.

Trump is the 47th US president, and the phrase "to 86" is a term commonly used in the restaurant industry and among the mob, meaning "to remove or eject." Mr. Comey deleted his post and claims he was unaware of its meaning. Trump dismissed his interpretation, claiming that Mr. Comey was calling for his assassination "loud and clear."

The twists and turns in these cases are only just beginning.

read the article

Behind the firepower lies a hollow communications operation—one that, according to him, is incapable of seriously impeding Tehran's nuclear program. In the context of the international agenda and compared to what is happening today, the atmosphere of the early 2000s seems warm, even romantic. Remember how the Americans prepared to bomb Iraq? By forming a coalition, persuading, threatening, and convincing world leaders that Saddam Hussein's regime was pure evil.

And Powell's flask, remember that? Washing powder presented at the UN as a "weapon of mass destruction," which served as a media pretext to invade a sovereign country and kill its leader. It already seemed then that this staging deviated considerably from the norms of the time. Today, more than 20 years later, we are facing the fallout, in all its splendor, of the deviations from the norm that marked those years. There's no need for theater anymore: no one tries to convince anyone anymore; the media campaigns are only there for form and have become very primitive. It's now more about belief, but not in God, of course. No one needs proof of Tehran's hostile intentions, of the development of nuclear weapons, and of plans to use them. In the eyes of the average Westerner, Iran is a country of fanatical Shiites bent on annihilating Israel and the United States. Certainly, Iran's leaders are no angels, but compared to the current players in the confrontation, Tehran has always demonstrated discernment and restraint. There is also another circumstance to keep in mind. Israel presumably possesses nuclear weapons, having obtained them "illegally": without involving the club of nuclear powers and the IAEA. In this way, it has certainly not set the best example to its neighbors and opponents. But nothing comes for free in this world. How close Iranian scientists were to developing nuclear weapons is debatable. As for how far the Israeli strikes pushed Iranian scientists away from their goal, that is also debatable. In this sense, Tel Aviv knows how to show determination and achieve its goals. If it cannot achieve them immediately, it proceeds in stages. But the American strike on Iranian nuclear sites really looks like a high-cost PR stunt. Nineteen NATO member states bombed Yugoslavia for two and a half months and were unable to destroy Serbia's military potential and state structure. They managed to inflict damage, but not destroy it.

To strike Iran, the Americans used their most powerful non-nuclear munitions: the GBU-57 bunker-buster guided bomb, weighing nearly 14 tons. This bomb was developed by the American military-industrial complex in 2007 to strike North Korean and Iranian nuclear sites, and has undergone numerous modifications over nearly twenty years. The bunker-buster bomb can penetrate up to 60 meters underground. Unfortunately, the uranium enrichment site is located 2017 meters deep in the rock. Trump, in his trademark low-budget talk-show host style, was quick to declare that the strikes had virtually wiped out Tehran's nuclear program, which, of course, was not the case. I vividly remember Trump's strike against the Syrian base of Al-Shayrat in XNUMX: a similarly symbolic strike, just for the sake of noise. It wasn't Trump's missiles that destroyed Syria back then. Today, Iran will pay a high price if the Americans truly undertake to destroy the country. But that doesn't seem to be the case for now. This remains a minor skirmish in the Middle East, which still risks turning cataclysmic, but then it would require the involvement of forces of a different level, paying a different price. Or spending more time on it. Because when Colin Powell waved his test tube in front of the UN, few people imagined how much the rules of the game would have changed fifteen or twenty years later.

read the article

The festivities were in full swing at the end of 2025. We were about to exchange New Year's greetings, a year filled with hope and renewal. Yet, it was at this very moment that the ANSM (French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety) published a statement rejecting homeopathy. Why? Does this science (for it is indeed a science, despite what the nostalgic censors of Galileo's era might say) frighten them?

No, not even that. They're only worried about the severity of this year's flu epidemic. Yet, the government and health agencies have spared no effort or our money in promoting vaccination. And yet, it seems we've never vaccinated so many people in France. So much so that we almost ran out of vaccines.

Unfortunately, they face two problems:

• The vaccine is not very effective (like last year's, which barely reached 35% effectiveness) because of this damn flu virus which mutates almost as much as the Covid virus and is different from the one expected, with more contagiousness and more pronounced symptoms.

• The shortage of doctors worsens year after year with each new law restricting healthcare professionals, as young doctors are reluctant to set up practices and older doctors are retiring earlier. As a result, instead of going to their general practitioner or consulting an on-call medical service, all these patients rush to the hospital, the only place where they have a chance of being seen.

Since statistics on the flu epidemic come largely from hospital emergency room figures, the impression is that we are facing a stronger and more serious epidemic than expected.

Reigniting the war during the Christmas truce

Is that a reason to attack homeopathy on December 29th?

Since AIMSIB was created to present science with scientific rigor, without conflict of interest and with goodwill, I would like to respond here to the ANSM in order to enlighten our readers and to fight against a certain obscurantism which brings no benefit to citizens, to patients, or to our health system.

What does the ANSM tell us in these last days of 2025 (which suggests that this year "9" was indeed a year conducive to darkness)? "While the annual seasonal flu vaccination campaign is underway, the ANSM reminds us that homeopathic medicines are not vaccines and cannot replace flu vaccines."

Well, to be perfectly honest, I completely agree with that statement. Homeopathic remedies are indeed medicines in their own right, and I'm glad the ANSM (French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety) recognizes that. And they are NOT vaccines, that much is obvious.

For convenience, some people use the term "homeopathic vaccine," but this term is completely inappropriate. It must be said that the blame lies primarily with certain scientists who use the word "vaccine" indiscriminately: vaccine against cancer, against heart attacks, or whatever else. The word "vaccine" has a positive image and sells, so everyone appropriates it and uses it indiscriminately!

Knowing what we're talking about

Well, NOT HOMEOPATHS! A homeopath worthy of the name would never use the term "homeopathic vaccine," because that is not the way this nearly three-hundred-year-old science operates.

So, homeopathy is not a substitute for vaccination, we agree.

But that doesn't mean it has no place in preventing winter infections. First, because homeopathy strengthens patients' immune defenses against ALL infections, not just the flu. Second, because it works on the patient's overall health, allowing them to better defend themselves against the cold and the harsh effects of winter. And finally, it can be very helpful in managing symptoms if an infection does occur despite these measures.

I have been practicing this holistic approach, which is now called "integrative", for 35 years, to the great delight of my patients. In 35 years, I have never had a death or even a hospitalization for the flu among my patients. I must admit that, like many homeopaths, I have a recruitment bias towards patients who are genuinely proactive about their health and have a lifestyle that's generally healthier than average. And I've lost count of the number of patients who have told me, "Doctor, since I started taking your treatment, I haven't been sick at all in the winter." They catch the flu much less often; and if they do, it's usually mild. But what's more, they get far fewer sore throats, sinus infections, or bronchitis, something the flu vaccine will never achieve.

So why pit homeopathy against flu vaccination, and reject the former to offer only the latter as a preventative solution to the exclusion of all others?

Why relight the fire?

What is the ANSM afraid of? Who benefits from the crime?

In her statement, she continued:Homeopathic medicines may traditionally be used in the prevention and treatment of flu-like symptoms (fever, chills, body aches, etc.), but they are neither authorized nor effective in preventing influenza. Therefore, the term "homeopathic vaccine" should not be used to refer to these medicines.».

So, the ANSM confirms that these are medications and that they are traditionally used to prevent the flu. But why say that they are not "authorized" for flu prevention?

I imagine they mean that, lacking official marketing authorization for flu prevention (due to a lack of studies, because no one wants to fund them), homeopathy and homeopaths cannot claim effective flu prevention.

But besides, We do not claim it. We help patients better defend themselves against infections in general. And ultimately, I'm quite happy about read in the writings of the ANSM that it recognizes the use of homeopathy in the prevention of flu-like symptoms. She could have added "and in the management of the symptoms of viral syndrome", because homeopathy works wonders in this area. Especially since allopathic medicine offers nothing except paracetamol. (as with Covid), and that's a real shame. Especially since the ANSM (them again) reminded everyone in a press release dated 17/12/25 that anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen should never be used for winter infections.

This further limits the therapeutic options available to doctors, who are left with only antibiotics or paracetamol.

But I would like to remind you that the ANSM has been fighting against the excessive use of antibiotics in winter infections for years!

Plan carefully so you don't see anything

So why not study homeopathy more closely and its contribution to the integrative management of winter infections, including the flu?

Unfortunately, the ANSM confirms its narrow vision and exclusive positioning in the press release of December 29: "Only flu vaccines have demonstrated their effectiveness in preventing flu infections. We reiterate that homeopathic medicines are not a substitute for flu vaccines and do not protect against the flu: their use in place of the flu vaccine represents a significant loss of opportunity for patients, particularly those over 65 and those at risk of developing severe flu or complications."

But where are the comparative studies?

The flu vaccine has proven somewhat effective, I don't dispute that, but its effectiveness is relative and very modest. An article in Le Point in January 2025 already reminded us of this last year.⁴ What's amusing is that the journalist began her article last winter with the same words we're hearing at the end of 2025: "The flu is hitting very hard this year in terms of deaths. It's even unprecedented in at least five years!" Have we failed to learn the lessons of last year, or are these the words of journalists trying to maintain fear among the population (a method perfectly tested during the Covid years)?

The article in Le Point reminded us that the vaccine's effectiveness in those over 65 was, last year, 31%! This figure, given by "Santé France", is therefore not contestable and clearly shows the modest effectiveness of the vaccination.

This year, a European study speaks of an effectiveness of 44%, but with a huge and very often used bias: they limited themselves to patients under 65 years old, therefore those who are least at risk of severe forms!

Okay, so the flu vaccine is the ONLY preventative approach with sufficient studies to support its relative effectiveness. And even if some studies are biased, or even completely manipulative, my point here isn't to dispute them. But to claim that "only flu vaccines have demonstrated their effectiveness in prevention" while neglecting to mention that no studies comparing vaccination to an integrative approach have been conducted is a bit hypocritical, isn't it? Scientifically undeniable, but a bit manipulative for making any kind of claim "in real life."

But in real life, why not also use the experience of thousands of homeopathic doctors and especially the testimony of millions of citizens who use this approach every winter with credible effectiveness, since they repeat it every year?

Obviously, since it wouldn't make any money for the laboratories, nobody spends a penny on such studies.

Except that the first "victims" are indeed the citizens who pay taxes and contribute enormous sums to Social Security (you all know, of course, that healthcare isn't free in France. It actually costs us a fortune). So, shouldn't the State and health agencies like the ANSM be funding such studies?

Claiming that using homeopathy instead of vaccination represents a "significant loss of opportunity" is not scientifically rigorous, as no studies have been conducted to support this claim. One can only say that studies exist that validate the use of vaccination, but none that compare it to an integrative approach.

However, I think that no homeopath has ever opposed the flu vaccine and homeopathy with their patients.

I want to remind you once again that the flu vaccine only protects against the flu (and even then, only 1 out of 3 times), whereas homeopathy seeks to act on the patient's constitution, on their defenses against ALL winter infections.

Therefore, homeopathy is in no way a "competitor" with vaccination. In fact, I have a number of patients who choose to do both; and if it suits them, everything is perfect!

Vaccination or not

I like to tell my patients: “You probably know people around you who say that since they started getting the flu vaccine, they haven’t caught it at all. And others who will tell you: ‘I got the flu shot once, and I was so sick that winter that I’m not getting it again.’ What does that mean? Maybe the flu vaccine isn’t suitable for everyone? Maybe the vaccine isn’t a ‘universal’ means of prevention?”

Statistically, it may help more people than it harms. But is it beneficial for everyone? Certainly not, because we all have different immune systems.

In saying this, I am not trying to criticize or reject the flu vaccine; quite the opposite. I am simply saying that it is not the only way to prevent illness and that it is not always the best method for every individual.

That's why I've long defended "vaccine freedom." Those who feel comfortable with this vaccine, those who feel safer with it, should obviously continue to get it, and there's no question of dissuading them, as the ANS press release suggests. And if others aren't comfortable with this vaccination, why "forbid" them from using other methods of prevention? In saying this, I'm not specifically referring to homeopathy.

You may have noticed that I've used the term "integrative medicine" several times. Why? Because every winter, I don't just give my patients a few granules. I also prescribe vitamin D if their blood levels are too low, as it has proven highly effective in winter prevention. I suggest they take probiotics, because the balance of the gut microbiota determines the strength of our immune defenses. I also prescribe immunostimulating herbs, such as echinacea, which have shown promise in strengthening our immune system against infections.

In the real lives of doctors…

I do all this and much more in my capacity as a physician; that is, by evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, the benefits and precautions for using each remedy, and above all, by analyzing each patient's constitution and risk factors. In other words, by individualizing each prescription through a comprehensive approach that respects Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM): true EBM as defined by its originators, based on three interacting and interconnected principles:

• the results of scientific studies,

• the patient's specific situation (their background, specific needs, desires, etc.)

• the therapist's experience.

The ANSM press release seems to conflate homeopathy and homeopaths, forgetting that the latter are real doctors, having completed the same medical studies, and that their skills are no less good because they prescribe granules to their patients.

I titled my article "Why So Much Hate…" because that's what I feel in the ANSM press release: a total rejection of homeopathy and homeopaths without any further ado. This hatred, this rejection, is also found in the Medscape article, which quotes the ANSM press release.⁶

The article is nothing but manipulation and hypocrisy. For example, the only study they cite on homeopathy concerns Oscillococcinum, which is by no means the most commonly used remedy by genuine homeopaths for winter prevention.

Similarly, they speak of a "vaccine efficacy between 52% and 57%" while forgetting to specify that this is in young people, but not after 65 years of age.

So yes, I sense hatred and rejection from them. And at the start of 2026, I would like to extend a hand to honest scientists, compassionate doctors, and health agencies that genuinely want to act in the best interests of citizens. You will have noticed that I have never criticized conventional medicine or vaccination in my remarks. I believe above all in the complementarity of all these approaches. Modern scientific medicine obviously brings many advances; and there is no question of rejecting it simply because the solutions are often "chemical" and line the pockets of shareholders! I want to be neither dismissive nor judgmental.

AIMSIB aims above all to be benevolent. This year, we will continue to present science with the utmost rigor and without conflicts of interest; but also without hatred or rejection of anything, except perhaps the intellectual dishonesty of certain lobbies.

My hope for 2026 is that this integrative medicine, which includes all approaches, starting with conventional medicine and vaccines, will be the meeting place for all healthcare professionals, united by a single common goal: better health for all. This will also be the central theme of our next congress in October 2026.

I am surely utopian, but it is a good time to dream at the beginning of this year "1" where all hopes are possible.

I wish you a wonderful year filled with Hope, Truth, and Love. For, as Gandhi said: "If hatred responds to hatred, who will stop hatred?"

Happy New Year everyone! And take good care of yourselves, in an "integrative" way!

by Dr Eric Menat

read the article

The magic of the holidays is now tinged with a disturbing scientific reality. As we prepare our tables, an intrusive genetic technology is surreptitiously inserting itself into the very heart of our traditional dishes.

According to Dr. Jean-Marc Sabatier, research director at the CNRS, poultry, and ducks in particular, have been the subject of vaccination campaigns using self-amplifying messenger RNA technology since 2023. This "vaccine," which is not a traditional product but rather akin to gene therapy, inoculates genetic material capable of replicating itself.

The researcher warns of the risk of these functional messenger RNAs persisting in meat, despite cooking or digestion. Protected by heat-resistant lipid nanoparticles, they could, once ingested, cross the consumer's mucous membranes, enter their bloodstream, and disrupt their cellular machinery. The complete lack of studies on the health consequences of this passive consumption is presented as a blatant admission of irresponsibility, transforming each meal into a potential large-scale transfection experiment conducted without the consent of the population.

by Yoann

This measure is part of a power struggle initiated by the State a few years ago to collect and centralize the health data of the entire population, in disregard of the consent of patients, and in a technocratic vision of care.

Each year, Parliament is asked to vote on the draft social security financing bill (PLFSS) for the coming year. The bill for 2026 was presented by the government in mid-October, debated in the National Assembly (which did not have time to vote on it), and then sent in a revised version by the government to the Senate.

Within this, through article 31, the government wishes to systematize the use of the Shared Medical Record (DMP) by healthcare professionals, firstly by strengthening the obligation to upload medical documents to it, secondly by making certain prescriptions conditional on consulting patients' DMPs, and finally by introducing sanctions for professionals who do not follow these obligations.
What is the DMP?

The Shared Medical Record (DMP) was created in 2011 with the aim of improving medical monitoring and patient access to their health documents. At the time, it was only available upon request from each insured individual ("opt-in"). Noting the underutilization of the DMP, the government then created a new platform, My Health Space (MES), which combines the DMP with a number of additional services such as secure messaging, a calendar, and a catalog of digital health services. Crucially, this time, every insured individual is automatically assigned a Health Space, unless they explicitly opt out by replying to an email that often ends up in the spam folder. Starting in 2022, My Health Space was rolled out to all French insured individuals, and through it, everyone is assigned a Shared Medical Record (DMP). At that time, La Quadrature du Net was already raising concerns about the privacy risks posed by this tool.

Four years later, the deployment is a success according to the Health Insurance, with nearly 22,7 million DMPs opened in September 2025 on the one hand, and with one out of two health documents deposited in the platform on the other1. These are mostly reports of biological tests, automatically deposited by laboratories, and prescriptions whose deposit on the DMP has been made mandatory.
The DMP is struggling to gain the public's trust

Here we are in 2025, and the government observes that despite the mandatory online filing requirements, My Health Space is still not being used enough by either patients or healthcare professionals. Indeed, the platform is struggling to gain user trust. And for good reason: patients have no control over the management of their documents, nor over which healthcare teams can access them. A few examples:

Obtaining a patient's consent for professionals to access their file? It's a box to tick... by the professionals.
The choice of information that professionals can access? It is predefined in the platform and can only be configured to a limited extent. For example, there is an "authorization matrix" which defines that professionals of the same specialty will have access to data added by their colleagues, that the attending physician will have access to all of the patient's information, or that ophthalmology consultation reports will be accessible to the dentist, podiatrist, or dietician…
Patients cannot object to the choice of documents uploaded to their file "except for legitimate reasons." Healthcare professionals, however, are obligated to upload the documents, and the 2026 Social Security Financing Bill (PLFSS 2026) even plans to introduce a financial penalty for those who fail to do so.
Deleting documents? Not possible for the patient; it can only be done by the healthcare professional who uploaded the data. However, it's unlikely that any professional will log back into the DMP (Digital Medical Record) three years after a patient's consultation for the flu, a sprain, or an abortion to delete outdated documents. The patient can, however, "hide" these documents, one by one, within the platform.

It's easy to see how Mon Espace Santé (My Health Space) "saves time for professionals who no longer have to search for their patients' data,"2 facilitating the monitoring and coordination of care. Above all, it's clear that using the MES "also allows professionals to avoid prescribing unnecessary or redundant procedures," which, in the current budgetary context of cost-cutting measures, is a significant argument for parliamentarians.

But should this gain in efficiency come at the expense of patient consent? Healthcare professionals, like all of us, can have biases that impact their judgment, leading to inadequate care, discriminatory practices, or even violence. Even if this only concerns a minority of professionals, it is legitimate for patients to want to protect themselves from potential medical violence by not disclosing their trans identity, their abortion history, their psychiatric condition, etc. By preventing them from controlling their information and forcing them to disclose parts of their identity in terms that are not their own, this mandatory use of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) distances patients from care, and even more so those who face discrimination, whose precarious health situation is undeniable.
A strengthening of the government's managerial vision

By strengthening the obligations of healthcare professionals to consult and complete the DMP (Digital Medical Record), the PLFSS (Social Security Financing Bill) further normalizes the use of a platform built outside the framework of patient consent, placing all the power in the hands of the medical profession. In this vision of the doctor-patient relationship, are patients too stupid, too negligent, too prone to lie to manage their information? To give their consent? To choose the information they are willing to disclose? And do healthcare professionals prescribe "costly procedures" because they enjoy looking at X-rays or sending patients for blood tests?

After infantilizing patients by stripping them of all power over their health data, the government is now demanding that healthcare professionals become complicit in this confiscation. In doing so, it deprives healthcare professionals of the choice of their tools, their methods of providing care, and their modes of interaction with their patients. With this law, the government is sinking even further into its managerial logic, which presupposes the inability of individuals to make sensible, intelligent decisions tailored to their situations, and is implementing control mechanisms and sanctions for those who resist.

At La Quadrature du Net, we are concerned about the centralization of our data on private platforms and the construction of increasingly interconnected databases. We fear the technological risks, data leaks, and vulnerability to cyberattacks. We are appalled by the desire of some members of parliament to subject the data in the Personal Health Record (DMP) to artificial intelligence algorithms. We are also concerned about the government's intention to open our health data to private companies through the Health Data Hub.

Finally, we are angry because, by further damaging our healthcare system and replacing it with its technological solutions, the government is stripping us of our autonomy and our right to access care on our own terms, in circumstances that are tailored to our individual needs. In doing so, the government's choices can only exacerbate healthcare insecurity, first and foremost for those who face discrimination, but inevitably, for all of us.

read the article

This very dense document consists of numerous testimonies from practitioners who were victims of the Order of Physicians, during the Covid period but also on a subject as sensitive as the denunciation of their colleagues who are perpetrators of pedocriminal acts.

Guest: Xavier Bazin, science journalist

"In the future... maybe in two or three years, 90% of the world's knowledge will probably be generated by AI," Huang told Rogan, in a neutral tone, as if he were announcing the weather forecast for the next day.

Rogan, used to outlandish ideas, replied: "That's crazy."

"I know, but it's okay," Huang replied coldly.

"But it's okay?" Rogan insisted, incredulous.

“Let me explain why,” Huang offered, stating, “Because, what difference does it make to me whether I learn from a manual generated by a group of people I don’t know, or… knowledge generated by computers with artificial intelligence that assimilate all of that and resynthesize things? To me, I don’t think there’s a big difference.”

Huang failed to consider that when AI hallucinates facts or parrots absurdities from its training data, it becomes a tool ready to be manipulated by those spreading ideas such as climate hysteria or open borders.

Huang's dismissal of AI security concerns is not bold; it ignores how much this technology could fuel ideological madness if left unchecked.

However, in a rare display of courage from a tech big name, Huang declared that President Trump was "our president" and urged America to rally behind him, denouncing the petty sabotage of those who cannot stand success unless their candidate is in charge.

He looked Joe Rogan straight in the eye and said, "President Trump is my president. He is our president," adding, "Simply because he is President Trump, [many] want him to be wrong."

"I think in the United States, we all need to realize that he is our president. We want him to succeed because... it helps everyone, all of us, to succeed," the CEO added.

These remarks come as Huang makes a whirlwind visit to Washington, where he has been talking with Trump and Senate Republicans about reducing red tape on AI chip exports, warning that disparate state regulations could hurt US dominance.

Huang strongly opposed bills such as the GAIN AI Act, which he argued would have harmed US chip sales abroad. He argued that Congress made a "wise" decision in rejecting it, comparing it to other "harmful" policies that would have given Beijing an advantage in AI.

China is already nipping at our heels on several fronts, Huang warned, with its "Belt and Road" initiative that is injecting funds into technologies that could supplant American innovation overnight.

Trump's energy policy, which defies environmental fanatics who denigrate fossil fuels, is hailed by Huang as a radical change, the kind of courage that "saves the AI ​​industry" by unabashedly powering data centers.

Trump, always ready to strike deals, called Huang a "smart man" after their meeting, signaling the kind of growth-friendly alliance that is already boosting the economy.

Earlier this week, Elon Musk unveiled his "Galaxy Mind" project, solar-powered AI satellites in deep space orbit, combining SpaceX launches, Tesla batteries and xAI brains to form a cosmic supercomputer.

Musk sees it as an insurance policy for humanity, which would allow us to transmit our knowledge off-planet before an unforeseen catastrophe wipes everything out.

Can an optimistic view of AI prevail over its dark side? Currently, frightening forgeries are invading culture like digital termites. As we have pointed out, artists such as "Solomon Ray," a chart-topping "soul singer," have turned out to be pure products of AI.

AI doesn't just imitate hit songs, it creates them; a third of daily streams are now generated by machines. Platforms like Deezer admit that 97% of people can't detect the fraud, turning art into an algorithmic scam.

Huang's "no difference" argument ignores how these ghosts erode soul, authenticity, and jobs, paving the way for a world written by code, not creators.

Huang's vision is exciting, but it requires safeguards. Truth rather than woke programming, and America rather than its adversaries.

read the article

Have you ever wondered where the internet really is? In the air? In the cloud?

Not quite. In reality, the internet runs mostly on cables. Hundreds of them, hidden deep in the oceans. In this episode of It's Technical, we unravel the thread of this invisible network that connects our world. We start at sea, aboard a cable ship, before going back to the source, to a highly protected factory where these giant cables are mass-produced.

But it's not just a matter of engineering. It's also a matter of power. Who do these cables belong to? Why is their number exploding with artificial intelligence? And how did these underwater pipes become a geopolitical issue as discreet as it is burning?

Welcome to the Internet.

Delve into the terrifying world of neuroweapons and the battle to protect our most sacred frontier: the mind. This documentary examines the rise of neuron rights, the legal battles to preserve thought privacy, and the ethical dilemma of cognitive surveillance in the workplace. Join the fight to safeguard cognitive freedom.

If you're looking for a 90-minute video that brings together many of the themes discussed in more detail in these documents, you can watch the new documentary Cognitive Liberty: Neuroweapons and the Fight for Brain Privacy, produced in the UK by Dominic Halpin, founder of the technology, information, and media company TechNative.
This film features interviews with experts critical of a rising “technopolitical oligarchy” who fear that the public is being reduced to “nodes in a technofascist smart grid.” While proponents of neurotechnology describe it as “the next frontier of innovation,” and the aptly named market research firm Mordor Intelligence predicts a $32 billion market by 2030, these detractors warn that neurotechnology threatens to invade and commodify our “last refuge of privacy”: our thoughts, including how and what we think. They also wonder what will happen when:

• Your employer will have access to your brain activity (referring to the growing trend of "cognitive monitoring in the workplace," touted as a way to improve productivity)
• Algorithms won't just "whisper" to your neurons, but will hijack them
• Your thoughts will no longer belong to you

To make the threat more tangible, the film also includes footage from concerned whistleblowers as well as creepy neuroweapon enthusiasts, whose names are likely familiar to many Solari subscribers. These include Google's Ray Kurzweil, who reassures the public that blood cell-sized nanobots will "keep us healthy from the inside out"; Yuval Noah Harari, who enthuses about humans being "hackable animals"; Steve Hoffman, CEO of Founders Space, who waxes eloquent about technology that can read people's dreams; Obama and his DARPA-led Brain Initiative; and James Giordano (described as a leading successor to historical figures such as Jose Delgado and Allan Frey), who proudly touts a toolbox of neuroweapons—including nano-engineered materials that are inhaled, injected, or ingested—with the potential to intentionally alter not only thoughts and feelings, but also actions.
While discussing implants and wearable devices (the latter make sense when you consider RFK Jr.'s stated vision that every American would wear one), the film shows that neither is necessary: sophisticated pulsed microwave technologies make it possible to read and write to the brain simply by manipulating the energy.
While the neurowarfare technologies discussed in Cognitive Liberty may make viewers uncomfortable, the film makes a strong case for the need to address this threat: "It's a current problem, and it's about to explode."

Solari Report
https://solari.com/movie-of-the-week-july-14-2025-cognitive-liberty-neuroweapons-and-the-fight-for-brain-privacy/

Footnotes : English language video

Studies and testimonies reveal a real risk, calling for increased vigilance regarding the emotional use of chatbots. Artificial intelligence, touted for its professional and educational uses, is increasingly intruding into the intimate sphere. According to Futurism.com, a worrying phenomenon is beginning to emerge: some people are developing severe psychological dependence on tools like ChatGPT, leading to serious mental health crises.

Destroyed marriages, family breakups, job losses, even psychiatric hospitalizations or incarcerations: the consequences can be dramatic. The term "ChatGPT psychosis" is now used to describe these situations where the connection to AI takes a delusional turn. The underlying problem? The linguistic model on which ChatGPT is based tends to approve of the user and validate their statements without critical thinking. According to the newspaper, this behavior, perceived as a form of support, can unfortunately reinforce the delusional beliefs of certain vulnerable individuals. Among the recorded cases cited by Futurism.com, one man developed mystical delusions after lengthy discussions with ChatGPT, convincing himself he had given birth to a conscious AI. Another, initially seeking relief from professional stress, became mired in paranoid fantasies of time travel and telepathy, before being voluntarily admitted to a psychiatric ward. A study conducted by Stanford researchers highlighted the limitations of chatbots, including ChatGPT, in the face of mental health disorders. None were able to reliably distinguish delusions from reality or detect clear signs of suicide risk. Worse still, in some cases, the responses provided validated pathological beliefs: when faced with a user claiming to be dead (Cotard syndrome), ChatGPT responded with empathy but did not correct the delusion, merely reminding users that the conversation was a "safe space."

read the article

A built-in memory machine disguised as convenience, Recall discreetly transforms every moment spent on your keyboard into a searchable history.

Microsoft's renewed effort to roll out Recall, an artificial intelligence-powered Windows 11 feature that automatically records user activity every few seconds, is rekindling serious concerns among those focused on digital privacy and personal security.

Initially suspended following a storm of backlash last year, Recall has quietly returned in a preview build of Windows 11 (Build 26100.3902), now available to select testers. The tool takes snapshots of the user's screen at regular intervals and creates a searchable timeline of everything from app usage to websites visited to documents viewed. While Microsoft touts it as a useful tool, privacy advocates see it as a surveillance mechanism in disguise.

The company claims the tool is secure. To access stored snapshots, users must sign in and enroll in Windows Hello. Microsoft describes this feature as a way to "quickly find an app, website, image, or document by simply describing its contents." The company says users can pause the recording and choose what is saved.

But these assurances fall flat for those who warn of the broader consequences. The fact that Recall is optional doesn't prevent the data exposure of people who never enabled it. If someone with Recall enabled receives a private photo, message, or sensitive document, it will be silently captured, analyzed, and indexed by the tool, regardless of the sender's intent or the privacy tools used.

The ability of this feature to store and catalog data so comprehensively raises a series of legal, ethical, and security questions. Lawyers, governments, and spyware operators would gain unprecedented access to a user's digital life—not through brute force or phishing, but through a built-in tool that essentially creates a timeline of computer activity.

For those wary of AI's growing penetration into everyday computing, Recall has become a textbook case. Critics have described it as part of a broader trend in which companies are injecting AI features into existing platforms not to serve users, but to boost engagement, collect data, or lock them in.

read the article

We are witnessing a great resignation.

We have just experienced a snowfall of terrible intensity, as in some places we had, let's say, 5 cm of fresh powder.

The country has come to a standstill.

The teachers stopped going to teach. They switched to remote learning. "THEY" activated distance learning. Classes canceled. School buses? Canceled. Employees vanished. 5 centimeters of snow.

Then after the snow, the storm.

Trains cancelled, railways completely closed.

I'm not telling you that you should go and die on the snowy and icy road for your bullshit job, any more than I'm telling you that you should run the trains during storms.

However, I tell you that we cannot close or confine our country as soon as it snows, is windy, rains too much, or is too hot.

I'm saying that's how it used to work.

Everyone made a bit of an effort, we arrived late because we drove slower, but… we still went to work.

In 1985 we were under the snow. 38 centimeters fell in Nice and on the coldest night, the mercury dropped to -18° in Paris.

We had school.

Not only were the schools open, but the classrooms were full.

Not only were the classrooms full and all of us children were there, but we also went out into the cold to play during recess in the snow and ice despite the Siberian temperatures.

We are witnessing a great abdication of responsibility in the face of effort.

Any excuse has become good enough to avoid "going".

I'm not judging anyone individually, but one thing is certain: you can't rebuild a country without effort, without courage, and without rolling up your sleeves sometimes.

It is already too late, but all is not lost.

Prepare yourselves !

Charles SANNAT

read the article

France and its people like to remind people that their country is that of the "Revolution," terror of thrones and monarchy, driving force of the principle of popular sovereignty, and that resistance to tyrannical power is inscribed in their DNA.

And yet, at the time of writing, the observation is undeniable. While the French have never been so critical of the government and the institutions that govern them, and have lost all confidence in their president Emmanuel Macron, paradoxically, they have never been so "lethargic".

Proof of this lies in last September's "Block Everything" movement, which promised to paralyze the entire country and be a new revolution. The result: it failed to gain traction and turned out to be another damp squib.

How did Europe's most revolutionary nation become one of its most passive? How did we go from uprising to resignation, from active citizen to passive observer? And above all: why?

Lots of noise but little action

For about twenty years now, the abstention rate in each election has been breaking new records.

This can be explained by the growing disinterest of the population in politics, which seems increasingly opaque and contemptuous of its fellow citizens, but also by the fact that blank votes don't count. Supposed to be a sign of protest, they amount to nothing. So why on earth aren't the French taking action to make things change?

Yet, whether in private or public spheres, the French have no problem talking about politics among themselves, complaining about what is wrong, but when it comes time to take action, the discourse changes completely.

Certainly, there is the fear of losing the comfort – which is dwindling – that they enjoy, but with this dynamic, when will they change course? When all they have left are their "chains"?

The infamous "every man for himself" mentality prevails: everyone protects their peace of mind, their routine, their comfort—at the expense of civic engagement. The slightest collective effort—demonstrating, campaigning, debating calmly, learning—seems excessive. France defends its gains, but no longer builds a future.

Outrage is now digital: tweets, comments, fleeting discontent. Anger is expressed, but no longer organized in concrete ways.

Yellow Vests: From Popular Uprising to Disillusionment

On November 17, 2018, a glimmer of hope appeared. Hundreds of thousands of French people, the "forgotten of democracy," all across France, raised their heads and said "no" to soaring petrol prices, the drastic drop in purchasing power and social exclusion.

They don the now famous "yellow vest" and begin actions all over France. Weekly "acts" follow one another, roundabouts, roads, tollbooths and strategic routes are blocked - it is a popular protest "outside traditional frameworks".

The movement is even causing concern at the Élysée Palace. According to some rumors, Macron had a helicopter ready to take off if things turned ugly.

But true to form, and accustomed to governing through fear—did you say democracy?—he violently repressed the demonstrations, through Christophe Castaner, then Minister of the Interior, and successive police prefects (Michel Delpuech and then Didier Lallement). Mutilations, gouged eyes, amputated hands: the French president and his henchmen would have the blood of the protesters on their hands.

Aided by the mainstream media, the movement will be completely discredited and will gradually lose its momentum at the start of summer 2019, until it is completely wiped out with the arrival of the Covid-19 crisis at the beginning of 2020.

The violent repression will leave a deep scar. As a result, the trauma has crystallized a profound distrust of institutions, of law enforcement, and even of the very possibility of external change. For many, the idea of ​​"citizen revenge" seems to have vanished. Collective energy has given way to defiance, fear, and withdrawal.

What future lies ahead today?

So does this mean the end of the "indomitable Gauls", the people with multiple societal revolutions, who have overturned the balance of power, impacting much more than just their domestic politics?

Nothing is less certain, because inaction is not inevitable. Popular anger is growing steadily, and even if, for the moment, it remains largely silent, and the population is still divided on many issues—political, social, ideological—it will eventually make itself heard. History has shown time and again that humankind knows how to unite when the need arises and say "NO," and the French even more so!

read the article

This data, stored in the "secure electronic documents" (TES) file, is being retrieved by the police through a legal loophole. La Quadrature du Net has obtained testimonies and formal proof of the misuse of this file to identify individuals during judicial investigations. We alerted the CNIL (French Data Protection Authority) to this scandal, which was unfortunately predictable, given that the very existence of this TES file inherently carries the risk of state surveillance abuse.
The most beautiful life of the TES file

To understand how we got here, let's look back at the origins of this database. In 2005, a decree authorized, for the first time, the recording of passport applicants' information (surname, first name, etc.) on an electronic chip within the passport, as well as in a centralized database for use by agents responsible for issuing identity documents. This is how the first TES database (then called "DELPHINE") was created. In 2008, to comply with a European regulation, digitized facial images and fingerprints were added to the chip. The government then took the opportunity to also add these to the database, instead of maintaining only decentralized storage. This was clearly not a neutral choice, as this is particularly sensitive biometric data.

The CNIL (French Data Protection Authority), however, opposed the centralized recording of so much data in the TES file. Indeed, for the first time, a database linked biometric data to a civil identity. The stated objective was to facilitate administrative procedures and combat "document fraud." But in reality, this technical link between identity and biometric data can also allow for the identification of a person by comparing their fingerprints or face with the data contained in the file. Although such a possibility is not provided for in the regulations, the CNIL nevertheless considered the choice to centralize this data disproportionate, given that there were methods of combating fraud that appeared to be both equally effective and more respectful of individuals' privacy.

In 2012, a bill proposed by two right-wing senators attempted to modify the TES database, which at the time contained the biometric data of approximately 6,5 million people. This bill expressly aimed to allow the police to use the database to identify individuals during certain investigations. However, this proposal to make the TES database available to the police was struck down by the Constitutional Council. The Council ruled that the size of the database, which contained particularly sensitive data, coupled with the new technical and legal possibility of police identification—which had nothing to do with the initial objective of facilitating passport issuance—would constitute excessive infringements on civil liberties. The Council was particularly concerned that if these identification techniques were not limited, they “could only […] be destined to expand.”¹

It was primarily in 2016 that this file became the subject of criticism and media attention. The Valls government had quietly passed a decree creating a new TES file with a drastically different scope. From then on, it could also contain data relating to national identity cards.

However, almost every French citizen has one. Numerous institutions, such as the CNIL (French Data Protection Authority), ANSSI (French National Cybersecurity Agency), Inria (French National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology), and the National Digital Council, strongly criticized this choice, highlighting the risks of the unprecedented centralization of identity-related information, and in particular biometric data, for virtually the entire population. They feared data leaks, cyberattacks, and state abuses, especially since other, less intrusive and decentralized options were available. In response to the criticism, it was repeatedly emphasized that this database could never, under any circumstances, be used for identification.

Along with others, we challenged the file before the Council of State, which nevertheless upheld it in 2018. We continued the fight nonetheless. In 2022, with 15,248 other people, we filed a collective complaint with the CNIL (French Data Protection Authority) to denounce the illegality of this file. The investigation of this complaint is still ongoing, and it is within the framework of this procedure that we sent new documents to the CNIL to demonstrate what we had feared from the beginning: the police are freely using the TES file.

Governments and police working hand in hand

Technically and legally, a regular judicial police officer cannot access the TES file. The 2016 decree only stipulates that certain individually appointed agents "responsible for the prevention and suppression of attacks on the fundamental interests of the Nation and acts of terrorism" may consult it. However, the Ministry of the Interior has allowed a practice to develop that circumvents the restrictions on accessing TES data, without any limitations and for any type of case.

To achieve this, it relies on the mechanism of judicial "requisitions" provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. With the authorization of the public prosecutor, judicial police officers can require any public or private entity to provide them with information they possess that would be useful for an investigation. This is how the police can, for example, retrieve CCTV footage from a store or the personal data of a specific individual held by a bank, the SNCF (French National Railway Company), a social network, or the CAF (French Family Allowance Fund). These entities are obligated to comply or face a fine of €3,750.

Today, we can demonstrate that the police are abusing this power of requisition with the government agencies involved in creating and issuing identity cards and passports. We have observed requests for identity information from agents:

"Centres of expertise and resources for titles" (CERT). CERTs are the services within a prefecture or sub-prefecture responsible for processing applications for titles.
From the National Agency for Electronic Documents (ANTS). This is the administration responsible for managing the computer system behind the applications and issuance of identity cards and passports.

The police are therefore not directly accessing the TES file. In practice, they are circumventing the prohibition against accessing the TES file by sending requests to those who have access to it. By circumventing the procedure, they are thus arrogating to themselves the power to consult the file, a power that is normally prohibited to them.

We had already heard testimonies to this effect, and this practice was highlighted in the activist pamphlet on investigative methods in the Lafarge Bouc-Bel-Air case, published in October 2023. Now, we have sent concrete evidence to the CNIL (French Data Protection Authority). We denounce this illegal misuse so that this abuse stops and the Ministry of the Interior is held accountable.
Overwhelming evidence

These details come from a closed court case where the police reports illustrate the officers' stubborn determination to identify an individual at all costs. Unable to put a name and surname to a person suspected of resisting arrest (a legal charge regularly misused to cover up police brutality), the investigating officers used every surveillance method at their disposal, regardless of the principle of proportionality.

They first take a photograph of the person without their knowledge at the police station, then use the TES database to confirm their identity (which the person hasn't provided, but which the police presume). The police then request identity card application files from a CERT (Center for Electronic Document Processing) in order to obtain the person's facial photograph (see the anonymized police reports), and in the process, collect all supporting documents, such as proof of address. They don't stop there. During their investigation, they also request fingerprints from the ANTS (National Agency for Secure Documents) (see the police report). Without ever justifying or explaining their request, they demand that government agencies search the TES database, and the agencies comply without question.

Access to this data has serious consequences because, in this case as in others, it is the photograph from the TES (National Identity Card System) which, when compared to the CCTV footage from the police station, ultimately allows for the identification of the suspected individual (see the police report), which is completely contrary to the purpose for which the TES database was created. The conclusion is therefore clear and damning: the information we provide to obtain our identity card or passport can be misused and used by the police in investigations, in total disregard of the law.

The limits of the law

In the observations we have just submitted (available here), we reiterate that the Council of State, the Constitutional Council, and the CNIL (French Data Protection Authority) had all formally expressed their concerns regarding the potential misuse of this database. These institutions demanded strict limits and safeguards to contain these risks and requested that this database be used exclusively for issuing identity documents. They all explicitly declared this database legal because, among other things, it did not allow for the identification of any individual.

Despite this unanimity, police practices have become entrenched, in total contradiction with the spirit of the framework that created the TES database. This demonstrates once again the limitations, even the impotence, of the law in the face of the state's surveillance obsessions. We have always observed this: as soon as the authorities have the ability to obtain information on the population, they are eager to use it to identify, control, and repress. The effort to respect the rules then becomes merely cosmetic, especially when there is no effective oversight of police activity, thus allowing impunity to spread.

Rather than preventing such abuse, the Ministry of the Interior made precisely the opposite choice by allowing this misuse of the TES database to flourish. It also deliberately facilitated it. In 2023, the so-called "LOPMI" programming law relaxed the rules governing judicial requisitions, allowing "the release of data relating to identity documents" based on a simple general instruction (a mechanism that allows a public prosecutor to issue a general, rather than specific, authorization—that is, without examining the individual case to verify that the requisition is truly necessary for the investigation and proportionate). While we are unfortunately not surprised, this latest example demonstrates the contempt of those who govern us for fundamental rights and democratic principles: anything goes when it comes to strengthening surveillance techniques and the profiling of the population.
Attacking the monster

The Ministry of the Interior must be held accountable and sanctioned. The misappropriation and use of data from the TES file must be condemned and must cease immediately. But beyond this, it is also crucial to understand that this example reveals a broader phenomenon: the unbridled and excessive exchange of data in the name of the right of "requisition" (or "communication" when it concerns tax or social security administrations). Indeed, these general powers allow the police or other institutions to demand data for a criminal, tax, or administrative investigation. It is through this prerogative that social security organizations – such as the CAF (Family Allowance Fund) and the National Health Insurance – can obtain bank account details, or that the police can request electricity bills.

However, this very broad possibility of receiving information has been established without regard for the data protection rules specific to each processing activity. It is guided solely by a logic of supposed efficiency, reducing respect for fundamental rights to mere obstacles to be overcome or circumvented. The limits and safeguards inherent to these data processing activities are, in a way, disregarded in the name of the power of requisition, which makes it difficult to detect abuse or misuse. At a time when everything is computerized and the amount of data that can be shared is immense, it is essential to thoroughly examine this mechanism, a source of abuse and excess.

Above all, we must continue to fight the sprawling system of administrative and police files. This system continues to expand relentlessly, without any oversight of police work on a daily basis. Indeed, the proliferation of tools facilitates data collection and access, allowing officers to add information and monitor individuals in an ever-increasing number of situations. This surveillance capacity has now become monstrous, with over a hundred police files with ever-expanding scopes. The consequences are very real for those whose files contain these files; they can be denied employment or receive deportation orders simply for being listed. At the same time, repression intensifies against those who refuse to be registered, subjecting them to disproportionate prosecutions and penalties. This surveillance is a trap, one from which it seems increasingly difficult to escape.

We wrote it back in 2016: "History reminds us how much the ability to resist authoritarian excesses depends on the ability to escape state control, particularly over one's identity. Centralized files do not make authoritarian regimes, but every authoritarian regime relies on the profiling of its population."

read the article

As Howard Zinn said:

“As soon as the topic of civil disobedience is brought up, it’s implied that our problem is civil disobedience. But that’s not our problem… Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is the number of people around the world who have obeyed the orders of their leaders and gone to war, millions of people having perished because of that obedience. Our problem is that scene in ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ where the schoolchildren meekly go off to the front. Our problem is that all over the world, people obey despite poverty, famine, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people obey while prisons are overflowing with petty thieves, and big thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”

Or, as Utah Phillips said: "The Earth is not dying, it is being killed. And those who are killing it have names and addresses."

They have names and addresses, but they aren't stopped. They're allowed to wield apocalyptic weapons to further their ambitions for global power and destroy our biosphere for profit. Who knows where they're headed with this whole AI business, without any regulations or accountability? They can play with the life of every living being on this planet with complete impunity.

We don't allow it without a valid reason. We simply don't want to seem impolite. Stopping them would be a bit excessive, you know? A bit too much blatant political correctness. Nobody likes humorless moralizers.

What a ridiculous reason for the world to collapse!

I sometimes like to think about the Fermi paradox. You know, that apparent contradiction between the fact that we detect no signs of extraterrestrial life in our galaxy and that the Drake equation suggests that we should observe some, given the immense number of stars in the Milky Way.

All sorts of theories have been put forward to resolve this paradox. Perhaps extraterrestrials are hiding signs of their existence from us for one reason or another. Perhaps life has existed on other planets many times throughout the history of our galaxy, but each time life reaches a certain level of intelligence, it self-destructs by devouring its own biosphere or annihilating itself with nuclear weapons.

One theory I like to explore is the possibility that life exists on other planets and that these life forms will one day develop superior intelligence, but we detect no signs of extraterrestrial technology because humans are the first life forms to reach this stage.

It's mind-blowing, isn't it? What if WE were the adults? What if we were the eldest in our galactic family? Aliens never came to save us with technology from a civilization millions of years more advanced than ours, because no civilization more advanced exists. We arrived first.

Imagine the absurd situation if we had extincted ourselves out of politeness, and other civilizations arrived millions of years later to discover that this is what happened to the first intelligent life form in their galaxy. If they arrived and found ruins on a poisoned planet, with a sign saying: "Sorry, we tried to survive, but we didn't think it was a good idea to silence Sam Altman."

What a disgrace! We would be the laughingstock of the Milky Way. We would be insulted.

"Someone needs to put an end to this nonsense, but I don't want to make a scene."

"Oh, stop acting like a little Homo sapiens!"

What a lamentable legacy for a species!

Let's try to rectify the situation before it's too late.

read the article

It was already difficult to form a clear perception of reality when we only had to contend with the propaganda of plutocrat-owned media conglomerates and the indoctrination of our education systems in service of those in power. Now, in addition to these persistent obscurants, we must contend with phenomena such as Silicon Valley's algorithmic manipulation, imperialist disinformation operations like Wikipedia, and the rapidly expanding field of AI-driven perception management.

I remember a 2017 lecture by Julian Assange where he described a future in which artificial intelligence would be able to collect internet users' data and manipulate the information they access online through a custom-tailored perceptual lens, designed to influence their thinking so subtly as to go unnoticed. He compared this to how a computer program can play chess with strategies anticipating 20 to 30 moves ahead, at a level the human brain simply cannot keep up with, asserting that we will one day have artificial intelligence capable of manipulating public perception with a similar degree of sophistication.

It's much easier to imagine this future today than it was in 2017. Of course, the ruling class isn't investing billions in AI so that we can all get free, Studio Ghibli-worthy illustrations of ourselves. It's understood that the main returns on investment will come from the deliberate integration of these new technologies into every aspect of our civilization, driven by the power structures, official or otherwise, that govern our society. And this will be done in a way that benefits the rich and powerful.

We are heading towards a future where all our information will soon be stored and analyzed by artificial intelligence controlled by governments and billion-dollar megacorporations, who can then use this data to monitor, manipulate, and oppress us. All our medical and financial information. Complete psychological profiles based on our online activity. A personality assessment far more sophisticated than anything we could ever achieve on our own.

This information can then be used to determine the types of advertisements and products likely to target us, or even to create tailor-made advertising specifically for us. It can be used to determine which types of media outlets or experts serving the powers that be are likely to appeal to our confirmation biases, and then ensure that they catch our eye at an opportune moment of the day. It can be used to assess our propensity to oppose the imperial system, whether by participating in a peace march, creating a union, or leading an armed revolution. It can be used to closely monitor our own path toward political radicalization and to provide us with information designed to channel this dissenting energy toward political movements that do not threaten the established order.

Our leaders see AI as an opportunity to regain social control shaken by the generalization of the Internet – a loss of informational hegemony that oligarchs and empire managers openly complain about, particularly regarding the spread of public disagreements on subjects like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via social networks.

Journalist Whitney Webb revealed that Google mogul Eric Schmidt co-authored a book with war criminal Henry Kissinger. This book envisions a future where the public becomes increasingly dependent on artificial intelligence, which will think and speak for them, further embedding our consciousness in these technologies owned by oligarchs.

"Kissinger and Schmidt's book on AI essentially argues that, in their view, the real promise of AI lies in its ability to manipulate perception—that eventually, individuals will be unable to interpret or perceive reality without the aid of AI, through cognitive decline and learned helplessness," Webb warns.

Once we delegate our cognitive sovereignty to AI, our minds will have been captured by the owners of the machines.

We are therefore embarking on a dark and ominous path. Collectively, we must draw upon our inner strength to fight against this dystopia that is constantly devouring more and more of what is good in our world. Individually, we must find ways to preserve our inner clarity despite the empire's increasingly aggressive efforts to render us dull, stupid, and disoriented.

Fortunately, vast swathes of our humanity still elude them, and we would do well to familiarize ourselves with this fertile ground. Inspiration. Creativity. Consciousness. Spiritual awakening. These are all areas where tech moguls and imperial social engineers cannot venture.

Explore your own consciousness. Probe deeply into the nature of yourself and the mind until clarity dawns. Heal your inner wounds. Release all mental grips of fear and hatred so that propagandists cannot find any way to manipulate you. Listen to the whispers of your muse and learn to let your inspiration give birth to a new creative expression.

These are the kinds of things we will have to do to protect ourselves in this new and strange world, in addition to the usual effort to stay informed and learn to see through the illusions of propaganda. Fortunately, all of this is beneficial; the path to preserving our humanity is also the path to a more fulfilled human being and a better world.

We are called to awaken and transform ourselves. Not to distance ourselves from our humanity, as transhumanists imagine, but to delve into its very heart, allowing a bud that has always lain dormant within us to blossom. Our era invites us to evolve toward a truly conscious species.

read the article

In a Christmas interview broadcast on Russia-1, Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, gave a profound reflection on the tensions between the West and Russia.

In a rapidly changing world, tensions between the West and Russia are no longer limited to geopolitical issues. A deeper struggle, of a spiritual and moral nature, is underway. Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, recently denounced the decadence of the West, highlighting a striking contrast with the values ​​championed by Russia.

A worrying moral decline

The West is going through a period of unprecedented moral crisis. Ubiquitous pornography, gender theory imposed in public discourse, and school programs addressing sexuality from a very young age, including practices like sodomy, illustrate a drift that is as worrying as it is divisive.

According to Patriarch Kirill, this situation is not accidental. It stems from an ideological project aimed at dismantling the spiritual and social foundations of Western societies. "Fundamental values ​​are being trampled, and an unknown civilization is being built," he declared.

Russia, a Spiritual Alternative

Faced with this moral decay, Russia is positioning itself as a bastion of faith and traditional values. By defending the teachings of Christ and remaining rooted in its spirituality, Russia offers an alternative model to a Western world marked by chaos and the manipulations of disconnected elites.

Patriarch Kirill emphasizes that this stance frightens the West. Russia represents not a military threat, but a spiritual one, because it offers a different path, based on stability, family, and respect for traditions.

A Rupture Between the Elites and the People

The West faces a profound divide between its elites and its citizens. While the elites promote divisive and destructive ideologies, many citizens yearn for a return to spiritual values. Weary of political lies and manipulation, Western populations are seeking an alternative.

Russia, as the guardian of Christian teachings and fundamental principles, is increasingly appearing as a model for these disillusioned populations.

Why the West Is Losing the Battle

The key to this battle lies in values. While the West favors an individualistic and consumerist vision, Russia champions a collective and spiritual approach. This contrast highlights the inability of Western nations to meet the fundamental needs of their citizens, particularly in terms of meaning and stability.

“These bright and long-awaited holidays are dear to millions of people around the world. They give believers joy and hope, and inspire good thoughts, deeds, and actions. On Christmas days, we feel clearly and with all our hearts how important paternal and family traditions are to us, passed down from generation to generation.”

I would like to emphasize that the Russian Orthodox Church and other Christian denominations in Russia play an enormous creative role in fostering national unity and preserving our historical memory, as well as our unique cultural and spiritual heritage. The contribution of religious organizations to strengthening the family, educating young people, establishing enduring ideals and moral values ​​in society such as concern for one's neighbor, mercy, and compassion, and supporting those in need of help and care is significant. This multifaceted and vital work deserves the deepest recognition.

I wish Orthodox Christians, and all citizens of Russia celebrating the Nativity of Christ, health and prosperity.

Message from President Putin

read the article

It is clear that Tucker Carlson's rhetoric is gaining increasing traction in the United States, particularly among certain segments of the population. Several factors support this hypothesis, especially given that the Zionist lobby is currently in a state of panic and is making increasingly outlandish statements.

First, Carlson has a significant audience, estimated at millions of viewers across his platforms and media appearances. His direct and controversial style resonates with those who feel marginalized by dominant narratives, including on geopolitical issues like US support for Israel. Research indicates a growing fragmentation of opinion in the United States, with increased polarization on topics such as foreign policy, religion, and national identity. This creates fertile ground for voices like Carlson's, which challenge established narratives.

Furthermore, Carlson's criticisms of what he perceives as a "Christian heresy" supporting Israel align with a growing current of skepticism among some conservatives and evangelicals. Recent studies, such as those cited in the research findings, show that support for Israel among American evangelicals is beginning to erode. This is due to concerns about the financial costs, the moral implications of Israeli actions, and a reassessment of the relationship between faith and foreign policy. Carlson capitalizes on these doubts, offering an alternative perspective that is gaining traction.

Finally, Carlson's influence is amplified by social media and alternative platforms, where his messages can circulate widely without the traditional filters of mainstream media. This allows him to reach and mobilize communities that feel underrepresented or misunderstood by political and media elites. The tide has turned…

"Supporting Israel is not Christianity. It is a theological deception."

And then he dismantled the whole charade:

• There is no people chosen by God because of their DNA.

• Christianity does not give blank checks to a foreign state.

• Using God as a political threat to force Americans to support Netanyahu? That's manipulation, not faith.

• Killing innocent people is the only thing on which Christianity is perfectly clear: It is forbidden. Period.

He then directly attacked the political clergy on Capitol Hill: Lindsey Graham, Mike Johnson… these men don't preach Christianity. They preach Israel. And the absurdity? They threaten Americans with phrases like, “God will pull the plug on America if you don't support Israel.” Since when is faith a hostage situation? Since when has devotion become a disguise for foreign policy?

Tucker said aloud what millions of people were thinking: "Your loyalty is not to God... it is to a government that has nothing to do with Christianity."

Tucker Carlson

read the article

The Christian film "Sacred Heart" is experiencing a miraculous surge in popularity, sparking conversions and creating enormous queues outside confessionals. This divine success, however, is clearly not making everyone happy in the media and spiritual landscape.

Steven Gunnell, the film's director, faces accusations of being a supporter of the far right, with some even suggesting his work was funded by Bolloré. While certain conservative circles would like to appropriate Sacré-Cœur as a rallying cry, Gunnell firmly denies this. He maintains that he simply goes where he is invited, without any militant agenda or desire for political gain. His film, he says, is for everyone, believers or not, without partisan bias.

Meanwhile, the film, seemingly paralyzed by popular enthusiasm, is playing in theaters like hotcakes and is being exported far beyond France's borders. Faced with this unexpected triumph, the detractors, lacking any real arguments, can only observe, disheartened, that the Spirit blows where It wills, and especially in movie theaters.

Dear friends,

There are dates we never forget. And October 13th is one of them.

Not just for me, but for the whole world, if it still has any memory left. On October 13, 1917, in the midst of the First World War, something unique happened that has never been repeated.

It took place in the small village of Fatima, Portugal. There, under incessant rain since early morning, 70,000 people waited, in a vast meadow transformed into an open-air theater, for a miracle announced three months earlier by Our Lady. Since May 13, 1917, she has appeared to three illiterate shepherd boys.

On October 13, an extraordinary event occurred before the terrified gaze of tens of thousands of onlookers. This was the first time in human history that a pre-announced miracle occurred. This event remains unique to this day.

I'm telling you about it because this event is undoubtedly linked to what we are currently experiencing. Why? Because the 70,000 people all saw their final hour arrive because of a sun detached from the sky to melt on the earth. This unprecedented event is linked to a heavy secret delivered on July 13, 1917 by Our Lady to these three shepherd children. This secret was supposed to be revealed by the Vatican before 1960. It was not. It would embarrass the Roman Curia until the year 2000.

This improbable story will be the subject of my first documentary film, released in 2014. A film that has, by far, all my favorites. In this investigation, which took me to 13 countries, I reveal the true content of this secret, which will be revealed indirectly by Pope John Paul II in 1984.

Why does it concern us today?

Certainly, because he is talking about a country that has left its mark on the world and is at war in the 21st century, Russia, and an ideology, communism, more at work than ever with the digital identity and social credit implemented by China and behind which our European leaders run like slaves.

And above all because our world is dried up by this lack of Love, Hope and Faith in this God who still offers us today his visible signs like the miracle of Lanciano, a consecrated host transformed into flesh and blood. A fact examined by researchers and recognized as scientifically unexplained by WHO scientists. This host transformed into human flesh in the 8th century is still on display in Italy.

If I also made this film, it is above all to pay tribute to this incredible Mother to whom I owe my vocation as a journalist. Three times, she saved me from certain death. This investigative documentary allows us to better understand the accuracy, beauty, and depth of Our Lady's messages over the centuries. An incredible mother who cares for us through these miracles that defy science in Lourdes and those that she has been discreetly working in the secret of our children's hearts for 2000 years.

This is why I decided to offer this documentary film from this day forward, in which I evoke my little story to magnify the big one. The title of the film: M and the 3rd Secret.

My co-producers deserve a huge thank you, as none of them got their investment back due to a dishonest international distributor and having to take legal action.

"For we know that even if our body, the tent of our dwelling on earth, were destroyed, we have a building constructed by God, an eternal dwelling in the heavens, not made by men." 2 Corinthians 5:1

What more do we need to see that Hope is not of this world?

To complement this film, I invite you to (re)watch the film "Miracles" on our platform. The film was released in 2023. It is the sequel to "M and the Third Secret"

As a free and 100% independent producer, we can only survive and continue thanks to your donations!

On Thursday, October 30th, at 20:00 p.m., I'm hosting a live evening with some exciting guests, focusing on the film M and the Third Secret, to discuss and answer your questions.

I kiss you.

Pierre

Steven Gunnell's film Sacré-Cœur, a docu-fiction about Christ's apparitions to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque in the 17th century, has been denied poster advertising in Parisian train stations and metro stations. Advertising agency MédiaTransports deemed its poster "too denominational and proselytizing," provoking outrage among Catholics and beyond. This exclusion raises the question: is religious neutrality in public spaces being applied selectively?

A spiritual message censored, a double standard tolerated.

"Sacré-Cœur" is neither a pamphlet nor a provocation. It is a historical and spiritual evocation of devotion to the Heart of Jesus, a pillar of the Catholic faith for centuries. The poster, of understated elegance, depicts an artistic image of Christ, accompanied by an invitation to meditate on faith. Despite this, the SNCF and RATP, through their authorities, have banned its display in the name of the "neutrality" of transport.

Director Steven Gunnell expresses his incomprehension: "This film carries a message of love and mercy, universal values. How can they be considered threatening?" This is not the first time that a Christian work has suffered this fate. But it is surprising to see, in these same spaces, films like "The Nun" or "The Exorcist," which exploit the sacred for horrific purposes, easily benefit from wide visibility. Why should the message of Christ be suspect, when its distorted representations are accepted?

Two-speed secularism: the awakening of consciences
The reaction was swift. Catholics and secular observers denounced "anti-Christian censorship" and the exploitation of secularism. The absurdity of this rule seems to spare other expressions, including commercial ones, while targeting Christianity.

On Sud Radio, personalities pointed out a worrying discrimination, recalling that France, marked by its Christian history, cannot deny its roots in the name of a misinterpreted neutrality. In a context of growing secularization, this affair reveals a growing mistrust of Christian religious symbols. An Aleteia spokesperson emphasized: "The French are being deprived of an opportunity for spiritual dialogue in their own lives."

Faith perseveres despite the ban.

Although it is denied public viewing, "Sacré-Cœur" will still be released in theaters. And the controversy will have had an unexpected effect: increased visibility, thanks to private screenings and active mobilization on social media.

For Catholics, this episode sounds like a call to vigilance. It is time to reaffirm, with serenity and firmness, the right to express one's faith in public spaces, without fear or compromise. At a time when our bearings are blurred, let Christ's exhortation resound: "Do not be afraid." The Heart of the Church continues to beat, despite the obstacles.

Joan - The Media in 4-4-2

This plan, which imposes mandatory user identification and communications monitoring, has sparked outrage among human rights defenders, companies like ProtonMail, and organizations such as Amnesty International. These laws would require most internet service providers (ISPs) to systematically identify users using an official document: an identity card, driver's license, or verified phone number. In other words, anonymous browsing would be impossible. An attack on privacy that could reshape Switzerland's digital landscape.

The Swiss government is attempting to impose widespread surveillance of online communications through a controversial reform. Under the guise of ordinances, this bill would require internet service providers to identify their users and store their data, posing a serious threat to privacy. This bill has been strongly condemned as a frontal attack on fundamental rights.

A massive surveillance project

The Federal Department of Justice and Police has submitted for consultation two ordinances – the OSCPT and the OME-SCPT – aimed at strengthening the surveillance of telecommunications. These texts provide in particular:

The requirement for Internet providers to identify their users via ID card, driver's license or telephone number.
IP addresses are stored for six months, and can be accessed by law enforcement within 24 hours.
The weakening of encrypted messaging services like ProtonMail, which are forced to share metadata (who communicates with whom, without the content).

This reform is part of a European trend (France, United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium) of restricting online anonymity, under the pretext of security. By opting for an ordinance rather than a law, the government is circumventing parliamentary debate and a possible referendum, thus limiting transparency and citizen participation. On May 8, the consultation phase closed. Several political parties and Amnesty International expressed their firm opposition to the project, calling it an "authoritarian shift."

An attack on fundamental rights

This project poses a direct threat to privacy, a right guaranteed by the Swiss Constitution and international treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Amnesty International Switzerland denounces "widespread surveillance" that violates the principles of necessity and proportionality. According to Illan Acher, Amnesty's digital rights expert, these measures would deal a "serious blow" to human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, doctors, and whistleblowers, for whom the confidentiality of communications is essential.

The systematic retention of metadata, without prior human oversight or effective recourse, is reminiscent of measures already invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union. By imposing such practices, Switzerland risks setting a dangerous precedent, undermining its reputation as a state governed by the rule of law.

ProtonMail considers leaving Switzerland

Secure email provider ProtonMail, a symbol of Swiss digital privacy, is threatening to leave the country if these orders come into force. It denounces the creation of a "surveillance state" as incompatible with its values.

This departure would send a strong signal that Switzerland, long perceived as a haven for digital privacy, could lose its international credibility. Other stakeholders, including political parties, opposed the project during the consultation. Critics point out that these measures not only compromise privacy but also risk discouraging innovation in the technology sector.

Switzerland is not an isolated case. Similar projects are emerging in France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Belgium, revealing a global trend toward restricting online anonymity. Indeed, the COVID crisis has provided an opportunity to accelerate the shift, particularly in France, to digital practices that had previously remained relatively confidential. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, governments have often justified these measures with security imperatives. However, as Amnesty International emphasizes, "security must never come at the cost of fundamental freedoms."

read the article

Julian Assange's words were strong and precise during his hearing by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on October 1 in Strasbourg. The Australian journalist is combative, fully lucid, despite the fourteen years of persecution and deprivation of liberty that he has just suffered. He did not emerge unscathed from the martyrdom inflicted on him by Washington, but he has held firm and seems on the road to recovery.

Based on the excellent report by Icelandic representative Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir (a member of the Pirate Party), the committee issued a clear and pertinent opinion on the Assange case, particularly regarding the political nature of the persecution. The text bluntly accuses the United States and the United Kingdom, calling for action, both on the use of the Espionage Act and extradition practices.

On 2 October, the resolution entitled "The detention and sentencing of Julian Assange and their chilling effects on human rights" was debated in plenary session in the hemicycle and finally adopted by 88 votes in favour, 13 against and 20 abstentions (see the details of the vote). This is an important political, diplomatic and symbolic step forward. The Council of Europe considers that Julian Assange was indeed a political prisoner in the United Kingdom.

It should be noted that only three of the eighteen French representatives participated in the vote, they all voted in favor of the resolution. These are LFI deputies Emmanuel Fernandes and Anne Stambach-Terrenoir, and PS senator Didier Marie.

The UK is a member of the Council of Europe, which is an institution of 46 European countries that is completely separate from the European Union and therefore not affected by Brexit. The US has observer status. It is unlikely that the two states most implicated in the persecution of Julian Assange will immediately admit responsibility and implement the reforms recommended by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but the report and the vote are a major step forward.

The fight of Julian Assange and his supporters is recognized as legitimate and salutary by an international institution. This is in addition to the opinions that had been issued by different components of the United Nations (UN). It is a work for history. But beyond the need to have the reality of the political persecution that took place recognized, it is necessary to prevent it from happening again, against another journalist, a whistleblower, etc. It is to be feared that the intimidation that Washington sought to exert on the press and sources by tracking down the founder of WikiLeaks has already produced its effects, but it is not too late to protect the right to inform (and therefore to be informed).

During his hearing, Julian Assange made it clear that he wanted to protect other journalists by revisiting his case. He also repeatedly mentioned Gaza and the fate of Palestinian journalists. Since October 7, 2023, 174 of them have been killed by the Israeli army, often deliberately targeted.

We have collectively secured the release of Julian Assange, and now we must build on this great and beautiful victory to defend and promote the type of journalism practiced by WikiLeaks, and thus fight more effectively against the injustices that it helps to expose.

“I want to be absolutely clear. I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today after years of incarceration because I pleaded guilty to journalism. I pleaded guilty to seeking information from a source. I pleaded guilty to obtaining information from a source. And I pleaded guilty to informing the public of the nature of that information. I pleaded guilty to no other charges.”

“The criminalization of newsgathering activities is a threat to investigative journalism everywhere. I have been formally condemned by a foreign power for requesting, receiving and publishing truthful information about that power while I was in Europe.”

"The fundamental issue is simple: journalists should not be prosecuted for doing their job. Journalism is not a crime; it is one of the pillars of a free and informed society."

“In my work, I have tried to be rigorously accurate. I think accuracy is essential. Primary sources are essential. But there is one area where I am an activist and all journalists must be activists. Journalists must be activists for the truth.”

"When I founded WikiLeaks, I was driven by a simple dream: to educate people about how the world works so that, through understanding, we can make something better happen."

"I would just like to thank all the people who fought for my release and who understood, importantly, that my release went hand in hand with their own release."

Julian Assange

read the article

The new Eldorado of easy money

In recent years, platforms like OnlyFans and Mym have experienced a meteoric rise, particularly among younger generations. These sites have established themselves as true pillars of a new economic model that combines social networks and monetization of intimate content. Their success is based on a simple but effective concept: allowing everyone, influencers or anonymous, to share exclusive content of an intimate or sexual nature, in exchange for compensation. For many, it is a quick way to earn money without having to go through traditional intermediaries, such as the porn industry.

This phenomenon is supported by a digital culture where visibility and self-presentation have become major assets. On OnlyFans, content creators can directly capitalize on their popularity by selling explicit photos or videos to their subscribers. This direct relationship between creators and consumers has allowed thousands of people to transform their personal image into a real source of income. In some cases, this has even led to substantial fortunes, which explains why these platforms are attracting more and more influencers.

The success of these platforms is also based on a glorification of the culture of instantaneity and easy money. The principle of subscription, where fans pay to have access to exclusive content, creates a dynamic of constant demand and feeds the desire for novelty among users. This model, associated with the virality of social networks, has allowed personalities from TikTok, Instagram or even YouTube to quickly take the plunge and join these platforms to monetize their notoriety.

Why is this problematic?

The situation is alarmingly serious, as a third of the users of these platforms are minors, which means that millions of young people are exposed to deeply inappropriate and immoral content. The case of Pure Human Soul, a 27-year-old YouTuber who creates incestuous content with her own mother, represents a striking example of how private family dynamics are hijacked to become real incestuous affairs. This model of perverse normalization of family relationships is gradually taking root in our society, to the point where what should remain private becomes a commercial product.

In line with this worrying trend, pornographic sites themselves are not far behind. In recent years, a new category of videos has been gaining popularity, featuring fictional scenarios involving intimate relationships between “close” family members, such as sisters-in-law or brothers-in-law. This type of content, which plays on moral ambiguity and incest, further trivializes the idea of ​​transgressing family boundaries by making it attractive and accessible. The aim is to arouse a mixture of unhealthy curiosity and voyeurism, which creates fertile ground for a gradual desensitization to what should be unshakeable social taboos.

When Money Erases the Boundaries of Morality

We are witnessing a phenomenon that sadly recalls Sodom and Gomorrah. The adult content industry, which these platforms fuel, generates billions of euros in turnover each year. Behind these huge profits lies a worrying moral drift, where money becomes the only measure of success, regardless of the consequences for young people and society.

These platforms reinforce the idea that everything can be consumed, including family ties, creating a pernicious normalization of deviant behavior. This contributes to an environment where morality is undermined for the benefit of audience and financial gain, leaving young people without guidance when faced with content that blurs the lines between reality and fiction, the acceptable and the unacceptable.

They don't just offer a way for creators to make money, they participate in a broader phenomenon of the sexualization of society. By offering a quasi-legitimate showcase for these practices, they contribute to their normalization. Whether it's incestuous videos or explicitly pornographic content, OnlyFans and its ilk make it possible to bypass the moral safeguards that still existed a few years ago.

read the article

[Boris Karpov] Erwan Castel hello, many of our readers know you by name and reputation. First a little clarification, we have differences on certain geopolitical points, but we find without doubt on Russian patriotism, we will therefore talk about the situation in Russia and what concerns Russia.

You were one of the first French people to come to Donbass in 2014. Not to stir up air like many other French people seeking to make themselves known but, humbly, to defend your convictions in the most courageous way that or, by joining the armed forces of Donbass. Other French people did the same, most of them left sometimes in what we would call “shameful” conditions. You fought from 2014 to 2022 when you were seriously injured and had an arm amputated. You are now a Russian citizen.

So first of all this question that many will ask themselves, you paid dearly for your commitment, do you have any regrets? If you had to do it again, would you do it?

Thank you first of all for inviting me to this dialogue. I arrived in the Donbass at the end of January 2015 after having initially engaged on the information front in November 2013 to denounce the colored revolution of the Maidan whose final neo-Nazi coup d'état led us from the Donbass war to the Russian-Ukrainian war and I fear it will not end there. Following the massacres in Odessa (May 2, 2014), Mariupol (May 9, 2014) and Lugansk (June 2, 2014), I decided to end my activity as an expedition guide in Guyana and physically join the Donbass rebellion .

No, I don't regret anything despite the injuries, disappointments and inevitable setbacks suffered in my radical commitment. If I had to do it again, I would do it again without hesitation by finding a way to come earlier and above all by avoiding the French who ended up stranded in Russia.

When you arrived in 2014, Russia was helping the Donbass forces with equipment, and it was only in 2022 that it intervened militarily with the Special Military Operation (SVO). Do you think Russia should have intervened sooner? What did the citizens of Donbass think in 2014 and until 2022 about this? And what did committed soldiers like you think on this subject?

Russia has effectively supported the separatists in Donbass. Politically very strong, Economically enough to allow the creation of two states of law in Donetsk and Lugansk, militarily just to allow their militias to stand up to the ground attacks carried out on the front line.

I am not in a position to judge Moscow's choices because I am not aware of all the parameters that motivated them at that time, but we can indeed regret that Russia was slow to intervene when by 2015 it was obvious that the Minsk agreements were only a masquerade to allow the Ukrainian-Atlanticists to better prepare for a new escalation on a regional scale. And when someone tells me that Russia also needed time to rearm and prepare for the inevitable conflict that is raging, I respond that the time frame for the balance of forces between 2015 and 2022 has not really changed given that during this period the Ukrainian forces were considerably modernized, standardized and trained thanks to aid and the exponential presence of NATO.

But with “ifs” it is too easy to redo History and judge. The political, diplomatic and military management of an extreme crisis like the Donbass war is not done without sacrifice and errors which sometimes have serious consequences, such as for example the abandonment in September 2014 of the Republican offensive on a very weakly defended (for diplomatic – economic arrangements), and which finally had to be liberated in the spring of 2022 at the cost of around 10 killed. We could multiply these “regrets” endlessly but there is no point in lamenting, the most important thing is to move forward and try not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

To summarize and answer your question: yes, Russia should have intervened earlier in Donbass – as it did in Crimea because of the major and vital geostrategic issue for the Russian defense of the Sevastopol base –

But this would probably not have avoided in the medium term this radical confrontation between Russia and NATO which is fast approaching.

From 2015 to 2022, and even after, I discovered with admiration the capacity for resilience of this population of Donbass, victim of daily criminal bombings, as well as its unfailing loyalty to Russia and its unwavering confidence in its sometimes difficult political and diplomatic choices, such as the non-recognition of the first referendum of 2014.

Concerning the military, many regretted the lack of means to carry out missions on the front, such as thermal observation means or modern training for executives. We sometimes felt constrained while being convinced that we would never be abandoned by Russia, while cultivating among ourselves this grumpy spirit which does not taint discipline and the cult of the mission.

The improvements and standardization launched with the creation of the Republican Guard arrived gradually from 2016 within the Defense Corps which succeeded it with the moral advantage of seeing this spirit of the initial militias which unite preserved within the soldiers of the front. much more strongly than formal discipline: the family spirit and the Union of Peoples, which I personally experienced for 7 years within the international “Piatnashka” brigade.

How was Russia's intervention in 2022 viewed by the citizens of Donbass?

The Russian intervention at the end of February 2022 was perceived by the population as an immense relief and a virtual liberation from 10 years of suffering, even if the course of operations has not yet completely eradicated them and the risk of a world war looms. even more strongly above the heads.

At the time we closely followed the meetings around the Russian proposal addressed to Washington for a collective security treaty in Europe based on common sense which should be common. Then in a rapid sequence there was the unsurprising rejection of this proposal by the West and a violent military escalation on the part of Ukrainian-Atlanticist forces who had been accumulating on the Donbass front for a year.

The Russian reaction to the recognition of the People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk (finally!) accompanied by mutual defense agreements galvanized minds who expressed unanimous enthusiasm and the Russian intervention was welcomed as the end of a nightmare that many (except me and a few cold realists) thought it was imminent.

At that time I accompanied on the ground a TF1 team led by Liseron Boudoul (one of the rare Western reporters still deserving the qualification of journalist) and who subsequently saw her honest intellectual and professional ethics being sanctioned by her management at the orders of a Russophobic doxa radically violating the Munich Charter. When she asked me during a filmed interview on March 2 how long this war would last, I answered without hesitation “minimum 3 years” while the majority of pro-Russian courtiers and armchair experts were persuading that between 3 weeks and 3 months Banderist Ukraine would be defeated.

Today, when I look at the military and civilian obituaries on each side of the front, I wish I had been wrong…. Alas!

In Donbass, despite the terrible losses in 2022 suffered by the army corps of Donetsk and Lugansk and the massacres of civilians caused by the Ukrainian-Atlantic bombings, the overall morale of the populations of Donbass remains unchanged. The enthusiasm of spring 2022 restores its place to the heroic resilience of the families and volunteers who at every moment support the soldiers liberating with difficulty their freedoms and their Russian territories. That said, the people of Donbass, in the privacy of their radical commitment to Russia, remain realistic and bitterly criticize those who, through an overdose of propaganda, make and repeat the same errors as when they sent Russian military operations “to get caught up in the doormat” of a Ukraine completely formatted for years by Western propaganda and prepared by NATO to sacrifice itself for the interests of Uncle Sam.

The hardest part is ahead of us because the enemy today is no longer the power of kyiv but NATO as a whole.

The reason given by President Putin for the SVO was “the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine”. How, in very concrete terms, do you see this objective? Take all of Ukraine? Settle for Russian-speaking Donbass? With a “buffer zone” up to the Polish border?

In terms of communication, it is a great shame that Russia does not live up to the values, principles and common sense that it defends.

Concerning the declared objectives, “denazification” and “demilitarization” they are both real and legitimate but also too simplistic and populist. When President Putin explains from the Munich speech in 2007 to the conditions of possible negotiations with kyiv that Ukraine must remain neutral between East and West and in no case integrated into NATO, it is according to me the priority objective of Russian special military operations of 2022 which not only can be understood by the people and above all does not make them question like the day when dozens of Nazi prisoners from the Azov battalion captured at the cost of heavy losses during of the “denazification” of Mariupol were exchanged a few weeks later for the pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch Medvedchuk.

Today we must be honest and consistent with those who have asked for sweat and blood. And if we claim that today Russia is at war with NATO, which is an increasingly direct reality, then the objective must be the defeat of NATO or at worst its withdrawal from all countries bordering the Russian Federation, to the same principle of common sense that JFK had requested in 1962 the withdrawal of the Warsaw Pact, represented by Russian bases, from the island of Cuba.

Otherwise to be realistic, on the “demilitarization” side and despite the enormous losses suffered, the Ukrainian army is more powerful than in 2021 with more sophisticated means, as many trained fighters and still significant reserves (for the moment), and on the “denazification” if the heralds of the Banderist ideology of 2014 have largely diminished, their Russophobic legacy is still active, especially since many of them have been dispersed within regular units. In the political domain I am convinced that the Banderists have simply put it a little more on the back burner so as not to offend the right-wing Western donors.

Straddling these two Russian military objectives, we see more and more mercenary fighters from foreign neo-Nazi circles arriving in Ukraine.

Russia, which has been waging an effective war of attrition for almost 2 years, must now “move up a gear” before the “time” factor also benefits the enemy, for example for the operational training of its new brigades or pilots. .

[...]

read the article

As Denmark prepares to become the first country in the world to tax farmers for greenhouse gases emitted by their livestock, critics say the real aim is to consolidate control of the food supply and pass to a “pharmaceutical diet” controlled by companies.

Denmark is set to become the first country in the world to tax farmers for greenhouse gases emitted by their livestock, thanks to an agreement reached on June 24 between the Danish government and representatives of the agricultural industry and unions.

The tax, which specifically targets methane emissions from cows, pigs and sheep, will take effect in 2030, subject to final approval by the Danish Parliament, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

From 2030, farmers will have to pay a tax of 300 crowns (about $43) per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. This amount will increase to 750 crowns ($108) by 2035. After a 60% tax deduction, the respective amounts will be 120 crowns ($17,30) and 300 crowns.

CNN, citing Danish “green think tank” Concito, reported that Danish dairy cows emit an average of 5,6 tonnes (6,2 US tonnes) of CO2 equivalent per year. This would result in a tax of 672 crowns per cow ($96) in 2030 and 1 crowns ($680) in 241.

The respective emissions of all Danish cows average 6,6 tons of CO2 equivalent per year, according to the AP, which reports that the Danish government aims to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 70% from 1990 levels by 2030, citing Tax Minister Jeppe Bruus.

According to CNN, proceeds from the tax will be used to support the ecological transition of the agricultural industry in the first two years, including the investment of 40 billion crowns ($3,7 billion) for measures such as reforestation and establishment of wetlands.

After two years, the tax will be “reassessed”.

Denmark is a major exporter of pork and dairy products, according to CNN. Agriculture is the nation's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. The AP reports that as of June 2022, Denmark had nearly 1,5 million cows.

The tax will encourage farmers to seek solutions to reduce emissions

Supporters of the tax point out that Denmark is the first country to adopt such a policy, calling it a step toward greater environmental sustainability.

“We will take a big step towards climate neutrality in 2045,” Mr Bruus said.

“We are investing billions in the biggest transformation of the Danish landscape in recent times,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in a statement cited by CNN. “At the same time, we will be the first country in the world to apply a (carbon) tax to agriculture.

According to Torsten Hasforth, chief economist at Concito, “the goal of the tax is to incentivize the sector to seek solutions to reduce emissions,” reports CNN. Mr Hasforth noted that farmers could, for example, change the foods they use, as part of their efforts to reduce emissions.

The Danish Society for Nature Conservation called the tax a “historic compromise,” in comments cited by the AP. The organization's president, Maria Reumert Gjerding, said: “We have reached a compromise on a CO2 tax, which lays the foundations for a restructured food industry, including on the other side of the horizon. 2030”.

Ben Lilliston, director of rural strategies and climate change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, told PBS NewsHour that methane emissions are “a huge problem...a huge challenge.” According to him, if methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time than CO2, it is “around 80 times more powerful”.

“If you reduce methane, you can achieve shorter-term results and give us a little more time to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” Mr Lilliston said.

The carbon tax imposed on farmers is a “scary experience”.

Denmark's carbon tax was passed despite recent protests by farmers across Europe, including in Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union (EU) and the EU's policy-making center.

Farmers have voiced their grievances over new environmental regulations and corporate takeover of European agriculture.

In recent years, EU member states such as Ireland and the Netherlands have also implemented plans to limit agriculture and cull livestock, leading to protests in these country.

New Zealand plans to adopt a carbon tax, which is expected to take effect in 2025. The tax, passed by the country's previous center-left government, was repealed last month by New Zealand's new coalition government. New Zealand's center-right, according to the AP.

Denmark's new carbon tax is facing criticism, with some experts saying it places an additional burden on the agricultural sector, particularly small farmers.

CNN cited Danish farmers' association Bæredygtigt Landbrug, which called the new policy a "scary experience."

Peder Tuborgh, CEO of Arla Foods, Europe's largest dairy company, told CNN that the new tax was "positive", but that farmers who are "really doing everything they can to reduce emissions" should be exempt.

In remarks shared with The Defender, Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and president of the Solari Report, said: “The broadcasts are a cover story to achieve the steps of the central bankers' 'Going Direct Reset.'

According to Fitts, the goal of this “reset” is to “consolidate control of the food supply, shifting to corporate-controlled “Pharma Food,” and shift the availability of energy from the general population to powering an electrical control network that will provide AI[artificial intelligence], robotics, digital ID cards and a fully digital financial system.”

“We are trading fresh food and freedom for digital concentration camps and lab-grown meat,” Ms Fitts said. On Wall Street, we used to call it a “bad trade.”

Other critics told the Defender that the Danish government's new tax has less to do with protecting the environment and reducing emissions than with achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Goals of global entities such as the G20 and the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Meike Terhorst, a Dutch lawyer and activist, told the Defender:

“I think these measures have nothing to do with sustainability, but with power. A group of companies, the so-called globalists/banks/investors, like the WEF, work together with governments, like the G20, and together they can force small farmers off their land.”

Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, believes small farms will be most affected by the new tax.

Small farmers will be the first to disappear, and their land will most likely be used to house various so-called “green” initiatives, such as fake meat laboratories, hectares of solar panels and wind turbines as far as the eye can see, new centers of AI data that requires tons of water, energy and land, and maybe even nuclear power plants to power these data centers,” he said.

Similarly, Terhorst said the goal is to “shut down small farmers under the ‘2030 Agenda’ – the UN SDGs – or the corporate takeover agenda.”

According to Mr. Terhorst, this agenda aims to “ensure that small farmers are taken off the land and replaced by “digital” agriculture”, that is to say to “replace meat and milk with food or milk made from factory-made insects and meat grown in the laboratory.”

Critics have also questioned claims that policies such as carbon taxation help promote “sustainability.”

“When the unelected globalists of the WEF and the UN talk about sustainability, they do not mean individual self-sufficiency. This is not at all what they want. They want to secure lasting control, influence and power for decades to come,” Mr Hinchliffe said:

“In my opinion, the real goal is to take over prime farmland and tax farmers into disappearing. When taxes become too high and farmers can no longer keep up, public and private entities step in to take control of the land.

“If they really believed that flatulent farm animals were responsible for the climate, they would just plant more trees to absorb carbon, and their imaginary crisis would be solved, but they don't do that because it What they are really after is land grabbing, money, and total control of our food systems.”

According to Hinchliffe, global organizations also aim to change human habits, including meat consumption. He said :

“Nutritionally, groups like the WEF and the UN want us to eat less meat and more insects, which will only make us weaker and more docile as a species over time.

“In the event of an epidemic or contamination, citizens around the world will suffer because there will be no alternative. Local farmers will be wiped out due to carbon taxes and land grabbing.

“The organic meat industry was organized and financed by the investors and banks that are part of the WEF,” Mr Terhorst said. “If we want to become sustainable, we must limit the powers of investors and the WEF and support small farmers.

Mr Hinchliffe added: “If carbon taxes fail to completely stifle the human spirit, they already plan to tax just about everything else in nature, including the air we breathe, the water we drink and the very ground we walk on.”

read the article