Month: August 2021
The Afghan murderer and rapist of the 13-year-old Austrian girl Leonie was supported in his escape by the Afghan community – He came to England via Calais in the course of illegal immigration
34 days after the gruesome death of 13-year-old Leonie in a Vienna flat, her fourth alleged tormentor was caught – some 1500 kilometres away from the crime scene in a small hotel in East London. The Afghan had fled across Europe by train. And he probably did so with the support of the community.
For weeks, the investigators of Federal Criminal Police Office Director Andreas Holzer were hot on his heels – now, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Police, the police arrested him in an eastern district of London. In a small cheap hotel in a neighbourhood popular within the Afghan scene.
According to the newspaper “Krone”, the 22-year-old had first taken a train via Tyrol to Italy, from where he continued his journey to France. They were also hot on his trail in Belgium, but he probably did not stay there for too long.
According to initial findings, the Afghan had returned to the north of France. To finally flee from the notorious port city of Calais – a hotspot for illegal crossings – onwards to the British Isle. By train or car across the English Channel. Investigators assume that he had support from the Afghan community on his flight across Europe.
Meanwhile, the domestic judiciary is now fighting for the extradition of the suspect. Which is now “somewhat more complicated” after Brexit and the end of the transitional period as of January 1. The EU arrest warrant no longer applies and must be “adapted” for the British. And this had to be done in a rush: the “special form” had to be sent within 48 hours after the arrest.
Incidentally, the lawyer of the victim’s family has now announced an official civil liability lawsuit against the Republic of Austria.
Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad): An Elegy for England & English Morality
Nullifying Nuremberg
By Pennel Bird
Dr. Josef Mengele is one of the true monsters of history. His profoundly evil medical experiments on Jews, the disabled, the mentally impaired, and other Third Reich deplorables are the stuff of pitch-black fever dreams. Combining disparate elements of pernicious ideologies including eugenics, antisemitism, racial purity, and the German ideal of lebensraum (“room for living”), what eventually became Nazism informed Hitler’s ethos as he rose to power. His malignant weltenshauung eventually coalesced into the Final Solution.
Hitler’s infernal vision metastasized quickly to infect the belief systems of top-tier Nazis. Among other atrocities, Mengele used injections to attempt to change the eye color of his “patients” to blue to render them more Aryan. When these experiments went sideways, the fiendish M.D. demonstrated a penchant for “tidying up.” One person testified to having witnessed the diabolical doctor kill fourteen sets of twins in one night with chloroform injections to the heart in order to make comparative post-mortem observations.
After the Allies won the war, the Nuremberg Trials were convened to assess the astonishing breadth of the human tragedy as authored by Hitler and his henchmen and mete out punishment for their actions. The cruelty and depravity of Mengele and others, including Adolf Eichmann, shocked the world, were almost beyond reckoning, and subsequently inspired the establishment of the Nuremberg Code — which was tacitly endorsed by nearly every nation on earth.
The ten points of the Nuremberg Code for human experimentation are as follows:
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the effects upon his health or person, which may come from his participation in the experiment.
- The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
- The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation.
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
- No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.
- The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
- Proper preparations should be made, and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
- The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
- During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
- During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
All COVID vaccines emergency authorized by the FDA have not yet been approved and are experimental, as they have undergone no long-term safety trials. Safety data are being partially collected in real time as adverse events are reported to VAERS. The tenets of the Nuremberg Code apply here as these vaccines are — by definition — a medical experiment being administered worldwide.
Given that, the explicit statement in #1 that subjects not be subject to coercionraises the question: does the threat of losing one’s job, not being able to attend college, or not being able to travel or attend a live event constitute coercion? Does the president of the United States urging Americans to “get the shot” and then threatening to send emissaries door to door to “encourage” it constitute coercion? Is it coercion to establish two Americas in which one half that chooses vaccination gets to eschew masks and move about freely, while the other half that doesn’t must stay masked and have their essential freedoms proscribed?
Later in #1, the text explicitly states that the subject must be made aware of “the effects upon his health or person.” This is known as informed consent: patients need to be made fully aware of the potential dangers of a medical procedure in keeping with the Hippocratic oath. There have been many reports of adverse events from the COVID vaccines, including Bell’s palsy, seizures, blood clotting, heart inflammation, and death. How many people reading this who got the vaccine had these potential side-effects explained to them before getting jabbed? How many were afforded informed consent?
The second bullet point dictates the experiment (COVID vaccine) “should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation.” In an alarming break with decades of convention, the Pfizer and Moderna animal trials were run concurrently with human trials. The human trials were not a result of animal trials, giving the manufacturers a chance to make safety adjustments, which constitutes a violation of the Nuremberg Code.
The fifth bullet point states that no experiment (the experimental vaccine in this case) should be given if there’s reason to believe it could cause a disabling injury or death. With over 400,000 adverse events and 9,000 unconfirmed deaths from COVID vaccines reported to VAERS, is there reason to believe the COVID vaccines violate the Nuremberg Code in yet another way?
The eighth bullet point emphasizes the “highest degree of skill and care” by “scientifically qualified persons” when administering the vaccine. Do pharmacists fit that profile? Do school nurses? How about the folks jabbing people motoring through drive-thru clinics? Does the fact that they all enjoy total liability protection from vaccine injury and death give pause?
The last bullet point emphasizes that the administering agent should exercise caution in fulfillment of the Hippocratic oath by terminating treatment if there is reason to believe that further treatment could cause “injury, disability or death.” There are countless stories of people having an adverse reaction to the first of two shots — but being encouraged to continue with the second shot anyway. Many of these unfortunates suffered debilitating, lifelong injuries — or death — after the second vaccine. Meanwhile, instances of doctors or health care workers erring on the side of caution and advising against the second shot for these vulnerable patients are vanishingly rare.
It is increasingly clear that the powerful principles and precepts of the Nuremberg Code have been flouted, even decimated, by those seeking to push the COVID vaccines on every single person on Earth. Foremost among these is the caution against coercion. Those who resist the anti-American and anti-human idea of a one-size-fits-all medical treatment are freedom-fighters for the obvious and inherent right to choose for themselves. That this is no longer self-evident is deeply alarming.
It is a well worn aphorism that those who forget their past are condemned to repeat it. Despite mounting evidence of serious adverse events and death, are we doing just that in our increasingly desperate attempts to use coercion to vaccinate absolutely everyone?
Are we nullifying the Nuremberg Code?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/nullifying_nuremberg.html
Many German police officers in Saxony refuse to act as Corona sheriffs
Numerous Saxon police officers have expressed anger at instructions on what they see as excessive Corona controls. “I didn’t become a cop to spy on people or to find out if three grandmas in the park come from two or three households. Former Stasi employees should be used for this. Citizens are being tempted to denounce their compatriots,” a study by the Institute for Police and Security Research Saxony revealed, according to an official.
The investigation “Police service in times of crisis” deals, among other things, with the questions of how the security forces experienced their service during the Corona lockdown. According to the study, the Corona measures have gone too far for one in three of the 2323 respondents. Regulations were often unclear and a large part of the population felt the regulations were excessive. Some officials have also openly criticized provisions that “have not infrequently been constitutionally dubious from their point of view”.
The study divided the respondents into three groups depending on their attitude. The largest, at 46 percent, is that of the “uncertain conformists”, who have mixed opinions about the measures but are more willing to monitor compliance. The second group was made up of 32 percent of the “concerned interventionists” for whom the Corona regulations did not go far enough.
They strictly enforced the existing rules privately and on duty. The smallest group consists of 22 percent of the “carefree skeptics”, for whom the measures went too far and who lack the motivation to use controls to ensure compliance with the regulations.
Some police officers expressed concern about the possible consequences of the controls, which were being perceived as disproportionate. They feared that the controls, viewed by the population as disproportionate, could shake “the fragile social trust in the police” and “deepen existing mistrust”.
England’s National Health Service planned involuntary euthanasia for the elderly
By Andrea Widburg
Except for the air you breathe, everything else in life is a finite resource. There are only two ways to allocate such resources: rationing or the free market. Rationing means those in power decide who gets what; the free market usually ensures that, through the profit motive and competition, the scarce resource will become more available at a better price. England’s National Health Service is all about rationing – and the latest example is a secret plan drafted in 2017 and 2018 stating that, in a pandemic, if things got sticky, anyone over 70 would be left to die:
The NHS drew up secret plans to refuse treatment to people aged over 70 in the event of a pandemic and to stop hospital care for those in nursing homes, it has been revealed.
Confidential government documents written following a pandemic training exercise in 2016 detailed plans to stop hospitals being overwhelmed by sacrificing vulnerable members of the population.
Under the plans, the Health Secretary could allow doctors to prioritise some patients over others who were placed on an ‘end of life pathway’ in the event of a ‘severe’ flu pandemic.
[snip]
Earlier this year, it was revealed that care homes were asked by the NHS to place ‘do not resuscitate’ orders on all residents during the worst of the pandemic in breach of guidelines.
Both the NHS and the government tried to distance themselves from the document, saying it was totally hypothetical, despite the “do not resuscitate” guideline that sounds exactly like the allegedly hypothetical plan. Many in England, including Dominic Cummings, a former chief advisor to Boris Johnson, said that “it was a ‘lie’ that everyone received care, saying ‘many people were left to die in horrific circumstances’.”
I’m siding with Cummings on this one. We know from the scandal of the Liverpool Care Pathway that socialized medicine providers have no problem denying medical care to those who no longer contribute to the system and are seen as deadweight in medical facilities. Under the Liverpool Care Pathway protocol, a plan to stop treating, or even giving food and drink to, cancer patients in the last phases of the disease, was instead used to kill as many as 130,000 elderly patients who could easily have recovered had they been treated.
In a free market system, doctors and hospitals must care about the patients because happy patients pay well. In a socialized medicine system, doctors and hospitals must care about the government because that’s the source of their paychecks. The patient is the last consideration, not the first.
I’ve long suspected that cost-saving was the reason that blue state governors dumped contagious people amongst the vulnerable elderly in care facilities. These people were no longer contributing to the state’s welfare systems but, instead, were taking money that could have been spent on illegal aliens and other criminals.
Bernie’s Medicare for All plan, which effectively socializes American medicine, will put every American on the Liverpool Care Pathway. If that happens, when the next big pandemic comes, the marketplace won’t save us; instead, the government will kill us.
France: Significant rise in number of protesters against health pass
Opposition against the health pass in France has increased significantly. According to figures from the Ministry of the Interior, 204 090 demonstrators, including about 14 250 in Paris, marched in the country against mandatory jabs. In total, 184 marches against President Macron’s draconian measures were identified.
But the leader of the Patriots party mocked the official numbers in a tweet showing a massive crowd in Paris alone. Florian Philippot tweeted that “even Kim Jong-un wouldn’t have dared” to minimize the count to such an extent. On Wednesday July 21, it became compulsory in France to present the health pass in order to enter all places of leisure likely to bring together more than 50 people.
“When we started our demonstrations at the end of 2020, the Macron regime told us that there would never be a health passport in France, that vaccination would never be compulsory, and that the virus would disappear from vaccinated countries. We did well not to believe them and will continue to do so,” said Philippot.
The bill currently under consideration by Parliament requires that the health pass also become mandatory in cafes, restaurants, shopping centers, retirement homes and trains, planes, interregional buses from August 1. Employees working in places where a health pass is mandatory will themselves have to present their pass to their employer, otherwise their employment contract will be suspended. From September 15, any caregiver who is not vaccinated would see their employment contract ended.
Hundreds of thousands took to the streets in Paris and other cities in France on Saturday again to protest against a new law requiring the “Green Pass” or health pass to enter restaurants and other venues. “I’m a nurse and I quit because I think we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be blackmailed,” said protester Hager Ameur. “I also think that we shouldn’t be told what to do, because we know that we were treated very badly during the first wave.” Denis, a 65-year-old Yellow Vest protester, told RT: “We want to denounce the dictatorship that Macron imposed.”
The Covid-19 vaccination requirement for healthcare workers was denounced by the largest trade union, the CGT, voicing its opposition to the measure. In a press release published on Tuesday, the CGT federal sector of railway workers in the Lyon region said it would refuse to check health passes for train travel.
Mobilization does not seem to be declining, on the contrary. For the third consecutive Saturday, authorities recorded a notable increase compared to the 161 000 people last week and 110 000 seven days earlier.
In Paris, a first demonstration started from the Villiers metro station at 2 m in the direction of Place de la Bastille. Shortly before 3 pm, some scuffles with the police occurred near the Moulin-Rouge. Around 4 pm, tension rose near the Place de la République, where the police responded with tear gas. Protesters were shouting “no to dictatorship” and singing the Marseillaise.
Journalists from public broadcaster France3 and BFMTV were attacked by demonstrators in Marseille. The police had to intervene at least once, the Bouches-du-Rhône prefecture told BFMTV.
In Montpelier, protesters held up placards denouncing the “State Mafia”. Tensions mounted around a Covid screening tent in the city when marchers shouted: “assassin”, “collaborator”, and attacked the pharmacist carrying out the tests in rue de Maguelone.