Police have confiscated saucepans from townspeople demonstrating against French President Emmanuel Macron.
Numerous anti-Macron protesters may have difficulty making dinner later today after French police reportedly confiscated saucepans in the town of Ganges ahead of a visit by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Hated by wide swathes of the French population thanks to his pension reforms, Macron is currently touring the country in the hopes of regaining the support of the general public.
The tour has so far not gone as planned, perhaps, with protesters having disrupted his previous stops in other locations by making lots of noise, often int he traditional method with banging pots and pans.
Pour préparer l’arrivée d’Emmanuel Macron les gendarmes ouvrent les sacs et interdisent l’entrée des casseroles dans le village de Ganges. «C’est illégal» se plaint un manifestant. « Vous voulez voir l’arrêté préfectoral ? » lui répond le gendarme en allant chercher un papier. pic.twitter.com/FaK1pHfjto
Now, according to a report by POLITICO, police in Ganges are trying to preempt such protests, confiscating saucepans from would-be protesters in the town.
The confiscations have been justified by police as the confiscation of “portable sound devices”, with such devices being banned from being temporarily banned from public use by local authorities shortly before Macron’s arrival.
Upon arriving at the location, Macron himself made light of the confiscations, saying that he was willing to meet with protesters if they were willing to talk, but would not bother if they were just going to try and disrupt his time in the town.
“If it’s just for the eggs and the pans — at my place, these are used to cook,” he quipped.
Such pithy remarks — though a common element of Macron’s repertoire — does not quite convey the seriousness of the situation the French President has found himself in, with much of the French public still furious at him over his passed pension reforms.
While resistance to the measures has slowed slightly in recent weeks, there remains enough anger amongst the French public for regular protests to occur, sometimes with attendances in the hundreds of thousands.
Although no such numbers were reached in the town of Ganges, the roughly 1,000 individuals who did show up to challenge the President’s visit did appear to make themselves heard in a manner common for French protesters, clashing with police before reportedly getting tear gassed.
The fact that many ultimately had to go without their pans did not prevent them from making a lot of noise either, with many opting to use whistles and vuvuzelas instead.
Members of the country’s political opposition also were keen to lash out at the president, finding the police decision to start confiscating saucepans in the hopes of ensuring a smooth visit for Macron seemingly hitting a nerve with many.
“Is it possible to get out of a democratic crisis by banning saucepans,” one Green Party politician asked, while an elected member of the French Communist Party said his party was now “impatiently awaiting the bill which will prohibit the sale of saucepans”.
With the closure of Germany’s last three nuclear power plants, the country’s 60-year era of nuclear power generation has come to an end. The move was originally planned for the end of last year. However, due to uncertainty over energy supplies in the wake of the Russian-Ukrainian war and sanctions, the coalition government extended the deadline until after winter.
For a long time, nuclear energy has been one of the most divisive areas of energy policy in the EU’s supply. The technology offers stable energy supplies and has positive environmental and economic indicators, but the radical Green parties of Europe have worked hard to convince many that these plants should be closed.
This has been achieved mainly in Germany and Austria. Downsizing has begun and further investment has become impossible. Reality, however, has shown that this ideology-driven energy policy comes at a heavy price. It was not by chance that energy policy expert Oliver Hortay recently recalled an estimate by a Berkeley University researcher that the social cost of German nuclear plant closures had already reached $12 billion a year.
The threat of energy shortages in Europe has led to a change in the perception of nuclear power among EU citizens. In Germany, for example, the percentage of people who oppose nuclear power has fallen from 65 to 20 percent. But it seems that the will of the electorate does not matter.
“It’s a black day for climate protection in Germany,” Jens Spahn, a conservative member of the CDU, told RTL television the other day.
It is hard to talk about a green transition when carbon emissions are rising. The huge expansion of solar and wind capacity in Germany is no guarantee of security of supply. The country is increasingly using coal instead of Russian gas. In fact, mines that had previously been closed down have had to be reopened, and a German energy company has even started to dismantle a wind farm to allow for the expansion of a neighboring coal mine.
On average, 30,000 tons of coal are transported daily by trains from North Sea ports to large power stations across Germany. Last year, the war caused the country to increase its coal imports by 8 percent to 44.4 million tons. These are the hard facts.
The Greens went after gas boilers, too. They will now be banned in German homes from 2024. Greens say they cannot meet their climate commitments otherwise. However, it is coal-fired power stations, not residential gas boilers, that threaten climate targets.
Péter Szijjártó, the Hungarian minister of foreign affairs and trade, often warns that it is impossible to supply the economy with gas or oil, or even to heat houses and apartments, with ideology or political statements instead of actual supply chains.
In other words, the Hungarian government continues to treat energy security as a physical and not an ideological issue. That means it is not willing to give up working, proven and reliable sources.
An ideology-driven energy policy is very expensive, has harmful consequences, and in the future, could even end with us freezing in our homes if an especially cold winter hits Europe.
Democrats have done everything possible to block the death penalty and may they have a point. The death penalty is too good for some people. The Constitution does block cruel and unusual punishment of the kind that existed and with good reason, not because it’s unjust, but because performing it does bad things for our souls.
Still, there are monsters for whom the death penalty is much too easy. And the monsterperpetrating her private ‘Transgender Day of Vengeance’ deserves the worst things that medieval Europeans could think of.
The Uvalde school shooter used the blood of his victims to write “LOL” across a whiteboard inside a classroom at Robb Elementary School last year after he gunned down 19 students and two teachers, a Texas lawmaker revealed this week.
The appalling detail shared by Texas House Rep. Joe Moody on Tuesday drew gasps and sobs from victims’ parents, some of whom had waited 13 hours to advocate for gun control during a hearing that day at the Texas statehouse.
“The attacker scooped up the blood of his victims and smeared it into his disgusting message,” the El Paso Democrat said, according to NBC News.
You know he’s a Democrat because he said ‘he’, not ‘she’ being very careful not to ‘misgender’ the ‘attacker’.
The story keeps talking about gun control. This isn’t a gun control issue, it’s a monster control issue. And as crime stats show, we’re very bad at controlling monsters. Instead, we turn some of them, like George Floyd, who robbed a woman while pointing a gun at her stomach, into heroes, martyrs and celebrities.
The Trans Resistance Network in Massachusets released a statement on the Covenant school shooting in Nashville by stating that Aubrey Hale, the transgender school shooter, was a “complex tragedy” who felt she “had no other effective way to be seen than to lash out by taking the life of others”.
The transvestite group then claimed that life for “transgender people is very difficult” due to “anti-trans legislation” and “right wing personalities”.
“Hate has consequences,” the group’s statement claimed while urging the media not to misgender Audrey Hale who due to her mental illness claimed to be a man.
Since then the media has apologized for ‘misgendering’ the psychotic woman. A memorial service included her in its ranks, much as leftists have done in the past for Jim Jones and the 9/11 hijackers.
Why does the Left have so much pity in its heart for its monsters? Evil calls to evil.
Sadly though, “A Trans Day Of Vengeance Protest Was Canceled After Organizers Received A Threat Of Gun Violence Fueled By Right-Wing Anti-Trans Rhetoric”.
It is awful when your day of politically correct threats has to be canceled over politically incorrect threats due to the murder of children.
Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.
By Olivia Murray
Think you have a right to “protect” children from ugly, middle-aged male transvestites colonizing the ladies restroom for all their stinky bathroom needs and repulsive habits? And yes, “protect” was sarcastically enclosed in air quotes. Well, think again, because according to one vulgar TikTok beast, you don’t, and he’s going to bring the firepower to ensure he gets his way. Watch the video below:
Typically we refer to these sorts of people as “predators.”
(Now, it should go without saying, but men who routinely insert frozen tubes of tomato paste up their rear ends to “mimic” menstrual cycles are indescribably troubled, and have absolutely no business being anywhere near a precious child of either sex.)
Obesity, a very apparent hormonal imbalance, “trans” delusions, and explicit calls for violence, especially in light of recent tragedies and near-misses, should scream of a serious health crisis — but thanks to a world and culture polluted by leftist amorality, they aren’t.
So, let me get this straight: this man “dares” someone to “protect” the innocence of children as if that’s a trivial thing, and prohibiting biological men from stampeding into private female spaces will be “the last mistake” someone “ever make[s]” because he’s getting a gun, and he won’t be afraid to use it — in fact, he’d rather use it than “live and not have anything done.” Ergo, he hates the purity and preciousness of a child, and will resort to blood-spilling to get his political way; no doubt about it, he’s a leftist alright!
On another note, there was a subtle yet profound reality present in this man’s words though; read below:
You need to arm up, plain and simple. Go out, buy a gun. Learn how to use it efficiently, through and through, because the time to act is now, as I am going to do myself, because there are lots of people like me who are not afraid to die.
It’s an unavoidable and uncomfortable truth: “trans” terrorism is a real threat, and we can only expect outbursts of homicidal aggression to trend upward. After all, these angry people already have a significantly higher chance of being suicidal; as the man in the video notes, there are “lots” like him who “are not afraid to die [as a martyr].” (The suicide rate in the “trans” community hovers around 50% both before and after “transition” while the general American population has a suicide rate far below 1%.)
Despite the seriousness of “trans” terrorists lurking seemingly everywhere, there was a silver lining. The creature in question states:
So if you want to die on that hill of yours, of righteousness and moral majority, you go right ahead.
First of all, he subconsciously validated that traditional sexuality, not “trans” perversion, is right and moral. Otherwise, he would have noted the “righteousness” and “moral[ity]” we conservatives espouse was a mere illusion, nothing more than a product of religious deception.
Secondly, he said moral “majority” but he probably meant moral “superiority” — not only is he a total degenerate, but he’s a bonehead too.
He’s feral, prone to violence, and he’s roaming the streets looking for a kill; where is a domestic terrorism cop when you need one?
Social media bosses who fail to censor “harmful” content on their sites should be jailed, plans announced by a UK minister have stipulated.
Technology and Science Secretary Michelle Donelan has announced plans to see social media executives thrown in jail should they fail to censor so-called “harmful” content on their websites.
The jail threat is to be part of the UK’s Online Safety Bill, a widespread censorship plan that some tech giants claim will also effectively ban end-to-end encryption for private internet users.
As it currently stands, the bill will give control of social media regulation to Britain’s broadcasting regulator Ofcom, which mandates platforms under its control to censor “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred” based on various progressive characteristics, including transgenderism.
According to a report by The Telegraph, Donelan has now confirmed that she wants any social media boss who ignores the new restrictions to be jailed, justifying such an extreme measure with reference to protecting children.
Such a measure will reportedly be used as a last resort to deal with executives that “have consented or connived in ignoring enforceable requirements” to censor content, including so-called “disinformation” from a foreign state, which government officials claim would amount to “risking serious harm to children”.
Companies will also face fines of up to 10 per cent of their global revenue should they dare to ignore Britain’s demands to preemptively delete or obscure posts violating its coming censorship regime.
Backed by wide-swathes of the Tory party, the Online Safety Bill has been met with horror from a number of big tech companies, who have warned that the legislation would effectively kill privacy on many parts of the internet.
Both Facebook’s WhatsApp messaging service, as well as one of its main rivals, Signal, have warned that measures requiring them to automatically detect child abuse material in private messages would effectively destroy end-to-end encryption and enforce a system of mandatory surveillance on its user base.
The two platforms have now both vowed to leave the UK market if the bill is made law.
“[W]e would absolutely 100% walk rather than ever undermine the trust that people place in us to provide a truly private means of communication,” Signal President Meredith Whittaker previously told the BBC regarding the legislation.
“We have never weakened our privacy promises, and we never would,” she went on to say.
Regardless, the idea that handing control of the internet to Ofcom to increase child safety is questionable, given their censorship of UK television is already allowing concerning material to be broadcast.
For example, the country’s publicly-funded Channel 4 recently aired a programme that involved transgender individuals stripping naked in front of children in order to “educate them”.
The show has been praised as depicting a “truly powerful moment” of trans people stripping naked in front of children, with the show garnering just under 1,000 official complaints from the public. There has been no indication that the broadcast of the show will be suspended pending an investigation.
Authoritarian States ‘Want to Control People’ by Censoring Internet: ICANN https://t.co/SBHIJ0k9ol
Building of the Ministry of Education in Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westphalia, blu-news.org, CC-BY-SA-2.0
The Ministry of Education in North Rhine-Westphalia has offered Muslim pupils a special arrangement for the Abitur exams on Friday. Because the Islamic Eid begins on this day, they are allowed to rewrite their exams on May 9, the authority announced.
Islamic associations had protested against the Friday date. Actually, the exams were scheduled for last Wednesday, but due to technical problems, the date was moved back. “The postponement of the Abitur exams in North Rhine-Westphalia precisely on the Ramadan festival is annoying and irritating,” said the spokesman for the Coordination Council of Muslims in Cologne, Murat Gümüş. He said that the amendment denies Muslim students the opportunity to celebrate the end of the fasting month of Ramadan in the mosque and with their families. “It would also be hard to imagine Abitur exams taking place on Christmas or Easter.” According to Gümüş, all federal states should pay more attention to religious diversity.
The AfD member of the state parliament Carlo Clemens strictly rejects a separate make-up date for the final exams in North Rhine-Westphalia exclusively for Muslim pupils. “Friday is a normal working and school day in Germany. Therefore, there is nothing to be said against a school-leaving examination on this day. It would be unfair to other pupils if Muslim pupils were granted special rights,” he told the newspaper JUNGE FREIHEIT. All religious communities could claim special rights in the future, he said, if School Minister Dorothee Feller (CDU) set a “precedent” for this year’s Abitur examination.
“School Minister Feller must immediately and transparently clarify how this mishap could have occurred. It must be ensured that such a disastrous mishap cannot happen again.” The teaching profession is made even less attractive by such mishaps and teacher shortages, Clemens warned.
The reason for the data breach was probably the newly introduced 2-factor authentication. 600 out of 900 schools in North Rhine-Westphalia were unable to download exam papers from a central server on Tuesday. The school policy spokesperson of the SPD parliamentary group in the North Rhine-Westphalia state parliament, Dilek Engin, called the subsequent communication behaviour of the school minister “catastrophic”. Feller had simply disappeared for hours. Teachers, school-leavers and Muslim pupils now have to pay the price.
The Christian Democrat has since apologised for the mishap. “I can understand that many students and many teachers are angry – I am too. I know exactly what that means for high school graduates.”
In the street Ringbahnstraße ( Tempelhof district of Berlin), specialists work and train to counter terror: Special task forces and state security guards. But there are always problems with the security doors – which now led to a dangerous mishap.
The anti-terror headquarters in the former Reichspostzentralamt is a result of the Islamist attack on December 19, 2016 at Breitscheidplatz. It was handed over to the police in July 2021. 1200 LKA staff are employed there, a bulwark against terror.
But it already has cracks: There are massive problems with the security doors again and again, many employees only get into the building via an underground tunnel. “Insofar as there are malfunctions at the doors to and in the building, they are usually due to a very high frequency of use,” says the police press office.
Not everything can always be repaired immediately. This is because “extended spare parts delivery times on the market” make quick repairs more difficult.
The only solution: Security guards from private security services guard the defective entrances. According to information from the newspaper BILD, one of them was a person with close contacts to the Islamist scene. Moreover, he even lacked the official authorisation to work as a security guard!
A police spokeswoman when asked: “On March 19, the person in question was immediately banned from the police properties for the purpose of taking up work.”
The use of plural pronouns (“they/them”) to refer to a single person has insidiously crept into our language. This practice is especially common in mass media publications and other establishment writings. It is more than a mere passing fad. It is time for us to understand what this trend really means for all of us.
One recent example I noticed was linked by msn.com and included the headline, “Non-Binary Ex-Biden Staffer Sam Brinton’s Family Calls Them A Liar, Claims Their Abuse Story Never Happened.” The headline is incomprehensible by traditional rules of grammar. The reader would not know who is meant by “Them” and “Their.” Even if we are familiar with Sam Brinton and his story, we would not know what people his family calls “a liar.” The plural words tell us that there are multiple third parties that Brinton’s family accuses. We are misled and distracted by those plural pronouns. An innocent reader would not have concluded that Brinton, himself, is the real target unless the reader undertook the process of clicking on the link and reading the article. The reader would then have to remember the new mandate that requires us to misread plural pronouns as applicable to single people – as the individual subject’s whim dictates. Singular is now plural. Plural is now singular. Words have no meaning.
If the Brinton story were the only example, no great harm would be done. But this trend is becoming common. The more controversial stories involving transgenderism “sow social chaos by hijacking our language, rendering it utterly unrecognizable even about the most basic of facts.” But plural/singular confusion does not require a school shooting to inflict harm upon the language. The improper juxtaposition of singular and plural is an offense to English in any context. Readers cannot click on every article and translate from the current trend to comprehensible language. Readers will skip most articles while glancing only at the scrolling headlines in the MSN feed. The plural pronouns make comprehension impossible in the brief time that most readers will devote to each headline before escaping to a new headline.
The concepts of plural and singular are basic to language. Imagine having no way to convey such concepts in daily speech. Conversation in that scenario would become impossible. The inability to understand one another might well isolate each of us to a much greater degree than any other factor in modern culture. Television, social media, political differences, etc. all are put to shame in their ability to isolate us.
Pronouns have become second nature to all of us. Imagine trying to speak without any pronouns at all. Try to discuss any issue while using only the proper names of the people involved. It would make one sound like primitive artificial intelligence. We may soon face the choice of either sounding like such machines or neutralizing our discussion with meaningless plural pronouns.
Imagine a poker game in which every card is a “wildcard.” Imagine a chess game in which every piece is a queen. All cards and all chess pieces would thus be the same and have the same value. The games would be impossible or, at least, completely uninteresting. While not all words are pronouns, enough of them are pronouns. Pronouns undeniably play a key role in the English language. Rendering pronouns meaningless devastates the language.
Every person that identifies his or her preferred pronouns becomes an unwitting soldier in this new war against the English language. By doing so we perpetuate the unspoken idea that each person can re-make the language according to his own sexual identity. This behavior denies the fact that words mean things. By subverting our pronouns, we take away that meaning.
There is no way for the rest of us even to surrender in this war. If we submit to the idea that singular is now plural, we are still left with neither singular nor plural. This trend does not simply cause some words to mean something else. This trend robs some very common words of all meaning – leaving us with no way to express the very basic concepts of singular and plural. Speech and writing are, themselves, imperiled.
Establishment media have long treated the average reader with contempt. We are objects to be manipulated and misled long enough for the Democrat of the day to win the next election. The silent majority has long been suspicious of the establishment media and its various agendas. Decades ago we were isolated in our suspicions. Before the internet, talk radio and cable television, we did not know that so many others agreed with us. We did not recognize our own power and strength. Rush Limbaugh and various internet/cable sources allowed us to learn of each other’s existence, communicate with each other and amplify our voice. The isolation had ended.
But now the establishment strikes at us by twisting something much more basic than the daily news cycle or a particular election. They strike at our very language. The war on language promises to be much more effective than the mere war on certain politicians, taxpayers, religions and races. By making pronouns meaningless throughout the entire language, the establishment can rob us all of our voice.
Leftist plans have always been grandiose. They seek to turn down (or up) the Earth’s temperature, lower the oceans, end organized religion, rewrite history, effectively repeal the U.S. Constitution, etc. But now they seek to outdo even their own ambitions. Their attack on pronouns would go further even than the bilingualism pushed for so long in schools. It would turn English into less than the mere language spoken by an ever-decreasing majority in an increasingly Balkanized society. It would turn all of us into little more than the contemporary preliterate – unable to communicate with each other in any meaningful way.
Despite their hostility to the Bible, leftists now seek to emulate no less than God in the Book of Genesis. Whereas God rendered the builders of the Tower of Babel helpless by creating multiple languages, today’s left will leave us with no language at all – or at least no language with meaningful pronouns. Of course, the edifice of the public school system will still exist – and with ever increasing public funding. Despite having no language left to teach, the public schools will still herd children into their little towers of babel so that they can learn about racism, get vaccinated, wear masks and view twerking by men wearing dresses.
It is our duty to defend our language by refusing to surrender the difference between plural and singular. We must remember and insist that one person cannot be multiple people. We must stick stubbornly to plain language. Referring to one person only in the singular will protect the benefits that language bestows upon all of us. If our language is rendered meaningless, gender issues will be the least of our problems.
