‘Beat These Female Dogs in Heat With a Stick’ – French Rappers Release Ultra-Violent Music Video Threatening to Assault Marine Le Pen, Kill Jordan Bardella
A new anti-National Rally rap video featuring a collective of 20 popular French rappers features ultra-violent lyrics directed at Marine Le Pen, her niece Marion Maréchal, and National Rally leader Jordan Bardella.
Some of the lines include, “Marine and Marion, the whores, beat these female dogs in heat with a stick,” and “Jordan, you’re dead.”
Other violent lines include, “If the fascists come by, I’m going with a big caliber,” referring to a firearm.
French rappers release ULTRA-VIOLENT new anti-National Rally music video:
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) July 2, 2024
“Marine and Marion the whores, beat these female dogs in heat with a stick.
“Jodan, you’re dead.”
“If the fascists come by, I’m going out with a big caliber.”
pic.twitter.com/yjRffivA8y
The track was produced by 20 popular rappers, including Fianso, ISK, Alkpote, and Akhenaton. The song is called “No pasarán,” which translates to “They will not pass” in English, a reference to the slogan chanted by leftist Spaniards against the Franco government that ruled Spain in the 1930s.
Among the other lines are “They deserve the cane,” which is an open call to assault the French politicians along with a defense of those with deportation orders, many of whom have committed serious crimes. In addition, the rappers sing: “Fuck Bardella’s mother.”
“This is for my friends under QQTF (French deportation order),” sing the rappers.
The video also features images of Marine Le Pen, Jordan Bardella, and other right-wing political figures.
Other lyrics include;
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) July 2, 2024
“They deserve the cane.”
“This is for my friends under QQTF (French deportation orders).”
The ultra-violent and misogynistic song has received glowing praise from the French press, which makes no mention of the song’s brutal lyrics.
Le Parisian, for instance, contacted Fianso, one of the rappers involved, and quoted him in a glowing manner.
“I participated in this piece because I grew up in the heritage of French rap, very sharp, committed and which inspired me a lot,” he said. “Culture has its say and is intended to express itself on this typology of subjects. It was very important for me to participate. I am from the generation where rap does not dissociate itself from the message.”
The article simply refers to “punchlines” directed at Le Pen and Bardella, without any reference to the incredibly violent calls to action and misogynistic comments. The song has nearly 400,000 views on Youtube.
The rappers say that the money they earn from the song will go to the Abbé Pierre Foundation, which provides financial and legal resources to migrants.
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Law Ending Religious Exemptions for School Vaccine Mandates
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Supreme Court rejected without comment a legal challenge to a 2021 Connecticut law that eliminated religious exemptions to school immunization requirements, continuing the current court’s aversion to touching state-level vaccine mandates.
In 2021, Connecticut changed its immunization requirements for participation in public and private schools, daycare, and other childcare centers by eliminating the ability to obtain religious exemptions, leaving medical exemptions the only possible avenue to avoid objectionable injections.
Several religious institutions such as Milford Christian Church, which maintains a pre-kindergarten program called Little Eagles and a K-12 Academy, sued the Connecticut State Department of Education, Connecticut Office of Early Childhood, and Connecticut Department of Public Health on First Amendment grounds after being given a choice to either compel student vaccinations, expel those who refused, or risk being forced to close.
In January 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed one such lawsuit on the grounds that the law change was not driven by “religious animus,” prompting the plaintiffs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
But the June 24 order list published by the nation’s highest court confirmed that We the Patriots USA, et al, v. CT Early Childhood Dev. et al. has been dismissed, without any elaboration. How individual justices voted was not listed, but with just four votes necessary to take a case, at least six would have voted not to.
“This is the end of the road to a challenge to Connecticut’s lifesaving and fully lawful vaccine requirements,” Democratic Attorney General William Tong said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. “We have said all along, and the courts have affirmed, the legislature acted responsibly and well within its authority to protect the health of Connecticut families and to stop the spread of preventable disease.”
“WE WILL NOT BACK DOWN, and we will not lose hope. We know that there is a Divine plan in all of this, and that ‘all things work together unto good’ (Romans 8:28). Even in this loss, in fact, there is some good news,” responded We the Patriots, which represented Milford Christian Church and Little Eagles Preschool & Daycare. “Our case against the State of Connecticut to restore religious exemptions was not fully dismissed by the Second Circuit, which allowed one of our claims to proceed – i.e., that a child with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is entitled to an education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Second Circuit sent this claim back to the district court for trial, but it has been on hold pending the outcome of our cert petition at the Supreme Court.”
“If we are ultimately victorious in these two cases, students with disabilities and students at private religious schools would be able to opt out of vaccinations and receive an education in Connecticut,” the group noted. “A victory in either of these cases at the Second Circuit would also apply to students in New York, which lost its school religious exemption in 2019. Although it’s not the broad, sweeping victory we were aiming for, these cases could still open the door for hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of children to receive an education in New York and Connecticut.”
Several common vaccines, including for hepatitis A and rabies, were developed using cell lines derived from aborted babies, leading many Americans to morally object to receiving anything tainted by the intentional destruction of innocent human life.
The issue is particularly acute today due to ongoing controversies surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines, which were developed and released in a fraction of the timevaccines usually take under former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.
According to a detailed overview by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson all used aborted fetal cells during their COVID vaccines’ testing phase; and Johnson & Johnson also used the cells during the design & development and production phases. While many have attempted to deny or downplay the coronavirus jabs’ links to abortion, the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s journal Science and the left-wing fact-checking outlet Snopes have both admitted the connection.
Meanwhile, the ruling continues the Supreme Court’s trend of issuing decidedly mixed rulings from a conservative perspective, despite Republican presidents having appointed six of its nine current members.
The Court has delivered conservatives major victories on gun rights, environmental regulation, affirmative action, and most significantly abortion with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, but it has also issued dismissive rulings on religious freedom, LGBT ideology, and more to the point, that conservative Justice Samuel Alito has taken the rare step of criticizing Trump appointees Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh for lacking the “fortitude” to resolve such issues.
In the area of vaccine mandates, in 2022 the Court blocked the Biden administration from forcing private businesses to mandate COVID shots while upholding a mandate for healthcare workers at federally funded facilities. On state-level mandates, the court has been consistently more deferential.
Kavanaugh and Barrett have voted against taking up reviews of state-level vaccine mandates in Indiana, Maine, and New York, and Kavanaugh voted to uphold a federal vaccine mandate for healthcare workers and against a group of Navy SEALs’ bid for a religious exemption. Last fall, the Court also rejected a COVID-19 vaccine mandate case out of New Jersey, again without listing how individual justices ruled.
Ukraine Rushes to Recruit From Prisons After Suffering Hundreds of Thousands of Casualties
Since the start of the war, Ukraine has lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers who have been killed or wounded, according to German newspaper Welt. The prominent newspaper reports the seriousness of the situation is shown by the fact that the Ukrainian army is already recruiting in prisons, as it is still unable to fill the gaps at the front.
In addition to a shortage of modern fighter jets and ammunition, a shortage of soldiers is a central problem for Ukraine’s war effort.
Behind the prison walls, the Ukrainian army has found something that is rare in the country: volunteer fighters for the frontline. Since May, 2,800 prisoners have been released and are now serving as soldiers, the Ukrainian justice ministry told Welt when contacted.
BREAKING: ????
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 21, 2024
Germany’s Rheinmetall scores record-breaking €8.5 billion order for artillery shells.
The defense firm says many of these shells will go to Ukraine, while the rest will be used to replenish Germany’s depleted artillery stocks.
The new order alone is more than… pic.twitter.com/acmaHyBW28
A total of 10,000 to 20,000 men and women in prison could join the army as part of the recruitment program, estimates Ukrainian Justice Minister Denis Malyuska.
Recruitment from the prison population is possible through a new law adopted by the Ukrainian parliament in May. Under this law, prisoners can be released on parole early to join the Ukrainian armed forces under contract. This includes, for example, convicted drug traffickers, perpetrators of violent crimes, and certain homicide offenders.
Finland’s defense industry is reaping dividends from the war in Ukraine, using the conflict as a testing ground for its new weaponry, a senior defense official has claimed. https://t.co/05TjtXFclG
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 10, 2024
Prison No. 14 in Odessa, southern Ukraine, is one of the prisons where the army has been looking to recruit reinforcements since May. Volunteers have been promised proper training for the frontline and a monthly salary of around 100,000 hryvnias, the equivalent of just under €2,500. This is about the same as the standard military salary in Ukraine. Those who are deployed in assault brigades at the front earn the equivalent of €2,750 a month.
The use of released criminals in this war is nothing new. Russia has been replenishing its own ranks with prisoners since the summer of 2022. In the battle for the eastern Ukrainian town of Bakhmut alone, thousands of convicts were seriously wounded or killed in 2023.
Blinken Bets Big on AI to Combat ‘Misinformation’
The current US secretary of state, Anthony Blinken, has revealed that his department is testing AI-based tools as a way to fight “misinformation.”
In conversation with the State Department’s chief data and AI officer Matthew Graviss, he cited a number of initiatives – such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and Washington’s Enterprise AI Strategy as the foundations for the ultimate goal – using AI to “advance our foreign policy.”
The second part of the push to equip the State Department with AI tools is to – “strengthen this institution.”
According to Blinken, his department is a leader within the government when it comes to testing and “harnessing” the technology. Some reports speak about this as combating whatever happens to be considered foreign disinformation.
And while on the subject of meddling, the Washington Times says AI tests are “part of an ambitious media monitoring and analysis project that spans the globe.”
As sinister as that may sound, packaging the message as the need to combat (only) “foreign disinformation” certainly makes the policy more palatable at home, where the department’s past activity features in congressional probes into government-orchestrated online censorship.
This scrutiny is presented as something hindering the Department of State’s “anti-disinformation” work – while the tools now in development are quite openly described as a possible different means “to pursue the same goals.”
Blinken’s remarks reveal how the technology is used seemingly innocuously as a (translation and summarization) tool “in multilateral organizations;” but then he praised the ability of AI-powered tools to make mass surveillance (“monitoring”) cover a much larger number of media, making its scope and scale “vast,” as the report put it.
And also – combat “disinformation” – which Blinken quite dramatically refers to as “one of the poisons in the international system today.”
“We have one program that we’re using that is able to basically ingest a million articles every day from around the world — to be able to do that in a couple hundred countries in over a hundred languages — and then immediately translate, synthesize and give you a clear picture of what’s happening in the information space immediately,” the secretary is quoted as saying.
But given the scale of the operation, and the shortcomings of the current limitations of AI – those in the know might wish Blinken good luck with the accuracy and reliability of getting that “immediate, clear picture.”
However, when the “AI weapon” is pointed at online platforms as a means of identifying and censoring “disfavored” speech, it is objectively more likely to be efficient.
And the State Department is no stranger to such – strange given its mission – activities: after all, it is the home of the investigated-by-Congress and highly controversial Global Engagement Center.
UN Declares War on Free Speech to Censor The Truth, Subvert Accountability, Control Populations
Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations, (UN) just released the globalist’s latest game-plan for population control, surveillance and censorship. The game-plan, titled Global Principles for Information Integrity, seeks to put an end to “harmful misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech” online, all while “upholding human rights such as the freedom of speech.”
Guterres presented the game-plan with a sense of urgency, commanding governments, technology companies, the media and advertisers to take control and establish official narratives, while quashing opposition voices. The UN supports Big Tech’s algorithmic control over the information stream online and seeks to control online speech further. A global body of elites seek to delete what they believe is the disinformation, and they seek to discredit and demonetize the voices of dissent. All the censorship coming from global power systems is war on free speech, but it’s also a war on truth, so that these power systems cannot be held to account for their abuses.
UN’s information surveillance and control system seeks to centralize censorship for global domination
The UN is erecting an information surveillance and control system that crafts authoritarian narratives that limit access to life saving knowledge. These control systems not only censor, but they train people what to say, how to behave, and what to think. The UN wants to create a world of simps who surrender their sovereignty and bow down to manipulative and abusive entities and false authorities.
These algorithms or automated review processes will be programmed to filter and remove content deemed objectionable or politically sensitive. This can include blocking websites, social media posts, or entire platforms that criticize the government, promote dissent, or discuss sensitive topics like human rights abuses or political opposition.
In times of political unrest or during manufactured crises, governments may impose internet shutdowns or restrict access to specific websites or social media platforms. This tactic effectively silences dissenting voices, prevents the spread of information about protests or the abuses of governments, and limits the ability of citizens to communicate and organize. Examples of this tyranny were observed on the Facebook social media platform, when Meta targeted and shut down community groups that discussed COVID-19 vaccine injury. Any opposition to vaccine mandates were derided as “misinformation” and any groups that organized for medical freedom were algorithmically shut down or their reach was severely restricted.
Furthermore, surveillance technologies can be used to monitor online activities in real time, tracking individuals’ digital footprints, and identify dissenting voices or activists. This surveillance creates a chilling effect, deterring individuals from expressing controversial opinions or participating in political discourse online.
By manipulating search results, governments and pharmaceutical companies can influence search engine algorithms to prioritize or bury certain information about cures for infectious disease, heart disease, cancer, and other chronic illnesses. By controlling what information surfaces at the top of search results, pharmaceutical companies can shape public perception, suppress alternative viewpoints, or promote propaganda and official narratives to keep people sick and coming back for more drugs and vaccines that don’t work.
UN will abuse their power to command narratives and skirt accountability for totalitarian actions
Governments may enact laws and regulations that impose restrictions on digital content, such as requiring platforms to remove “harmful” or “offensive” content. These laws can be vague and broadly interpreted, allowing authorities to target journalists, activists or ordinary citizens who express dissenting views. This was seen in the U.S. under the Biden regime’s targeting of the so-called “disinformation dozen” who were removed from and demonetized across social media platforms. The Biden regime also crafted a “do not promote list” for books that discussed the topic of vaccination. The federal government coerced one of the biggest book distributors – Amazon – to restrict access to these books.
Authorities may selectively target journalists, human rights defenders, activists or members of marginalized communities with harassment, intimidation or legal threats. This creates a climate of fear and self-censorship, where individuals refrain from expressing dissenting opinions or advocating for social change. The UN can throttle internet speeds or block communication channels such as messaging apps or VoIP services during periods of unrest and uncertainty. This restricts the ability of individuals to communicate securely, share information or coordinate protests or activism.
Like its predecessors, these UN-backed information control systems will be implemented without transparency or accountability, and there will be no due process for their targets. This lack of oversight allows those in power to manipulate information flows without public scrutiny, exacerbating the impact of censorship on democratic processes and civil liberties.
With this move, the UN and its military alliances are practically declaring war on the press, on research analysts and independent journalism.
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Texas’ Online Digital ID Mandate
The Supreme Court has today announced it would review a legal challenge against a Texas statute mandating digital ID verification of any websites and apps that could be deemed “harmful to minors.” The law is usually cited in relation to pornographic material but the broad term “harmful to minors” can be applicable across many websites, preventing people from interacting with a website without first uploading their ID.
This legal battle revolves around Texas’ age verification bill, introduced in 2023.
The law also compels these sites to present health warnings concerning the alleged psychological dangers associated with pornography consumption. Notably, this labeling requirement does not yet extend to search engines or social media platforms.
Related: The 2024 Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda
Websites that fail to comply with the law face steep fines, including daily civil penalties of up to $10,000 and, if a minor accesses restricted content, potential fines from the Texas attorney general up to $250,000 per instance.
Texas is not alone in implementing such regulations; similar laws are currently active in seven other states and are set to be introduced in more states soon.
The Free Speech Coalition, along with several adult website operators, filed a lawsuit against the bill. Their legal argument is that the law infringes on First Amendment rights. A federal district court initially halted the law’s enforcement just before its implementation on September 1, 2023.
Mandatory digital ID requirements for website and social media use raise significant concerns about the chilling effect on free speech. These requirements can deter online participation due to privacy fears, and undermine anonymity vital for activists and whistleblowers. Such policies may also lead to self-censorship, as users might avoid sharing controversial opinions out of fear of being easily traced. Additionally, implementing digital IDs poses complex legal, technical, and logistical challenges that could result in bureaucratic errors and data breaches. The major Big Tech ID verification AU10TIX was recently reported to have suffered a data leak, though the company says it hasn’t seen evidence of any user data being exploited.
The majority of the panel at the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that the Texas law is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in preventing minors’ access to pornography,” using the least stringent rational-basis review standard, and thus did not violate the First Amendment. In contrast, Judge Patrick Higginbotham dissented, arguing that the law necessitates strict scrutiny due to its content-based restrictions on adult access to protected speech.
As the 5th Circuit allowed its decision to stand, the Free Speech Coalition and the affected websites escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. Their appeal emphasized the contradiction between the 5th Circuit’s decision and established Supreme Court precedents regarding sexual content and expression. They argue that the law unduly burdens adults’ constitutional rights by requiring the disclosure of personal information, thus increasing the risk of data breaches and privacy violations.
Texas officials defend the legislation, asserting it as a reasonable measure to protect minors from sexually explicit materials and not an undue burden on the porn industry.