ericbj

You dismiss what you have not bothered to investigate in any serious manner. Presumably because you are determined not to admit anything contrary to your preconceived opinions. So be it.

You are correct that he was with Rothschilds only once. I misread 'rejoint' in his bio as rejoined instead of joined. As regards his relations with Sanofi Labs there is no lack of information online. "… entre la macronie et Sanofi, c’est une idylle, une fusion, que les pires scandales ne troublent pas. Un amour qui remonte à loin : en 2007, Emmanuel Macron est rapporteur de la Commission Attali sur la « libération de la croissance française ». Parmi ses membres, une palanquée de PDG, dont Serge Weinberg. Qui conseille au jeune énarque : « Enrichissez-vous ! » Lui-même administrateur de Rothschild et Cie, il l’aide à entrer dans la banque d’affaires. Avant d’être, évidemment, plus tard, l’un des premiers soutiens d’En Marche !, encourageant la candidature. Et qui apparaît, sur nos écrans, dans les salons de l’Elysée, le 14 mai 2017, jour de l’intronisation de notre nouveau président ? Serge Weinberg." "Since then, Emmanuel Macron has served Sanofi. Before the French. And often, even, to the detriment of the French." There follow claims of how Sanofi's Dépakine, has caused malformations and autism amongst babies, to the knowledge of the Company since at least 1980. The ANSM and Assurance Maladie estimate the number of malformed children between 2,150 and 4,100, with between 16,600 and 30,400 cases of neuro-developmental problems. Children born seriously handicapped for life. This scandal was componbded by another: Sanofi refused to pay compensation for the injuries. This incident probably explains why the Company then announces that it will give priority to the U.S. market and not to France. [From the site of the review Santé-Environnement-Politique] The article goes on to complain that Sanofi does not produce vaccines in France, "a disgrace for the country of Louis Pasteur". But this was rectified when Macron recently opened a new Sanofi factory capable of producing 500 million doses of vaccine per year. As regards France's involvement in Africa in recent years you are clearly out of date. The French Treasury has had considerable control over the economies of francophone countries of Africa post-independence because it issues their currencies, the franc CFA [the Colonial French African franc]. French interference in their internal affairs, goes as far as coups and assassination (such as that of Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso) and has caused widespread distrust. Macron's behaviour on a recent African trip caused outspoken negative reactions. You can listen to it on YouTube. Another cause of African discontent is the documented corruption of three major French political parties which, through influence over the budget, arrange taxpayer-funded "aid to Africa". This goes to French companies, typically in the construction industry, who grease the palms of local African rulers and remit substantial amounts to Swiss bank accounts in the names of INGO intermediaries. Whence it is accessed by the political parties. I guess similar things happen with aid from other western countries. A former senior member of the KNU told me years ago that something similar was operated by German political parties, each one linked to an NGO. Which is apparently why their aid tended to be aimed at "building bridges" with the military regime; one of their objectives being to encourage favourable attitudes to German investment.

Would be interesting to know what steps the developers are taking. Re-making "the Venice-of-the-East"? Might be cheaper and simpler if they initiated a move. A lot of money for the construction industry to offset some of the losses from sinking. The future of mega-cities is in any case questionable.

Macron was twice employed by Rothschild's so obviously a close association. Yes, you mention the mutual benefit between him and Pfizer but do not mention his long-standing relationship with Sanofi Labs. It is not for nothing that major pharmaceutical companies develop relations with promising politicians. He has also presided over a major loss of French influence in francophone Africa. Doubtlessly inevitable, but he accelerated the process by his insensitive, arrogant behaviour towards Africans. Russia has been happy to displace France. And is it for nothing that so many French people, including those who were duped into voting for him, are now angry at his performance?

It may be worth noting that Macron, the ex-bankster from Rothschilds & Co, is disparaged by many of the French. It is perhaps illustrative of his forked tongue that when standing for election he is said to have described himself as "a socialist". "Jesus, viens nous sauver d'Emmanuel" sung by Marie Reno:

You do not offer information nor contribute an opinion nor seek understanding; but merely, it seems, wish to provoke. Cockneys express themselves in colourful language, such as "Up yer Khyber!" Which in plain English means: get stuffed.

Like it or not, the differences between different 'races' are not merely cultural but also physiological. And not merely differences of outward appearance (of genetic origin) but also internal. E.g. Asians are said to have longer, thinner intestines than Europeans. Of course these differences can be attributed to differences of environment over many generations. But such differences of environment, including climate, food, activities, have an impact upon the genes. There are also 'races' within animal species, although we tend to refer to them as breeds. Finally, if there exists only one human race, what is the meaning of 'racism'? Is anti-racism a figment of our imagination?

So give us your solution.

It seems you do not understand what was written. Or else just ignore it. I reiterate: "It is understandable that citizens of bombed-out countries - some previously quite developed in terms of living standards, culture, health, and education - should seek to flee their ruins in search of a better life. The fault is not theirs." Read on for more.

If you read it all you would have seen I gave both definition and examples. Coming closer to home, here in Thailand, I have known many refugees, seeking acceptance by third countries. Most were genuine, either through opposition to military rule or because of belonging to an ethnicity the regime sought to eliminate ("In ten years time you will not see a Karen outside a museum" - as a Burma Army general put it some decades ago). But some merely sought a better life in the west. By my definition an "economic refugee".

Britain's ruling class built an empire, one of the many that have existed (Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Mongol, Ottoman, Chinese, etc.) They made use of Britons and non-Britons of many origins. (E.g. In the 14-18 War more than one million Indian ssoldiers served abroad, and by 1945 the Indian Army numbered 2.5 million). The ordinary Briton, the man on the Clapham omnibus, was mostly an unwitting pawn in this process. With bankrupcy finally brought about by the second of two world wars and the loss of the Indian Army at independence, the rentier-capitalist ruling class built a fresh, financial, empire in the shadow of the now-dominant U.S. one. This involved participating in the destitution of many independent states whose often-autocratic rulers stood in the way of the game-plan, essentially the control of raw materials, especially the energy market. Despite sophisticated spin-doctoring and increasing media control, there was sometimes widespread opposition (witness the mass-protests against the invasion of Iraq). But the 'democratic' leaders forced the issue. It is understandable that citizens of bombed-out countries - some previously quite developed in terms of living standards, culture, health, and education - should seek to flee their ruins in search of a better life. The fault is not theirs. Neither is the fault that of the ordinary people of Britain, who bear the brunt of unrestricted immigration. The burden must be laid upon the political class, the civil servants, and above all the media-moghuls and mega-financiers. They must be made to pay. The cost of what they have destroyed. That is karma.

Please make at least a superficial study of the conflict before uttering such nonsense.

There are two principal reasons for illegal immigration: 1. It is encouraged by the welcome offered by the British government. Both short-term welcome on reception and long-term welcome in terms of benefits of residence and acquisition of nationality. What proportion are genuine refugees and how many are economic migrants? 2. Huge on-going profits are made by the traffickers. Britain has in the past accepted, somewhat grudgingly, and at the immigrants' expense, genuine refugees fleeing persecution, of common loyalties and compatible beliefs. Such as Huguenots (who brought many new skills to Britain), American loyalists (an estimated 100,000 rejected the insurrection and suffered accordingly), and more recently German Jews, persecuted for their race. These groups lost substantially both wealth and possessions as result of their displacement from one country to another. Their lives were threatened. And they subsequently served Britain in many diverse capacities. The Royal Navy, if it still has a purpose, exists to protect the country from invasion. An invasion is occurring today, and critical situations call for appropriate measures. This is a suggestion. Intercept the boats in British waters, remove all occupants, sink the boats, then land the occupants by landing-craft, undeclared, upon some French beach. Of course there will be problems of all kinds. But will they be worse than the massive accumulated problem that is building up in Britain today?

"Make no mistake: fighting the indigenous militias is based in racism." True. From memory: about thirty or so years ago a senior Burma Army general declared "In ten years time you will not find a single Karen outside of a museum." A web-search has failed to locate this quote, although I might perhaps find it amongst my own archives, if I had time to search them. But this may be of interest: https://khrg.org/2023/01/criminal-complaint-filed-germany-against-burma-army-generals-crimes-committed-against-karen as well as the KHRG site itself.

Lymph nodes help to partially detoxify the lymph as it makes its way to the liver, thereby giving some protection to that organ which does the final detox. The lymph is essentially blood plasma and there is more of it than in the blood. The lymphatic system has the important task of bathing and nourishing the cells of the body and removing their metabolic waste products, but seems to have been underestimated until recent times; elements of it such as tonsils and appendix having been sometimes routinely and unnecessarily excised. Swelling of the nodes can be an indication of infection, so that may suggest some approaches to be made, including the avoidance of heavy meals, frequent snacking, and commonly allergenic foods (which can place a heavy strain on the immune system). There may be some useful ideas here: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-to-treat-swollen-lymph-nodes-in-neck-naturally Am not sure whether lymphatic massage would be appropriate in this case: might spread infection. But you could check it out. "Lymphatic massage therapy, also known as lymphatic drainage massage, is a gentle technique that helps move lymph fluid through the body to reduce swelling and promote detoxification. It is particularly beneficial for individuals with lymphoedema or those recovering from surgery, as it encourages the lymphatic system to function more effectively."