Codex Aquarius

English Version

Volume 1 - Peace

Preface

From the website www.countingstars.fr

What is the Codex Aquarius?

This is a book series that aims to explain the great problematics faced by humanity for a wide audience to understand them.

Volume 1 addresses the issue of peace. Its necessity, how to get there, and what it will bring.

The name is inspired and in homage to Leonardo da Vinci, whose understandings, ideas and knowledge have been transmitted to us in Codex.

This book is a key to understanding the world, from a French point of view. That is to say that studied phenomena and events are happening or have happened in France. But certain phenomena are common to many other countries. And France is not isolated from the rest of the world, so what is happening in France has origins and consequences in other places of the world. Their understanding should also apply elsewhere. Everyone can feel concerned.

This book wants to lead you to decide to enter a new era of peace.

This book offers answers to many questions or expectations so far without intelligible answers. For example, many French people wonder why they can't make ends meet. And the more we advance in time, the more difficult it is, and, the more they are numerous in this situation.

A purpose of this book is to send a ray of hope to Libya, currently in desolation, a hope for apologies and repair.

This book is not intended to prove. This book aims to explain. The facts or figures given in this book may be approximate or even false. It is not the intention and it is not very important. These are examples to illustrate an explanation. We can also oppose counterexamples. But we must focus on wanting to understand the meaning behind an example. You are free to go deeper to form your opinion or fill your need for certainty. You have a key to open a door, and only you can use it to unlock and pass through it.

Abstract

The way or the destination? what is most important? The two are intimately linked. Be aware where the world is going, you will understand the current misfortunes of the world and of your daily life. Act for the long term by improving your daily life, but what to do? Act for peace, you preserve the future and you offer yourself freedom.

Foreword

It seems to me necessary to explain to the reader who I am to put a little humanity behind the anonymity that I wish to have.

I am an engineer, living in France with a family whose name I did not ask for permission to use to relate the positions described in this book.

Nor do I have the human qualities of a John Perkins sufficient to publicly reveal my name, my mistakes and my face. But I take inspiration from him to do something to free my conscience from mistakes I have made in the past when I was not aware of them when I made them. During my career I developed the ability to understand complex systems to repair them when they failed or to design them in a way suited to their use. My goal with this book is to raise awareness of an unconsciousness before it can have its effects. Because sometimes it is too late, the damage is done and it is the pain inflicted on others that awakens the conscience and it does not always seem possible to repair the damage of his unconsciousness. Another objective that I pursue is to contribute to the establishment of peace on Earth. A secondary objective is to make life easier for everyone. If you wish to name me, an anonymized name to which I would like to correspond is the conscious man .

Copyright notice

If you wish to reproduce extracts from this book,

please cite the source very clearly as follows:

Codex Aquarius Volume 1, Peace, © www.countingstars.fr

An initiative to establish peace in the world.

Table of Contents

Summary by chapter

Chapter 1: The point of no return

It is advisable to study the trends on the evolutions of the weapons and the evolution of the wars in terms of human damages that they produce. Where are we, what can we expect? What is coming? Faced with these appalling prospects, it is studied how this risk is managed and who assumes it. It turns out that the whole risk rests on a very small number of politicians, which explains why their sense of responsibility and their actions will be studied throughout the book. The term deterrence and its implications are assessed. Our notion of control of the risk of conflagration is discussed. If it has not yet taken place, it is also that we have been lucky ... for the moment ... for how long? The business of war and its links with morality are also discussed. A first reflection is addressed on what may be a responsible attitude in this context.

Chapter 2: Cunning fiction

Jules Vernes is admired today for having predicted at the end of the 19th century, in his science fiction novels, of inventions who came of age in the 20th century like the submarine or the rockets. This chapter addresses the predictions of one of his contemporaries on the blatant inability of politicians to make the right decisions. This political irresponsibility is explained by the existence of a long-standing hidden association, of intelligent men, who manage to compromise politicians to the point of making them betray the interests of their country, to start wars, for the benefit of the association. These cunning men succeed thanks to their advanced knowledge of the human nature deviations. Some French laws from its past 50 years are examined to see how well the fictive projections correspond to contemporary French reality. The human weaknesses that allow this reality are underlined. Reflections are shared on the possibility that this association is more than a fiction. The link is made between the danger hanging over us and the irresponsibility of those who lead.

Chapter 3: The interest loan or the unsustainable concentration of wealth

Why since antiquity many religions have forbidden lending at interest, when it is such a widespread practice today. The answer is in the title and detailed in this chapter. People, with a limited moral conscience gradually took a significant place in our exchanges, then in our political life, to come to take control of the system as a whole at the cost of lies and increasingly crude immoral acts. The process of chaining moral weaknesses and new temptations is described to understand how and why we operate in such an unhealthy way today. Such villainies are a big weakness for the system in place. Wars are necessary to hide them and maintain it. Eliminating the possibility of waging war is the most reasonable solution for a return to morality in collective organization and above all to avoid immoral wars that will inevitably end up being fatal to humanity.

Chapter 4: CETA

A production of the political system in the European Union is studied, also validated by all of its national political systems, some of these regions and Canada, around the year 2019. Attention is drawn to the importance of this production, since it acts as a constitution. We have to face the very boring nature of this production to accept the reality that the European Union has established a dictatorship where the law of the financially strongest reigns. Metaphors are used to understand the moral aberration of what is established. A correlation is considered with the system of loans at interest. An analysis of the power relationships that are being put in place is proposed to quantify the civilizational retreat of which we are spectators in unconsciousness.

Chapter 5: Duality

The notion of duality is explained to understand the usefulness of the difficulties encountered by humanity. It is proposed another level of understanding of a tormentor. It is explained that a problem is the loss of balance in a situation. It is studied how to rebalance a situation which is too subject to polarity. Superiority is overthrown by humility. But true humility passes by the experience of superiority. The positive aspects of the interest loan are highlighted. A warning is made about the temptation to reject it too quickly. It is said where the major imbalance is in this world.

Chapter 6: The Allegory of the Cave

This story tells that men who have been in a state of slavery for a long time murder the man who comes to free them. It is questioned whether humanity today is ready to receive the solution to its problems. Would they kill Socrates a second time or give him blessings? The foundations of current knowledge and the attitude towards something new is examined. Cognitive discord is explained. It is studied the concept of evidence, and scientific evidence. It is explained why the search for truth is still illusory. Then the characteristics of a religion are identified, and the conformity of science with these criteria.

Chapter 7: The limiting principles of science

In order to avoid a religious use of science, 6 basic scientific principles are stated and explained. They make it possible to protect oneself in face of the authoritarianism of illusory scientific truth. The meaning of an exact science and the use of statistics are discussed. Based on Gödel's theorem, it is explained that the person demanding proof cannot achieve certainty and even, it can be deceived. While the real discussion is about uncertainties.

Chapter 8: The principles of misleading

Socrates' cave is an emotional and mental prison. 17 techniques related to the use of our emotions are identified. It is shown their power, especially when combined. It is important to know and recognize them. Their identification allows us to get out of the illusion.

Chapter 9: The War in Libya

Study of a case of misleading. The balance sheet of the French intervention in Libya is alarming. The responsibility of the people is recalled, requiring careful consideration. The hellish cycle of what is inflicted on Libya is noted together with the infernal moral decadence of the leaders, of 95% of the people's representatives and of the media. An analysis of the moral decadence of the Western Roman Empire before its disappearance is made. Patrick Mbeko's investigative work on the events provides a new understanding. The soul of France is outlined. His death is announced. The difficulties that France is currently facing are logical, predictable and will worsen. The French people receive what has been sown abroad. Reparation for Libya is a moral necessity and a necessity for the survival of the nation, and the well-being of its people. It remains to say it to ourself, say it aloud and do it.

Chapter 10: Nonviolence

Lasting peace cannot avoid nonviolent action. It must therefore be explained and understood. The foundations are revealed to understand the implications on his practitioner. The difficulty is high and the results are not guaranteed. It is a long process which cannot ignore many experiences. We come to know our limits. Suitable conditions to its use are identified. The power relationships underlying the current world are analyzed. Is nonviolence a duty or even a requirement? The notions of sacrifice, gift and greedy predator are studied. There are situations where nonviolence is unproductive. There are situations where nonviolence is a trap. An example of mastery of nonviolence is given. The compatibility of martial arts with nonviolence is studied. It is explained how very aggressive attitudes can be hidden behind nonviolence. Libya case study: who is the predator, who acted in a non-violent spirit? Warning and advice when aspiring for a change of regime, in a nonviolent approach. Genuine nonviolence is nonresistance.

Chapter 11: The Peace Plan

In the light of the previous chapters, it is time to act for a change in the way we operate. The intentions, the attitudes to adopt and the general idea to establish a lasting peace are formulated. France has a moral duty to change its military policy and thus to initiate this movement. The people must say it and be counted. The whole world is invited to encourage it. The leader is invited to join the people. The UN declaration on Libya is examined, highlighting the need to re-found the structures of international cooperation to extend this initial impetus to world peace.

Chapter 12: Universal Basic Income

The way we organize our exchanges is problematic today. Anticipating what peace will bring requires reflection on the subject. An income granted to everyone is an idea which is progressing and which will prevail for the majority. The problem is how to finance it and organize our exchanges in a fair manner. Healthy foundations are needed, which is not the case today. The current French system is already virtually bankrupted. Money must also be allocated to rebalance it. The nation's expenses are reviewed. The provided services and the relevance to the basic income are evaluated. Taxes must also be fair. It is explained why the progressive income tax is not. Once all the injustices have been settled, the accounts balanced, unnecessary expenditure removed, there remains one major issue to be addressed: free trade. It is explained how social protection is incompatible with the current free trade rules. This doctrine cannot be placed above that of the balance of trade. The contradictions of the European Union are raised. The idea of ​​balancing trade by taxing consumption is studied. A revolutionary approach to money based on our exchange needs is proposed. The impact of taxes on trade is highlighted. With this approach, it is possible to do without taxes and banks ...

Chapter 13: Global warming

The legitimate and scope of global warming are studied. The ensuing framework for the action is recalled: the golden rule. An alert signal is raised: it is explained why we can not trust what is served to us regarding the climate. The reader is invited to examine by himself the work of the IPCC and realize that the scientific limiting principles are violated, and that the misleading techniques are at work. The IPCC's explanations and solutions are assessed as rogue. The mark of a takeover similar to that of the currency is shown. The need for an evolution of consciousness is expressed.

Chapter 14: The Legend of Freddie Mercury

The way to peace was paved by Freddie Mercury. The meaning of the song "Hammer to Fall" is revealed. "The prophet song" confirms what is said. "In my Defense" Freddie explains how he works. In the song "Breakthru", he offers his help. In the song "Miracle", he says how to do it. In "Time" he tells us to not wait. And in "Calling all girls", he invites us to spread the message.

Chapter 15: Notre Dame de Paris

An artistic architectural proposal is made for the restoration of Notre Dame de Paris cathedral.

Chapter 1: The point of no return

It is about “the incident” which took place approximately 1 year ago, on the night of 13 to 14 April 2018. My country, with 2 others, fired dozens of missiles at Syria, which has Russia as its ally. Are we really aware of what happened? Some voices have denounced an attempt to start a third world war. I don't know if you heard about it, but the First World War was started with a knife. The blood called the blood and the alliances have unleashed a gigantic massacre of human lives, on a global scale.

Let us rejoice that this act of pure madness did not cause blood. In 1918 there were nearly 20 million deaths. 27 years later, we were putting the cover back on with 60 million deaths. If every 27 years we triple the number of deaths, we would fall on 180 million deaths in 1972, 540 million deaths in 1999 and apocatyliptically, 1.62 billion deaths in 2026. Do you think that is not possible? If the electricity is no longer operational, how long will you last? Everything is dependent on this energy. And if an atomic bomb explodes in the upper atmosphere, it generates gigantic electromagnetic fields. These then destroy all electrical systems and all electronic systems. It is not only a circuit breaker that will jump but the infrastructure and equipments will be pulverized ... except for military equipments designed to withstand this type of field. So the only thing we can do is send back more bombs. Did you know that the atomic bombs went from the equivalent of 18 kilotons of TNT (it is dynamite) to 57,000 kilotons during only the first 16 years of manufacture, that is to say more than 3000 times more powerful. How many are we today? Probably at a threshold such as the nuclear winter for the whole Earth is guaranteed. Do you know the Z machine? This machine achieves unimaginable temperatures: several billion degrees. Some physicists speak of 50 billion degrees (kelvins). By way of comparison, the temperature on the surface of the sun is 5,000 Kelvin and at its center where nuclear fusion reactions take place, the temperature is estimated at 20 million Kelvin. What can be triggered as a reaction with 50 billion Kelvin? A super nova? Who knows? Perhaps we should consider that our power is sufficient to make an additional asteroid belt with the fragments of Earth that we would explode. We also now have bacteriological weapons, genetic engineering that could disrupt our sources of life and also probably weapons, working with artificial intelligence, which are interconnected. Everything would be destroyed automatically! We must also be aware that there are still other terrifying weapons that the military keep secret. Remember also that each world war saw the creation of new and ever more destructive weapons: chemical weapons, atomic weapons. What are we going to invent next time?

You can argue that it does not matter because we have responsible decision makers who will not put these plagues of humanity at stake, that it is only deterrence. Well I do not agree and proof has been provided with this "incident" in Syria. And we will see throughout this book, that our civilization is not at all reasonable, stable and logical.

It is time for responsibilities to be clearly recognized and assumed. The engineer and the scientist who develop these destruction tools are as responsible as the one who orders to use them. If weapons of mass destruction did not exist, policymakers could not destroy Earth or kill large numbers of humans. The soldier who uses them also has their responsibility. Accepting to act without involving your conscience is giving up your responsibility, but it is also potentially giving it to someone else who is not wise. It is therefore advisable to make sure that he is wise, if you do not, it is irresponsible. If one of the three groups understands its responsibility, then it has the power to stop this madness. But can it? does it want it? I find it hard to conceive of technology providers, brought up in the myth of scientific progress, realizing that it is of the utmost necessity to leave their jobs, their passion and their wages. Fortunately, there are a few. In this regard, I would like to salute and thank Google employees who have resigned from the company in 2018 to oppose and alert about the provision of high technology for their company for military fields. May others follow. I think the situation is more or less the same for the military who are the users of technology. They are trained and paid to obey, whatever the order. And for the politician, in most cases he reached his position at the price of a fierce power struggle. Can it function other than through power relations? However, the opportunity for change lies in the fact that not all politicians do this. Indeed, it can happen that a man comes to power by convictions and / or an impetus for change in a country and that he embodies this change. It only takes one.

But there is a fourth actor: the people. He can act and must do it because his survival is at stake. Faced with the massacres of the natives by the army of his country, Henry David Thoreau, acted and defined the concept of civil disobedience by refusing to pay his taxes which financed these horrors. He ended up in prison but free in conscience. This did not prevent the massacres, since he was alone. If a minority had followed, that would have been enough to stop everything. But at least, he planted a seed and inspired Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, among others and possibly others in the future. Like Thoreau, we must act, but not alone, and we will see in the rest of the book how to do so, with our means and our qualities, in order to succeed.

“If weapons exist it is to use them”

This sentence does not seem real because it is so terrifying when we talk about nuclear weapons. But when you think about it, you have to face the obvious. This sentence is a reality. We are being sold the strategy of deterrence. But this strategy only makes sense if the response is real, so that we will use massively destructive weapons in the event of an attack. Why did you build them, if even in the case of an attack, you really think they're never going to be used. But you know that fear is not deterred without weapons. So, we build them because we risk using them. And if we use them, it will be a disaster. What I want you to admit in this book is that sooner or later the threat, or the feeling of threat, will be reached for the use of these annihilating weapons.

I remind you that France and other nuclear powers have already fired missiles at an ally of Russia where Russian troops were stationed. The match did not light the powder keg this time, but other occasions will occur and inevitably will arrive the day when there will be answers which will involve others and all will ignite. You think this incident was under control. However, during the French firing, missiles failed. Is it impossible that they deviated from their trajectory and reached a city or Russian troops? As French, do we know if we “control” our over-armed allies? Do we know all their plans, do they obey us? Can we have absolute confidence in them? Do they respect us to the highest degree? Are they reliable and predictable? It is unreasonable to believe that France is in control or in command of the situation. Yet we shot, and first. Also, do you know that Russian military doctrine is not to use nuclear force first? But does that mean that they will only reply with the atomic weapon if they are attacked with the atomic weapon? So we could attack them without limit with conventional weapons without them reacting violently? No, do not tell ourself stories to comfort us, if the country is attacked, it will feel entitled to retaliate with the weapons at its disposal, and the most powerful if it feels threatened, it is the principle of deterrence. And I still insist that France fired first. We have exposed ourselves to Russian nuclear fire.

I hope you understand that if the situation requires it, apocalyptic weapons will be used by people in a position to do so. So these people should have the least dangerous weapons possible so that they do as little damage as possible. What has happened since this incident? The arms limitation treaties are repealed. The European Union, which is sold to the peoples as an instrument of peace, collects billions to launch research and development programs for new military technologies. We finance and use our creativity for our destruction. Excuse me for insisting, but we have already gone too far on the wrong slope and we are not backtracking.

In addition we always manufacture new weapons, now with more and more automation. There is less and less need for human intervention to massacre. It becomes less and less necessary to convince people of the need to kill and massacre.

 You should also know that the arms industry is a business. To justify a new generation of weapons, it is necessary to show its superiority over the previous one. A war is an ideal means for this. New weapons are then sold to every country living in fear of being dominated. Another country is designated, especially if it rebels against this principle, to show again that there are weapons much more effective than what has just been bought. Libya and Iraq have borne the brunt of it. In this way, more of them are sold and the development of the next generation is financed.

  But if countries are such a threat that they must be attacked, why are we selling them arms? This is morally absurd and increasingly dangerous as technologies develop. It takes fewer and fewer people to kill more and more people. We can see it as a mercantile interest: large funds allow us to sell weapons, pay mercenaries to use these weapons and then finance reconstruction and debt ad vitam eternam the targeted country. However, we are still being sold a moral necessity to go and wage these wars. And when profit hides behind morality, it's really unhealthy.

But then, what is the right posture to adopt?

Our civilization has reached the end of the arms race rationale. Countries trying to emancipate themselves are attacked by the mighty ones. And a mighty one who would be attacked by another mighty one would cause massive destruction to at least one and probably to both of them. It is necessary to realize that even limiting oneself to defending oneself involves gigantic destruction. It is more reasonable to say: “I still prefer to be dominated than to sow at home and my opponent desolation, destruction and death or even total annihilation. We must hope that one day the dominant will understand that being ready to destroy everything does not give him superiority over the one who had the wisdom to withdraw from a destruction race. Even if the country which capitulated marks its refusal to be dominated, it should reassure the dominator on its nonaggression towards him. It is certain that the dominant is aware that his act is reprehensible and that in place of his adversary, he would have a lot of resentment. He will therefore try to protect himself from the lucid opponent by depriving him of all freedom of action lest he harm him. It is difficult to bear but this attitude is more reasonable than the destruction of one, the other or both parties. A long way begins to teach the brute his non-superiority. But life can go on, the dominated is led to develop unsuspected resources to free himself. He develops his inner greatness. The dominating country is confronted with other opponents in the same mindset as its own. Little by little, it understands the weakness of its position by not finding solutions in the face of permanent conflict situations. But, by constantly searching for solutions, it can find advice and resources from the dominated but more evolved people. Little by little he understands that the one who stooped down is greater than he is. Lasting peace can take hold.

The position to adopt is therefore that of the mother before King Solomon who, so as not to see her child die, leaves it to the one who steals it from her. Justice will then be restored.

Chapter 2: Cunning Fiction

The term “cunning fiction” is used by analogy to the term science fiction. The latter characterizes a novel or a film in which one imagines how the world would work if certain scientific advances had come to pass. Jules Vernes is admired today for having predicted at the end of the XIX century, in these science fiction novels, inventions that came to fruition during the XX century like the submarine or the rockets. However, it happens that one of the contemporaries of Jules Vernes tackled the problem of the flagrant inability of politicians to take the appropriate decisions, which happens to be one of the themes of this book. The thesis is that a few people have come together to take control of all the others. It is therefore interesting to know how, at the end of the 19th century, these people were operating and what the consequences of that were. A comparative analysis is made with contemporary France to assess whether reality has caught up with fiction. To return to the main subject of the book, namely the risk of annihilation of the world, we will conjecture on the cunning practices used and the risk of a general conflagration.

The book in question is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion . It describes how the understanding of men's weaknesses can be exploited to govern them, unwittingly, in the worst direction. The aim is for humanity to recognize the relevance of a world government run by the manipulative group and its leader in person. This work has caused much controversy because it has been attributed to an identifiable religious community. The debates focused on the fact that the author(s) are plagiarists or people who want to disparage this community. It was pointed out that this book was a response to the need to see conspiracies everywhere. But these debates have no interest because they bring sterile quarrels without lessons. What is interesting, but the debates have never been brought so far, is to identify the weaknesses of a man who would allow him to control him, to understand how people can amass extraordinary monetary wealth, how a state behaves mismanaged and how, on the contrary, we would characterize a well-managed, solid State which can last. By going beyond mockery and prejudice, you will gain access to this knowledge. To respect the different points of view generating the controversy, I will first consider the work as a fiction to avoid the need to know who is behind these manipulations or who wrote it. It does not matter and we therefore assume that it is fiction and focus on human traits, economic principles and the art of governing. What I am going to analyze in this way could happen on another planet. The important thing is to see how our reality suffers the same effects as the type of domination described in this fiction written before 1901. Then to respect the other point of view, I will address those who consider this work as real.

I will take concrete examples of what is happening in my country, France. Because, on one hand, this is the country I know best and, on the other hand, I would like readers around the world to help make my country evolve for the benefit of all. Although I will talk a lot about France's faults,  I know that many countries are in such a tragic situation, if not more so, and that similar examples could be found elsewhere. My intention is not to criticize my country for the pleasure of criticizing, on the contrary, I have real hopes that it will make great positive transformations. This chapter is a bit technical and boring in some aspects, but its purpose is that the reader realizes that France is not stable economically, politically or culturally. However, France has weapons of great destruction and a powerful army and does not have the wisdom of the stake. If you are a reader who is not French, it would be good if you could understand at least one problem described in this chapter, and explain it to a French person to make him or her aware that, for the moment, the France has many problems to resolve internally before going to explain by force, to other countries, what virtuous behavior is.

I will be led to cite the book of cunning fiction on one hand, and, French law on the other. To avoid confusion, I will use quotation marks and put the characters “ in italics”  for the fiction text. Whereas I will put quotes and “ bold ” characters for French law texts. Finally, in the cunning fiction text, the term “Gentile” should be understood as an individual who is not part of the community whose manipulators claim to be.

The manipulator group described in the book claims and demonstrates an intellectual and cultural superiority which allows it to know and understand in depth economic principles, human faults, the art of leading projects and governing. The perfect orchestration of all this knowledge will allow him to achieve their vocation of controlling the world in an optimum manner.

One of the pillars of their action is understanding the economy. It is based on always circulating money and having the right amount in circulation. It is said, for example:

“ Money cannot currently meet all the needs of the working classes, because there is not enough to circulate everywhere. The issue of current money must correspond to the size of the population: and, from the first day of their birth, children must be counted as more units to be satisfied. The revision of the quantity of money put into circulation must be made from time to time: it is a vital question for the whole world. ” In France and the European Union, governments have no power over monetary creation. They offered the power to create money to private banks. If a state needs more money, the only solution is to borrow it from third parties. So then return it with interest. Thus, France, like many other countries, stands in a paradoxical system where if its government needs money, the measures it takes lead it to have even less money. He is thus in an infernal spiral leading it to lack more and more. It is a dead end. One possibility is to reform, but that would involve the courage to admit one's mistakes. Fiction is well aware of this. “ By acting in this way, the government would openly admit its insolvency, which would show the people that its interests have nothing in common with those of the state. ”. The other way out is to cross the red line, to go deeper into the crisis, to do wrongdoing to push back the deadline for necessary reform. “ The despotism of capital, which is entirely in our hands, will give this State a bit of straw to which it will inevitably be forced to cling or risk falling into the abyss.  ”. One solution is to go and get the money we need from the neighbor. War is a possibility. Another possibility is to lend money in turn, as France does to Greece and developing countries. So we get robbed and we steal on behalf of bigger thieves for a small commission. There is also the solution of selling the common goods which make the country live. France has sold and still sells (but in fact, it is a gift) its highways, its airports, these television channels, its power stations, its dams, its transport, telecommunications, energy companies ... All these companies guaranteed quality and service at a price accessible to all and the profits went to the community. Now these services are degraded, more and more expensive and the profits of these companies explode to come to feed this financial system which enslaves us. There is one last possibility to take money from your neighbor which is the sharing of a common currency, like the Euro in the European Union. But there, it is Germany which subjects France to it. It's a little more subtle to understand. So I will take a few lines to explain it. Trade is basically an exchange. Thus, when a country is a strong exporter, the trade is no longer balanced, it sells more than it buys. To compensate for this, historically, we adjust the parity between currencies: as soon as a currency leaks too much outside, we change exchange rates. So it became cheaper to manufacture a product yourself than to import it and this lowered the prices of goods which did not find export outlets. And for an exporting country, its currency appreciates. So each product he sells will be more expensive and each product he buys will be cheaper, thanks to the adjustment of parities between currencies. Thus it will sell less and buy more, which rebalances the balance of trade. But in Europe, in the euro zone, there is a large exporting country, Germany, and most of the others which are net importers. At the level of the euro zone, trade may be balanced with the rest of the world. But since the currency is the same, one cannot rebalance by adjusting the currency prices inside of the euro zone. So German products are too attractive and other countries, including France, have too high prices. But the currencies enters into Germany and leaves elsewhere. Thus, by sharing its currency with Germany, the rest of Europe no longer sells, and its industry is wasting away. Making her even more unable to generate money. Thus the strongest economically enslaved the others. Keeping the same currency without economic domination would imply that the export surpluses would be reinjected into deficit countries. Is Germany ready to give us this gift?

And since it is required that money circulates to keep the economy going, our dear leaders, rather than solving the problem, will borrow money. But that only postpones the problem until later and makes it a little more problematic. In fiction, the key to control is to borrow states to weaken them and make them dependent on borrowing. The fiction thus rightly affirms “ Each loan proves the weakness of the government and its incapacity to understand its own rights. All borrowing, like the sword of Damocles, is suspended on the heads of the rulers, who, instead of raising the money they need directly by establishing special taxes, go off, hats off, to our bankers.  ”. What happens is that the government has a choice between making a fair but painful decision or painless but enslaving one. In fiction, the incompetence of the rulers is mentioned (“ his inability to understand his own rights ”). Indeed, I think reference is made to the fact that governments could give themselves the right to create money by a simple decision motivated by need. In reality, we are in the case of this surrender of monetary sovereignty. Indeed, the European Treaties leave total and exclusive control to the central banks, in an independent manner. Article 123 of the Lisbon Treaty prohibits any direct lending to states:

“The European Central Bank and the central banks of the member states, hereinafter referred to as“ national central banks ”, are prohibited from granting overdrafts or any other type of credit to Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, central administrations, regional or local authorities, other public authorities, other bodies or public undertakings of the Member States; the direct acquisition of debt instruments from them by the European Central Bank or the national central banks is also prohibited” . It means that no one, not even a state, can ask for money from the central bank or its national bank that it could control, thus depriving it from creating money. Incompetence or betrayal? This is our European reality. What confidence can we have in our representatives? Is it reasonable to let them also be warlords? Is it reasonable to give them the opportunity to go go to the neighbouring country, as we hoped to catch up in Libya?

 France is going through a financial meltdown that is having an increasing impact on the economy. The temptation to go to the neighbouring country will become more and more pressing. The temptation to go and take in from the neighbor will become more and more pressing. And if it's not directly, it's to be our creditor's henchman or hitman, to make the borrowing rates a little more bearable. Are you aware of this?

But the leaders are not the only ones to blame. In fiction, there is first, the exploitation of the weaknesses of the masses. Here are some selected quotes:

“ The number of men with corrupted instincts is greater than that of people with noble instincts.  ”,“ Every man thirsts for power; everyone would love to be a dictator if only they could, and very few will not consent to sacrifice the well-being of others to achieve their personal goals ”and“ We will rule the masses by taking advantage of feelings of jealousy and of hatred kindled by oppression and need. ”

This describes a vision of selfish humanity. The manipulator finds that the average man does not respect the golden rule. The rule that all the wise men and the prophets taught. Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to you, or, start by doing to others what you want to be done to you. This rule thus formulated seems simple and common sense, but everything that is described in this work rests on its transgression. So for manipulation to take place, it is important to keep away the reminder of the golden rule that all religion teaches. The occult group will therefore seek to discredit any religion:

“Governed by such a law [ie the golden rule], the people would be under the tutelage of the parishes and would live peacefully and humbly under the direction of spiritual pastors and subject to divine Providence on this earth. This is why we must tear from the minds of Christians even the very conception of God and replace it with arithmetic calculations and material needs. ” And “ The struggle for superiority and continual speculation in the business world will create a demoralized, selfish and heartless society. This society will become completely indifferent to religion and politics of which it will even have disgust. ”

The shopping centers are full and the churches empty. In France, most people wonder if God exists and even some wonder how others can believe that God exists. For all the great mysteries of life, almost all are satisfied with a fable if it is qualified as a scientist. The fact is that we have reached spiritual misery and the golden rule is no longer remembered.

“  When we took away his religion, power was thrown into the streets as public property, and we took it. ”

In fiction, there is a government chosen by the masses, but the choice is oriented and the decisions that the government makes are influenced by the media or the press over opinion. The press is entirely bought but it is an investment. This is how it is formulated:

“We must influence the governments of the Gentiles by what we call public opinion, pre-arranged by us by means of the greatest of all powers: the press, which, apart some insignificant exceptions, which are not worth stopping at, are entirely in our hands. ”

It is important to note that in France, all the media are controlled by billionaires. And all the media say the same thing.  A term has even been created for this; it is called "one-track thinking". We cannot conclude that these press bosses are part of this manipulative group but it is very suspect. You have to realize that it is very simple to control someone who has money when you have more. Indeed, he is so attached to his possessions that he is ready for many things so as not to lose them. If someone has a means of pressure on him, he is a slave to his wealth and his blackmailer. And this group claims a lot of resources and great expertise in this area. These billionaires may fall prey to more powerful or more influential billionaires. It may be enough to pass a law for a billionaire to end up paying taxes like the rest of the masses, which would weaken and frighten him.

In fiction, the press also plays a role in blocking a leader if he wants to defend the interests of his homeland.

“ Can a logical and sensible mind hope to succeed in governing the crowds by arguments and reasoning, when it is possible that these arguments and reasoning are contradicted by other arguments? As ridiculous as they may be, they are made to seduce that part of the people who cannot think very deeply. being entirely guided by petty reasons, habits, conventions and sentimental theories. The ignorant and uninitiated population, as well as all those who have risen from within, are embroiled in party dissensions which hinder any possibility of agreement, even on the basis of solid arguments . ”

It should be noted that the French media constantly attack the leaders to weaken them and that they cannot develop a strong legitimacy. Thus, matters, from a few thousand euros for the work of a parent, crocodile boots or luxury costumes can be kept in the headlines for months, while the 1,400 billion euros given to finance thru debt interests are never mentioned. On the contrary, the press uses all the ambiguities of the law of January 3, 1973 to explain to the masses that they understand nothing. Again, the reality of today goes beyond the fiction of 1901. Indeed, it foresaw:

“ We will use the most obscure and complicated expressions from the dictionary of the law, in order to justify ourselves in the event that we would be forced to make decisions that might seem too bold or unfair. Because it will be important to express such decisions in such a forceful manner, that in the eyes of the people they may appear of an excessively moral, equitable and just nature. ”

Let us detail a little more the French law of January 3, 1973 73-7. On this act rests all the financing of the economy and the capacity for money creation, i.e. our ability to settle our trade, our growth, our deficits and our debt. The heart of this law is based on three articles. Article 19

“ The conditions under which the State can obtain advances and loans from the Bank are fixed by conventions passed between the Minister of Economy and Finance and the Governor, authorized by deliberation of the General Council. These conventions must be approved by Parliament. ”

Article 24“ The Banque de France may discount, acquire, sell or pledge claims on the State, companies and individuals under the conditions it deems necessary to achieve the objectives of monetary policy, and taking account of the particular situation of applicants and presenters . ”

And article 25 “ The Treasury cannot present its own effects at the Banque de France discount ” But what does that imply? Why such obscure text on such an important subject? I do not pretend to explain everything, but I want to raise awareness of the obscure and ambiguous nature of the fundamental laws of my country. Reality has joined fiction: "Political problems are not intended to be known to ordinary people ". But if a country wants to be democratic, it should firmly oppose this approach of the people. Here is my probably rough interpretation of this law. Article 25 says that the state cannot obtain liquidity (ie money) from the central bank, whatever guarantees it might provide. On the other hand, article 19 stipulates that he can borrow from the central bank if and only if the parliament authorizes it. Recourse to parliament is a cumbersome procedure in France which is used mainly to change the country's constitution. However, article 24 makes another means available to the State: it is to go through an intermediary who will obtain an acknowledgment of debt from the State. And this one is admissible by the bank of France. Thus, either we have the State which supplies itself to intermediaries without limit or constraints, or it must follow a cumbersome procedure which in use would paralyze its functioning. But the consequences of its two paths are very different.  Indeed, the State may tell its bank that it will not reimburse it, or at the rate and time it chooses. The debt can then be completely under control or even eliminated. In the other way, the State cannot tell an outside third party, namely the intermediary, that it reneges on its commitment and that its claim has been cancelled, nor can it unilaterally say that the conditions initially laid down have changed. Here is how fiction presents the stakes on this debt:

“ Foreign loans are like leeches: they cannot be detached from the body of the State, they must fall by themselves, or else the government must succeed to get rid of it. But the governments of the Gentiles have no desire to shake off these leeches; on the contrary, they increase the number of them, thus condemning themselves to death by the loss of blood they inflict on themselves. All in all, is a foreign loan anything more than a leech? A loan is an issue of government securities which entails the obligation to pay interest on the sum borrowed at a given rate. If the loan is issued at 5%, after twenty years the State will have spent, without any necessity, a sum equal to the amount of the loan, and this for the simple payment of interest. After forty years, this sum will have been disbursed twice, and three times after sixty years, the loan itself remaining unpaid.  ”

“ According to this calculation, it is obvious that such loans, under the current tax system, wrest its last pennies from the poor taxpayer, and that to pay interest to foreign capitalists, from whom the State borrows the money. The state would do much better to collect the necessary sums by levying a tax which would not burden it with interest to pay. As long as the loans were national, the Gentiles simply passed the money of the poor into the pocket of the rich; but when, by dint of corruption, we had bought the necessary agents, foreign loans were substituted for national loans, and all the wealth of the States rushed into our coffers, so that the Gentiles came to pay us a sort of tribute. By their negligence in the conduct of state affairs, or by the venality of their ministers, or by their ignorance of financial matters, the sovereigns of the Gentiles have made their countries so debtor to our banks that they will never be able to pay their debts. You must understand what penalties it cost us to establish such a state of affairs.  ”

 At the time of the vote on the law of 3 January 1973, not a single member of parliament raised questions about the consequences of this law on the debt and on the State's submission to finance. The failure of the representativeness of the people is flagrant on this case. The question must be asked about the relevance of the current voting system. It might be more judicious to replace the election by a selection by random draw that would produce representatives with at least the virtue of knowing that they are not competent. They would not be ashamed to have the laws that they vote explained and written down clearly, as the ancient Greeks did in the first democracy.

History shows us that all French governments since 1973 have chosen the simplicity of depending on an intermediary at an astronomical cost. We join the fiction that foresaw “ Under our leadership, the president will interpret laws that could be understood in several ways. ”

 Why do elected officials take the interpretation that is most unfavourable to the nation? Here is what fiction suggests as an explanation:

“ We will entrust these important [government] positions to people whose background and reputation are so bad, that they form an abyss between them and the nation, and to such men, that in case they break our orders, they could expect to be tried and imprisoned. And all this in order to force them to defend our interests until their last breath ”. However, not all of them are corrupt. But as they are rare, their action is in vain “ If there was a genius in the enemy camp, he could, however, fight us, but a newcomer could not compete with old wrestlers of our kind, and the fight would be so desperate between us that the world has never seen one like it before. It is already too late for their genius.  ”

The French government also passed an ambiguous law concerning the protection of the weakest, children.

This is the official text of the law. Criminal Code article 222-22-1 concerning sexual abuse of minors.

“ When the acts are committed on the person of a minor of fifteen, moral duress or surprise are characterized by the abuse of the vulnerability of the victim who does not have the necessary discernment for these acts. ”

You will notice that the text refers to the upper age limit. He omits to specify that the objective of the law is to protect precisely those also and especially those below this limit. This law therefore addresses children aged 5, 6, 7 and all other ages under 15. My understanding of this ambiguous formulation is that a young child when forced into a sexual act will have to establish that he had no discernment at the time of the facts. In other words, he will have to establish that he was a fool to be sexually abused. I will let you interpret this law yourself. The problem is that there is a need for interpretation. See that a corrupt judge can use the law as I understand it to clear pedophiles while respecting the law. A skilled lawyer will be able to show that his client who abused young children did not break the law and that victims have the judgment to realize that they did not have judgment. Is this not a very uncomfortable position for a weak, young victim? In general, the law is first made to protect the weakest and should not suffer from any ambiguity on this specific case. It is a half-open door to filth. How were elected officials able to pass such a law? The two most important laws in the nation are most ambiguous. The control of the economy and the protection of children are in the most total blur. The consequence is that the economy and childhood are at the mercy of the biggest predators. What is interesting in fiction is that we can establish the link between these two laws. Indeed, it is in the interest of the manipulators to allow the worst vices to develop in order to put the individuals involved in them in charge. So these perverts not only have the profile devoid of any empathy: indeed, when one is able to rape a child, betraying one's country or one's ideals is nothing more than a trifle. But above all, they cannot disobey those who have proofs of their vices when they ask to pay the billions of the nation in their pockets, or to go to start a war in the country which does not submit to such betrayals. This gives great power to the manipulators.

But what is the reality in France today? The law of January 3, 1973, was in force for 21 years. It was used exclusively to accumulate debts and pay immoral interest on this debt to third parties. The other possibility offered by the law, namely to go through parliament to control its liquidity, was not used. In 1994, this law was repealed due to European treaties. Now, the possibility of obtaining cash from the Banque de France is even prohibited. We thus lost all economic sovereignty. So even if a leader was aware of the problem, he would now have to change the European treaties,  that is done unanimously by the countries of the European Union. An hope for change is really weak. And on the child protection side, we have come to the conclusion, after a year of applying the law, that a thief is condemned more strongly than a rapist. And for the past few years, we have regularly seen cases emerge, but evidence is lost, the means of investigation are not given, witnesses are discredited and the judicial institution finally dismisses the case as soon as there are suspicions of a network. It was the case for the affairs of the missing persons in the Yonne district, the Outreau affair, the file of shame of Zandvoort.

In fiction, the vagueness and the need for interpretation demanded by these ambiguous laws means that legislative power is thus transferred to the courts of justice, which need only be controlled in the shadows: “ Under our influence, the laws of the Gentiles were obeyed as little as possible. The prestige of their laws was undermined by our liberal ideas which we introduced among them. The most important questions, both political and moral, are resolved by the Courts of Justice in the manner that we prescribe to them.  ”. “ We will achieve this thanks to our agents and to men with whom we seem to have no relation: press opinions and other means; even senators, and other official figures, blindly follow our advice.  “

But the problem does not come only from the rulers. It also comes from the masses who, as we have studied previously, do not respect the golden rule. Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to you. Here is an example.

In France, this is how it actually works. We pay taxes on almost everything, including having a home and living in a home, on estates, gasoline, garden sheds, swimming pools, digital media ... and then the actual painful harvestings begin. About 50% of what you earn is taken as social security contributions. Then we have a progressive income tax. And for those with a comfortable income, the French voted for someone who decided to confiscate 75% of the rest of their income. Finally, on everything you buy, you have to add 20% tax. At the same time, we are surprised that there are no French companies of intermediate sizes. Those who make billions simply don't pay taxes. Some generously donate a few percent as they please. Yet they earn over a thousand times more than those taxed at 75%. Thus, we find that someone who has been very successful by his work, his talent, risk taking, his energy, a very high added value to his community, he's left after taxes potentially ten times less than he generated.

These people are aware of the extortion they are experiencing. But the population doesn't see it that way and thinks above all of its difficulties or tries to appease its jealousy of the rich, skillfully stirred up by certain politicians. No one but the victims reacts. The media jealously despise them and stir up the frustrations of the modest. But what is actually happening? The cheated people try by all means to escape this theft by going abroad or by going to the solutions used by the ultra rich. Instead of changing the system, they maintain it. We thus lose the opportunity to have people happy to contribute to the community with a reasonable part of their income, but significant in value. The community deprives itself of brilliant people who could quickly develop their activity. These people could challenge long established positions, give dynamism to all. Such a charge (75%) has very heavy moral, financial and Community costs. But this measure nevertheless had to be abandoned. Because professional footballers were the first victims of this spoliation. Perhaps it was the panic caused by the threat of stopping the football championship that prevailed. Bread and games are the necessary ingredients for this decline to continue. On the other hand, the morality that no one recalled fell on the French: With the coffers being empty and finance claiming its due, less than two years later, an unprecedented general tax increase was applied to all French residents. The increases concerned VAT - tax on all consumer purchases -, CSG - tax on all income for social contributions -, IR - income tax. And this under the same representative who had promised to make the rich pay. We can call it “the sprinkler sprinkled”, or “we reap what we sow” or the law of karma.

This is how we allow ourselves to be controlled by our selfish passions without questioning ourselves. Understand that for a discerning observer, it seems simple to manipulate us. This is how fiction puts it: “ We will rule the masses by taking advantage of feelings of jealousy and hatred kindled by oppression and need. And, by means of these feelings, we get rid of those who hinder our walk. ”And“ The passion for gold will be its only guide and it [the society] will make every effort to obtain this gold which, alone, can assure it the material pleasures of which it has made its true worship. Then the lower classes will join us against our competitors - the privileged Gentiles - without alleging any lofty goal, or even the love of wealth, but out of pure hatred of the upper classes. ”

The fiction addresses another weakness of the citizen that it is important to perceive if we want to understand the hold of occult power over the masses. It lies in fact in its misunderstanding of what the ideals of Liberty Equality Fraternity imply, which is the motto of the French Republic. Indeed, for the occult group, there are contradictions in these values ​​which it has exploited to its advantage to, on one hand gain power, and, then to maintain itself there. We can thus see the people like sheep who are in a field surrounded by barriers put by the shepherd. The wolf disguises himself as a sheep and explains to the sheep that his barriers are an obstacle to their freedom of movement and that no one should have the right to impose this on them. Sheep cannot understand that if the shepherd does this it is also to protect them from wolves. It is of the greatest interest of the wolf that the barriers no longer exist to protect the sheep or enclose the wolves. So he will sing to sheep the benefits of freedom. It is of the greatest interest of the wolf that the sheep believes that it is of the same nature as the wolf in disguise so that it does not imagine the damage that its fangs can do. It is in the interest of the disguised wolf that the shepherd does not take action against wolves without the advice of naive sheep. So he will sing the benefits of equality. Finally it is in the interest of the wolf in disguise that the sheep do not know his intentions towards them, so he will pretend to be altruistic and will sing of brotherhood. This is to hide his ferocity, his thirst for blood and his greed. This is how wolves instill in the minds of sheep the solution to elect a sheep advised by a wolf to ensure the safety of the herd. The wolves blow the idea to the sheep that if a sheep disappears, probably eaten at night by wolves, all the responsibility is allotted to the representative of the sheep, and that this one must assume and be banished. If a sheep understands the deception, it is obvious that it will be the priority prey of the wolves. This is how fiction describes the use of the naivety of the masses to successfully dispose of them:

“ The Gentiles are like a flock of sheep - we are wolves. And do you know what sheep do when wolves enter the sheepfold? They close their eyes. We will bring them to do the same ”

“ We were the first, in the past, to shout to the people: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”, these words so often repeated, since then, by ignorant parrots, coming in crowds from all points of the globe around this sign. By dint of repeating them, they deprived the world of its prosperity and the individuals of their true personal freedom so well protected once against the populace who wanted to suffocate it: The Gentiles, supposedly wise and intelligent, did not discern how many were abstract the words they said and did not notice how little they agreed with each other and even contradicted each other. they did not see that there is no equality in Nature which itself created various and unequal types of intelligence, character and capacity.  "

" The abolition of privileges, in other words, the existence of the gentile aristocracy, the only protection that nations and countries had against us . " and

“ On the ruins of the natural and hereditary aristocracy, we raised, by giving it plutocratic bases, an aristocracy of ours. We established it on the wealth held under our control and on the science promoted by our scholars. ”

Or also “ People are enslaved, by the sweat of their brow, in poverty, in a more formidable way than in the time of the laws of serfdom. They could free themselves from it in one way or the other, while nothing would free them from the tyranny of absolute need. We have taken care to insert in the Constitutions rights which are purely fictitious for the masses. All of the so-called "people's rights" can only exist in the form of ideas which cannot be applied in practice.  ”.

It is thus true that in France, freedom of expression is praised but people go to prison or are ruined under fines for opinions, drawings or allusions because they feel dominated and contest their duty of submission. They can no longer exercise their profession or have a bank account. They must divorce to preserve their family. One is even sentenced for a gesture, to a fine higher than my annual salary. What should really alert the French is that their lawyers also face convictions for complicity. The red light should come on for everyone. The facts illustrate, however, that a power wants to submit them at all costs. If the wolves would allow it, I would mention  Be careful, these people and the abuse they suffer are real and not fiction. Isn't it obvious that they are the wolves' priority prey? But the people are not embarrassed because they are regularly told that these opponents have bad and wicked intentions or background. Once again, reality catches up with fiction: “ So we see the populace condemn the innocent and acquit the guilty ”. These people are just lambs trying to alert their brothers and sisters with a book, a website or a performance hall as their only weapon. The facts show that they are dominated. What they claim is therefore correct. Where is the justice in their condemnation? If they still survive, it is thanks to the legacy of the rule of law which is slowly being demolished every day. If these people are silenced, it will be very difficult for a new dissent to emerge, because these people are hard on evil, it will have to be even more; and the oppressors will be in an unprecedented position of strength. I hope that the French will remember their heritage:"I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death so that you have the right to say it". Otherwise we can no longer distinguish fiction from reality where freedom becomes an unapplied ideological concept. One can reasonably wonder where Charlie is. Many French people rightly react to the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo which published drawings of the prophet of Islam. However, some religious affiliated with Islam forbid its representation. The French massively took to the streets to assert that nothing should limit freedom of expression and claim to be Charlie. Where are you Charlie to defend Alain Soral? He has as much right to be defended. Even if all the influencers say he is wicked. Did he have a right of reply to all the calumnies he received in all the media? Were you able to hear through his voice his view that he's worthy of the dungeon? Just because a sheep cries wolves to warn its peers does not mean that the sheep is a hunter who wants to kill the wolf. This man of course is not perfect and we could blame him, of course. But perhaps a foreigner can explain to a French person that Charlie Hebdo's drawings on the Prophet of Islam do not just defend freedom of expression; they add free vulgarity. Nobody is perfect. Where is equal treatment? You should also know that Alain Soral wrote a book “Understanding the Empire” which exposes in a very argued way the domination which he undergoes, which according to him undergoes France. His wish is primarily a debate of ideas. Don't stop at influencers continually repeating without giving any argument. Dieudonné, for his part, has the genius to succeed in laughing about it by inventing puns, songs and gestures to relax us. But nothing cheers up the majority of French people. The reprisals are all the stronger for that. He is now forced to perform in the fields, on a bus. Many rooms are forbidden to him. I don't see Charlie but naïve follower sheep.

It is also important to ask the question of why the need to establish liberalism in the constitutions. What does this bring to the citizen or to the local business? This brings the idea that freedom is present. Yes, but concretely, it will not change anything whether it is written or not. On the other hand, if the political power wants to defend strategic, cultural interests, or give a chance to the weakest to survive, the lawyers of a powerful company will know how to break down all the barriers of protections thanks to this law.  Putting liberalism into law is a fine ideal, but it is first and foremost to establish the freedom to do as the strongest one pleases. It is the law of the strongest. Yet he does not need to be protected by law, because he is already the strongest. The weak need protection to survive. This does not mean that liberalism should be prohibited, but it should not be given more importance than satisfying the basic needs of an individual, nor surpass collective aspirations for anything else. Once all the powerful have the economic cards in their hands, what can the politician decide? He can only obey.

But why all this?

In fiction the goal is to exercise power in the best way possible to develop civilization. But according to this group, the people cannot know what the right way is, so the manipulative group does everything to disinterest them, so that in the end, after a big and carefully orchestrated crisis, they will accept the solution proposed to them. This solution will be a well managed system but in reality an absolute dictatorship. Here are the main concepts:

”Soon glaring disorder and bankruptcy will appear everywhere. Improper talkers have converted parliamentary and administrative assemblies into parlottes. Bold journalists and impudent pamphleteers continually attack administrative powers. Abuses of power will definitively prepare for the collapse of all institutions, and everything will fall apart under the blows of the angry populace. ”.

“ We will create a universal economic crisis by all the possible means diverted and using the gold which is entirely in our hands.  "

" Who will suspect that all these problems were launched at our instigation, to serve a political plan that no one will have grasped for so many centuries? ”.

The proposed solution will be as follows: “ The State will also buy commercial values; he will, in turn, become a creditor instead of being debtor and paying tribute as he does today.  ”

“ Nations blindly submit to a strong, absolutely independent power, holding a sword to defend themselves against any social insurrection. Why would they demand that their sovereign be an angel? He must be the personification of strength and power.  ”

“ All these fraudulent operations will disappear when our sovereign ascends to the universal throne. We will also destroy the securities market, because we will not allow our prestige to be undermined by the rise or fall of our funds, the nominal value of which will be fixed by law, without the possibility of fluctuation. The increase is the cause of the decline, and it is by the increases that we have come to discredit the public funds of the Gentiles.  ”

“ Only an autocrat can conceive of vast projects and assign to everything their particular role in the mechanism of the machinery of government. That is why we conclude that it is useful for the well-being of the country that its government is in the hands of one responsible person. Without absolute despotism, no civilization possible, because civilization can only advance under the protection of a leader, whoever he is, provided that he is not in the hands of the masses. ”

What is worrying in fiction, where there is a very big problem, is that this group has no limits. The end justifies the means: ” How far-sighted were our ancient Sages when they told us that, to achieve a truly great goal, we should not stop at the means, nor count the number of victims to be sacrificed for the achievement of the cause ! We have never counted the victims of the race of these brutes of Gentiles, and, although we have had to sacrifice quite a number of our own, we have already given our people a situation in the world such that it does not exist. never dreamed of. A relatively small number of victims on our side have saved our nation from destruction.  ”

This group is ready to start a world war if necessary:“ We must be able to respond to any opposition with a declaration of war by the country neighboring the State which dares to stand in our way; but if these neighbors, in turn; had to decide to unite against us, we would have to respond by unleashing a world war. ”

History shows that alliances and a pretext are enough. The question of the interest of an alliance must be asked. Does it really give us security? or does it not risk drawing us into the abyss without having a say? If an allied country, for some obscure reason, declares war on another, we will have to fight even if we have nothing to blame the other country for. France is part of NATO, that's a lot of countries. For example, Turkey, which is also part of NATO, shot down a Russian military aircraft in 2015. Fortunately, Russia did not retaliate. But if that had been the case, why should France have gone to declare war on Russia? Is Russia not seeking to ally itself with China and India in order to weigh in against NATO? Do we not risk thus preparing for a world conflict?

What does this fiction teach us?

This fiction has the merit of offering an explanation of why and how a country can make such major political, economic, judicial and military mistakes in the long term. One can imagine that everything that happens to France is not necessarily absurdity or bad luck. There may be a lot of intelligence behind everything that's going on. There is obviously a lot of intelligence behind this book, the analysis proposed in 1901 (or even earlier if it is plagiarism) is still fully applicable nearly 120 years later. This is a very good anticipation. Every politician should know it to understand and avoid certain pitfalls. And for everyone, the most important thing to remember is that the main trends in the development of a society can be anticipated. In the same way, the Codex Aquarius anticipates, with regard to our society, a collapse and destruction. See that anticipation is possible, and read on to understand that it will happen ... but also that it can be avoided.

This fiction shows that wolves, with great patience, over several generations, can take control of sheep.

This fiction must also make us aware of our power. Because it is about mass control. It is the people who overthrow their protector, who then elects their leaders who lead them into the abyss. It is still the masses who ask for grace from such an unhealthy system and accept a dictatorship.

So my advice, when you realize that you are being treated like a sheep, is not to go teach the wolves or try to replace them. We must first admit that we are a sheep with the limitations that this implies. Living in a system where the illusion that sheep have power gives more freedom than being in an established dictatorship. Wanting to overturn the system in place on the spot is not the best solution, because the wolves have foreseen this and are waiting for this opportunity. There are certainly sheep in governments that are dealing with wolves. Not to overwhelm them would already be an opportunity for these sheep to have a little more space to act because the wolves leave them no choice. Making them realize that they are sheep (nice but ignorant and manipulated) is also a lead. Time must be allowed for consciousness to progress. Solutions then emerge.

Another lesson from this fiction is that when a politician's weaknesses are made public, it is probably because he has had the courage to oppose blackmailers. He chose public humiliation and to give up a comfortable position rather than continuing to betray his ideals. Rather than insulting him and wanting a conviction, it might be more productive to listen to him, at least in his defense, and give him the opportunity to right his wrongs.

We must now consider the hypothesis where we respect the position of the author who does not present this as fiction. I understand that we must be cautious of the secret services of which the author was a part, because they are also specialists in disinformation. I therefore call on everyone to do the same, especially when secret services authenticate documents that are used to obtain public consent to start a war. In our case, it should also be recognized that this type of investigation, which uncovers a powerful occult group, does indeed correspond to a legitimate activity of the secret services. On the other hand, my research does not exclude the hypothesis that the spirit of this text is authentic and that an extremist group within the Jewish community has such a racialist and domineering view of the rest of humanity. Let us look at some extracts from their sacred texts:

“ People from outside will be there to graze your flocks; the sons of foreigners will be your ploughmen and your winegrowers. And you will be called priests of the Lord, you will be appointed minister of our god. You will enjoy the wealth of the nations and you will glory in their splendor  ”(Isaiah 61: 5-6)

“ The Lord will drive out before you all these nations, and you will make yourself masters of nations greater and more powerful than you.” (Deuteronomy, 11.23).

"If you obey the voice of the Lord your God, by observing and putting into practice all his commandments that I prescribe to you today, the Lord your God will give you superiority over all the nations of the Earth." (Deuteronomy, 28,1).

“Thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.   The Lord will make you the head and not the tail, you will always be at the top and you will never be at the bottom ” (Deuteronomy, 28,12-13).

It is therefore conceivable that some people take these texts literally. Fundamentalism is present in all religions, why would there be an exception among the Jews? Or among Christians who recognize the Old Testament of which these extracts are a part? To enlighten these people, and without questioning these texts, these sentences only have first-degree reality if it is God who attributes these situations of favors. He does it in the light of the greatness of soul and the merits of each. Beating others, belittling them, forcing them to meanness does not raise anyone. Wanting to attribute these rewards by oneself is an usurpation of the divine role. Such a transgression cannot succeed.

I will therefore now address the possible heirs of this manipulative group which acts in the shadows of the masses, assuming that what is said in the book really reflects their intentions. What I will say in the following paragraph can only make sense for those who believe in the reality of this hypothesis. So manipulators are concerned… if they exist. If this group has no reality, this message is without reality and is not addressed to anyone. I am assuming that the author is trying to alert us to a real problem. Given the accuracy of his forecasts on points that can now be seen, it is reasonable not to sweep this assumption aside, even if it is disturbing. This should not be seen as a truth, but as a potential. This necessarily gives a different point of view and interpretation of history. If it is too embarrassing for you, remember that it is cunning fiction, and forget this passage.

--Beginning of hypothetical aside--

You, the manipulators, were exposed in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, you managed to silent it by the First World War and the establishment of the Communist dictatorship; you have been exposed in Germany and you have overthrown your fierce enemies at the cost of World War II. You think that you can always get out of it thanks to your superiority of culture and intelligence, proof, according to you, of your divine support. You trust your superior intelligence which will always find a solution or a means so deceitful that only you can envisage it. But you are too sure to win. You are like an inveterate player who doubles the bet to make up in case of disappointment. Or like the trader who has committed sums that would break the bank or that destabilize the market just by their amounts. The problem is that the stake that you are going to have to use is now the survival of the planet,  a risk you're ready to take to avoid detection and to carry out your plan. It seems that at least China has learned the lessons of the opium war and has not fallen into the philanthropic human rights trap. His government is fairly close to the model you advocate for your future world government. These people also have a resilient millennial culture. You have the law of Moses and other prophets, they have that of Confucius and Lao Tzu. You have Kabale, they have the Art of War since Sun Tzu. They didn't get trapped by your loan offers like in the West and elsewhere. How will you explain to them that you are God's chosen people to lead them? I refer to this passage: “ The emptiness that exists in the purely bestial brain of the Gentiles is sufficiently proven by the fact that they do not understand that, by borrowing money from us, they will, one day or another, to subtract from the country's resources the capital borrowed with its interests. It would have been easier to take money from theirs right away, for which they would not have had to pay interest. This proves our genius and the fact that our people were chosen by God. We put it so well that the Gentiles believed that there was a benefit to them from borrowing. ”And this one:“ We can easily see the sign of our election by God and of our superhuman nature; we need only compare it to the instinctively bestial brain of the Gentiles. They only see the facts, but do not foresee them, and are incapable of inventing anything, except, perhaps, material things. From all this, it is clear that nature itself intended us to lead and govern the world. ”. You rely on governments whose collapse you have organized at the same time. Your position is not stable. The Chinese are stronger every day. They do not need to attack you, they can wait according to the precept of Lao Tzu: "If someone has offended you, don't seek revenge. Sit by the side of the river and soon you'll see his corpse pass by.”. I think you will not be able to win. But everyone will lose if you cause a war. Your plan cannot succeed.

 To dissuade you from carrying out your plan, from a religious point of view, which seems to be the foundation of your action, I would say that if God lets you advance in your plans, it is because he wants to make us experience free will ... and its consequences. God leaves you free but warns you of the consequences through his prophets. And you've had a lot. Hear my words as a fraternal warning: you might blow everything up and go back to the days of Noah. Your bunkers will protect you for a while then you will experience the lack, the radiation if you go out and cannibalism.

You thought that the end justifies all means and that your people had already reaped great benefits from it (“ although we had to sacrifice quite a large number of our people, we have already given our people a situation in the world such that he never dreamed of it. ”). Do all of your people agree with you? Were those who found themselves in the camps of the Third Reich in your opinion or at least aware of your plans? Looking back, can we still call this a dream situation? Is it not also a great Reich that you want?

You are waiting for a governor in the descendants of David (“ The Column of the Universe, in the person of the Governor of the World, from the Holy Race of David ”). But, it seems obvious that the first thing this governor will tell you is to behave properly. In other words, to be good Jews. You must respect the law of Moses, starting with the Ten Commandments. When a man pays someone to kill another, he is fully responsible for the murder. If you stir up or create resentments, tensions, rumors, fears or hatred between people or communities throughout the week and you see them killing each other on the Sabbath, you can argue that only you have respected the Law, but, in conscience, your responsibility is complete. I imagine that my theological opinion does not matter to you and that you have reassuring religious justifications for your abominations. I therefore remind you of your prophet Isaiah (ch29, v13) reporting the word of the Lord: " These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law of Moses is a universal foundation of good practices for the cohesion of the community over time. You know that you spread contrary values ​​while proclaiming beautiful philanthropic words. Alas, I do not have the hope of making you give up millennial beliefs so easily. But I try. I put myself in your place. So I imagine that you must think that you diligently respect the Law and the associated traditions, unlike the others, which leads to their fall on the one hand and your superiority on the other. But no. You are a pack trained for a very long time in front of isolated, candid individuals. It’s very easy for you. You do not make a mistake because you are not in a position to make a mistake, unlike the isolated prey you corner. In an impromptu situation, you would fall. You, on a personal level, know that you are not perfect, that you have already failed, but you hope that this will remain secret. But your accomplices are so sure of themselves and look so straight and it has been working for so long. Surely they are right, you think. Actually, in my experience, people like that are at least as imperfect as you are, and if they find themselves in a situation of emotional or intellectual insecurity, they end up collapsing and breaking all the rules down unto their own principles. As I need to win your support, I give you the opportunity to find out about it too. To do this, one must simply realize that the proponents of the Jewish tradition blatantly broke the law of Moses by killing an innocent man. It was about 2 millennia ago in Jerusalem. The innocent was a carpenter's son who had never hurt anyone. Only, among the people, before his actions, some wondered if he was not the Messiah. He, however, claimed nothing. These proponents of the tradition did not find an intermediary, such as a king or a military leader, to commit the infraction of the Law of Moses. This situation allowed us to see them at work, in a falling situation. Murder, extreme sadism, insults, false testimony, ... for what is most visible and factual. Insulting the mother of this innocent man, whose son was taken, is their only justification. But it is not a question of whether he was the Messiah, it is a question of whether he was innocent or guilty according to the law. Not being the Messiah is not a crime. And thankfully, because it affects a lot of people, probably including you. Simply recognize this obvious fault. And, if you discuss it with your accomplices, then you will have the opportunity to see them at work in a difficult situation, where one can fall. Because you will realize that this tradition so virtuous and superior apparently rests on the worst murder by people who have fallen without even a real obstacle. You cannot trust them when they decree that the end justifies the means. Some of your accomplices will not be able to accept it, because that would be to recognize that their project and themselves are of the domain of impiety. But, you can also see the positive side of this event. You have a reliable way of knowing you're in gehenna.  Reform yourself as soon as possible and become good Jews, in spirit. The step in front of you is high. But everyone has its importance. A detail can have enormous consequences.

--End of hypothetical aside--

The underlying problem is that all this manipulation, domination and suffering are possible because the golden rule of not doing to others what you don't want done to you is not respected. The people and the rulers are victims. But the manipulators must not be left out of the equation. I draw attention to the fact that the manipulators are themselves under the influence of their pride and their traditions. Just as they may uncover the real weaknesses of statesmen, so this 1901 book, while describing real facts, could be the uncovering of their practices by another manipulative group at a higher or competing level. For example, the reaction expected by the manipulators is anger and war to stay in the shadows and stay in control. It seems to me that the good reaction is to note that there is a problem in the governance of the country and to apply the golden rule, already on an individual level and to raise awareness around oneself when it is not not respected. If everyone applies this at their level, the problem is solved.

The lesson that can be drawn from this book is that in the light of the moral behavior of peoples and their representatives, one can sketch out future trends.

Chapter 3: The loan at interest or the unsustainable concentration of wealth

In the previous chapter we have considered, in the form of fiction, to explain why a State like France was adrift. The main explanation or assumption is that a group has been acting behind the scenes for centuries to take control of the country and the whole world. In this chapter, we switch to the most factual reality there is. Even if it will surprise you, what is stated in this chapter describes the functioning of money in Europe, in the West and in most countries of the world.

What is money for? Its initial purpose is to promote trade. Without the currency you have to go through barter. A farmer will exchange with a craftsman a cow for terracotta jars. But if the craftsman does not want animals, but rather tools, he will have to find a third party who wants a cow, and, against his tools. We thus pass to a triangular trade. To stay in an exchange between two parties, we use money which is a reference value, and which can be used during other exchanges with other parties. So a money is a reference value that allows you to trade. The more exchanges, the more money circulates. And to be able to increase trade, we need more money in circulation. The main issues surrounding money are therefore, on one hand, to have enough of it to carry out all the desired exchanges and, on the other hand, not to have too much of it so that it remains a stable reference. It is thus necessary to understand that if the exchanges decrease, so that the value of the money remains stable, it is necessary that there is less in circulation. And if there is less money in circulation, the exchanges will decrease. There is therefore a whole art to allow exchanges. And as we are more and more specialized, we are entirely dependent on exchanges to survive and live. Thus the issue of exchanges, and therefore the issue of money, is something central and strategic for the smooth running of community life.

When there is a technical revolution, it can lead to new exchanges: products appear and people want to get them. If the population of a monetary area increases, trade will increase. Thus, the reference currency, based on the scarcity of metals such as gold or silver, does not make it possible to follow the increase in trade. The Roman Empire had gradually reduced the proportion of gold in each of its coins to be able to meet its needs for money.

Now what is the interest loan?

It is the fact of lending money against the commitment to return the borrowed money with a supplement on an agreed date.

First, who lends money? whoever has it (we will see that this is no longer the case now) and who does not need it the time of the loan. But in terms of exchange, it is the one who has the capacity to carry out an exchange and who does not use it. So keeping money is an obstacle to exchanges in the community. It would therefore be logical to encourage people not to accumulate it. Or, put another way, it would be common sense to dissuade them from keeping it.

Then, why an interest? It is argued that the lender is taking a risk. Indeed, there is the risk that the borrower cannot repay. It is important to note that one of the possible causes of this failure is that many people accumulate their money and therefore it is not available for trading by others. So part of the risk lies in the very fact of refusing to lend and therefore of keeping non-circulating reserves. Simply put, the more lenders charge you for counterparties, the more difficult it will be to repay them. It must also be taken into account that the lender does not need this money. So the risk to the lender in any case is not very serious. While perhaps the borrower needs to trade, needs to eat. Then there is the fact that the lender, in general, require a guarantee. So the only risk he takes is that he misevaluation of the guarantee. Finally, in the interest, there is associated a duration. This places an additional constraint which increases the risk. In fact, the borrower may have something unexpected that prevents him from repaying on time, whereas he could very well do so a little later. The more time passes, the more chance there is that the borrower will eventually succeed in repaying the initial amount. However, interest is associated with time and the value due is exponential. Thus, the longer it takes to repay, the more money there is to provide, and the harder it is to repay. Again, the justification of interest mixes cause and effect. The interest loan creates risk. And on the contrary, without interest, you can lend to someone over a long period of time, possibly with a guarantee, without taking any risk.

Finally, keeping money is not neutral. If it's physical money, you need a safe, you need to count it, transport it. There is the risk of losing it, of having it stolen, of damaging it. Even if it is scriptural money (registered in an account book), you have to pay, the keeper of the account book, these errors, its protections, its security, reliable tools.

Thus, someone who only accumulates money suffers wear and tear which is an inevitable loss. One can note the total reversal of meaning of the word usury, also used to designate the loan at interest. Indeed, money should depreciate over time when it is not used, whereas in fact usury, wear or loan at interest pays for having money.

For Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Christian philosopher of the Middle Ages, “receiving interest for the use of the loaned money is inherently unfair, because it means paying for what does not exist…” borrower does not alter the value of money by using it. He can therefore return it exactly as it was. It seems that Saint Thomas Aquinas considers that the restitution of money is systematic, just as when you buy your bread, one gives the bread, the other the money. In lending money, both parties have to give the same amount of money. If the borrower does not return, he is a fraudster. And it is a litigation issue that can be settled by public institutions. Charging all customers for the eventuality of a fraudster is an insurance issue, not a remuneration issue of money.

Now that we have studied from a technical and rational point of view the aberration of what is happening in an interest loan, let us see the ethical or moral meanings. An exchange takes place when it is to the advantage of both parties. We normally exchange two things of the same value. However, a loan with interest is asking for more and in an inelegant way: the longer you delay, the more it will cost you. Thus to lend with interest is to use the position of possessor to have more. At the end of the exchange, the lender will have more than before. And he can start again on a larger scale then. Because the interest rate ensures exponential growth. The longer the time, the faster the gains increase. Thus $ 1000 invested in wear at 3% gives a gain of $ 30 after a year, $ 344 after 10 years and $ 18,219 after 100 years. Or $ 560 the last year.

If a family put 1 gram of gold to wear in the year 1, it has more than 6 million tonnes of gold in the year 1000. And in the year 2164 its wealth in gold exceeds the weight of Earth. That's what exponential growth is about. More and more, but always more in every more. You can object that it does not work like that because gold is only found in small quantities on Earth. It is true. And the usurer family will then ask for interest in the silver metal, then the other metals. When she will have them all in her possession, she will ask for wood, then water, then earth… and she will have in her possession the whole Earth in the year 2164.

In addition, what becomes of the stability of the monetary reference? A given value, some time later is enhanced by its interest, so it changes. The reference is no longer the reference. The practice of usury is not a factor of monetary stability. And therefore of fairness in the exchanges. This leads to gaps, anomalies in the balance of the different prices in place. These instabilities are conducive to speculation... and crises.

In a wise or healthy community, that is to say a community who uses its rationale in a moral setting, one does not favour the one who hinders the exchanges of others, one does not favour the one who makes others pay for the expenses and the development of his wealth. In this wise society, if too much wealth is accumulated, it is envisaged to penalize their non-circulation which hinders the exchanges of those who need them. In this wise society, lending to someone without interest is an opportunity to keep the value of one's money. Yes, someone promises that he will return it later. He doesn't need a holding fee, and exchange restriction penalties don't apply. So which society can claim to be healthy if it charges the interest rate? Except possibly at the margin, to experience the difficulties that this practice involves.

We have therefore seen, that with the interest loan, we can buy the whole Earth in 2164 years with a wear rate of 3% while having a real productive value of a single gram.

This prospect is too tempting to be deemed unsustainable in the long term or immoral by the loan shark. He has at his disposal a tool with exponential gain. Who would have the wisdom to give it up? In fact, once the loan shark understands the power of his tool, his concern is not moral, but rather how he can make the most of it. Thus, his main concern is to increase his opportunities to make loans. For at a certain point, it falls on certain limits, such as a competitor offering the same service, or the limitation of the quantity of currency reserves. It is indeed inevitable, that at some point in time, all available gold or currency is lent out.  Solutions must therefore be found to continue lending without returning to barter, because in this case, the intermediary that is the usurer is useless. In fact, a loan shark in a position of domination of its market or in monopoly, notices that the gold which it lends to someone is then exchanged with another which comes to deposit it in a bank which also happens to belong to the usurer. Money goes from one point to come back to  the same place. Being in a monopoly gives the extraordinary possibility that the reference value, like gold, never dries up. We can always lend it since it comes back to the same place. It becomes strategic to have a monopoly. It can also be a disguised monopoly, the various market players are in collusion and in fact form what is called a cartel.

I'm sorry, but I have to tell you that the problem doesn't end there. But it is predictable, because wear is based on a fallacious justification. A person who finds it normal to take advantage of his position of possessor towards someone in need to ask him more than what he has lent him does not base his action on honesty. He is more sensitive to the opportunity it will give him rather than the injustice that the borrower will suffer. And when this selfish and opportunistic person has the opportunity in other circumstances to take advantage of others, he will. It seemed indeed that the return on wear was not sufficient for its beneficiaries. One can imagine various reasons, like having to sub-contract or employ staff for part of the management of its assets, pay people to force others to pay, weaken moral principles so that one does not consider usury as a moral fault, change the meaning of the words so that we do not make the link with the religious prohibition. Indeed now the loan with interest is no longer considered usury, only an excessive rate is. However, whatever the rate, you can get the whole Earth. It was necessary to pass laws that allow this amorality to continue, and to make constitutions so that we cannot suppress these laws. For example in the European Union, it is necessary that all the countries agree to change the fact that the States must borrow from third parties and not from their bank or that they can not control their bank. Sophists must also be paid to evangelize teachers, students and crowds. Media must be bought to give voice to these sophists and not to moralizing opponents. The wear business has significant costs that must be financed. Above all, we must not forget that, besides the costs, there is greed. The desire to have is never satisfied, it always requires more to expect satisfaction. Without forgetting the desire to dominate the other, to feel superior. He cannot resist the opportunity to make even more money even if for that he has to do something immoral, it has no weight beside the value of money. Usury is originally based on owning something (gold) that is not used and making a profit. The next step was to make a profit from what others do not use. For this, we must recover the money of others who are not used. It is the creation of the deposit bank. And in fact, it's quite easy. Because, as we mentioned earlier, keeping cash has a cost. We can lose the money, get it stolen, damage it, we have to allocate a place to store it… So the job of the depositary is to explain the opposite of what the loan shark says, namely that we take a risk by keeping our money for yourself, at home. Where there is still a problem with ethics is that the depositary is also a loaner, in other words, a banker. He holds a contradictory discourse varying according to the client he has in front of him. To a depositor, he explains that there are risks and work in keeping his money and therefore applies account maintenance fees to him. To a borrower, he justifies his interest by the risks he takes and that there are other opportunities elsewhere. But what is actually happening? Once enough people use its services, it turns out that the money it lends to certain customers, those who borrow, is then exchanged through commercial or real estate transactions. So that the loaned money ends up at least partly in the hands of people who deposit in his bank. So the money, barely out, comes back immediately. The borrower pays interest but the money is still in the bank. We can thus lend a lot of money, recover a lot of interest, without even the banker having to lend his capital. Yes, if money that belongs to and is available to depositors is given to the borrower and immediately recovered after the borrower has made his or her transaction that required a loan, it is put back, some time later, where it was taken, not seen nor known by the clients. The banker can even afford to use his own reserves elsewhere. He can buy land, castles, industries, grands crus ... which in turn will earn interest in addition to the interest on loans. This is an extraordinary illusionist trick that pays big money. But the banker lies by omission to his customers. The borrower is not aware that he pays interest on a fictitious money and the depositor is not aware that additional risks are taken to his deposits without counterpart, without information and without knowing that the banker earns a lot money on his back. It is also important to remember that this financial toggle is based on the original lie of the interest-bearing loan, namely that it is necessary to remunerate the risk of the money lent with an interest rate. Indeed, the pactol comes from the fact that an economic agent recovers the interest on the money from all depositors. But if money by itself did not yield money, there would not be a multiplier effect on all of the depositors' money. Zero that multiplies a large number always remains zero. We go from a scam to a super scam. The scam is to lend with interest, the super scam is to earn interest by lending other people's money.  By removing the interest rate, you remove the scam and the super scam cannot take place. In fact, this practice (super scam) is risky for several reasons. First if the customers were aware of the subterfuge of the bank, they would not agree, they could withdraw their funds. Then, if multiple depositors withdraw their money without it somehow returning to the bank, the bank will not have enough funds to reimburse the depositors. Indeed the same money was loaned several times, therefore the same money was counted as deposits several times. But it can only be physically removed once. To compensate for the event of a significant withdrawal of deposit, the banker will then have to draw on his own funds. Are there enough, and available? He will then have to borrow from someone willing to lend him. And will become a victim of the system. From predator it would become prey, which is unacceptable to a predator. So the banker will do everything to avoid this situation. So to prosper on his immorality, the banker must guard against the flight of his depositing clients. The solution is to put oneself in a monopoly position. Thus, customers have no choice but to deposit their money in one establishment. But the best solution, for the banker, is that of the quasi-monopoly, where the apparently independent bankers agree to operate all on the same principle of immorality and that the market shares remain stable. The banks thus meet in a cartel. A small group grows rich without knowing and on the backs of the masses.

But this juicy business is deeply amoral, and its practitioners are more and more powerful especially since they regrouped. For centuries morality and religious authority have banished lending at interest. A law could very well arise and prohibit this practice. It is therefore important, for the survival of the banking cartel, to enshrine the validity of the interest in the law and to explain that what is moral is to respect the law. But for that, an adaptation is necessary, indeed, one cannot write the right to someone to earn money with the money of others, because immorality is too visible in this case. Bankers' practice was based on the illusion that they had the money they were lending. In reality, they loaned the depositors' money and recovered it when other depositors received it. Legalization is therefore about making it possible to lend money without using one's own or others' money. The bankers thus succeeded in obtaining the right to create money from nothing. It is the right of money creation. This has been possible with the use of paper money, or scriptural money. The value of money is written down on paper and guaranteed by the bank. The community thus gave the right to a group of individuals to create and destroy money according to its rules. It is a colossal power. No more need to provide added value by participating in an exchange. The banker creates money by simple decision. It is hard to believe that this right can be given, in addition to venal individuals. My opinion is that this right, or rather this privilege, reveals an ignorance or an advanced amorality of the community and its leaders who legalize this practice. It also reveals the power already acquired by the bank to succeed in obtaining this privilege. The scammer has become so strong that he obtains the legalization of his practice. It is the gateway for the implementation of the law of the strongest throughout society. But things are a little more hidden than what I expose. Indeed, the banking cartel respects certain rules so that the system does not create money too quickly, and that it remains opaque to the general public. Indeed all money created must be destroyed later. The creation of money is only there to formalize the payment of interest, which is the real source of income for the banker. When the money created no longer earns its interest, it must be destroyed. This rule allows the banker to continue to operate as before, when he used his clients' deposits to lend money, except that from then on, in order not to directly involve his clients' money or lie to them, he has the right to create that money to lend it. When the borrower repays the loan, the money created is no longer useful, therefore it must be absolutely destroyed, otherwise there would be too much money that would be created, inflation would explode and the right of creation money granted would be took of. But the banker has earned interest on the time of temporary money creation. And these interests remain definitively in his pocket because they are not destroyed. So the banker now has the right, indirectly, to create money for himself. Another rule is that the banker can only create money in proportion to his own assets. Thus, if losses are to be deplored, the banker is bound to draw on his reserves, which preserves the system. He can therefore create a lot if he is already very rich. Another rule for creating money is to have the commitment of an economic actor to repay or pay interest, such as a dividend for a share. This implies that if an engagement is canceled, the corresponding money that has been created must be destroyed. It is the banker's golden rule to preserve the goose that lays the golden eggs. Any money created must correspond to a valid promise of restitution. These are the liabilities and assets columns of their balance sheets.

“The bank benefits from the interests of all the currencies it creates out of thin air.” said William Paterson , founder of the Bank of England in 1694, the first bank of this amoral legal type.

We thus arrived at a situation where a limited group of individuals can, in all legality, prosper on the back of the others. One would think that this group would be content to live in opulence and be satisfied with the balance of power very much in its favour. Alas, no, it was not enough. We come back to the initial problem, of an amoral practice conducted at the decision-making level by amoral individuals who are indifferent to what they do to others. The next step is to find that the State, if it also has the power to create money, is a competitor. Indeed, the State is the guarantor of the proper functioning of the economy and must be able to support any exceptional expenditure. For this he must ensure that there is sufficient money in circulation, and therefore create it, and, if necessary, reduce it. But it turns out that the money issued by the State is used in the economy and is exchanged without limit of duration. However, the money created by the bankers is destroyed when the credit is repaid. To have a constant amount of exchange, the money that is destroyed by the repayment of a credit must be compensated by the creation of a new credit. Thus, at constant money supply, one must have recourse to credit permanently, and therefore pay the bank permanent interest.

However, money created by the State does not follow this cycle of creation and destruction that generates interest for the bank. The State thus generates a significant shortfall for the bank. The money it creates does not generate interest in the bank. The aim of the bank is that the entire creation of money is under its control, to have as much opportunity as possible to draw interest. So after obtaining the right to create money, the bank set itself the objective of obtaining the exclusive right to create money. Which means that the whole economy is taxed by the bank. Indeed, even if you have money and have no debt, the money you have is a debt someone has taken on, and is paying interest on. So even an exchange, between two non-indebted people, requires the creation of money subject to interest. It also means that if everyone pays off their debts, there is no more money available. It also means that if the banks no longer want to lend, there is no money left to trade and run the economy. Thus, with the right of exclusive monetary creation, the economy in the broad sense, that is to say the whole of the exchanges between all the economic actors, is enslaved to the bank. We come to the situation where a small group decides what an economic monetary zone has to pay to it in order for the zone to be allowed to function, and therefore for individuals to live. We are no longer in the context of a moral problem, but in the context of a major abuse of a dominant position. We can speak of an oligarchy. Elected political representatives of a country can only achieve good economic results to the extent that the oligarchs grant them. If the oligarchs decide to reduce economic activity, they can do it and politicians cannot prevent it. It is a financial dictatorship. One of the techniques to achieve this exclusive power is to traumatize the population by hyperinflation. The financial powers are pushing a state which has the power to create money to create far too much for the needs of the economy. Thus, money ends up being worth nothing or is no longer able to set a reference, and trade collapses, the economy stops. The people's money reserves are no longer worth anything. Great speakers then explain that this is proof that the right of money creation should not be given to elected governments. The only solution proposed is to give this right to the banks. Another technique is war to impose a controlled banking system on the defeated. There is also the traditional solution of the corruption of elected officials who pass these laws (corruption by money, flattery, influence peddling, ...). Without forgetting the manipulation: elected representatives who pass these laws are not aware of the implications. There is also the techniques of amalgamating this type of act in the middle of a package of positive or unrelated measures, at the last moment, during a holiday period... In fact, the banking system has been running for several hundred years to achieve this and it is now an art he masters well. It was especially in the 19th century that the battle took place and was most visible for the conquest of the new emerging nation, the United States of America. The monetary issue has proven to be central and visible. Thus Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), one of the founding fathers and president of the United States of America wrote: “I think that banking institutions are more dangerous for our liberties than whole armies ready for combat. If the American people someday allow private banks to control their money, the banks and all the institutions that will flourish around the banks will deprive people of all possession, first by inflation, then by recession, until the day where their children will wake up, homeless and roofless, on the land their parents conquered. ”. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) believed that the Civil War in the United States, had been brought about by high finance: “The division of the United States into federations of equal forces was decided long before the Civil War by high financial powers from Europe. These bankers feared that the United States, if it were self-contained and as one nation, would achieve economic and financial independence, which would hinder its financial domination of the world.   ”

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), President of the United States during the American Civil War, declared" The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credits necessary to cover public and individual expenses. By adopting these principles, huge amounts of interest would be saved to taxpayers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of the government, but it is also its greatest creative opportunity. " This is why he created money in 1862 which is still in circulation today. It should be noted that he was assassinated. Bismarck then made the observation: “Lincoln's death was a disaster for Christianity. There was no man in the United States large enough to replace him,  and the bankers began to hog the wealth again. I fear that with their cunning and convoluted tricks, foreign bankers will come to control America's exuberant wealth and use it to systematically corrupt modern civilization. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into war and chaos so that the Earth can become their legacy.”. And that's what happened. A few years later, James Garfield (1831-1881), president of the United States of America declared in his turn “He who controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and all commerce. and when you realize that the whole system is very easily controlled, in one way or another, by a very small elite of powerful people, you will not need to be told how the periods of inflation and of deflation appear. ”. He was also assassinated. The struggle ended in 1913 with the creation of the institution of the American Federal Reserve where the power of monetary creation was offered exclusively to a private banking cartel. When Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), the then President of the United States became aware of the consequences, he said: “I'm a most unhappy man. I unconsciously ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its credit system. Our credit system is concentrated in the private sector. The growth of our nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the most badly run governments in the civilized world, one of the most controlled and dominated not by the conviction and vote of the majority but by the opinion and strength of a small group of dominant men.”.  

To understand how this unhealthy monetary system came about, I would use the analogy of wine sellers in a community. The population drank water and wine. The use of wine was limited due to its price, its side effects and the limitation of production. But the winegrowers argued that wine is alcohol and that alcohol has harmful effects that should be limited. So they asked to have control over the production of alcohol in the community. As the winemakers controlled the production of alcohol, they managed to have exclusivity. Thus, it was no longer possible for an apple producer to sell cider. He had to sell his apple production to winegrowers so that he could make cider for him. The winemakers then found themselves in a monopoly on the production of alcoholic beverages. They raised prices and got rich. They also understood that they could make alcohol with anything: fruit, cereals, potatoes, etc. They thus had the possibility of selling alcohol in very large quantities at very low production costs. But the population knew that it should only be consumed in moderation. So the winemakers hired sellers to promote the benefits of alcohol and encourage people to consume more. The winemakers also made opposition from religious, anti-alcoholism association, doctors. But the winemakers had the means and were able to buy opinion leaders, the local gazette and, above all, they financed the mayor's re-election campaign. Alcoholism has taken hold in the community. But there was real opposition from a section of the population who did not drink alcohol, whereas the winegrowers could supply them some. In addition, over time, the harms of alcohol became more and more visible. They decided to take the next step: ban water. This free and healthy drink was becoming intolerable for the winemakers. They had to convince everyone that water is dangerous. So, everyone would switch to alcohol. The winegrowers put the cholera bacteria in the community's water supplies. Many were ill and the winemakers recalled that alcohol has disinfectant properties. They therefore proposed to authorize only alcoholic beverages for consumption. To take into account the harmful effects of alcohol, they proposed that they be given the exclusive right to control the level of alcohol in the drink based on the crime rate in the population and the bacteria present in the drinks. The main problem of community management becomes to control the alcohol level of the drink. Drinking water is strictly prohibited. Because winegrowers actively support the idea that only a madman wanting to die from cholera can want to drink water. The winemakers make sure that the schools teach this. Researchers are studying all diseases that can be spread through water. The population is dumbed by alcohol and crime is raging. The morality of this story is that just because a country has experienced economic difficulties does not mean that it should entrust the control of its economy to a so called competent and independent authority. It is possible that this entity is precisely the cause of its difficulties and that it abuses its position of control.

Let us go back to the flaws of the interest loan, when its beneficiaries control the economy of a monetary zone. To be able to exchange, you have to borrow and pay interest to a cartel that decides the rate. This means that the money flowing is debt. So for the economy to work, we have to make repayment commitments. ThThe majority of non-financial economic actors are obliged to a repayment schedule. We are in a bidding logic. In order to be able to operate, economic players have a gun to their head: they have to repay or go bankrupt, die. This forces them to make choices that they would not naturally want to make. For an individual, it involves accepting arduous or low-paid work. For a business, lay off or agree to sell at a price below the market. And the State is no exception. By selling stakes in public companies, raising taxes, cutting social welfare benefits, transferring the management of our pensions to the financial sector... If the players don't comply, there are foreclosures or interest rate hikes.

But that's not all. Another major problem with debt money is that the money that is saved by an actor is going to be missing for the repayment of another person. The latter will have to go into debt again to repay the previous loan.

You must think now that this system is a calamity of great perfidy: whatever you do is damaging to someone. Because, even if we don't get into this unhealthy mechanism of the interest loan, we have to save, but those who have to repay will miss the saved money by us. Alas, we find ourselves in an infernal spiral, which generates ever more disastrous consequences. We are not at the end of our misfortunes. There are still other aberrations to be aware of.

The problem of lack of money for those who borrow is amplified also, and above all, by the very principle of the interest rate. Indeed, the bank creates money in exchange for a promise to repay. But the interests are not created. Yet they are due. And since all money is someone's debt, you will have to take the money for interest on the part of someone, who promised to repay, to give it to the bank. And the person who has been taken from his share, will have to take from someone else the interest he owes and what has been taken from his share. So the debt system is doomed to continue and grow. Even if everyone paid off their debts, there would be no money to pay the interest. It is therefore wrong to say that the State must deleverage. If it does, there will be less money in circulation and the economy will slow down, more bankrupts, more unemployment, more misery.... If a politician wants economic growth for his country, he must encourage borrowing, including that of the state. The problem is that he hires his successors to manage the repayment of his debt and interest. He puts his nation in greater dependence on the banking cartel and enriches it. No matter what we do, it's a problem, so this system needs to be changed.

A big problem with this debt money system is that it involves everyone, because any monetary exchange relies on money that was created in exchange for a promise to repay. But only those who borrow finance this system. Those who lack money and have to borrow are thus more penalized than those who are not debtors but participate in the exchanges without charge. And the creators of debt obligations are reaping rivers of interest. The ones who pay, who also have a schedule, that is, an obligation to pay on specific dates. Isn't it as unbalanced as slavery or colonialism?

But does the system just accumulate a rent on the economy by recovering interest on debt money? Yes, but not only, because the interest received is in turn invested in concrete investments, which in turn bring in new interest, this time the fruit of economic activity. The most strategic companies are thus gradually bought by the financial powers. The more time passes, the more the interests are used to take possession of the industry and more generally of the whole economy. The indebted States are summoned to sell their assets by the stratagem of the loss of confidence in the financial markets. If States do not sell their strategic assets, the banking cartel would raise interest rates on State debt, as it would take the risk of lending to a player that makes no effort to limit its debt. The leaders of the indebted States do not want to face the reaction of the people to an increase in taxes to pay the additional interest due to the rise in interest rates. It is simpler for these officials to give up to the banking cartel and put the State's assets on the market, which the finance industry can buy back with the interest it has obtained from the States for the creation and maintenance of their debt. It is in fact a gift. Thus, after the State has come under the control of the bank, the latter demands that the infrastructure be handed over to it. the taxation of finance is then also carried out through the charging of dividends on national infrastructure and service companies. In fact, it cannot be otherwise in a society that operates on usury. Remember, you can buy Earth in 2164 years. When the bank has obtained the maximum of what the State can pay,  it is necessary to find other fields of action to draw interest from its capital in permanent extension.

Another means of extension is to make subscribers to developing international loans. The government can be master of its currency but it is indebted in dollars, euros or currency of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is where John Perkins' testimony is important. He explains in his book “the confessions of a economic hti man” his job of justifying the construction of infrastructures for the development of poor countries. But the goal is to subject countries to debt that cannot be repaid. Thus allowing to obtain all the favors that the country can offer: military bases, voting at the United Nations, political or diplomatic support, oil, mining concessions, or any other natural resource.

To arrive at this modern colonialism, John describes a well-established process. Very in-depth economic studies are carried out to provide theoretical justifications that require significant evaluation work and various skills such as finance, economics, engineering, mathematics, which the country does not necessarily have. Then, if the leader is not convinced, it is a question of flattering or corrupting him and the decision-makers so that they accept. The next step is intimidation, which can go as far as assassination. John Perkins testifies of a president who begs him to leave his country alone and that he has no need of foreign aid. He was assassinated some time later. Finally, if the president is persistent and paranoid, he may be able to resist attempts at assassination and regime change. The final step is the military invasion. And John Perkins gives the example of Iraq, which intended to abandon the dollar for its oil sales. And we can indeed understand that there was a threat to the American Empire. Indeed, the dollar, as we have seen above, has come under the control of a private banking cartel practicing usury in its most developed forms. As such, dollar zone banks can issue gigantic amounts of dollars out of thin air. One can thus imagine, from the moment when the assets are for sale, that the bank uses its power of monetary creation to create all the money necessary to appropriate the asset for sale.If necessary, and according to the legislation in place, make a financial package with loans that are secured by the value of the assets. Again, we can better understand the requirement of creditors to sell companies and national concessions for indebted countries. They create the money to appropriate them. The downside is that it puts a lot of money in circulation. Since the dollar is used as an international currency, a lot of liquidity in dollars is necessary. Iraq being a major exporter of oil, the perimeter of the dollar zone would have reduced and would have given the example to many other countries to leave this currency. Currency created in overabundance to buy the world and which retains its value only because the exchange contracts are denominated in dollars. With $300 you get 5 barrels of oil or 1 ton of wheat. But if there is no longer this reference and if we no longer need to ask for dollars to exchange, what is the dollar made out of nothing worth? If Iraq had abandoned the dollar, there was a risk of devaluing the dollar currency and then limiting its use, which would have reduced the taxation of bank interest when creating money and limit the purchase of assets to the international. The American people, who import a lot, would have seen their purchasing power collapse as a result of the falling value of the dollar. That would have raised a lot of questions and called into question the system in place. One can then logically imagine that the decision-makers considered it more reasonable to submit Iraq militarily and set an example. We are on another scale than a scam by a loan shark. The system has become so out of control, we have put our finger in a spiral that is now causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, that many countries are condemned to misery and others to war in order to preserve our system, which is nothing more than domination by one over others. We cannot hope that things will improve. The system is unhealthy and insatiable. It is based on lies, cover-ups, dishonesty, corruption, abuse of power and now violence on a large scale. Do not think it will reform itself. On the contrary, it will ensure that it becomes unbeatable and that we are totally subject to it. In fact, the system is becoming so unfair that it will need more and more power and control to survive.

Here is one more element. Shortly after Iraq, an unbearable threat hung over the hegemony of the global banking system. It is the Libya of Muammar Gaddafi. This man had succeeded in transforming his country on the principle of directing his natural resources towards his people rather than a small number who offered them abroad. He had started preparations to create a pan-African currency, with African financial institutions that would have as securities Libya's gold and asset reserves and fed by its energy reserves. The aim was to give African countries the opportunity to free themselves from the tutelage of the international banking institutions that they operate through their interest-bearing loans. It should be remembered that Libya respected the instruction of Islam not to practice usury. The prospect of Africa following Libya's path was an extraordinary opportunity ... for the peoples of Africa. There was also the prospect that all Muslim Arab states would join this non-usury currency, and then all Muslim countries. Oil could have escaped the dollar. For Western imperialism, under the yoke of the bank, this was unacceptable. France, England and the United States destroyed Libya and its political system and allowed the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi. There was a prosperous country which wanted to help its neighbors in misery. And my country was on the front line to wipe it out and sack it. Some readers may find it hard to believe because the crime is so shameful. I hope that other readers will find the courage to testify to the peoples who have given their consent to attack Libya, its past prosperity, its initiatives to develop other African countries, preparations for the gold dinar, African financial institutions and all the plots suffered by Muammar Gaddafi. I also hope that some will testify against the torrents of lies and insanities that have been poured out on this man, preventing the peoples of the West from opening their eyes. May this destruction serve as a lesson and raise awareness.

  We must also see the threat that looms over us concerning technology. Indeed, our civilization is advancing with great strides towards a very important automation of many tasks of production of goods and services. A small number of people will be needed to meet the production of goods and services for all humans. We are going to have two possible paths. The first possibility is that the machines will be at the service of men and few restrictive activities will be necessary. Leisure, artistic, tourist, interpersonal and personal development activities will be predominant. The other possibility is that a small number of individuals take possession of these machines on an exclusive basis. The majority of the population would then become economically useless. Indeed, most of what a man can produce would become too expensive compared to a machine. For example, in Western medicine, we are very close to having a diagnosis made entirely by a machine that can prescribe drug treatment, this with a lower margin of error and at a better cost than a doctor. The political choice is therefore decisive in determining whether priority is given to the human or the machine. If only the economic criteria is retained, the profession of doctor will disappear. Many professions will disappear. So if a small group has the rights to use and own the machines, the others are entirely dependent on them for survival. Well, my opinion is that the logic of usury dictates that we move towards a complete enslavement of the population to the possessors. It would seem logical to me that currently, large loan sharks are gradually taking possession of large technology companies and organizing their domination over intellectual property. The majority will then be considered and treated as cattle. But if countries do not accept this logic, we will find a “valid” reason to wage war on them to enslave them. Imagine a country that takes the first path: a prosperous country, little restrictive work, a cultural, artistic, spiritual influence. This country will help these neighbors in the distress of total submission through usury ... if it has not been destroyed preventively. We come back once again to the evidence of the need to stop waging war. It is the only way to avoid complete subjugation and the misery of humanity.

  Finally to finish this chapter on usury, we must reflect on the negative rates that appeared a few years ago in Japan and recently in Europe. I have not yet found a deep reflection on the implications of these negative rates. So I will still submit my analysis to you, noting that it has a limited perspective and has not been confronted with other informed opinions. It may well be that other events, which I have not identified and which are quite different, occur. I have not necessarily identified all the tricks of this deeply unfair system. The solution to change this system will not come from anticipation. We must understand the need to choose a fair system, based on a fair moral. It is the best guarantee to avoid crisis. However, what is explained earlier in this chapter has been well studied, confronted and understood. If you want to understand for yourself and I encourage you, do not miss the article entitled “Monetary creation in the modern economy”, by Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas, who are economists of the board of Bank of England Monetary Studies. You will find there described the functioning of a “modern” central bank by the very people who work there. This conciseness, transparency and completeness is exceptional enough to be noted. But don't expect anything more than a technical description of money creation.

So let's go to negative rates. First, it must be understood that it is not the opposite of wear. The opposite of usury is to give or lend free of charge the money you really own and without a binding repayment schedule. In the system in Europe (and probably in Japan, but I do not know it in detail), fundamental pillars of usury are still there: money is made by banks alone against the promise of a refund, whatever the rate. And the money is destroyed at the time of repayment. there is always a binding repayment schedule. There is just one parameter that has changed: the rate becomes negative. We must therefore remember the deep sense of usury: monopolizing wealth exponentially. It is the transfer of property to those who already have the most possession. There is a point when there is nothing left to transfer. The system is still going on because property for those who have nothing has been replaced by labour. Those who have not, work for those who possess. It's a slave system. The big issue for the system now is to continue. The injustices are now becoming too visible. But the heart of the problem is usury. And we will see once again that the interest rate is the heart of the problem, whether it is positive, as we saw at the beginning of the chapter, or whether it is negative, as we will see now. The problem is that interest is not created. The banker lends at a positive rate, and it is the money at that rate that pays him and therefore motivates him to create the money he is lending and take the risk that it will not be repaid on schedule. Because in that case, he will have to remove from his reserves the equivalent of the money that has not been repaid. Other loans, which mature later, are needed to repay and pay the original interest in full. If the rate is positive, the debtor must pay the interest. If the rate is negative, the creditor pays with these reserves. So it is not a banker who lends at a negative rate. No, those who lend at negative rates are those who have large amounts of cash in their possession or under their management.So the money that is lent at a negative rate is money that already exists. But overall, this negative interest rate loan has not added money to the system that needs it so desperately. It's just that a small part, corresponding to the negative interest, of what is accumulated and limits the exchange of others is put back into circulation. The rest has to be returned on schedule to the creditors. The money owed from the positive interest is still missing. And many still borrow at positive rates. Thus, the lack of money is not compensated by the negative rate. The debt at the global level will tend to increase as long as there are still loans at positive rates. That's it for the theory.

  But how can negative rates come about?

  For the system to continue, this debt must be facilitated so that those who are in debt can still go into debt to pay off their previous debt. States are highly visible examples of this phenomenon. In order for States to continue repaying, rates must decrease. Otherwise they are not in a position to do so and that is the end of the system. We have seen the localized example in Greece where the increase in taxes to repay the debt has contracted the economy by 20%, making the country even less solvent. This has facilitated the creation of a lot of money, with lower rates so that States can borrow to pay off their previous debt and thus keep this system going. But this has had the consequence of creating huge masses of money captured by the big owners. The possessors continue to get richer and the debtors can still repay. Inflation is supposed to be an indicator that too much money is being created. But inflation is a deceit, you can see on the price of the cars of the very rich that the evolution of their purchasing power goes much faster than inflation or the evolution of the minimum wage: at its release in 1966 the Lamborghini Miura was worth 7.7 million Italian lira. In euros, which took over from the Italian lira, this corresponds to approximately €85,000 today (in 2019) including inflation. That is to say that for this price we should be able to afford the most beautiful grand touring car of the moment. But if you want to buy today a Koenigsegg Jesko, you have to pay more than 2.82 million euros. And that's about the price of cars in the hypercar category. There's a factor of almost 40 spread. That is an increase in purchasing power of 4000% above inflation. This does not mean that inflation affects the rich more and that they should be pitied. It means that there is a market for this type of car in very strong growth because there is a hyperclass that has at its disposal considerable amounts of money for trivialities. What about the first price car: in 1965, the very popular Renault 4 cost 5,200 French francs. This corresponds, taking into account the inflations retained by the central banks, to a price of 7000€ in 2019. To acquire today's first price car from the Renault group, you have to pay 3€ per day. Yes, experience it, it is indeed not obvious to know the cash price to pay for the acquisition of this vehicle, a sign that it is more and more necessary to go through a credit for people wishing to acquire a first price car which could be rejected by the amount of the acquisition considering their purchasing power. If you look a little, you will find a catalogue price of 8190€ (in 2019). It would be a little more expensive if it was made in France, as was the Renault 4. Either the same order of magnitude as the Renault 4, or the same price as the Renault 4L (the "second" price). This difference also reveals that someone who had the opportunity to buy a Renault 4 could dream of one day buying a Miura, the most beautiful car in the world, and that it was within the means of the middle class. Today, the materialistic dream is inaccessible to many. All this to say that too much money has been made out of debt, it will never stop, because there is still more missing, so there are two scales of inflation that coexist. One for the hyperclass that benefits from injustice and one for the debtors. We can thus see the birth of a new aristocracy based on the possession of financial securities, that is to say a plutocracy.

  Returning to monetary problems, we have owners who have assets whose value is fixed by what they bring in and/or liquid reserves that we call money or currency. Their wealth increases sharply. On the other hand, we have debtors who have signed payment schedules forcing them to repay under the pressure of losing everything and ending up on the street. Finally, there are States that ensure that the system is maintained. Possessions must bring in additional cash, which is the principle of a usurious system. But it is not the big owners who borrow. The two possible levers are to broaden the base of borrowers and that those who borrow, borrow more. The necessary solution is therefore a general trend towards lower rates. One could hope that the system would stabilize by moving towards zero rates and that usury would disappear. But this is not enough, because the system has gone too far, it does not just lend at interest, it charges interest that does not exist because it was not created. It cannot be stable. We are in a system beyond usury, which could be called super usury or hyper usury, by lexical analogy to the appearance of hyper cars for a hyper class. Bankers, and only the bankers' cartel, create and destroy money according to their rules. An important part of the debts, corresponds to interests that have to be repaid without the money necessary for this having been created. But you have to pay! Some will then give their goods, their work, others their land, others their body, ... others their soul, ... their child. How long will we endure this? How long is it sustainable? The elementary lucidity of a financier (not necessarily a banker who creates and destroys money, but someone who simply manages money) is that at some point in time he will realize that the colossal accumulation of debts cannot be repaid in full in the medium term. This is what he calls a bubble. You can call it a debt bubble, but since all money comes out of debt, it is a money bubble, or bubble of the financial system. The financier is aware that it is going to explode. There are going to be big losses at the systemic level. The consequence of the money bubble exploding will be that there will be less money in circulation. So having the guarantee that in 10 years time you will have kept your money, or almost all of it, can be satisfying for a lucid financier. So he can leave it in a deposit account at the bank. But the bank made a lot of loans to earn interest. These loans may not be repaid by the debtors, because at the systemic level, there is a shortage of money which prevent to repay all the loans. It is quite possible that, as a last resort, the bank's losses will be covered by deposits. In France, a law was passed to this purpose, transcribing a 2014 European Union directive. At the end of 2015, all customers with a bank account received a letter to advise that in the event of the bank's bankruptcy, a guarantee fund would only cover up to €100,000 of the assets. This implies that French people's deposits are no longer their property in the event of the bank's bankruptcy. But they will absorb untenable promises to hide the fact that the bank did not have the money it was lending.  And what is not said is that this guarantee fund, in France, can only cover 50,000 customers. That is enough to compensate a medium-sized city with this partial compensation. If a single large bank goes down, that is to say impacting several million individuals, many individuals may lose everything. But, it is to be expected that, in order to cover up this scandalous robbery, the State will give a symbolic compensation from its own pocket...obtained by indebtedness to other banks or by taxing citizens. So, letting money sleep in the bank is not without risk. It's even very risky if you have large sums of money (more than 100k€). Moreover, the European Central Bank is trying to discourage the practice of keeping cash by imposing a negative interest rate on a fraction of the cash deposits held by banks.

 Another solution for the money manager is to go back to the old fundamentals: buy gold. You will see gold prices rise as negative rates develop. Measures to discourage the purchase of gold have already been and will be undertaken by States. And gold stocks are limited. Another solution is to stockpile banknotes. But there's a storage cost, the risk of fire, theft and rats eating the paper. The major drug traffickers are well aware of the problem and what it costs them to store money in banknotes.

  So one solution is to lend money to a reliable debtor who will return the money, or almost all of it, in 10 years' time. And the most reliable in the West is the State, because they can tax the whole population and the economic actors. So the most reliable countries are granted loans at negative rates, some big companies also benefit from these favours. This makes it possible for a financier to know how much he is going to lose. But be careful, I would remind you that I do not believe that this is a case of monetary creation. Indeed, the banker, who has the power to create money, is not going to do so if when he does so he has to pay interest. He is not interested in doing so. So, in the case of negative rates, we are talking about cash investments that already exist. So the systemic problem of lack of liquidity remains, or even worse, since the banker no longer lends at negative or very low rates, which reinforces the liquidity shortage. It is likely that the central bank will have to buy back bonds, which is done by creating money. This mechanism is called quantitative easing. Less prudent bankers, or their backs to the wall, still lend at positive rates to the riskiest debtors, as this still pays short-term interest. But the debts are becoming more and more risky, financiers call them rotten assets, because one day they will be worthless.

  Another effect of negative rates is the mechanical increase in certain assets. As a reminder, an asset is a title whose possession brings in money. For example, a share, which is a title of possession of a fraction of a business enterprise, is an asset. Its value is a composition of what the business owns and its ability to generate cash or profits. Therefore, a business that is well established in its market(s), which are mature, essential or strategic, has a fairly stable or guaranteed ability to generate profits. For example, the supply of electricity or drinking water. Unlike a pur financial security, which yields nothing, the share continues to yield about the same amount. So this stock starts to take on a lot of value, since it pays off. So when interest rates on credit fall, the stock market goes up. So those who owned assets see their values rise sharply. Thus, by very low rates, those who owned become even richer and the others can take on more debt.  The large multinationals take on stratospheric and strategic values. An asset that is worth 100 because it yields 5, or a 5% return, could see its value rise to 1000 in a context of zero or negative rates, because its return would be 0.5% and if its market was difficult and it only earns 3, it would still have a return of 0.3%, which is always better than a bond with a negative or zero rate. We are thus moving from a system in which power passes from the banking institution to the one that owns or manages assets.

  It should be noted that, apparently, the States are interested in this fact of paying negative rates, because it decreases their budgetary item of the payment of the interests of the debt. This allows them to limit the harshness of the reforms they impose on their people in order to collect ever more taxes demanded by the interest on the debt. Elected officials may appear less unpopular and show economic success, which is in fact only to have postponed the moment of bankruptcy, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to have devalued the savings of small savers compared to those of large owners. In fact, it is just the means of making the State entity survive in order to perpetuate the unfair usurious system. We have witnessed in France the sale of all the common goods of the States such as transport companies, water management, electricity, telecommunications, automobile, energy, airports, gas, defense, highways ... and now they're getting very valuable and they're charging us higher prices to pay those who own them. It thus appears that of all the regalian missions of the State, i.e. what justifies its existence and its right to receive taxes, there are in fact only two left: security and education. The organization of exchanges, freedom of expression and work, access to consumer goods and basic necessities at reasonable prices for all, the defense of the weak, ... have been abandoned. But don't be fooled, the security provided by the state is also the strength to force you to repay your debts that you cannot repay. It is also the power to silence those who oppose these abuses and to protect those who organize these abuses. Education is also the means of ensuring that you do not perceive that the institutions that were put in place by our elders have since failed in their role and seek only to survive for the sake of those who occupy them. The problem for the Ministry of Education is to make citizens who are productive on one hand but docile on the other and that the subversive elements explained in this book should not be encountered and especially not understood. The good news is that one can reasonably ask the question what is the use of the State, since it is lacking in these regalian missions. In France, in particular, it levies very high taxes on us, but what is the use of the service provided in return? Do we really need it? We can remember that a citizen is an inhabitant of a city. Could we not limit the essence of community management to the level of a city?

  Usury is about to pass to another phase. Just as all the gold and silver metal is not enough to satisfy the interest payments from a time, so usurers are going to attack everything we still possess: lands, houses, companies of all sizes, the natural resources of a country... everything is going to be progressively invested. It's the law of exponential. More and more. And the facts are there, you just have to read the CETA treaty chapter 8, "Investment", which the European Union has written and is in the process of having ratified (2019) in each parliament in the States. This is the invasion or investment plan. We will look at this in detail in the next chapter.

In order to envisage a short-term solution to all the problems of our economy, without rethinking everything, it is necessary to act on the cause: the interests that are not created. The way to deal with the past is to inject cash to cover all the interest that has been generated in the past and cannot be paid back. But for this to make sense, this money must not be destroyed later, which would only displace the problem. So the central banks' Quantitative Easings cannot be called a solution. I suggest that each inhabitant of a given monetary zone should receive a monthly amount of liquidity until the money thus created can compensate for the interest due but not created. This is not demagogy, but a necessity so that everyone can pay off their debts. To avoid galloping inflation, interest cannot be created definitively. Therefore, only zero interest loans should be allowed for new loans. Although some people believe that usury should not be prohibited and that non-zero interest rates can be allowed, the monetary system must be reformed in its essence all the same. Whoever lends must actually lend the money they have. The money must be pre-existing debt. It remains to be defined where the interest is taken. And for a healthy solution, it must be based on honesty and therefore without interest rates. Money will also have to be created and available in the quantity adapted to the volume of trade in the monetary zone.

  But this is part of a longer-term solution. And, be aware that whatever the solution and its term, it cannot be taken by one or more representatives of the people in the current legal framework. Indeed, it depends on the competence of the central bank. Thus, neither in the euro zone, nor in the dollar zone, nor in the pound sterling zone, nor in the yen zone can a democratic process implement this solution, because in all these zones, the central bank is independent of democratic control. And yet that is what we call democracy. And it is in the name of this democracy that these same currency zones wage wars. Do you still understand the motive for a democratic war?

  To conclude this reflection on interest loans, I invite you to limit your appetite for money, because you are controlled by it. You can, on the other hand, refuse money that does not correspond to real work from your part because this money corrupts your judgment and your humanity. Be aware that with this super-usurious monetary system, only force allows us to function with more debt than money. Without military force, this unfair system will not last. Offer yourself, your brothers and sisters, your acquaintances and the world in general, the greatest of treasures: peace. Once peace is achieved on Earth, super usury will appear incongruous, it will no longer have the use of force to maintain itself and will disappear. Above all, let's not reverse things. Forcing the suppression of super usury would use violence and will never bring peace. The super usurers will not give up such a position of power. A conflict would give them the opportunity to continue. The path is as important as the destination. The end does not justify all the means, contrary to what the entertainment industry hammering at us.

If you want to take action to change this way of operating, think about what you want to do. A good chess player thinks several moves ahead. Look at the pieces your opponent has: immorality, lies, corruption, violence, war. They all protect each other, and in the last resort war is the masterpiece, the king and the queen at the same time. For, you can get all the victories on the moral level, when you believe that the final victory is near, a good war will come and turn everything upside down and bring chaos. If you are reasonable, you have certain limits that you will not cross. They do not. They will win. And since history is written by the winners, they are the ones who will explain that they are the salvation of the world and how unhealthy your positions are. You won't get a chance to say anything else, and it's unlikely they'll even let you live. So my advice to you first and foremost is to cover your backs while taking down the ones of super usury. Ensure Peace, lead initiatives so that wars are no longer possible. Then you can face the other pieces of the game: immorality, lies, corruption, violence. When a piece becomes aware that it no longer has its reliable support, it will lose its self-confidence, it will understand that it will have to assume the consequences of its actions and it will end up giving up. Then this will put another piece without protection, which in turn will resign itself. Of course, if you really do something useful for peace, all the pieces will attack you, because you will attack the heart of the system, but they will only be able to do so in moderation if you stay in peace, for peace. For peace is the most shared wish of the rest of mankind. The super usurers do not ignore this and cannot openly and directly oppose peace, otherwise all the pawns in the game would be united with you against them. They would then very quickly be driven out of the game. Be peace.

The more determined you are to take the time to do this, the faster it will happen.

But for that, I need other chapters to give you some elements for not being misled by an unhealthy system that has already succeeded in making almost all humanity believe in its "normality", and even its "modernity".

  To conclude, the technologies of great powers are under the control or the influence of interest groups that no moral ethics has restrained. These people can and will one day unleash a planetary catastrophe. The question is not whether this will be voluntary or conscious, but whether it is inevitable. If you let children play with a loaded gun, it is inevitable that one day there will be a serious accident. Once you realize the peril that these interest groups represent, in order to free yourself from their influence and control, the way is to deprive them of brute force and chaos. Do you understand that the means and the consequence are the same? The path and the destination are the same. Do you understand that peace is a need and a necessity? But the real question where it all comes down to is: how many of us think so?

Chapter 4: CETA

This chapter is a bit tedious, because I'm not going to teach you a lot and I'm going to quote you gruesome sentences on the form, and indecent on the substance. They are taken from the CETA European treaty. A tip I suggest is to fly over or simply skip the AACC quotes first, as the content is summarized before or after. You may just go back to the quote if my summary seems implausible to you and you want to read it through with your own eyes.

But this chapter is important. In the previous chapter, I explained to you why our interest rate loan system was unethical and unhealthy. It can be difficult to grasp for some people, and for many it remains an abstraction. Namely, that they can hear that our economic system has unhealthy foundations, but these are only reasonings, perhaps speculative. We also have to make sure that it is in line with what we are experiencing, so that it is a reality. Well in this chapter, you will see that gangrene is real, visible and has reached the constitution of the European Union and Canada. And which is in the process of expanding to other areas with the preparation of free trade treaties between the European Union and these areas. Thus, the main thing that you will learn is that the political project of the European Union is a big lie that in reality establishes a financial dictatorship that deprives people of all justice. If this is already obvious to you, you can skip to the next chapter and come back to it later, when your mind is lighter. But many French people do not understand that the British have decided to leave the European Union. Some even believe that the question of Europe must not be discussed, and that has the consequence of accepting anything. They think that being alone outside the European Union is exposing oneself to great difficulties vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Perhaps, but you have to compare to what they are now exposed to. What some “pessimists” supposed, can now be read black and white in the CETA treaty. If you do not react to everything that was exposed previously in this work, life will become more and more painful and our civilization will die out in a while. And if, in this future, later archaeologists or people from elsewhere find this constitutional text, they will understand that it is not an asteroid that ended our civilization but our moral conscience: a civilization has chosen to organize according to predation, injustice and deception. As we understand, or understand, that Sodom and Gomorrah were doomed to disappear given their manners.

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a European constitutional treaty involving European Union and Canada. This is how the European Union presents it: “It will facilitate the export of goods and services, which will benefit citizens and businesses, both in the EU and in Canada. ”. However, an administrative decision to lower customs rates would be sufficient to achieve this objective. But, it seems necessary to have a treaty of 1057 pages to do that. Isn't that a bit suspicious? The European Union wants free trade everywhere. It is its essence. But behind these words is the meaning that the strongest must have the absolute freedom to act as he pleases. He must be able to impose his choices without possible challenge. Victims or even the majority of the population must not be able to obstruct it. And that's what it says in the text, Chapter 8: Investment. Let's see concretely what this tedious text says:

At the beginning of the text, it is explained that a “Party” designates Canada or the European Union or its member states.

The article “8.4 Market access” decrees that the investor must be able to buy wherever he wants in the quantity he wants and that nothing should oppose it. But it is not expressed in this way where the meaning is obvious. CETA editors prefer to use reverse logic: there is everything that a “Party” cannot do so that the meaning does not appear obvious. It is therefore not very pleasant to read. The responsibility lies with the authors of CETA, but I want you to see for yourself:

“ 1.   A Party shall not adopt or maintain with respect to market access through establishment by an investor of the other Party, on the basis of its entire territory or on the basis of the territory of a national, provincial, territorial, regional or local level of government, a measure that:

(a)

imposes limitations on:

(i)

the number of enterprises that may carry out a specific economic activity whether in the form of numerical quotas, monopolies, exclusive suppliers or the requirement of an economic needs test;

(ii)

the total value of transactions or assets in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test;

(iii)

the total number of operations or the total quantity of output expressed in terms of designated numerical units in the form of quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test  ( 8 ) ;

(iv)

the participation of foreign capital in terms of maximum percentage limit on foreign shareholding or the total value of individual or aggregate foreign investment; or

(v)

the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular sector or that an enterprise may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related to, the performance of economic activity in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test; or

(b)

restricts or requires specific types of legal entity or joint venture through which an enterprise may carry out an economic activity.

“

You see, it's not pleasant, but can the authors clearly express their deep intentions? "I want everything, everywhere, all the time" is honest, but it is not politically correct. It is therefore necessary to find a way to obfuscate the content by making it boring in order to dissuade people from wanting to understand it. "Enlightened" speakers are there to comfort and tell us what is important. It's so much more convenient. Well, no, I'm going to bore you a bit by quoting this text to make you aware of the enormities therein.

So this article 8.4 establishes that a country, a nation, a state is reduced to a super market opened to investors by the mere fact that one is an investor. On which moral basis can one affirm this? Yet a country has a history, a culture, beliefs, legends, epics, choices, religions and people that make it unique and that there are usages and practices that must be respected, especially when one comes from abroad. It is also understandable that certain professions, communities, groups, regions, are protected or privileged in the framework of national cohesion and solidarity. We could call this basic civility. If you want to access someone else's resources, in a civilized world, you should ask for their consent. If the resident declines the request, we apologize for the inconvenience. And if the resident agrees to offer his or her location, we thank him or her for giving the opportunity to enrich ourselves and we can begin negotiations to find out how the benefits will be shared.

 If you don't understand it, I will take the metaphor of a family and its housing. In the framework of a twinning agreement between a city A and a foreign city B, it was agreed that the administrative staff of city A would be able to come and stay in all the homes of the families in city B as if they were in a hotel. All accommodations and what is inside should be accessible to them. And conversely, all the administrative staff of city B could have access to the homes in city A and use them at their convenience, just like the families who live there. Do you still find this normal? Just because there is reciprocity between the administrative offices of city A and city B does not mean that the agreement is fair. In fact, there is a huge injustice of the administration over the rest of the population.

Let's look at the rest, what does Article 8.5 say: " Performance requirements"? It states that the products or services resulting from investments must be independent of any local constraints. For example, it is not possible to require the use of local suppliers, even in part. The text is as follows:

“ 1.   A Party shall not impose, or enforce the following requirements, or enforce a commitment or undertaking, in connection with the establishment, acquisition, expansion, conduct, operation, and management of any investments in its territory to:

(a)

export a given level or percentage of a good or service;

(b)

achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content;

(c)

purchase, use or accord a preference to a good produced or service provided in its territory, or to purchase a good or service from natural persons or enterprises in its territory;

(d)

relate the volume or value of imports to the volume or value of exports or to the amount of foreign exchange inflows associated with that investment;

(e)

restrict sales of a good or service in its territory that the investment produces or provides by relating those sales to the volume or value of its exports or foreign exchange earnings;

(f)

transfer technology, a production process or other proprietary knowledge to a natural person or enterprise in its territory; or

(g)

supply exclusively from the territory of the Party a good produced or a service provided by the investment to a specific regional or world market.

“

Thus, to continue with the metaphor about the family, the administrative staff of the other city, who will later be called the intruder, might demand to eat on a table of a different height that he would bring from his city. He may require to eat in the middle of the night. He could also invite colleagues who have a more interesting conversation than guests who do not make the effort to speak his language. But if the hosts want to receive guests, the intruder must accept because you cannot impose the company of someone he does not want.

Perhaps you are beginning to find this unbalanced.

The same section then continues by stating that absolutely nothing can be demanded from an investor, even in exchange for compensation. The wording is as follows:

“ 2.   A Party shall not condition the receipt or continued receipt of an advantage, in connection with the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct or operation of any investments in its territory, on compliance with any of the following requirements:

(a)

to achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content;

(b)

to purchase, use or accord a preference to a good produced in its territory, or to purchase a good from a producer in its territory;

(c)

to relate the volume or value of imports to the volume or value of exports or to the amount of foreign exchange inflows associated with that investment; or

(d)

to restrict sales of a good or service in its territory that the investment produces or provides by relating those sales to the volume or value of its exports or foreign exchange earnings.

“

A community can give aid, that's fine, but it must limit itself to giving and possibly asking, but it is clear that this remains at the goodwill and discretion of the investor.

To continue the metaphor of the family, the intruder is happy to be given money so that he can tolerate guests that his hosts would like to receive. But he gives them his answer only after the money has been received. And under no circumstances does a refusal imply that he returns the money. In this spirit, in response to the request to have guests, the intruder accepts to receive money to select some (§3). It is clear that we are dealing with a despotic relationship where everything is a one-way.

You may be wondering why I insist so heavily on this treaty. But it is simply because it is our constitution. Everything described in it has a value greater than any law that could then be passed. It seems to me necessary that you should be aware of the gravity and the importance of this text.

Let's continue with Article 8.6 National Treatment. It requires that the foreign investor must be favored or at least receive the same treatment as local actors. I leave it to you to verify this:

“ 1.   Each Party shall accord to an investor of the other Party and to a covered investment, treatment no less favourable than the treatment it accords, in like situations to its own investors and to their investments with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, conduct, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment and sale or disposal of their investments in its territory.

”

To put it explicitly, the foreign investor must have the best share. No reason is given to justify such an injustice. One can therefore make some assumptions. Perhaps it is a compensation or a revenge for the fact that before, historical and local actors were privileged: what was called national preference? We can also see the idea that the weak at home must find harsher conditions than the strong who can come and invest his surpluses elsewhere. It should be noted that this is in the same morality as the idea that the person who has difficulty repaying a debt will pay more interest and will therefore be in even greater difficulty. Isn't this a legalization of the jungle law? The lion's share shall be the biggest one?

If we use the metaphor of the family home, then the intruder can claim the best of the house. The host's room for example. Or even the place in bed with the woman. Isn't this a case of gross abuse?

A normal reaction would be to throw the intruder back in his place. That is to say, to throw him out, using force if necessary. We then understand the following article "8.10 Treatment of investors and of covered investments" which calls for the protection of investors:

“

1.   Each Party shall accord in its territory to covered investments of the other Party and to investors with respect to their covered investments fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security

”

Why is it necessary to write such evidence? Is it obvious that we are in a state of law where everyone has the right to protection? Why not also include tourists? It seems necessary to grant a special status to the investor. As if, by its action, it can provoke reactions that would endanger him. Perhaps, it is necessary to suggest to the investor to respect his hosts and to make sure that they also find their interest in his presence and his action.  It would have been more balanced to put duties on the investor rather than letting him plunder and have to protect him. We can speak of financial colonialism. It is necessary to realize that the investor, in this treaty, is different from the rest of the actors of the nation. And this difference is superiority. Is this not contrary to the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cited in the preamble of this treaty, as well as to the French Constitution?

With such arrangements, it is inevitable that disputes will arise. Thus, it is also important for the authors of this text that the requirements imposed on States for investors are arbitrated along the lines of the previous articles. That is to say, to the detriment of all other requirements regarding the protection of the weak, equity, solidarity or any other humanity value. This flagrant and immoral imbalance is manifest in the functioning of arbitration. Thus the courts of justice, which could integrate other requirements than those of the return on investment, cannot be seized, or will be placed at a lower level.

We still see the imbalance because only the investor can file a complaint. It is in article 8.18 “ Resolution of investment disputes between investors and states ” , section “Scope”:

“1. an investor of a Party may submit to the Tribunal constituted under this Section a claim that the other Party has breached an obligation  ”

Such roughness is in fact necessary because in this text there is no duty nor obligation from the investor. Therefore nobody is allowed to hold him accountable. Giving the possibility to complain against an investor would imply that the investor has duties, even if they are not listed in this text. Thus, through the chosen form of arbitration, you can once again see that the international investor is a separate status that has only rights and no duties.

Thus, to use the metaphor of the family home, the intruder can complain if the host does not want to leave his place in the marital bed, but the host cannot contest such a requirement. And if he does not accept, he will be condemned and will have to leave his place in the marital bed.

The following article 8.19 “ Consultations ” is not without irony, as it invites the parties involved in the dispute to reach an amicable agreement.

“ 1.   A dispute should as far as possible be settled amicably. Such a settlement may be agreed at any time  ”

The party that is attacked has nothing to negotiate since it has no rights over the investor but only duties towards him. Not submitting to the investor under such conditions is unreasonable. Indeed, the text has been designed so that there are no possible ambiguities. Thus, these words announce the color of what will happen if the victim does not submit. In the victim's interest, it is recommended to not challenge the order established by this treaty.

Let's see who will arbitrate: In article 8.27 " Constitution of the Tribunal ", it is made clear that the members of the tribunal shall be specialists in international law and, if possible, specialists in international investment:

“ 4.   The Members of the Tribunal shall possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to judicial office, or be jurists of recognised competence. They shall have demonstrated expertise in public international law. It is desirable that they have expertise in particular, in international investment law, in international trade law and the resolution of disputes arising under international investment or international trade agreements. ”

This means that the arbitrations that are judged by this tribunal are rendered by people whose job it is to ensure that the letter of the law is applied and in no way the spirit of the law or justice. On the other hand, to be recognized specialists in international law and investment, this implies that these judges must be past, present and probably future employees of international investors or people working closely with international investors.

 Now, back to the testimony of John Perkins, in his autobiographical book "Confessions of an economic hit man".He worked on behalf of international investors to convince the leaders of countries of the need to go into debt in order to develop their countries through international investments.  He is therefore qualified to be a judge of this tribunal, especially since he worked in courts of law as a paid expert to argue the benefits of certain investments such as nuclear power plants and to minimize their negative impacts. His conscience reminded him to testify that he was an economic hit man. But he did so after his career. How many of the judges have, or will have, a conscious awareness of the reality of their actions. The caste of those who can complain is also the same or has control over those who can judge. This has nothing to do with justice. That is probably why this word is not associated with this court.

 If you are still in doubt about the imbalance of this arbitration authority, it is written in Article 8.30 " Ethics " that a judge must not be tied to a government.

“ The Members of the Tribunal shall be independent. They shall not be affiliated with any government   ”

Thus, judges are necessarily in cahoots with investors who have only rights on the one hand, and no connection with a government that endorses their duties and obligations on the other hand. So here is the ethics of the authors of this text: the total domination of statefree surplus possessors over any other actor of the nation. But it is not enough to write the word ethics for one thing to be moral or right.

Thus, in the framework of our metaphor of a family home invested by an intruder, the man who would refuse his place in the marital bed, would be invited to negotiate with the intruder. For, if he persists in opposing the intruder, he would be judged by a court composed of experts in intrusion and domination, i.e. rapists and pimps. Yes, it is written in the convention that the 2 cities have signed. But for this metaphor to remain coherent, it should be added that this convention had been written and proposed by the mafia, which also massively has infiltrated the administration of the 2 cities.

There is no recourse by a government at the international level, except to enforce the decision of the arbitration tribunal. This is article 8.42 " Role of the Parties ".

“ 1.   A Party shall not bring an international claim, in respect of a claim submitted pursuant to Article 8.23, unless the other Party has failed to abide by and comply with the award rendered in that dispute. “

Thus this court is the highest decision-making authority.

Turning now to a strategic point: Article 8.29 " Establishment of a multilateral investment tribunal and appellate mechanism ".  It is thus quickly and explicitly stated that the arbitration tribunal, the highest decision-making authority on investment matters, must transfer its jurisdiction to a third party body that it is only known that it will be international and that it will involve other actors...

“ The Parties shall pursue with other trading partners the establishment of a multilateral investment tribunal and appellate mechanism for the resolution of investment disputes. Upon establishment of such a multilateral mechanism, the CETA Joint Committee shall adopt a decision providing that investment disputes under this Section will be decided pursuant to the multilateral mechanism and make appropriate transitional arrangements. ”

This article is indicative of who will lead investment in the European Union and Canada. As we have seen, it is not the governments of Canada or the European Union, but international investors. This provides the legal framework for the multinational company or international investors to invest in Europe and Canada. There is a transfer of sovereignty to ... an opaque structure with no obligations, which does not depend on a nation to which accountability could be demanded. The dream or goal of the European Union is now realized: the paradise for financial assassins to operate legally, or the establishment of a gigantic colony for financial invaders to invest in. Where is the protection of the European Union against the other hostile actors of the world? The reality is that it is handing us over to them tied hand and foot.

One conjecture that can be made is that while the "independent" European Central Bank organizes the liquidity shortage in the euro zone, the other institutions (the commission, parliament, council) are passing this treaty to give carte blanche to investors that our representatives will beg to come and bring work and unlimited produced cash from the dollar zone. Europe is thus at the dawn of a colonization that it had not undergone since the Roman Empire.

Now, I would like to draw your attention to Article 1.9 " Rights and obligations relating to water ". It is explicitly stated that water cannot be considered as a good or commodity like any other. States have the right to preserve it: Here is the wording of the treaty:

“ 1.   The Parties recognise that water in its natural state, including water in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers and water basins, is not a good or a product. ”

Thus, a limit to widespread commodification is set out.

What think of this article knowing Chapter 8 "Investment"? Should we be relieved that our country cannot be transformed into the Sahara by the greed of some? Should we be satisfied that some had the courage to put a limit to the omnipotence of international investors? Or should we see that the limit is written and therefore everything else is allowed?

Let's take our metaphor one last time, the convention between cities A and B stipulates that the intruder must respect the life of the guests. If a man prevents the intruder from killing his wife, the intruder, and only the intruder, i.e. the murderer, can file a complaint, but it will be rejected if the court composed of rapists and pimps recognizes that he has exceeded the limits set by the convention. He will then have as a penalty to pay the judge's salary. If the intruder has only raped the woman, the intruder will be recognized in his good right and the host will be condemned to compensate the rapist intruder and the judge.

I hope I have drawn your attention to the roughness of this treaty. I hope that the metaphor highlights the excess of male energy in this treaty, which manifests a domination in law of some over others just because they are stronger, or rather more cunning or richer. Balancing these energies with feminine energies could have universal momentum and support.

We must realize that this treaty has the value of a constitution. It will be very difficult to revoke it, because it will require unanimity of the countries. Moreover, it binds us with an external partner. Therefore, it cannot be denounced with immediate effect. It has a persistence of 20 years (Article 30.9 of the CETA: "the provisions of Chapter Eight (Investment) remain in force for a period of 20 years after the date of termination of this agreement, with regard to investments made before that date"). If you read the treaty of operation of the European Union, you will notice that everything is conditioned to the present and future treaties. The CETA is moreover formulated in the spirit of a constitution with the inclusion of a preamble which is normally supposed to give the context and the spirit of the text. As I have bothered to go through it, and in the light of the preceding explanations, here is a preamble that more sincerely reflects the context and spirit of this constituent text:

Proposed preamble:

"We, the caste of the greedy statefree, in order to establish our total domination, have whispered to your representatives this founding text in which we have only rights. In order to make you adopt this text and to dissuade you from reading it, we have flooded with administrative information the essential element: our treatment and that of our investments. The treatment of kings and the lion's share. We have taken care to list all the artifices of laws that have hindered our predation in the past all over the world. You will not be allowed to use them. As some of you will understand that we are abusing our liberty, we have set up an arbitration mechanism, ensuring that this text, which gives us all the rights, is respected to the letter. You only get what you deserve."

End of the proposed preamble.

I am aware that there is cynicism in this proposal, but this is what I feel when I read Chapter 8 on the one hand, and the overabundance of administrative details that have nothing to do with constituent elements on the other.

This text was written and validated by the European Union, including your elected representatives in the European Parliament, but also validated by the French Parliament and approved by the Constitutional Council of France, whose role is to guarantee respect for the constitution and the sovereignty of France. The latter has found nothing to complain about!?!

However, here is a very different point of view, one that highlights fundamental questions about this constitutional evolution. As discussed in the previous chapter, the interest-rate loan is a mechanism for the permanent transfer of wealth to the wealthy lenders. When wealth is no longer sufficiently accessible, the borrower can no longer repay under normal conditions and has to submit to actions that he would not otherwise have done. Like accepting underpaid work. Because he is indebted to the owner. He ends up becoming his slave. What free trade does is to put societies that respect people in competition with slaveholding societies. When free trade is enshrined in law, it prohibits any compensation that would rebalance the market. In this way, slave companies can produce at a lower cost than companies that respect people or the environment. To survive in a totally free market, without the support of the community, they will be inclined to adopt a slavery model. But this model of usury based on the mathematical law of exponential cannot continue indefinitely. There comes a time when slaves cannot give more than all their time to work. In order for the system to last, it is necessary to break this rent from the ownership of money, while keeping the labor force submissive. And this means is the asset. It is a title to something that brings money. Another name is investment. Since money no longer yields money on its own (the case of negative rates nowadays), the asset is very valuable because it yields money. So it starts to be worth a lot of money. But it becomes inaccessible for those who have no money or assets. The latter will only be able to borrow in proportion to his slave wage. A lifetime will not allow him to borrow to acquire or build an asset. On the other hand, the one who has a significant asset can borrow to buy other assets. The society will split itself between the owners of assets and the others. Small savers will be washed out. In order for this new system to take hold, it is strategic to sanctuarize the asset. It has to pay off structurally. It is therefore necessary to make sure that nothing will stand in the way of profitability, such as social laws, the emergence of competing assets financed by the community, the restriction of natural resources, the help of certain small non-slavery actors to expand in order to lower market prices, etc. For this, constituent laws are needed that cannot be easily modified. This is the role of the CETA: to provide a sanctuary for investment. Having control over an investment is becoming equivalent to having control over a fiefdom in the old regime (before the French Revolution). And this precious title of ownership will remain in the family, ensuring its durability. As in the nobility of the old regime. You must not take the risk of bothering investors bigger than you are, otherwise they will attack your markets and ruin your investment, which will send your family into the misery with the people. Moreover, to simply avoid the attack of a big investor, it will be necessary to put oneself under the protection of another big investor, who will demand a commission in an allegiance contract, as there were taxes and tributes against protection in feudalism. Some, by their bravery or genius, may emerge but will not become princes or kings, the place provided for in this system is knightly, the first echelon. And the system must be served. In short, CETA restores the old regime. Burning the titles of nobility in 1789 was not enough to eradicate the idea of hereditary domination and submission. We did not return in 1788, at the end of feudalism, but in -10000, when men were going to begin to regroup and establish rules to face the law of the jungle, the law of the strongest.

The French and European system of democracy is bankrupt, and it is worth thinking about how it has come about. Perhaps the system is bad and needs to be changed, but perhaps it does indeed represent the nation. A nation with a weak morality. Is France still a people, or a mass of populaces as Victor Hugo understood it?

"At all levels of society, everything that works, everything that thinks, everything that helps, everything that tends towards the good, the just and the true, is the people; at all levels of society, everything that languishes through voluntary stagnation, everything that ignores through laziness, everything that does evil knowingly, is the populace. Above: selfishness and idleness; below: envy and laziness: these are the vices of the populace. And, I repeat, we are populace at the top as well as at the bottom. "Victor Hugo.

I am aware that reading this chapter will make more than one French, one European or even one Canadian person feel uncomfortable or even desperate. But, my goal is to bounce back, and it is first necessary to reconsider oneself and realize that we are falling. Take advantage of this chapter to understand that you cannot trust the political class and its system that we have inherited to deal with issues of the utmost importance such as nuclear risk management. Concrete ideas for hope and rebound are offered in subsequent chapters.

Chapter 5: Duality

In previous chapters we have seen negative aspects of our civilization. Before acting, we need to step back and understand our world. A fundamental notion of this world is duality. If you don't understand it, you endure it. But if you do understand it, you can see and figure out how to compensate an imbalance.

Joy-sadness, warm-cold, day-night. We are in a world composed of opposites, or to be more precise, complementary polarities. We can define cold when we know hot. If there were no warm, we would only have a constant temperature, then the notion of temperature would not exist. Another example: how would you explain the notion of color to a born blind man who has never seen light? So to grasp the full potential of a notion, we need to know these 2 polarities in a significant distance. It is within what we are not that we discover what we are. This is my understanding of Tao, Dao or yin-yang.

The 2 complementary colors each occupying half of the circle and the small circles of the opposite color represent the manifestation of one polarity within the other.

        It is in the midst of darkness that we can see our light. It is when we illuminate that we identify a black area that does not reflect the light. But the small circle is also there to remind us that everything is never completely of one polarity. Even in the greatest despair, there is hope. A state, a situation, a thing, is never completely black or completely white. This symbolizes that the absolute or perfection is not of this world.

The shadow has spread throughout the world, its main means of propagation is the interest rate loan and its financial and moral corruption, which I call usury as a whole. It makes more and more injustices, miseries and horrors visible. These manifestations or effects make humans aware of a problem. Their empathy wakes them up. The more the Shadow advances, the more numerous are those who wake up to their deep nature of compassion and not of domination over another. There is thus a necessary evil for our greatest good. "Much good would not happen if there were no evil in beings," said St. Thomas Aquinas. And in the end, at a higher level of understanding, our tormentor is our benefactor. As a benefactor, we are grateful to him. We can then free him from his role as tormentor and not condemn him. We must make him understand that it is no longer necessary to take on such a difficult role. To make his or her fellow suffer is very painful for the consciousness...when it is awakened. The victim does not need to punish the offender, because the time will come when consciousness awakens and remorse and pain invade the tormentor. These can only be alleviated by repairing. Thus the victim becomes aware of his or her light and unfolds it all around the darkness of the tormentor. The darkness is revealed, consciousness can arise.

Of course, this is not immediate and it can take many painful experiences to understand and live it successfully. It is often in the pain we endure from someone that we awaken to the idea that we are behaving the same way with someone else. You reap what you sow. Don't do what you don't want to be done to you. This is the golden rule. The simplest and most immediate solution is to return evil for evil. But experiences show that this is rarely instructive for the executioner. As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye and the world will end up blind". Indeed, we are rarely impartial during a conflict and not always in a position to give back precisely what we have received. Escalation is the consequence as a rule. The situation only calms down once a balance of power has been established. This is the reason for the strongest. And each side thinks it is right. The initial tormentor is strengthened in his position. The other solution, more difficult at first glance, when one is a victim, is first to understand that the act committed by the tormentor is bad because it is not in our deepest nature. The victim comes to wonder how such cruelty can reign inside that person! The victim comes to say: "I'm not like that deep down inside. I can't do these cruel acts. I don't want to return this evil. This invites us to deploy treasures of goodness and richness of soul to find solutions to make the tormentor understand his mistake. We must bear in mind that one day he will suffer from it.

        It is a work on ourselves in depth. We need to develop the ability to understand what hurts us and how another person is responsible for it. This implies formalizing a principle of improper behavior and highlighting that this is precisely what the tormentor does. But the fact of having identified a type of behavior that is inappropriate to one's morality allows one to link it to other practices that one does by oneself that also fall under this inappropriate principle. Moreover, it is very difficult to recognize one's mistake and this can take time. The victim may be led to understand that he or she was at first a tormentor and that it may be up to him or her to change. But if there has been an escalation of violence before, it's very difficult to get this lucidity. To take the example of the temperature, if we find that it is too hot, the solution is to bring back some cold in order to balance to a temperate level that is pleasant. If it is very hot, you need a lot of cold to solve the problem.

        I draw attention to the fact that I am talking about a solution. I am not saying that this is the systematic way to deal with an aggressor. I think that some people want to be on the dark side and they're comfortable with that. There is not always a solution. The goal is not to make the darkness disappear, but to contain it. Having a self-defense reaction can put limits on an aggressor. It can also keep us alive. But the solution lies in understanding duality: accepting the need for polarities, knowing where you stand and doing what is necessary to repair or rebalance and giving others the opportunity to do the same.

The right conditions are met when an offender believes he is superior to his victim and believes he is doing something good or right. The door of consciousness is then unlocked and the victim can hope to open it. But it is by having already experienced this work of opening consciousness on oneself that one can understand what the offender is feeling and bring him to open himself. This person who patiently accepts to bear, knows this feeling of superiority that the offender manifests. He knows that it corresponds to a quest to do well. He can therefore lead him to realize that his position is not to respect the golden rule, for example, has nothing superior and is paradoxical with the justification of his attitude by the knowledge of the good.  He who has endured has had the humility not to impose his vision of the good and has not violated the golden rule. Humility has been superior to superiority. The latter can then resume its path towards improvement, towards higher level, that is to say, to pass to humility and not believe oneself to be superior.

        Let's now look at some examples to better understand. France, and a few others, attacked Libya, in order, we were told, to protect the Libyan people. France has now withdrawn from Libya for 8 years. But this is what we can read on the official website of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

"Security conditions in the Tripoli region are deteriorating. Military confrontations and air strikes are underway. It is recalled that the Libyan territory is formally discouraged."

Patrick Mbeko in his book Objectif Kadhafi, tells us that the West has imported and armed terrorist groups to attack the ruling power. They have seized strategic sites such as arsenals of ammunition. France then went before the United Nations to prevent Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, from using air means to defend his country. What can we see today? Terrorist groups and traffickers are thriving in Libya, and the new power is trying to defend itself with air means, as Gaddafi had tried to do. The facts, and I invite as many people as possible to testify, show that the implementation of the objective of protecting the Libyan people had dramatically opposite results and the representative of the country was savagely murdered. Can you imagine the impact on his supporters? Many Libyans lost their home, a parent, a spouse, a child, a brother. It would seem logical to me that the majority of the Libyan people feel victimized and see France as their executioner. What should the victim country do? It wants justice to be done. I agree, but who is going to render this justice? The balance of power is not for the moment in Libya's favor. How should the victims react? How should they make France understand what they have suffered? Isn't it logical that some want to make France pay? Is there any other solution than to think of carrying out a terrorist attack in France? There are millions of Libyans, isn't there a risk that some of them will act? I hope that the French are grateful to all Libyans for not taking revenge on us. May this enlighten us. Yet we have suffered terrorist attacks in France since our attack on Libya. Has this allowed France to question its hostile attitude towards certain countries? I can tell you that no, quite the contrary. We are very hostile, to the point of sending missiles, towards Syria and we are unfortunately more suspicious towards Muslims. France is still giving lessons to other countries by using force. Isn't this an attitude of superiority?

        Are Libya or Syria demonstrating aggressiveness or superiority? I hope by this example that everyone understands that striking back does not solve anything and makes the situation worse. Nonetheless, France will have to find a way to make amends in order to do justice to Libya. If the French understand that the predatory forces that have openly poured out on Libya are also present within their country, silently, France will be able to solve many problems and much suffering. And this situation is not recent, see what Gandhi said: "I believe that through all the bloodshed, all the wickedness and all the deceit that the West is resorting to on a colossal scale, the whole of humanity is advancing silently but surely towards a better age". Indeed, one day we will come to understand that he who surpasses others in lies and brutality has no moral superiority over others. This will be a great progress. But we're not there yet, at least in France and probably not in the West.

Let's move on to an example on the scale of an individual. I'm going to relate a story told by the famous and beloved writer Victor Hugo. In his novel Les Misérables, he describes the french society from 1815 to 1832. And we understand the title. In this society, people do not eat enough, children work, workers are exploited, justice is ruthless and perfectible, a character sells her body to feed her child. In this misery, we follow the journey of Jean Valjean, who comes out of 19 years of bagne for having stolen bread to feed his family. He is rejected by everyone because of his status as a former convict. However, a bishop, Monsignor Myriel, offers him lodging and a meal. But after eating, he runs away and steals his silverware. Brought back by the Police in front of the bishop, the latter reacts in the most unexpected way: he forgives him and testifies having offered him the silverware, saving him from a permanent return to jail. He also gave him two chandeliers to encourage him to adopt a virtuous life. Jean Valjean is then transfigured. In a state of material and spiritual misery he discovers the nobility of soul and its transforming power. From then on, one discovers throughout the novel a man full of compassion, courage and generosity facing tribulations, often giving and sometimes receiving acts of great humanity in the midst of human misery. Through this story Victor Hugo wants to show that wickedness is sustained by material or spiritual misery. And that the redemption, the resolution, the exit from this state passes by an interior fight of the soul which can only take place thanks to an enlightening act, of great generosity, in the opposite of misery, wickedness and punishment.

It is important to understand that the notion of duality is not limited to good and evil, or shadow and light. We can also see it in notions such as electricity with a positive and a negative pole, but also money, the engine of our society and of many individuals. More precisely, money is an energy that powers the engine of our society. This energy is so powerful because some people have a lot of it and some are in desperate need of it. Wealth and poverty are the two polarities of money. Long ago, Ruskin, in England during the 19th century, in the lair of budding capitalism, wrote:

"The strength of the guinea [money in England] you have in your pocket depends entirely on the absence of a guinea in your neighbor's pocket (...) The art of becoming rich, in the ordinary mercantile sense of the economist, is therefore the art of keeping your neighbor in poverty".

One can add that the interest loan ensures the permanent repatriation of money to wealth, preventing a rebalancing and making poverty structural.

The concept of duality helps to understand that there is something more subtle than a simple classification between right and wrong for a given notion. For it is necessary to have the complementary notion in order to appreciate it. In other words, one cannot say that a given notion is good or evil. After all I have explained to you about usury, one could nevertheless say that usury is wrong. I would rather say that it is very selfish and its large-scale deployment can cause collective disasters. I think usury also has positive effects. It has allowed us to experiment that we can operate on a large scale with a virtual currency, made from nothing. This gives interesting possibilities for eradicating poverty. Lack of money is no longer an excuse since it can be made on demand. Moneylenders have developed technologies to monitor inflation and the monetary masses in circulation. This will be very useful in order not to jeopardize the system if some money is made to fight poverty. These tools make it possible to be informed as soon as possible to act on the levers of money reduction. Money is like energy, which one can have in an unlimited amount, but one must have the wisdom to use it correctly so that it benefits everyone. It does not seem to me that this stage has been reached by present day humanity. Nowhere. Therefore, let us not be too eager to destroy the unjust system that is in place. It could be replaced by something worse.

It would be much more reasonable first to acquire a little wisdom, by establishing peace for example. This would also have the advantage of limiting the most harmful effects of the current system based on usury.

Another effect of usury, more subjective, is its trend to stifle any technology that brings gratuity and freedom to the masses. It is such a loss of income for the usurer that he will invest in order to stifle them and keep his grip. Paradoxically, I think that the confiscation of certain technologies has had some positive effects for humanity.

To understand, I will tell you the story of the first invention of Viktor Schauberger, the master of water. This man was a forest ranger at the beginning of the twentieth century in mountain forests in Austria. There was an isolated area where there were woods of great value, very old and of great density. Like ebony, they did not float. These woods were therefore extracted with great difficulty and a lot of time by men and animals. No one could find a solution to make the loggers' task easier. The helicopter did not exist at that time. A competition was launched to find solutions to this difficult issue. And Viktor Schauberger, who observed nature with admiration, had noticed that certain water movements could lift stones. He used this principle in canals to transport wood that was not floating and won the competition. His invention was implemented. But Viktor Schauberger was horrified to see that the forest was soon completely razed to the ground because of the efficiency of his invention. His technology, which made extraction almost free, destroyed the natural heritage of his region.

Thus, many people have worked and are working to develop technologies for the service of humanity. Especially in the field of energy. But these are stifled by usurious power. I refer you to the investigation in the Thrive movie by James Foster Gamble. There you will find examples and also an emphasis on control by finance.

Well, despite this, I wonder what our planet would be like if energy was free. I'm sure many people would use it to make money. Maybe we wouldn't have any more forests on Earth. Many mining resources would be overexploited causing ecological ravages. We would heat our buildings without insulating them... In short, we do not yet have the wisdom to exploit a major resource in unlimited quantities. And usury has saved us from this pitfall. Be aware of this before you remove it.

Let's now see now how the understanding of duality can help us to solve the generalized problem of our world: we are in the reign of the law of the strongest. Cunning and technology have been employed in the service of the domination of one over another and of humans over animals, plants and minerals. Cunning and technology are manifestations of intelligence. Although stupidity is its opposite, this is not what will rebalance and save our world. It is necessary to identify a complementary value that can compensate for the excessive effects of intelligence.

The answer is Unconditional Love. To give without return, to forgive, to see the other as a brother is antagonistic with domination. When humanity has balanced its intelligence with Love, it will have attained wisdom. The Golden Rule will be understood and applied by all. But today those who control are very intelligent but have not yet attained wisdom. They feel superior but do not see that they are leading us to the abyss. Many are incapable of compassion and therefore are at the beginning of their development. Humanity may seem stupid to them precisely because of its sensitivity, which allows it to be manipulated.

But there comes a moment when the human being wakes up before injustice, iniquity, cruelty or nobility of soul, thanks to his heart.

In order to rebalance, we need a great solidarity to provide each one with a small effort of fraternity, gift, or forgiveness. The less solidarity there will be, the greater the effort required from those who rebalance. If there are too few people, there will be no balance.

By now you should be aware that all the difficulties described in the previous chapters are also opportunities for change and progress. And that you do not heal evil with evil. If you wish to change what is wrong in this world, you must first change your perception of this world. Once you understand the usefulness of these problems or difficulties, you will know whether it is appropriate to keep them or whether they can be changed, and you will find out what to do. If you think you have understood, think for a few moments about what it is reasonable to do...

Here is an explanatory example of a proposal by Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov, who mastered duality perfectly:

"One erects statues to men and women who are considered as benefactors. Because they saved the homeland or discovered vaccines, because they were great poets, great philosophers, etc., they are placed on a pedestal. And we are right, of course, I am not saying that we should take away their glory. However, I think that those to whom we should erect the most beautiful statues are our enemies... But yes, they are our true benefactors: thanks to them, we are obliged to become more vigilant, more intelligent, more patient. You think it's not serious? Well, figure out what you want, but still try to think about it a little: often our friends put us to sleep, while our enemies push us around. You'll say, "But that's awful, they're going to destroy us! "No, if you have a high ideal and a sincere desire to move forward, you will receive the knowledge and the strength to use every obstacle that your enemies put in your way. These obstacles will be like steps that will allow you to climb higher and higher.”

Chapter 6: The Allegory of the Cave

        Here is a small synthesis of the previous chapters: the world is sinking into obscurantism and the path taken leads to our end. The reversal of this tendency can only be done in consciousness. The consciousness of a problem, the consciousness that we do not cure evil with evil but in Love.

The next step is the solution. But are the consciences in a position to find it or even to accept it if it is given to them? At the time of Socrates and Plato, they were not. To explain this, Plato reports the symbolic story that his master Socrates used to explain the illusion in which men find themselves and their categorical refusal to accept another interpretation of their world. It is the allegory of the cave. I invite you to read this allegory, which is not very long, but which allows us to see Socrates' clairvoyance, his pedagogical talents and his oratory art. You will discover that men are like slaves chained in a cave and that puppeteers shape their reality with the help of projected shadows. They are chained so that they cannot observe the puppeteers. If a man manages to escape and persevere towards the light of day, despite the dazzle and fear of the unknown, he will discover another reality, new and therefore destabilizing. But with practice, he discovers freedom and can contemplate the world in the open air and in the sunlight, he discovers the true nature of things and not their shadows. His compassion for other men pushes him to return to the darkness of the cave to help them. But Socrates specifies that the task is arduous because it causes great psychological insecurity for the slaves, who may even go as far as to murder him.

What the wise man tells them is simply incomprehensible and unacceptable to them. And this is precisely what happened to Socrates. He was accused and sentenced to death for corruption of spirits.

I think that, at the present time, few people would be able to accept a solution to the problems described in the previous chapters. Of course, there might not be the killing of the philosopher carrying the solution, but mankind would either ignore it or laugh at the proposed solution. The next step is therefore to understand that there is already a way to go to realize that we are in a world based on many illusions. What the world believes for some is based only on beliefs and cannot claim any certainty. The next step is therefore to provide the means to evaluate the solidity of our knowledge and achievements and to be able to accept solutions that are appropriate for a better future. In the language of Socrates, this means identifying the chains that keep people in mental slavery.

Everything is based on our assessment of what we call 'true'. Because everything we consider true is integrated as certain. And these certainties together form the framework for our experiences and our evolution. It is our living environment, our universe. For example, if I believe that all bacteria are dangerous, there are a lot of things I don't do: there are a lot of places I don't visit, a lot of food I don't eat, a lot of things I don't touch. And if someone wants to prevent me from going to a place, all he has to do is say that there are bacteria in that place. My world is therefore limited to sanitized places. I am afraid and I spend a lot of energy to protect myself. And since my immune system is not stimulated enough, I get sick at the slightest deviation, which comforts me in my certainties. If someone questions this certainty, I am then faced with a major dilemma: either they can contaminate me if they are wrong, or I recognize that everything I said and did was completely useless or even harmful. This provokes a profound discomfort: I have the choice between being attacked or being absurd. This phenomenon is called cognitive dissonance. And the natural reaction is to avoid it. Or even to do everything not to be confronted with it, even if it means killing Socrates. It is much more comfortable to reaffirm one's certainty in opposition to this insecurity, but it is to lock oneself into one's certainty.

That's why, it's not enough to ask for a solution, you have to prepare yourself to be able to accept something new. This preparation is as important as the solution. The path is as important as the destination. The goal and the means are inseparable.

You may experience this cognitive dissonance in the next few paragraphs.

So let's look at how we establish what is true. In fact, we need evidence. We consider something to be true if the evidence we bring is already considered to be true. For example, a table is horizontal because the bubble on the spirit level indicates it. And we consider the spirit level to be evidence. But we come to the following problem: how did we decide that these proofs are true? For the spirit level, it is that we trust the manufacturer or the merchant who sold it to us. In general, we have inherited the knowledge of the truthfulness of information from our education or our environment, these being shaped by our predecessors. This simply reflects the trust we have in our predecessors and the system they put in place. This is explained in the fable of the Monkey Theorem.

A community of about twenty monkeys are isolated in a room where there is a ladder with a banana on top of it. As soon as one monkey starts climbing the ladder, the others are given a cold shower. The monkeys therefore start violently preventing any monkey wanting to access the ladder. After some time, a monkey is replaced by a new monkey who has not attended the cold shower event. Seeing the banana, he will try to climb the ladder, but immediately, his fellow monkeys violently attack him and push him away. Then a second monkey is replaced again. He too is repulsed by all the other monkeys including the one who does not know why he should not climb the ladder. The phenomenon is repeated until all the monkeys are replaced. We then see that the monkeys prevent all the others from climbing the ladder without anyone knowing why. Thus most of what we take for certain or true, is in fact only a legacy of which we have no idea of the origin. Also, some revolutionary minds have gone on a crusade against beliefs they consider absurd. And since our mode of operation is based almost exclusively on inherited certainties, there are many opportunities to see absurd certainties. The idea over the last few centuries, especially in the West, since the Renaissance period, has been to find rules so as not to be invaded and controlled by inherited certainties. Thinkers have thus thought about defining concepts and methods to challenge certainties and assert the superiority of their certainties. This initiative has been called science. And some have achieved convincing results. For example, the prediction of the return of Halley's comet. Science-based technologies have brought about transformations in lifestyles that everyone has seen. Thus, some truth seekers have defined protocols to convince themselves, not by inheritance, of certain truths and refute others. These "truths", or knowledge, could be verified by many people. And we have come to the conclusion that if we apply the scientific method, we have the truth. For many people, especially in the West, there is the certainty that what is done scientifically is true. However, very few are scientific, and therefore have not conducted research using scientific protocols. And among the few who do implement these protocols, how many have found any truth? They are very, very few. Thus humanity, to protect itself from the inherited certainties, which we can call beliefs, has built up an enormous one. Namely that truth is acquired through the scientific method. But this is nothing more than an inherited belief. Drive out the natural and it comes back at a gallop. This is manifested in common expressions such as "this is true because a scientific study has proved it". However, the person does not know what experiments have been carried out, but is convinced simply on the basis of the word scientific. No, the scientific approach was developed to convince oneself and to provide elements for others to make up their own opinion. One can simply read the protocol followed by a study. But there can be mistakes. Repeating the experiment described in the protocol increases confidence in the result found. But some people may still be skeptical, others may find conditions that invalidate the previous result. The evidence is in fact subjective. For some, it will be necessary to follow a very strict, repeatable protocol, to integrate measurement incertitude...for others, a calculation is enough, for others it only needs to be logical.

 The mistake is to believe that one can prove it definitively. Truth is an inner notion, whereas proof is an element that one brings to prevent any contestation. One imposes from the outside a certainty on another individual. The incontestable is an illusion. The judicial institution speaks well of intimate conviction in order to judge. It is in the depths of oneself that one can judge the interest and the relevance of the elements brought in, which are called "proofs".

We have thus seen that our universe is built by our certainties, and that these can only have a true foundation if they are based on our interior. In other words, the reality of our exterior is the reflection of our interior.

Now let's look at what we call a religion. It is a set of knowledge and rituals that allow us to understand the world and to live our daily lives according to this understanding. Every great religion has at least one prophet (Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Zoroaster, Confucius, ...). Great worship is often associated with these people because they left a deep mark in the consciousness of the people of their time. This trace is that the witnesses attended exceptional events that could be explained or provoked by these prophets, making it obvious that they were touching the Truth. Prophets also have the gift of communication. The explanations and advice given by these prophets have been transmitted from generation to generation in the form of knowledge and rites. But the Truth, which these prophets touched, cannot be limited to knowledge and rites. It is like the wise man pointing to the moon to the fool who sees only the finger of the wise man. Socrates and Plato talked about concepts or ideas not to be mistaken with their materialization in form. The finger is not the moon, but is useful to find it. Religious writings can describe with a lot of information the finger, the hand, the arm of the wise man, but it is not enough to know the moon. One must also keep in mind that the other arm, hand or finger can point to the moon. It may be a stick, or even a telescope. Thinking that the means by which the prophet showed the Truth is the only valid one is equivalent to thinking that only the finger of the wise man is called the moon. Gandhi said "he who has gone to the heart of his religion has gone to the heart of all religions". Yet we argue, often violently, to impose the superiority of our religion. But I understand that one is very sensitive to a prophet and to the texts that tell his story and his precepts. One can feel the transcendence of this person and his message. This should in no way diminish the value of another religion.

Let us now look at science, it follows the same path: some men seek explanations, they want the truth and try to understand and explain the universe and its laws. Other people are then subjugated by this knowledge and its implementation, such as healings, predictions, or technology. The rites of this quest are the scientific method or protocols and the manipulation of equations. The Nobel prize winners in science are the correspondence of the saints of the Catholic Church. They are those who have understood a little better than others and have applied good practices to get a little closer to the Truth. Pythagoras is the first prophet of science.

Chapter 7: The limiting principles of science

Society makes extensive use of sophisms or scientific justifications to reassure itself that what it asserts is true. Sophisms are also abundantly used to fool people about a belief by making it seem true. Scientific religion is based on the fear of being fooled and demands scientific proof. However, it is easy to see that these proofs prove nothing. This does not mean that science is a bad religion, but it reminds us that it is a religion like any other. Here are some basic principles to keep in mind when you are presented with scientific justifications.

Limiting principle number 1: Principle of the nullity of proof by example.

One example is not proof. Neither are a thousand examples.

It is accepted to say that a theory, an assertion, or a result has been scientifically studied and therefore proven when it is repeatable under defined conditions.

Here is a scientific demonstration that multiplication is equivalent to addition:

2 + 2 = 4

2 x 2 = 4

I tested it on pigs, cars and pajamas.

I interviewed a sample of 998 people.

I performed the calculation on computers of different brands, operating systems and resources.

In 100% of the cases, the addition corresponds to the multiplication. Figure

established by statisticians whose diploma has been verified by a judicial officer.

by a court official.

So I have scientifically proven that addition is equivalent to

multiplication. So some people can convince themselves that this is basically true.

However, it is not true, despite the many examples. And it is very easy to prove with the following principle.

Limiting principle number 2: A single counterexample is sufficient to prove a theory false.

2 + 3 = 5

2 x 3 = 6

and 5 is different from 6. So multiplication is not equal to addition.

Yet many, if not almost all, scientific studies associate a confidence or error rate with their result. addition is equal to multiplication within 20%. Or is equal in more than 99% of the cases. But if only one case cannot be explained, it means that the phenomenon studied is not understood. Scientists like to talk about anomaly concerning the counter example. But it is the theory that is an anomaly. Authentic science says that the theory is wrong if there is a single counterexample.

The study can make sense if the failed examples are explained by the fact that the conditions for applying the theory were not met. For example, one can imagine having an antidote to a poison that works below 38°C. A failure was observed because a patient had drunk hot tea just before, which deteriorated the antidote in the subject's stomach.

Limiting principle number 3: Experimental science evolves

Experimental science is based on concrete, observable phenomena. These sciences try to explain why a phenomenon occurs. The ability to reproduce a phenomenon transforms a hypothesis into knowledge. This is the experimental method. Physics, chemistry and biology are experimental sciences.

They are different from the exact or formal sciences, which only use logic on reduced hypotheses. We can cite mathematics or computer science as exact sciences. It is conceivable to consider their results as exact, unquestionable. But be careful not to take this statement as a dogma. For example, you can never be completely sure that logic has been used correctly all the time.

The parameters influencing the experiment are not known a

a priori. Potentially the whole universe has the possibility to influence an

experiment. The job of the scientist is also to determine them.

The observation is done through measurements. These are subject to

uncertainty that must be taken into account.

These experimental sciences are first of all a work of simplification. It is out of the human understanding to apprehend the whole universe at once. We start with an enormous amount of information and we try to simplify it to give it a meaning. The scientist isolates the causes and conditions of a phenomenon and describes the expected transformation according to a model.

The contribution of a scientist is to give a meaning or an explanation while his contemporaries only see a confusion of phenomena. Once his model has been understood, integrated and assimilated, other people can then contribute to a new or more refined understanding. Thus, in essence, the laws of experimental sciences are brought to be abolished to leave the place to new and more developed ones.

 Therefore, it is contradictory to say that something is true on the basis of an experimental science, because this one will, by definition, soon be updated because of false areas.

Beware, many people call physics an exact science. Because "Nature obeys laws that have mathematical representations". This is an unproven hypothesis. Indeed, we find mathematical laws to explain phenomena. But because they are updated from time to time, it means that we cannot assert that a law is definitive. For example, Newton's classical mechanics was extended by Einstein's relativistic mechanics 218 years later. So if we do not know the eternal representation of a law, how can we know that it exists? The fact that Nature obeys immutable laws is a belief. And the fact that science has discovered these immutable laws is also a belief. These beliefs may be true, but they are not proven. It is possible that universal laws exist and science tries to provide a model as close as possible. This cannot be called exact. That would be an abuse of language. It implies that what the physicist says is unquestionably correct. No, he is trying to make sense and to predict. Just like an astrologer. In fact, a famous physicist like Kepler was also an astrologer. His model is only an extrapolation of the cases he encountered. This extrapolation can use mathematical or computer tools. But the use of a mathematical model or a concept from an exact science does not mean that the model reflects reality exactly. It means that a theoretical model has been found that approximates observations under certain circumstances.

Limiting principle number 4: A statistical model is limiting

Man in his quest for understanding regularly reaches limits, cul de sacs. But his will to understand and predict is sometimes greater than his capacities. Mathematics offers a tool that allows us to investigate the next stage in our quest. It is the statistical study. As we are unable to

understand what happens, we study the phenomenon in a black box. We will predict things not by applying a law of operation, but in relation to what has already happened. Using this type of approach is almost the only solution when you have a lot of hypotheses or input data.. This is for example the case in economics or meteorology. It is not surprising that these sciences are wrong in some of their results. They often associate a degree of confidence with their predictions. For this is not an exact science. Even if the tool used is taken from an exact science. Thus, when a theory integrates a statistical model, it is because the theorist has given up on understanding the phenomenon. He makes his impotence official. He may receive glory for the veracity of certain predictions and admiration for the complexity of his model, but if the impotence is feigned, then the actual science will remain in the same stage of evolution because it has given up on understanding. Science is the search for explanations. Science progresses when new and additional explanations are discovered. Statistics and correlations do not explain anything.

Limiting principle number 5: Statistical interpretation can say one thing and its opposite.

Here is a fictive example: we study the effect of a medicinal plant on a sample of 100 people who have a headache. It is compared to a treatment with a new chemical molecule. Among those who took medicinal herbs, 20 had fever and 11 saw their pain disappear within the hour, that is to say 55% of success. Among the 80 who did not have fever, 55 saw their pain disappear within the hour, i.e. 58.75% success rate. In total, 66 people were relieved with a medicinal herb (66%). In the study on the new chemical molecule, 50 had fever and 30 saw their pain disappear within the hour, i.e. 60% success rate. In the 50 who did not have fever, 35 saw their pain disappear within the hour, that is to say 70% of success. This gives 65 people relieved with the new molecule. So if the study is presented by the manufacturer of the new chemical molecule, he will say that in all categories of headache, his molecule has always obtained better results: category without fever: 70% against 68.75%. And in the category with fever 60% against 55%. If the study is presented by the herbal vendor, he will say that by integrating all categories, the herbal medicine is overall more effective than the new molecule 66% relief against 65%.

So even with identical study data, different conclusions can be drawn.

Now be aware that, in a medical statistical study, many factors can be integrated that will introduce possibilities of interpretations. For example, the efficacy criteria, the duration of the treatment before it takes effect, the duration of the efficacy because the symptoms may return after a time; the environment (food, air quality, ...).  The power of the statistician is then preponderant in the conclusions. In fact a statistical scientific study is an oxymoron. These are two antinomic terms. In the same way as a cold flame. The word "scientific" comes from "knowledge" and "statistical" implies that nothing has been understood, and that it remains only to count and classify.

Limiting principle number 6: The illusion of proof.

The mathematician and logician Gödel stated and proved the incompleteness theorems. Namely, that in mathematics, what is true is not necessarily provable. There are true statements that cannot be proven. So if proof is your ultimate need to know or try something, you may be missing opportunities. On the other hand, bad people who have identified that you want a proof, will give it to you, even if they have to make it. Indeed, Gödel's incompleteness theorem also says that you cannot prove that your frame of reference (axiom system) is consistent. This means that you do not have a proof that the logical framework in which you are thinking does not contain contradictions. And the problem with running into contradictions is that you provide proof that something is true, but also, with the same logic, it can be proven false. It is sufficient to work with assumptions that you will accept as true but which in reality have non-obvious elements that are contradictory. The error comes from not identifying contradictions. What happens in everyday life is that we are required to demand evidence in order to know. These proofs are usually derived from elements that would also require proofs, but that society has accepted with habit. It can also be accepted because of trust. But in reality, there is no real certainty. Any reasoning that follows will not lead to anything sure. The conclusion that can be drawn from Gödel's work is that logic is not self-sufficient. However, some people assert things with great conviction. Even if it is a lie or an error. Faced with this type of person, the honest or authentic person is aware of the uncertainties and will at best be able to say that what is asserted is unfounded. But they will not be able to bring you proof, even if they are in the right. Thus, sometimes we are faced with lies that are asserted as true or proven, with great conviction, but the only contradiction that can be brought is uncertainty, which does not carry much weight for people who want proof.

In spite of all these warnings, you can still rely on science because it cannot be denied that it brings meaning, significance and explanations. Yes, but be aware that it is your choice, your conclusions, your deepest feeling, your intimate conviction ... like all other religions.

Chapter 8: The misleading principles

In addition to the scientific evidence reviewed in the previous chapter, it is also useful to identify a few other principles that are quite effective for preventing someone from thinking on his own or forcing him to accept something he does not want. These mechanisms are unfortunately used on a massive scale. Knowing them, and then recognizing them when you are subjected to them, is the way to become aware that our choices are oriented. These mechanisms are essentially based on our emotions and are the perfect complement to the "scientific proofs" that comfort our intellect. Our mind is caught between our thoughts and our emotions. These mechanisms are the means by which we do not realize that a usurious system has corrupted the whole society. These mechanisms are also used so that you reject any path that would lead you to emancipation.

Misleading principle number 1: Emote strongly to spread a message.

Arouse a strong emotion, usually fear, disgust, shame or fright. Almost always, this emotion will be fed and amplified by a multitude of vile details. This abundance of details should be a warning signal for manipulation. The manipulator's objective is to create a very unpleasant feeling, so that the listener or viewer is receptive to a solution that would stop or avoid this discomfort. We would like the manipulator to stop, because it is so unbearable. Once the person has been traumatized, the intended message can be delivered. Their intellectual defenses have been overwhelmed by the emotional assault. The brain is available for any programming. This can be explained by the fact that when primitive man was subjected to danger, he had to take the first opportunity to escape. His survival did not depend on finding a thoughtful solution, but on being reactive.

What happens in the consciousness when one is under emotional attack? One tells oneself that one is, or someone else is, in danger, or in great pain. One needs to do something to relieve this stress. This implies a need to decide quickly, or at least that something must be done. But the enlightened approach is to first understand or feel that there is manipulation and first calm one's emotions. Then to evaluate the importance or seriousness of the danger, then to evaluate the proposed solution and see, if necessary, if there is not a better one.

This process of manipulation is so widely used that it is recurrent. In my youth I remember watching the revolution in Romania at the end of 1989 on television. The media began to describe a sick dictator who regularly sacrificed young people for their blood. We were shown some dark images of bodies lying on the ground. We were told that it was a carnage in Timisoara where hundreds of bodies of opponents were piled up. They described it as a holocaust. Then a few days later, we were shown the trial of the dictator who was even shouted at by his advocate, and a few minutes later, he and his wife were sentenced to death and executed on the spot. Ouff, we were almost relieved that this monster was put out of action. This justice was tolerable for the whole political and media world and we stayed there. Then, a few months later, a journalist explained that he was withdrawing from the media scene because he had been misinformed about the events in Romania and did not want to repeat the misinformation he had given. He said that the pile of corpses was in fact a mass grave in a cemetery and that the dictator had nothing to do with them. And a few months later, we witnessed the first Gulf War against Iraq. And here we go again, a Kuwaiti woman testifies that the Iraqi army, when it invaded Kuwait, entered maternity wards and massacred infants in their cradles. For several days, the whole world was fed with this testimony, which was repeated over and over again on all the television stations. This testimony was completely false, but it was not known until much later, and the decision to go to war had won over Western public opinion.

All the wars of the West are justified by more and more lies. The attack on Libya did not escape this propaganda.

It is also worth noting that in the movies, we often have the hero who is subjected to an unbearable emotion that he can only relieve by accepting to act against his principles or the law. It is so frequent that it accustoms us to accept to act against our ethics supposedly for a higher interest. The end justifies the means.

        But our civilization is losing its soul. The real purpose is shameful and hidden and the means are barbarian. This method of misleading is so effective and our indifference to these lies is such that we are subjected to it in many areas. To sell us all kinds of insurances, but also for new medicines against great perils, justified by statistical "scientific" studies. See the limiting principle of science n°5. The problem is that society has gone too far and the temptation to create these perils is too great. In order to sell or to have a belief accepted or to have an iniquitous law accepted, one can create fear from scratch. To illustrate this, it is difficult to give an example without causing cognitive dissonance in readers. I will therefore limit myself to an example of fiction. It is the one from Star Wars where the dictator Palpatine is also secretly the leader of the separatist rebellion. He provokes the events that justify passing the laws that give him all the power. When a savior shows up, doubt that he can also be your executioner.

Misleading principle number 2: the fear of ridicule.

The not yet awakened individual looks outside himself for what is inside. The look of others is more important than the truth. He sticks to the opinion of the number. Thus, in order to divert someone from a path to knowledge or truth, it is appropriate to stir up the feeling of ridicule if the person is looking in that direction. Indeed, the mind that knows only by the opinion of others is in a weak position, because deep inside it does not know. This ignorance is the foundation stone of ridicule. It is more comfortable to believe that one knows by following what others say than to accept the weakness of not knowing. But as long as one has not made this path of humility, all knowledge is uncertain. It is once we accept that all we know is not in fact our own knowledge, that we realize that we cannot be sure of anything. We then experience humility. Then, one day, a life experience makes us discover or remind us what is true, what we can be sure of. Meanwhile, society reminds us that ignorance is a great weakness. This is not wrong, but it is also a necessity that we must experience. By reading Plato, you can discover the deep intellectual honesty of Socrates who asks to be explained the assertions he does not understand. It so happens that the ridicule turns against those who mock him, because he can explain what he doesn't understand, but they can't explain what they think they know.

How do you consider someone who mocks someone else on these beliefs (proven or false)? I see two main cases: the one who knows but wants to remain the only one to know and ridicules to discourage access to his level and keep a superiority. This person is Machiavellian. The chapter on ruse-fiction deals with this type of person.

And also there is the person who doesn't know and mocks the one who does know or tries to know. This person is not only ignorant, but also lacks the lucidity and humility to admit it. But he has the pretention to judge the level of intelligence or common sense of others. Sadly for this person, the path to access the knowledge that he mocks will be harder than for others. For, in addition to his ignorance, he will have to acknowledge his lack of humility, and his lack of humanity towards others. He has put himself in a straightjacket.

To illustrate how the fear of ridicule is used, an example is the study of the causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in New York on September 11, 2001. Some associations of people have conclusions with a good and explanatory argumentation. And among all their thorough work, there are factual elements such as the fact that the World Trade Center tower number 7 was not hit by an aircraft. There are also hypotheses that the aircraft that hit Towers 1, 2 and the Pentagon were drone-type aircraft, i.e. without a pilot on board. This is not possible for an airliner, at least at that time and still today. To ridicule the work of these associations, those who have the right to speak on the major media talk about these people as those who believe that no plane crashed into the World Trade Center towers.  And this is quite efficient, because many people do not evaluate the investigative work and when others do, they can see the relevance of their analysis, but then come to ask other questions that bring dissonant or very embarrassing answers that one does not know what to do with. The conditioned reflex is then to cling to the lifeline thrown by the media that these people are ridiculous. They are then reassured that they no longer have questions without sure answers, and that they are not among the ridiculous people or the people who give credit to ridiculous people.

The fear of ridicule is an almost universal principle: everyone is more or less sensitive to it. It can be associated with shame. Humans want to avoid it at all costs and are ready to do a lot to avoid it, including other ridiculous or shameful acts to hide the previous situation. This is the case of people who are in a position of authority but who do not have the legitimacy to be in this position. In practice, they will assert with great confidence what they absolutely do not know. They are afraid that showing that they don't know will unmask them. This is the impostor syndrome. People who know about the impostor are enemies to the impostor, and the impostor will want to dismiss or silence them. Thus, an institution with a great reputation can quickly fall into total incompetence. If an incompetent is placed at its head, he will make the competent people flee quite quickly.

 It then becomes possible to influence this institution. Large institutions can thus make absurd, even criminal decisions.

Misleading principle number 3: Repetition.

Repeat a false information many times and it will pass for true after a while. Example: From 2001 to 2003, it was repeated in all American media that America is in danger if we don't invade Iraq.  The Americans believed it. Seen from France, we did not understand that the American people felt threatened. But we were lucky to have a president who was aware of the madness of invading Iraq and the media in France could not freely hammer this lie in unison. Alas, the following presidents did not spare us for Libya, Syria and other African countries.

Psychologists have studied the phenomenon of anchoring. When we are asked for an estimate, if you are subjected to a result before giving your estimate, this will unconsciously influence you and your estimate will tend to be closer to what was previously proposed. This is because this first result then serves as a reference point. For example, when a group of people is asked to estimate the price of a property, the price variations are much less important if the price asked by the seller is displayed or known.

Now, imagine you were at a new kind of music show with your family. You didn't like it. As you leave, someone close to you gives their opinion, and, oh surprise, they loved it and explain their enthusiasm. You are surprised, you say to yourself, ah yes, there was that good that I didn't see. Then, another relative approves and gives yet more reasons. You think, well, you didn't notice that either. Then another one. That's a lot and you wonder if you might have missed the show. Most people will accept the arguments of others and temper their opinion, many will even say it was good, to conform. Fashion works on these combined principles: anchoring and conformity. Something new is presented to you as something to be adopted and then as everyone else starts doing it, you do it too.

Thus, when someone wants to instill a behavior or knowledge in you, it is important to arrive before you finish thinking about it and then repeat it. The more you repeat it, the more the reference becomes important, the deeper the anchoring. François-René de Chateaubriand, a French writer, said "Any lie repeated becomes a truth; one cannot have too much disdain for human opinions! "and understand the origin of the adage "Slander, slander, there will always remain something of it".

Misleading principle number 4: False flag operation.

Since man first settled down in our era, the law of the strongest has long prevailed. However, it was found that the system worked better if the population was cooperative with power. Thus the resources for population control could be allocated elsewhere and the population became more enthusiastic and productive. This made countries more powerful and gave them the opportunity to dominate others. But the population became less and less motivated to serve as cannon fodder and to slaughter their neighbors. In the past, it was enough for the powers to declare war in order to extend their domination over their neighbors. But for some time, it has been necessary to convince the population to participate in the war effort and to remain cooperative. It was then necessary to create propaganda. And the basis of this propaganda is that we are the good guys and the others, who must be subdued, are the bad guys. In order to validate this strategy, the bad guy has to attack first. Everything is done to provoke and push the opponent to fall into the trap. But, sometimes the opponent has the same approach or is determined not to attack or is pacifist. Since war can be so profitable for some, it is unfortunately sometimes too tempting to fabricate the attack of the opponent you want to defeat. In order to do this, one must attack oneself by making the origin of the attack clearly visible. This is called false flag attack or false flag operation. The crudest example is to leave passports at the scene of the crime so that the nationality of the attackers can be identified immediately. It sounds ridiculous, but the anchoring effect under strong emotion far outweighs in efficiency to manipulate a population. Having the origin of a textile fiber from a piece of debris 8 months later is less spectacular for launching retaliation.

A slightly more sophisticated technique is to provoke war between two countries to weaken them both so that they are then at the mercy of a third. This third one being the origin of the attack with the flag of the first country on the second one.

"If you want to shoot your dog, say it has rabies." Again, doubt your executioner and don't give up peace until you have evaluated and tried everything.

Misleading principle number 5: The false opponent

"If we're going to be challenged, we might as well do it ourselves" said a successful businessman. This is very effective in business, but also in politics. Because you put yourself in a monopoly or dominant position. In France, in politics, for example, the party in power only represents a little more than 20% of the votes. But the other opposition tendencies are multiple: several workers' parties, several ecological parties, several anti-EU parties. Thus they are tired of explaining their differences rather than weighing in a common project. But the struggle is difficult because the false opponent has potentially the same opportunities for resources as the real opponent, but the false one also has the support of a dominant. Therefore, more access to the media, generous donors, communication professionals ... The real opponent has for him the sincerity. The purpose of creating a false opponent is to keep control of his opposition.

The false opponent thus serves the purpose of dividing the opposition forces, but there are other very effective tactics implemented with a false opposition. One is to divert attention. The false opponent will insist heavily, in order to appear to be in frontal opposition, on minor points, while the fundamental points are ignored. Thus space is occupied, depriving the real opposition of attention. Another tactic is to have real abuses of power (such as the power of high finance) denounced by people who revolt you or have positions on other issues that you cannot follow. Thus, it is easy to mix up the right idea to be studied with the wrong things, and thus to discredit anyone who brings up a crucial subject. An example in the 19th century is Proudhon, who denounced the enslavement of workers by capitalists. He also criticized the emerging ideology of communism, where capitalists were replaced by the state. Proudhon foresaw that the worker would remain abused. And in any case the ruling power is complicit in this exploitation. Proudhon therefore wanted to limit the power of the state as much as possible. He advocated decentralized organizations and to associate the workers in the ownership of the production tool so that they are also remunerated and motivated on the profits. But what happened was that anarchist movements took up the idea of abuse of government authority and carried out many bloody attacks. Some investigations, which no one publicized, showed links between these assassins and rich bankers. Yet Proudhon was classified as an anarchist, thus turning the masses away from his ideas. And the powers that be in France, in the aftermath of these attacks, passed "scoundrel laws" restricting individual liberties for more government control over the people.

Another tactic behind the false opponent is infiltration to learn all about the opposition's plans and tactics. This is illustrated in George Orwell's novel 1984, where citizens who want to rebel meet the greatest opponent, Goldstein, who is actually the person in the dictatorial system in charge of re-educating or eliminating the opponents. Thanks to the false opponent, the real ones throw themselves into the lion's den.

Finally, the last major tactic is to divert attention. If a topic is coming up in the public debate and the government does not want it, it can arrange for a controlled opponent to generate a counter-fire to change the topic.This is how outrageous, racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic acts appear from time to time, with a high media intensity. If some people talk about them with emotion and vehemence, it is not necessarily out of compassion for the victims, but to divert your attention from a sensitive subject.

Another example is the mafia. If you don't pay your tribute for security, your property will be destroyed. The mafia will commission someone to attack you, even kill you, to demonstrate their necessity.

A slightly more sophisticated technique is to provoke war between two countries to weaken them both so that they are then at the mercy of a third. This third one being at the origin of the attack with the flag of the first country on the second.

Misguided principle number 5: The false opponent

"If we're going to compete, we might as well do it ourselves," said a successful businessman. This is very effective in business, but also in politics.

Misleading principle number 6: the finger in the gear

 The principle is to obtain consent for an unwholesome tenet that is increasingly difficult to get out of. Once the consent obtained, one can then ask for even more unwholesomeness, knowing that the person has already consented to something evil. The person is thus perverted and under the hold of the denunciation of what he has done wrong and of losing what he has already obtained. In a figurative way, one has made a pact with the devil, or, one sells one's soul to the devil. It's very tempting at first, but you don't realize what you're committing yourself to, you end up doing what you don't want to do, and it costs a lot to get rid of it. This principle is unfortunately very common in our society. For example, when something is given for free, or below its price, in trade, it is to put the consumer in a captive situation and to sell him later overpriced products or associated services. For tourists, you are offered a small trip to an island with handmade creations. But you are only entitled to return if you have purchased enough souvenirs. There are some companies that pay their employees very little, but if you rise in the company's pyramid, you get a significant salary increase. Progression is officially based on merit, but the merit is first to do more hours of service. So everyone has to work more to hope to progress but very few are chosen. If a promoted person decides to advance those below him using criteria other than hidden overtime, he risks losing the unpaid hidden overtime of everyone else. He will have the choice of either moving down the hierarchy and losing a very comfortable salary, changing jobs, or encouraging people to continue to conceal work offered to the company. You can of course replace "extra time" with a whole arsenal of practices that are recurrent in many organizations, such as "hiding product defects", " deceiving customers by statistical studies", "lobbying", "dumping", "racketeering by legal extortion or abuse of position of strength", "corruption", ...

This system is reinforced by the theatrics of oaths in institutions and secret societies. You commit yourself in a very solemn way, in front of an audience, but often you don't know concretely on what. On the other hand, you see the privileges that you are going to obtain. In the Ancien Régime, a fiefdom was granted to the person who pledged allegiance to the suzerain. He had all the authority over a territory and the population living there, but he had to obey everything the suzerain could ask of him, in particular to wage war, that is to say to go and murder and subdue other people. In fact, the political regime in France today is still based on this principle. A caste, whose prime criteria for membership, is loyalty to the political party. Some of these people go before the voters to officially represent them. But in reality, no, they represent the party that has the subsidies and the media relations to have visibility. If the representative chooses to represent the people rather than his party and does not follow the party's voting guidelines, then he turns his back on the entire political party. Parties can use their network of influence to oppose a particular representative, even in private matters. The party introduces in the next election another candidate in front of him with the means of the party, the opponent will have to rely only on himself. Of course, some are allowed to play the role of the false opponent for some laws, whose voting result is acquired. But on the crucial laws, they are in line. Like the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty as a framework for the European Union or when almost 95% vote for the continuation of the war in Libya. It is more comfortable to enjoy the splendor of the republic than to listen to one's conscience, one's fellow citizens, or to oppose the party.

Misleading principle number 7: flattery

All French people are warned about the risks of being flattered, because they learn at school the fable of Jean de La Fontaine, The Crow and the Fox. It tells the story of a crow who was holding in its beak a cheese that a fox wanted to eat. To do so, he has to make the cheese drop. So the fox flatters the crow's singing skills and invits him to sing. This he does. He opens his beak, the cheese falls and the fox retrieves it. "Every flatterer lives at the expense of the listener" is the moral of this fable. But have the French understood it well?

To take the example of the political parties in France, they, along with the influencers in the media, repeat in chorus the sweet melody that we are in a Democracy, that the people have the power... through their representatives... of the political parties. However, the opinion of the citizens is rarely asked in France. But when they were asked last time, the people "voted wrong": they said no to the European constitution. So the "representatives" corrected the choice of the French people by approving by an overwhelming majority the Lisbon Treaty, which takes up the essence of the constitution. Since then, the people are no longer consulted.

Thus the people are left to choose the one who best gives the illusion during the election campaign that the people are represented. Even though some ideas may emerge, they are generally not voted on. When they are, it is according to the terms decided by the party in power. For example, there is effectively no protection in the Juvenile Protection Act of 2018, as discussed in the ruse-fiction chapter. The election is now used to choose our tyrant, or more exactly our gauleiter, the representative of a dictatorial, fascist and abusive regime. And the French like to be told and repeated that they are in a Democracy.

Another case of flattery is the counsellor. As the man in power cannot take the time or the discretion to analyze the needs, the stakes and the returns of the actions carried out in all his power perimeter, he surrounds himself with counsellors, specialized in economy, diplomacy, public opinion, ... Thus, all the action of the man of power is based on the information and analysis provided by the counsellor. The power of the counsellor is enormous. He is for the man of power the intermediary with his people and also with the other actors of the world. As early as the 16th century, Machiavelli, in his book "The Prince" where he theorizes how to become a good prince and stay in power, warns of the danger of this position. He insists on the fact that the interests of the counsellor are not those of the people nor those of the man in power. The counsellor has his own hidden interests. It is essential for the counsellor to last. He cannot antagonize the ruler at the risk of disappearing on the spot. Counsellors, says Machiavelli, are virtuosos in the art of flattery. The great perils are silenced by the counsellors. So it is advisable for the prince to find someone who will tell him his faults, his mistakes, his responsibilities without disrespecting him.

During the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, Kennedy felt powerless to make the right decisions because he had no possibility to know precisely the position of the Soviet opponent Khrushchev. Too many intermediaries were interfering in the dialogue. They decided to set up the red telephone. A device on the desk of each president of the two superpowers allowing direct contact.

In general, humans cannot stand to be reproached, they feel their integrity is under attack, and their reflexes to object come out. Similarly, they have a natural tendency to feel superior, which the counsellor will maintain.  And this is very trapping, because feeling humble can hide the feeling of superiority on the one who does not know he is humble. Some people on the path of wisdom are very uncomfortable with compliments. They know that there is a danger in accepting them because it flatters their sense of superiority, and it is a long way to go to master it. The knowledge of these aspects of human nature allows to reinforce the leader in this idea of superiority, and, a flatterer can thus orient his decisions.

Misleading principle number 8: ownership, attachment.

The possession of material things is a trap. All the things that we own and to which we have an emotional attachment are in fact ties that bind us to these things which then become burdens. This has been studied in psychology. If you are given an object, you will ask for a much larger sum to let it go than you would have had to pay to get it. As soon as something is yours, you want to keep it, you have adopted it. If this link is taken away from you, it will hurt. More pain than the real utility you are then deprived of. If it is stolen, the pain will be even greater. The problem is that you are willing to make a lot of concessions to keep this asset, including doing things that will harm you or others. For example, fighting against someone armed who steals from you. In fact, possessions are also a trap. For example, you study hard to acquire a comfortable professional and material situation for several years. Your salary is higher than the average in your profession. But, at any moment you must be available to a superior who sometimes abuses it. You would like to put him in his place, but you don't, because if you do, you will lose your position and your comfort, with no guarantee of getting it back. Whereas if you had known that the superior was abusing his power, you would not have accepted the job as a stooge, no matter what the salary.

Here is another situation: You are employed by a large company in its procurement department. You select a supplier that meets your needs and provides the best price. You could keep it that way, but you have the power to decide to go with another supplier, so you demand a lower price. You can hide behind the defence of your company's interests to justify this attitude. But what are the consequences of this abuse of power? In the first case, the supplier refuses. He loses the market and is forced to prospect elsewhere. He will probably put more effort into convincing your competitors to take his product that you know is the best. Maybe he'll have to close down for lack of customers. Maybe he will draw the consequences of your behavior of abusing a position of dominance. He may inform his network of your attitude. He may decide not to work with your company in the future. You have rejected the best. In the future, he could be even more clearly the best, depriving your company of a competitive advantage for a long time. Now let's look at the case where the supplier, with a knife to the throat, accepts your price. The product was selected by you, a professional purchasing agent. It is therefore likely that his profit was not exaggerated, because otherwise another supplier would have been chosen. So you take away his share of the remuneration corresponding to the fact that he was better than the others. The supplier will have to invest less than expected, pay less to his employees who made the best product. The next product will most likely be less good, which will lower the overall level of your suppliers. Maybe the employees of your supplier are in a more or less direct way the customers of your company, who will not be able to buy anymore the products of your company. At a global level, all are customers and suppliers of each other. So the consequences for your company and the community are harmful. The truth is that your judgment is impaired by the fact that you get rewards for your abuse of power: justification of the usefulness and importance of your function, bonuses, salary increases and hierarchical ascension. The consequences on others and the community are hidden from your conscience. You have shark-like practices. You cannot see because you have assets, possessions to defend and develop.

You may think that you are not attached to material things. So here is the following scenario: you have saved, by hard work for many years and by depriving yourself of a lot, to build up a capital to ensure security in case of unforeseen events, or to buy, when you can, the house of your dreams, or to have facilities for you and your children. Now consider that the accumulation of this money has negative effects on other human beings. For example, your banker has used your money, in exchange for a fee, to buy all the food materials on the market and sell them at such high prices that many human beings can no longer feed themselves. The speculator chooses to burn some of the raw materials to avoid paying for storage or having them stolen. And he knows that he will not be able to sell everything given the price he asks. Faced with these actions, the community proposes to seize the food raw materials from this speculator. The problem is that he will go bankrupt and will not be able to return your money. The community asks your opinion. Do you accept? It's hard to give up all your savings. On a lighter level, would you agree to give up all your interest on investments in government debt, or even a discount on the capital? Because that is the problem in the reality of our world: bankers have tied a large part of savings to unjust government debts that are suffocating the community. In order to break the banker's enslaving system, we will have to give up our assets at least in part. Do we continue to impose excessive interest and taxes on ourselves or do you give up material assets? It's hard. Those who have nothing will have no difficulty in accepting a fair system even if they have to give up future interest on potential savings investments.

Misleading principle number 9: The Killer Detail

All misinformation uses mostly truthful information. You can verify most of them and they are intended to gain your trust and then give you false information. Conversely, true information can be combined with errors to make it appear false. Erroneous reasoning can also be used to demonstrate a result that is still true. It is not because the logic is misused that the result is false. It is just still unproven. It is more reasonable not to accept a book, or a person as a reference in its entirety. It is also possible that some levels of understanding are not accessible to everyone. A wise approach is to accept that some of the things are wrong or incomprehensible without the general idea being wrong. People will sometimes focus on certain details without trying to understand the general explanation. On the other hand, some people will give total credit to certain absurd details because they are part of a reference book or author. It is reasonable to have some doubts about certain details even in a masterpiece.

Misleading principle number 10:submission to the authority figure

This principle is perfectly explained in Milgram's experiment:

Milgram wants to know if a regular individual can be transformed into a real torturer. That is to say, to be able to freely choose to impose important sufferings that can lead to death. To do this, he recruited volunteers through classified ads, as an university researcher, to conduct a scientific study on memory, in exchange for a small fee. The experiment goes as follows: a volunteer must teach a list of words to another volunteer. One plays the teacher and the other the student. If the student gets it wrong, the teacher has to send an electrical impulse to the student. The more the student gets wrong, the higher the shock. The teacher is warned of the danger of strong impulses. The teacher cannot see the student, he is in an isolated room next door. The student and the teacher communicate through a microphone and a loudspeaker. This separation allows the teacher to hide the fact that the student is not actually receiving the shocks and that his reaction is a recording made by an actor that will be replayed identically for each teacher in the study. The victim's reactions are graduated and they increasingly alert the teacher to the severity of the pain. At the end of the pain scale, the student begs to be taken out of the experience, fears for his or her life, and then stops responding. If the teacher asks questions, a man in a white lab coat, who is observing the teacher, always gives the same answer, saying it is the experiment that wants this and invites him to resume the protocol. There is no argument to convince him to continue the experiment. If the teacher refuses to continue, he is told the same thing as for a question: it is for the needs of the experiment. At the second refusal, the experiment stops.

What happens is very instructive: In most cases the volunteer tortures his fellow experimenter, he realizes at some point that there is a problem but he continues, he questions himself and the scientific referent, but in general, he continues. He doesn't want to do it, but he continues. He fights an inner battle so hard that his discomfort is clearly visible on the videos of the experiment. And it ends up killing him 62% of the time. In other words, in 62% of the cases in this particular experiment, nothing can stop obedience to an authority figure.

        Of course, this number is debatable and one cannot conclude that 62% of people are potential torturers. Other aspects are also at work and it is interesting to study them. But it is important to identify two tendencies of human beings. The relationship of trust in authority is very powerful since it leads to do what is most unnatural for a living being: kill his fellow being without motive. To have succeeded in doing so for at least one volunteer is already an event in itself. Either one has come across a psychopath, or there is a weakness in the human being to be aware of. Having done it several times confirms the tendency to let oneself be controlled by an apparently non-binding authority. Whether it is 33% or 66% or 80% is not very important, because other parameters may allow us to adjust the desired rate.

Indeed, if the volunteers had been made aware of the major importance of the opportunities of this experience, their determination would have been strengthened. They could also have been instilled with an emotional connection to the outcome, by saying that children were impacted. And remind them regularly during the experiment. It should be noted that the experience was not the result of psychological wear and tear that made the subject lose control of the situation or want to end it at all costs. In fact, he never controlled it, except for those who stopped immediately, that is to say a tiny minority. All the effectiveness of this submission rests on the American society of the time which idealizes science. The message repeated since childhood that progress is due to Science, Science cannot be wrong, you cannot understand it, it is too complicated for you, but scientists know and they are the best and the most intelligent among us.

Milgram is from the Yale University, which is a reference in the United States in 1963, date of the experiment. The gravity of the acts is possible by the blind trust and the disresponsibility, because in fact, the society learns to act with the only explanation, "it is scientific". So if science says so, it is good. The principle of the experiment is to be guided to do something according to a protocol and therefore his will is not activated. And the art of the authority figure is to make sure that the will is not activated. Hence the ambiguity of the scientific observer who does not dialogue with the volunteer. Of course, he does not abuse his position because he does not give him arguments to convince him. But at the same time, he avoids that the person starts to reason and thus takes back his power over himself.

It is worth noting a small trap that is set for the volunteer. He receives a small amount of money. It is a kind of implicit contract. The exchange of participating in what the other wants against a sum of money. In fact, it is the misleading principle of the finger in the gear. The volunteer is committed to something he does not know. Then the pain inflicted gradually increases. It is harder and harder to stop because he has to recognize that he has been wrong for a long time, yet he did not realize it. The inner struggle that takes place must probably be about the following questions: "Could I have done something wrong without realizing it? Would I not realize what is right and what is wrong? No, I am a good person who participates in Science".

The human being has natural difficulties to recognize that he has made a mistake. Be aware that if, in addition, someone uses the misleading principle of flattery, it becomes almost impossible to recognize his mistake. If the observer were to tell the volunteer that his action is brave and very useful, that he knows how to make good decisions, few would have given up before the end of the experiment.

On the other hand, we must also consider that the trap could have been much more powerful. By giving a significant amount of money at registration, such as a few days of wages. The person would then have had in mind to return the money if he stopped the experiment. Worse, he might not have been able to pay it back. This is the trap of the misleading principle of ownership (or possession).  I hope you now understand that it is easy to increase the success of Milgram's experiment at will. And that with only a little money and flattery…

Now let's look at the use of slightly more powerful means. Fear is very effective. It is found in the misleading principle number 1: to arouse an emotion in order to spread a message. Imagine that before the experiment, the volunteer is terrorized, for example, by being shown that he has early signs of Alzheimer's disease. He is shown all the undesirable effects of this disease on him and those around him. It is explained to him how many people suffer from this pathology. And it is suggested that memory training is a very effective strategy to contain the development of the disease. It then becomes a priority, and even a duty, to carry out the type of experiment that is proposed to him. Those who do not complete the experiment become the exception.

In this way, the natural tendency of man has been completely reversed. Be aware that this power can give a feeling of total power and impunity. It is reasonable to think that some of those who have knowledge of it use it. So be very careful of an authority that uses fear or other misleading principles. In general, the final step to total control of human beings is to reinforce authority by fear and then by force. This is a dictatorship. Seen from the point of view of Milgram's experiment, it is to want to reach 100% of the volunteers who go to the end of the experiment and who kill their fellow being. To use the lever of fear, volunteers can be recruited from among the members of the authority figure or under his influence. For example, students at the end of their studies, or researchers, especially those who aspire to a new position. If the volunteer scientist stops the experiment, i.e. says no to another scientist in a position of authority, this will be interpreted as an act of defiance to the scientific authority. He may give up his career and he may be excluded from his social position that authority confers or makes him hope for. And if volunteers still refuse to go through with the experiment, a law can be applied to them and all the sanctions that follow for obstructing scientific progress. The ultimate sanction is to become the tortured of the experiment. You have the choice between executioner or victim. The only way left to fight against this powerful system is to denounce it. And a law that represses freedom of expression, especially in a democracy, is more than a warning signal, it is the initial event of subsequent abuses without limits.

In a rather pragmatic way, the power of the authority figure is abundantly used by the creation of scientific or medical committees financed by interest groups to justify very lucrative practices for them. It started with doctors recommending to take a cigarette instead of a candy to cut down hunger. There was also the practice, which still exists, of praising the benefits of fluoride for the teeth, whereas it is an industrial toxic waste, in order to sell it and introduce it into the drinking water networks.

How do we know if we can trust an authority figure? First of all, as far as possible, try to trust yourself. That is to say, make the effort to understand and verify what you are given. But, it is true that this is not always possible. So, there are some points to be careful about.

The person who is truly an authority in his field understands the complexity of the issues and at the same time sees the simplicity of the principles at work. This person can explain what he understands very clearly to any audience. He uses simple words to describe the essential principles if the audience is not from the field. And he can also discuss very subtle details with other specialists. To all questions, he checks his own answers and those of others. So he is also a hands-on person. He makes sure that his understanding remains valid to all the challenges that are presented to him. If necessary, he is able to question everything. This person has the experience of building knowledge and can therefore also delve into other fields than his own, because he will go to the essence of understanding. For example, he may do a review in another field to identify flaws, without necessarily succeeding in solving them.

Leonardo da Vinci, the archetype of knowledge and learning, said, "simplicity is the ultimate complexity" and "the greatest joy is the pleasure of understanding". That is why true authority is very enthusiastic about its understandings and wants to share them. He lifts you up. The impostor, conscious or not, tells you what to believe, uses negative emotions to dominate you (principle n°1), belittles you by his titles, the use of incomprehensible terms and loses you in his explanations when he deigns to give some. The genuine authority quotes others to give them credit for what they have provided. The usurper does so to justify himself and avoid explaining, and to exhibit his knowledge. The genuine authority informs about the scope and limits of his knowledge. Those who mislead you point out the limitations of others without regard for their contributions. False authority belittles or demeans you. It is not the title that tells you all this. Wrath is not a criteria either. For if you contradict or do not submit to a usurper, he can get very angry. And, genuine authority rebels against lies, abuse, waste of public money and irresponsibility when it has dramatic consequences.

And so, to conclude in one sentence, the authority that is not genuine will ask you to trust him and obey, while the true authority gives confidence to make the right decision.

Misleading principle number 11: language control

It is possible to influence an individual by controlling the concepts he manipulates. And a human uses words to manipulate concepts. So, to divert the true nature of a concept, we will associate to the word it identifies other notions that will generate other meanings. Its meanings can be so horrible or ridiculous that the word can then be abandoned or replaced. George Orwell, in his novel 1984, speaks of Novlangue: the dictatorial system uses a language with few words, the aim being to minimize the concepts that the people know so that they do not think too much and react mostly emotionally. Lacking words, the regime's criticisms are complex to formulate and to communicate. Here are some examples of words that have been hijacked in the French language. The word "race" is associated with racists. These people denigrate others on the basis of physical characteristics. Since those who control people's minds want this to stop and/or remove words from the language, they need to show through the language that this is wrong. They want the word "race" to be assimilated to racism.  They want to use "ethnicity" or "country of origin" to say that racism is wrong and that we are all the same race. But this definition corresponds to "species". It is also possible that highly racialist manipulators, as seen in the ruse-fiction chapter, are trying to remove these subtleties from the language so that we cannot clearly denounce their practices.

Another wonderful word that is disappearing from the French language is the word "revisionism". It has a meaning similar to that of the word improvement, but adds the fact that one starts from an acquired state. The word designates a commitment to search for erroneous hypotheses and erroneous reasoning from which derive the conclusions, laws or knowledge of an historical period. Scientific progress or the updating of knowledge is achieved through revisionism. The word has been replaced by "negationism". Thus, today, the one who seeks the improvement of a knowledge is qualified as someone who denies it all together: "new hypothesis, facts, reasoning, conclusion" can no longer be practiced. It is difficult for me to give you more explanations about the origin of this transformation, because a law published on July 13, 1990 in France forbids the formulation of the revisionist point of view which was at the origin of this law. So I cannot tell you why it is not negationist but just revisionist. Perhaps someone from a country with Freedom of Speech can do that.

Another interesting term to study is the word "anti-Semite". This one is quite recent in the history of the language, since it appears in the second half of the 19th century. Its etymology comes from "anti" which means against and from "Shem" which is an ancestor of Abraham, from whom the peoples from which the Jews, Christians and Muslims are descended. Semitic, refers to a group of languages spread in the Middle East, mainly Arabic.

However, the definition has been associated with hostility to Jews. Hostility based on religion, race, or rather, one must say ethnic origin. It should be noted that the Jewish race is not unique. There are, among others, Caucasians (the Ashkenazim), the same lineage as most Europeans, but also Sephardim of Iberian origin and Ethiopians with dark skin. Following the persecutions they suffered in the first half of the 20th century in Europe, a sympathy of the European population, and French in particular, did not want to see these persecutions repeated. It was frowned upon to be anti-Semitic, then devilized, then condemned by the law. Now, however, we have reached an opposite extreme. It is no longer possible to express the slightest critical opinion. Even if the criticism concerns opportunistic interest groups. Otherwise, the sentence falls: "anti-Semitic". The consequence is that the person who is critical can no longer express himself in the public arena. It is an immediate, total and definitive censorship. However, in France, no one is offended when people oppose practices that impose women to cover their face for religious reasons. Laws are even passed to regulate this in the public space. The penetration of the Church of Scientology in the film industry is regularly highlighted and no one thinks of condemning this information. The person labeled anti-Semitic cannot even justify himself, because he represents the ultimate abomination. They must disappear from the public arena. This word is so powerful that some people have not resisted the temptation to use it for people with a new idea when it is disturbing.This is the situation faced by Etienne Chouard, who militates for a refoundation of democracy. He successfully argues the importance of not having the constitution written by the representatives who decide the laws, because he sees the constitution as a means to ensure the control of the laws promulgated by the representatives. He also argued for the necessity of a citizen-initiated referendum as a necessary tool for a democracy. But it was easier to label him an anti-Semite than to debate with him on the weakness of the foundations of democracy in France. Thus, with a word, some people can decide what shall be discussed or not in the public debate. In fact, a mental programming has been introduced in the minds of the French: "if you are told that someone is anti-Semitic, you shall not try to listen to what he says". This could be called collective hypnosis. And it is quite spectacular to observe when you are conscious.

Misleading principle number 12: change the input data

This is illustrated by the popular expression "the dice are loaded from the start". It should not be forgotten that sometimes unexpected results or incomprehensible decisions are made not by an error in reasoning, but by rigged data. Often this happens through the corruption of reference institutions. We have seen that this can be done by the misleading principle number 2, the fear of ridicule, but we will also see that it can be done by the principle number 16: the hidden agreement which includes corruption. We must be aware that much of our information comes through the media, which is controlled by a small number of people. In the chapter on the war in Libya, you will discover some of the facts that are hidden from you or given to you in a biased way so that you accept a false conclusion.

Misleading principle number 13: the progressive method (finger in the gear revisited)

This is a method used to get someone to adopt something that he really doesn't want. First you state that you intend to do something that is accepted, and then you go in the opposite direction, step by step, each step being a small enough change that the person who has to accept it does not find the will to back out of the whole thing that was done before. This is, for example, the story of the frog that is put in water and gradually heated until it is scalded. If it had been put in boiling water, it would have made violent attempts to escape. But here, it gradually goes numb and cannot find the will and strength to get out of the pot.

Misleading principle number 14: attack the messenger to reject the message.

When one is in error or in denial, it is sometimes difficult to face the truth that someone is telling. The way out is then to challenge the person who is holding the truthful idea rather than placing oneself on the ground of ideas, which would involve challenging the person in error. And this is quite easy to do. First, because nobody is perfect, and second, because it is easy to slander someone. Restoring the truth, rebuilding a reputation is much more time consuming than smearing it. Many principles of misleading are available to smear, such as number 12, the manipulation of language, by associating the person with banned or shameful notions. Principle number 2: fear of ridicule, can then be used to make those who support or would support the messenger feel ashamed. All of these are repeated many times as stated in principle number 3 of repetition, so that some of it remains in the minds of the uninformed.

Beware, the reverse is not true. Someone with a bad reputation does not necessarily tell the truth. Moreover, one cannot completely distinguish the message from the messenger. A truth must be incarnated by a man who tries to put these truths into practice. Thus, in an unhealthy society or organization, one makes sure that people who have access to compromising information have identified weaknesses that would serve to soil them if they revealed this compromising information for the organization. So, it is good not to stop at slanders. The individual who has had weaknesses may eventually show great courage and try to express a message that is useful to the many and disturbing to the people who are slandering him.

Misleading principle number 15: urging frustration

This practice consists of presenting a problem or injustice that people can identify with. Usually a scapegoat is identified and a detailed study of its negative aspects is proposed but there is no analysis of the multiple possible causes of the problem. The inefficiency of what is known to solve the problem is also presented. The whole thing is strewn with vindictive phrases that do not refer to anything concrete, such as "We can no longer accept this", "it must change". "It's scandalous". The effect is powerlessness, discomfort and frustration. The one who has listened becomes moody and irascible. The French media uses these methods in abundance. But I don't believe that it is reserved to France. The main purpose of this practice is to redirect the frustration to get your consent for something else. It addresses your emotional side to avoid the rational side. For example, at the economic level, a cigarette manufacturer in the United States, after the First World War, wanted to expand its consumer base by also reaching women who did not smoke at the time. A public relations agency hired actresses to stand at the forefront of a major event and light their cigarettes while expressing feminist demands. The newspapers, paid for this, headlined: "They light torches for freedom", explicitly making smoking an act of militancy for women's emancipation. The frustration of the lack of equality was redirected to the addiction to cigarettes. The commercial success exceeded expectations. But that' s not all, it is also used in politics to pass laws that have the real purpose of blowing up health, ecological, equity or personal freedom protections. References to a frustrating problem are usually mentioned in the preamble, but the requirements of the law are quite different. This is what we saw in the Ruse-fiction chapter with the law in France of 2018 with the title "protection of children" which extends the possibilities of actions of pedophiles. The public opinion has its emotional side finally relieved because something is being done for children, but as the rational side is not involved, it does not ensure what has actually been decided.

To come back to the main subject of this book, that sooner or later we will end up in a cataclysmic war, we have already had in France the creation of these frustrations to go to war against Libya in 2011. To convince public opinion to go to war, it is strategic to succeed in reaching women, representing half of the population. To do this, it is necessary to maintain a regular climate of feminist protest and to exacerbate it with big frustrations. And, when the time comes to redirect it to the target to be shot, like Gaddafi in 2011. Thus the media spread on the news, stories that Gaddafi had a harem, and that the women of the harem were there under constraint and raped by Gaddafi. It was also rumored that Gaddafi was using mass rape against his population by providing viagra to his army...

        In another field, we are told how harmful certain foods are, especially in large quantities, that it has impacts on health, and sometimes extremely serious. I can accept this, I can see that in America, there is a serious problem at this level and that France is on the way to follow. I am also concerned about the way things are presented to us. First, we are told that everything has been tried to curb this phenomenon. Then we are told that the problem is actually the greed of industrialists who will stop at nothing, even if it means poisoning us. And finally, we are told that the only thing that really works is to tax these unhealthy products so that consumers buy less of them. But, due to respect for freedom, we can't protect the working classes, who are the most affected, from the greedy industrials. Yes, all this may be true. But there are other aspects to perceive. To tax again and again to tax by all means, to satisfy the greed of others, who are perhaps moreover the owners of greedy agri-food industries. This greed is expressed by the means of making the community contract irrecoverable debts and to make them pay by taxes. Also, I invite you to check what the taxes already put in place are used for. For example, in France, where a tax has been put on sodas and very sweet foods, is the money collected used directly to compensate the problem? Is there any additional action on obesity or diabetes prevention funded by the tax? Are these taxes subsidizing healthy, but expensive, products to restore balance and give consumers an alternative to harmful products? This also raises the question of who has the power to decide which product is favored and which is penalized. Consensus may be reached for sugar, but it is very easy afterwards to add another food to the blacklist. Who is legitimate for this? Who knows that a product is really harmful to enough people, whatever the quantity? Is it fair that reasonable people who are not negatively affected by sugar have to pay for those who abuse it? Have there been any arrangements made to end the tax once the problem is solved or rebalanced? Have there been any precautions taken to repeal the tax if it proves not to solve the problem despite initial hopes? It is reasonable to consider these aspects before believing that taxing is good when it is for a good cause. A good cause makes sure that it does not create problems and that it solves them. Don't forget that to tax is to impose. For one thing, these taxes cost us money and our freedom of choice. And if you believe that taxing is the solution, some people will take advantage of it to generate other frustrations that will make you or others suffer, and that will bring them money that you will give through taxes or tolls. The end of the road is to have no choice and all your money confiscated. Isn't that the definition of slavery? And that is very frustrating. You have to realize it to break free. Having a choice between two problems is not a choice. With sugar, you have a choice between morbid obesity and the imposition of tax and your food. You lose in both cases. There is probably a problem elsewhere that you are not addressing. Here, it may be greed.

Sometimes the solution is elsewhere, by acting on another problem, which we know is virtuous to work on, and which indirectly, will solve other problems. Do you have any idea how many problems would be solved with peace in the world?

        Another more subtle example is global warming. It reveals a paradox of our civilization. Most people accept that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming. However, this increase is directly linked to the increase in human activities based largely on combustion energy. They have been developed since Denis Papin in the 17th century. They are mature technologies but they emit carbon dioxide. In our increasingly competitive society, the emergence of alternative technologies to these combustion technologies is difficult. Without economic advantage, the competition is lost. The basic precautionary principle would have us move toward a little degrowth. But the foundation and engine of our society is growth. Less growth would lead to serious crises (mass unemployment, chain bankruptcies, ...) and the impossibility to pay back our debts. Without questioning the model, we cannot hope for a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. The community that would decide to abandon fuel energies would be led to disappear economically if it did so within a framework of free trade with its neighbors. To do so would require protections. The consequence of this is that ecological concerns are not sufficiently taken into account. Or that it is too difficult to do so individually or collectively. A lot of frustration is generated. A lot of people publicly stir up that frustration and call for something to be done. And everybody agrees that something needs to be done.

This is a great opportunity for a financier who needs more and more money to grow his wealth: impose targeted taxes. Even if it is beyond the realm of possibility for some, it is acceptable because something has been done that we promised to do. It's even great, because it generates new frustrations that can be used later. This is how the Yellow Jackets crisis in France was born in late 2018, when the state, in its desperate attempt to pay the interest on its debt, found an excuse to serve itself on the backs of already overtaxed French motorists. Many French people work far from their place of work for reasons of property costs, itself based in France on the ability to go into debt. The increase in fuel prices justified by the environmental impact has hit them hard and new increases were announced. No alternative to taking their gasoline car is possible for many of these people. The government was put under pressure by this movement and had to partially backtrack. See now the weakness in which the government stands: it backs down on ecology, a subject on which however "something must be done!" and has alienated many car-dependent French people.

Imagine if the government really attacked the roots of evil like free trade or monetary power. Can't you see that it would be easy for the holders of these roots of evil to redirect all the frustration on the government, which would precisely adopt a dignified attitude. Be aware that it is in the interest of certain pressure groups to stir up these frustrations. Is it not war, or death, the last resort to relieve unbearable frustrations? Are we in a position to make a wise decision when we are in the hands of many frustrations?

Personally, I free myself from these frustrations by following Gandhi's maxim: "Be the change you want to see in this world". That is, to take concrete action. With this approach, if you are right, you will serve as an inspiration to others and if you are wrong, you will learn from your mistakes. Doing something is not about lobbying to impose a law on others. Doing something is acting, experiencing, sharing, improving and agreeing collectively on what good practice is. Doing something, by acting oneself, frees the conscience and frustrations dissipate. Then, good practices can eventually be written into laws or standards.

Misleading principle number 16: the concealed agreement

The concealed agreement is the ultimate means of circumventing any rule accepted by all the participants. It gives a decisive advantage to at least one of the concealers. It takes various forms. The cartel allows a cake (often a market) to be shared between a limited number of players, the aim is to prevent any new entrant from taking a share. It is a monopoly shared by several players. We have the abuses of a monopoly with the illusion of freedom of choice. Many commercial sectors are in this case. I will give only a few clues to find them: all of them make a lot of money, there are no disruptive innovations that could change market shares, customers or users are dissatisfied and captive, prices are high, quality deteriorates over time, it is readjusted according to the crises induced.

Another form is corruption. The decision-maker has a hidden interest in favoring one contender over another. This is a very frequent case because of the opportunities it represents, such as a politician who votes for a law, a buyer in a company or an administration who places an order, a judge who makes an arbitration, a journalist who favors a point of view, an investigator who gives up certain possibilities... Variety is also found in the form of arrangements: money, drugs, benefits in kind, return of services, network solidarity…

Another form of hidden agreement is the conspiracy. A group of people act in the shadows because their goals are not avowable. The exposure of their actions and objectives would cause the conspiracy to fail. The plot ends when it is revealed. Therefore, few people need to know the real objectives, even though many people are involved. For this, other strategies are used, such as bribery, buying, lying, flattery... thus many people may be working towards an objective of which they are unaware, with most limiting themselves to selfish objectives.

Where virtue disappears, the hidden agreement spreads. In the West, we have laws against monopolies, cartels and corruption. But these laws do not prevent them and many people realize this fact. This is not surprising from my point of view, since virtue is slowly disappearing in the West. The French child protection law of 2018, is just one example of the strength of pedophile power networks. The conspiracy can only be suspected but the lack of virtue is real. Accepting that one lives in a non-virtuous world and that one is part of it is truly disturbing. Purchasing managers or "cost killers" virtually put a gun to the head of other company managers or farmers to rob them of as much of what they have as possible. They want to transfer the fruits of other people's labor into their own pockets, that's theft. If they don't comply, serious injuries to the company result, even death. These "killers" regularly take action to make an example. Farmers commit suicide every day, really. To believe that one does this for the sake of the company is a conscious or unconscious lie, but above all it reveals a lack of virtue. But these people are perceived in our society as useful and successful.

Probably, your company suffers from this kind of method and unfortunately makes others suffer from it. It is a lack of virtue to tolerate these practices at the community level. But who could alert us to these practices? The media? But, at least some of them, belong to those who excel in this kind of non-virtuous practices. Why do these "killers" come to invest in chronically loss-making media, at least in France. Don't they also have other non-virtuous practices to keep silent about? Isn't this a candidate for a conspiracy situation? Why do they make so much fun of those who denounce them? Definitely, it smells more misleading through fear of ridicule than virtue. To all those who laugh at conspiracies, I advise you first to accept the chronic lack of virtue in our society, and then the probable consequences.

Misleading principle number 17: the inversion

The ultimate misleading is the total inversion of references. What is believed to be true is false and the false, nasty, absurd is considered true. It is very difficult to realize this. And there is not necessarily a malicious intent behind this misleading. A belief can emerge for various reasons and gradually lead us to a total certainty. And sometimes, this kind of certainty has calamitous consequences. For example, man has long believed that the sun revolves around the Earth, as well as the other planets. Ptolemy had even succeeded in predicting the trajectories in circles around the Earth with reversals thanks to equations. The certainty was total, for more than a millennium. Until some revolutionary minds proposed something else...at the risk of their lives. To question such certainty is destabilizing for everyone. It implied to say that the Earth is round, so that some must walk upside down. It is particularly destabilizing for the authority figure, who ensures stability in society. Its role is to say, this is true, this is false, this is real, this is not. And suddenly, the authority figure has to say: I was wrong, I was the reference, but it was wrong but I remain the reference. This is not easy. It is even impossible when it enjoys other advantages such as power, money, reputation, sufficiency…

The inversion can also be used knowingly to mislead. Thus, the wolf, hungry, to enter the sheepfold will disguise himself as a sheep. He cannot show what he is, otherwise he will not be opened. Someone who wants to harm you or take advantage of you will not approach you by expressing his real intentions. Let's take the example of a group of castaways on an island where resources are very limited. One of the key elements for their survival is solidarity. But, one person in the group is selfish. He takes more than his share of the food supply. Another person notices this and reminds him of the importance of solidarity in the situation they are in. The selfish man, in order to continue his crime and not be discovered by the others, convenes the whole group and denounces the person who surprised him by name. He complains that he has been prevented from eating, that he has the right to a share like everyone else, he lends to the wise man who unmasked him with the intention of expecting more for himself. He makes a diatribe on the gravity of selfishness in this situation. Faced with such fervor the others support him and exclude the wise man. They would later learn the error of their ways. The lesson of this story is to be wary of the one who shouts the loudest and victimizes himself. He may accuse the person most likely to expose him of his crime.

Free trade, and sometimes democracy, are inversions used to hide the law of the jungle, which is the law of the strongest.

Finally, the inversion is hidden behind the enormity of a lie, of a situation. The victim refuses to conceive the abomination that is being done to him. This is for example the case of false flag operations. Leaders massacre a part, possibly a large part of their own, to traumatize the rest of their people and to send the message that as a civilized person we must attack the enemy who has done this atrocity. This works because the manipulated cannot conceive of this level of Machiavellianism. It would imply that their authority figure is a completely false reference. The individual would then be lost. It is easier to laugh at this idea. And not listen to or silence those who raise it. This can also happen to a sincere statesman who is chosen for example in a government to give the illusion that the government is sincere. It will take him some time to understand and eventually resign. It can also be the president's closest counsellor who is in fact his worst enemy. All the information that the president receives is then biased, he must recognize that he has been fooled and that some of his past decisions are a betrayal of his ideals and his country. He must then re-examine all his past decisions.

Yet, there is good will in him. The effort required to face the truth is colossal. Flattery is an additional obstacle. This was the experience of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson after the creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve: "I am a most unfortunate man. I have unconsciously ruined my country. ..."

But when one realizes that the principles of misguidance are abundantly used and that what we thought to be true is unfortunately based on evidence built on illusory beliefs, we face a moment of great disappointment and even despair. But this is an extraordinary opportunity to experience what Socrates did. You understand that you know nothing. It may seem painful, confusing, but remember that our universe is made of duality. You experience one of the poles of knowledge and that is the one of ignorance. And in contrast, later on, you will experience knowledge. You will know because you have already experienced ignorance. And what is handed to you on a plate with the label "true" is not the pole of knowledge.

Chapter 9: The War in Libya

We must look back at the war in Libya led by France, among others. Indeed, I will try to show that we, the French, have gone astray in this action. We have even put ourselves in the ultimate case of misguidance: the inversion.

In this chapter I am addressing the French reader in particular. But it is a textbook case for everyone. Here are, first of all, the facts that everyone accepts.

The representatives of France have judged a man to be evil and we have consequently given ourselves the right to shoot him and to set fire to his country and his people. Before our intervention, the Libyan people had achieved prosperity, despite an international blockade of several years. It was the most developed country in Africa with a per capita income similar to Argentina. It should also be noted that Libya had $200 Billion in reserves consisting of assets and reserves in international banks. This seems huge, but it is what France gives in 4 years in interest on the debt, which Libya did not do as it had its monetary sovereignty.

And after our passage, there is a ravaged country, heavily armed terrorist militias, 3 competing governments, a permanent guerrilla war still active 8 years later. The country's oil production is at a third of what it was before the war because of sabotage.

How many dead? We don't really know. It would seem that the 26,000 NATO bombings and active support to the insurgents caused at least 50,000 deaths at the time of the end of the official regime represented by Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011.

Then come all the murders of the terrorist militias that have settled in and are still terrorizing the population, the NATO bombs with depleted uranium shells that trigger respiratory and cancerous diseases, children with malformations. Hundreds of thousands of refugees, massacres of black populations.

Libya's military arsenal has been scattered throughout the Sahel. Many desperate Africans, perhaps more than 100,000, embarking on light boats to flee and cross the Mediterranean sea.

Isn't there not already a big problem with these facts alone?You have to find the courage to know a little more.  Yes, my dear compatriots, a country has been destroyed and its leader has been savagely murdered. And life goes on as if nothing had happened. Yes, I insist, because many people I have been able to interview are not at all as shocked as I am, in 2011 and again today in 2019. There is a certain indifference or even contempt for Gaddafi.

And in the media, it is also close to indifference, there is talk of a negative balance sheet of this operation. Sometimes a voice is raised, and evokes a problem or even a big problem, but no time is given to develop. It is without the slightest echo. On the other hand, there is much more talk of illegal campaign financing by Libya.

My feeling is that there was a consent of the majority of the population to what happened. Even if there is now an awareness that the balance sheet is negative, there is no question that there was a general consent for this action. Polls at the time claimed that two-thirds of the population approved. I think that if similar circumstances were to occur again, this general consent would unfortunately still be given. I am not saying that the French are bellicose, but they allow themselves to be led astray and allow abominations to take place.

Let us see how our leaders, who have positioned themselves as moral judges over one of their peers, have behaved. I draw attention to the fact that I do not want to pass judgment on a person, but an evaluation of the actions of persons in the context of very particular functions. Those of representatives of the people.

In the French constitution, article 3, it is said: "National sovereignty belongs to the people who exercise it through their representatives". Therefore, it is indeed the people who are responsible for what France does. It is therefore legitimate for the people to evaluate the actions of its representatives who act in its name. Especially in the context of a dramatic action: the destruction of a country and the murder of its representative.

        It begins at the UN, with the passing of resolution 1970 on February 20, 2011, to impose sanctions on Libya. We need evidences. For this, we listened to a Libyan expatriate man who has just joined a newly created organization: the NTC (National Transitional Council). This man, unknown to all but perhaps the secret services, is making very serious accusations against a regime that has been in office for more than 41 years: genocide and crimes against humanity. Elementary verifications are necessary.But in the face of the horror of the reported elements, it is understandable that something must be done.

This may explain the Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973, which go to the maximum, and even beyond, respect for international law. Indeed, international law prevents interference in the internal affairs of a country. There is still a ban on the sale of arms to Libya, a seizure of the bank accounts and assets of all the leaders and accounts that are in the name of a state body that they could use, an indictment of Gaddafi at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a warrant authorizing force to protect airspace.

France was the initiator of these resolutions. All this without any verification. We are typically in a case of the first misleading principle: To affect strongly to induce a message. The message being: we must get rid of Gaddafi.

Thus, France has gone completely astray: it has acted under the influence of emotion. We believed the accusations of a group of opponents without any verification and demanded and obtained sanctions.

A few days go by. Either we are honest and we study what the accusers say, we learn about their intentions and their paths ... and we recognize our mistake. Either we hide our crime by giving credibility to the accusers about whom we knew nothing. We must also consider the option of our representatives knowing who these accusers are. They still have intelligence services at their disposal. But then they know they are not Democrats at all for the most part, and probably we even know that they lied about the massacres reported to the UN.

Thus on March 10, France chose to give credibility to the accusers by officially recognizing the legitimacy of the NTC to represent the Libyan people. It is a shame for France to cover up its mistake of having slandered Gaddafi, by validating things that are false or unverified, but in addition we are handing over the Libyan people to an autocratic regime, at best. That is to say, this group of Libyans represents only the people who make it up ... in the most favorable case. The most likely case is that they are acting for shameful interests. In such circumstances, one should not hope for anything other than a group subjected to colonizers.

Thus France is the first country to recognize the NTC as the only legitimate government of Libya. There can be no excuses for this act, even the stupidity coupled with naivety that might have been evoked before, about our behavior at the UN. We will then witness the total misleading, by principle number 6: the finger in the gear. Indeed, our errors or forfeits, you will choose the most appropriate term according to your appreciation, could have had limited consequences thanks to the respect of international law. But instead of respecting it, France broke it.

The UN's mandate is to ensure that there is no air activity. ‘No Fly zone’. Gaddafi decreed a ceasefire and the closure of Libyan airspace on March 18 to comply with the UN resolution 1973 passed the day before. Gaddafi has been warned that he risks having planes shot down if he uses them against his people. So in the worst-case scenario, we shoot down military planes… in flight.

Yet on March 19, the French president gathered his partners in Paris to announce the decision to bomb Libya. On prime-time French public service television, the foreign minister explains how much everyone agrees with France that Gaddafi is terrible for his people. But one sentence escapes him: "It is not written in the resolution of the Security Council that he must go, but it is quite obvious that the goal of all this is to allow the Libyan people to choose their regime. I don't have the feeling that today his choice would fall on Colonel Gaddafi ".

Do you understand, as I do, that everything that has been done to mobilize the international community has only one goal: to get Gaddafi to leave, regardless of the law and the international community? His feeling takes precedence over reason and truth.

What is ironic, even tragic, is that in this newscast, images are shown of a fighter plane flying over Benghazi, Libya, and being shot down. The journalist specifies that it is not a Gaddafi plane but that it is part of the rebel forces. A new contradiction in the version that Gaddafi is attacking pacifist populations asking for democracy. Dear French friends who demonstrate your despair in yellow jackets, can you imagine, whatever your determination or intentions, finding yourself on board a fighter plane flying over a metropolis?

So we attack Libya. Were there Libyan planes in the air? A bombardment can only hit planes on the ground. You cannot drop bombs on planes in the air. This is a violation of the UN mandate. No international consensus has authorized us to do this. So we attacked a foreign country without a declaration of war! Not declaring war with the specified causes prevents any possibility of dialogue and mediation. We put ourselves in a situation where we want war and nothing should stop us. This is a violation of the written and accepted laws of war since ancient times.

France has committed a serious transgression. Are you aware that we could be legitimately attacked for this reason? So, with the first bombings, our representatives have fallen lower than the person they want to judge: non-respect of international law with non-declaration of war and non-respect of a UN mandate. Everything that these representatives say and do is therefore suspect. Dear French people, your moral duty is to make an effort to know what happened and to look for other versions than the one that the media and the politicians have presented to us.

Very quickly, Gaddafi's air force was annihilated. But we continued to bomb, for an indefinite period. What the secret services could not make official in order not to disavow their leaders, NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and groups of experts did by inquiring on the site. There was no massacre of civilians, but armed groups attacked with heavy weapons the symbols of the Libyan power. You can, for example, consult the report of international experts of the CF2R (French Center for Intelligence Research) which sent a mission on the spot in April 2011 and published in May 2011 its report "Syria: an uncertain future". But the French media remains on the same line of a Gaddafi massacring his people. However, abroad this raises questions. One can no longer hide behind feelings. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs said on June 16, 2011 in Algeria in Algiers: "It is true that the UN resolutions do not require the departure of Muammar Gaddafi, but we, we demand it". Who is the dictator? Who flouts international law? Who has been bombing innocent people for several months? Who allows terrorist militias to abuse the entire population? Our representatives and all the media have lied and are lying to the French population. They are completely drawn into the spiral of misguidance and are trying to drag the whole country with them. A return to the previous situation is no longer possible. It would be necessary to recognize its wrongs and the heavy consequences that this implies. But there are deaths, many deaths and considerable damage.

At this point, can their conscience wake up and consider reparations? Is it possible to say "enough is enough, we have done enough, we are getting out"? But if we let the Libyan authorities defend themselves and restore order, the rebels will be arrested and identified. It will be discovered that they have nothing to do with the Libyan people, that there were no massacres by Gaddafi. The time will come for investigations and questions.

The change of regime is therefore a necessity for the representatives of France. So the politicians and the media deceive us with principle number 3: Repetition. They repeat again and again that Gaddafi is a monster and an avalanche of false information is poured out to convince us of this. And the whole French war machine is under the control of one person, the president of the French Republic. Our institutions give him the gigantic means available within the army to act... for three months. But Gaddafi resists. The regime resists... beyond these 3 months.

Thus, the mechanism for stopping a war is activated after 3 months. The National Assembly is composed of 577 deputies, each representing one of the country's electoral districts. These deputies vote on laws and have investigative resources and parliamentary attachés, allowing them to study the issues they vote on. The assembly must therefore vote on whether or not to continue the war. Well, it did. It asked the president and his government to continue the destruction of the Libyan regime. It should be noted that with a score of more than 95%, they supported or let it be done, and only 4.67% said no. It is therefore not a man who failed but a system. It is therefore also important to note this date: on July 12, 2011, the representatives of the French people have voted for the unconsciousness of the president who is ravaging a country.

The British Parliament, for its part, investigated and clearly disassociated itself from the then Prime Minister, but 5 years later. The report denounces decisions based on false information and without foreseeing their consequences. Here is the summary from the report:

"In March 2011, the United Kingdom and France, with the support of the United States, led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. This policy was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa. Through his decision making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister [...] was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy."

We will now give some perspective on the meaning of this act. I must now tell you about ancient Rome, and its end. The Roman Empire was a huge empire stretching all around the Mediterranean Sea and reaching as far as England. From the 5th century, the empire reorganized itself to manage its immensity. Two entities were created: the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. But, in less than a century the Western Roman Empire disappeared while the Eastern Roman Empire survived for more than a thousand years. The date 476 is considered as the date of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, but this date is only the abdication of a 14 year old Roman emperor, which nobody pays attention to. It is a non-event. It is just that we notice, afterwards, that on this date, nothing and nobody could incarnate the grandeur of Rome anymore. Yet shortly before, Rome survived the sacking of the capital in 410. Rome then had to face and bring to heel rebellions of the peoples in all of Western Europe. At the same time, Rome had to face the barbarian invasions and the Huns of Attila. And Rome came out victorious from all these challenges. It is then 453. How did Rome succeed? The answer is simple: by being Rome. In its very essence. That is to say a power based on its army, its military art. This art was based on technical innovations with sophisticated weapons, discipline, fighting techniques and great strategists. Rome had also developed a civilization with construction techniques, the mastery of water treatment with aqueducts and sewer systems, and a representative political system with an emperor at its head. The army subdued the peoples and offered them the integration of their culture with the Roman civilization in provinces that the Roman army was protecting. And this grandeur of Rome was perfectly embodied by the generalissimo Flavius Aetius from 430 to 454. He was the head of the army of the Western Roman Empire and he subdued the peoples and negotiated their vassalage in the empire. He defeated the army of the Huns with a smaller army composed mainly of peoples he had federated shortly before. However, the Huns were very vigorous warriors who inspired terror. History tells us that before the decisive battle Attila and his army had criss-crossed and ravaged Gaul. But thanks to the prayers of Saint Genevieve, Paris had been spared. Aetius by his victory with an considered inferior army puts in light his great qualities of strategist. He surprised all the witnesses by sparing Attila's life and giving the Huns the possibility to withdraw. The Huns will not attack Rome afterwards. Perhaps Attila was transfigured by the nobility of Aetius' soul, just as Jean Valjean, the hero of Victor Hugo's novel Les Misérables, finds redemption through the intervention of Monseigneur Myriel.

The Western Roman Empire disappeared, but a basic trend was established throughout the West. The idea of universal brotherhood and salvation of the soul through justice that Christianity conveys has touched the entire population of all peoples. Leaders joined their people behind these aspirations and pledged spiritual allegiance to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.  France, as well as other countries in the West, was born on these new foundations following the Roman Empire.

Now, in order to try to understand the significance of France's action in Libya, we must consider taking a few steps back. To do so, one must consider the work of Patrick Mbéko in his book " Objective Gaddafi ". Just as it is necessary to understand the military campaigns of Aetius in order to understand the significance of his murder, so we need to understand Gaddafi's dealings with Libya in the years preceding his assassination. Patrick Mbeko gives us the investigation he conducted on the Libyan leader. From his birth to his death and the state of Libya 5 years later. Everything that has been said and published about Gaddafi has been referenced and sourced. Some witnesses have been interviewed. We can thus have the decisions and statements of Western politicians in the media, the decisions and statements of the courts, the recall of events, the explanations that intelligence agents give in the publication of their memoirs, the official or declassified archives, the point of view of opponents, of lawyers on the litigations, an in-depth study of the facts that are reproached to Gaddafi. Thus, with a minimum of interpretation but a work of investigation and in-depth analysis, appears clearly the misinformation that the population of the West undergoes by its media, involving also communication companies in public relations and even sometimes intelligence services. We discover that for 42 years all the elements have been shown to us in a biased way, some are totally false and that many essential elements exonerating Libya have been passed over in silence. One wonders if the communications agencies and the intelligence services are not working directly in the media.

We discover a Gaddafi growing up in one of the poorest countries in the world. His country has oil resources that generate extraordinary wealth for foreigners and a few rare Libyans while the population lives in poverty. Gaddafi is outraged by this plundering and this misery. He is obviously not the only one to dream of justice. He federates a group of young people, inspired by the ideas of the Egyptian Arab president Nasser, to overthrow the established order. Gaddafi is based on moral values, reinforced by his religion of Islam. This is how he recruits and gets his group members recruited. He is consistent with his values and thus has the trust and respect of others. The group enrolled in the army and took power in 1969 without any foreign support, and almost without resistance. Gaddafi is 27 years old and the members of his group are not much older than him. They have big dreams and ambitions for Libya but they start from nothing, nobody knows them and others want to take their places by all means. Gaddafi will prove to be an exceptional negotiator. He gradually obtains everything that Libya is legitimately entitled to get. His strength lies in the respect of his interlocutors and his independence. His regime is not beholden to anyone. He knows that his country does not have the technology to extract resources from its subsoil, the only wealth it has in the short term. He wants partnerships that benefit all parties, especially Libya, which he represents and whose interests he defends unfailingly. After taking control of the country's institutions, his regime, while collaborating with foreign companies, will prevent the establishment of foreign military bases and take control of the oil companies operating in Libya. At the same time, he is redistributing a large part of the oil revenues to social programs and education. He also spends a lot on the military. He is in a virtuous circle for Libya, which allows him to demand an increase in the rate charged on a barrel. This gives ideas to other oil exporting countries and significantly impacts world prices. Gaddafi, then, appears as a very serious threat to the West. And he is not under Soviet influence either. He is therefore uncontrollable and unpredictable. In this book, we discover a very important aspect of Gaddafi. It is the vision he has of his country. Libya is delimited by the divisions of the colonial empires where some tribes are located. It became independent in 1951 with a monarchical regime but is under Anglo-Saxon military and oil influence. Gaddafi sees his country as belonging to both Africa and the Arab Muslim world. He would have liked to merge his country with Egypt if the regime were to be Nasserian. Thus his wish for development is not limited to Libya, but to all his African and Arab brothers.

         His project is not imperial, but fraternal or humanistic. It wants justice and development for everyone. Thus, the Libyan regime supports many opposition movements throughout Africa, the Arab world and other places. This support is very negatively perceived by the established powers, especially since some movements are armed. He supports, among others, the ANC of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. He made many friends, but also many enemies. But for the West, it is a priority that his insubordination does not spread. It became strategic to get rid of Gaddafi, or at least contain him. This involved making him beyond the pale. Patrick Mbéko tells us in his sourced investigation everything that was tried against him. And by the word 'everything', I mean everything that has come up. And it is already a huge and incredible list.

I won't go into details, but I think it's important to mention a few highlights. First of all, we must address what is often blamed on Gaddafi: the terrorist attacks on the American Pan Am plane and the French UTA plane that exploded in flight at the end of the 1980s, killing hundreds. I try as much as possible not to name the people or countries involved, but you can find them, along with the evidence, in Patrick Mbéko's book. Thus, during the first two years of the investigations into the plane crashes, there was no evidence to suggest that Libya had any involvement in these attacks. But, as I said earlier, it became strategic for a great power to make Gaddafi beyond the pale. The investigations were then redirected against Libya. Secret services used their influence to bring in suspicious elements, even to fabricate evidences. Gaddafi did not give in and took the time necessary to obtain guarantees that the facts could be judged impartially. This took years of long negotiations and brought concessions. Libya had to endure an international embargo for several years, which caused it to lose tens of billions of dollars. Libya agreed to compensate the victims in exchange for the removal of the ban, but without acknowledging its involvement. The trial for the American plane ended in the conviction of a single defendant with the recognition that the trial had violated the rights of the defendant. The convicted person was released on humanitarian considerations, as he was in poor health, and there was no appeal. In other words, the whole diplomatic and intelligence world knew that Libya and the Libyans were innocent, but the face of the accusers was saved because the proceedings had ended in a conviction. But Gaddafi did not stop there. Once relations with the international community had been normalized, he demanded that oil companies with lucrative contracts in Libya pay the last part of the compensation to the victims. Then there was the case of the Bulgarian nurses. Dozens of children died in a Libyan hospital where foreigners were working, including Bulgarian nurses, who found themselves condemned under dubious conditions. A strong international mobilization demanded the release of these nurses. Gaddafi, as a formidable negotiator, demanded a treatment similar to that imposed on Libyan nationals: $10 million per dead child in exchange for the release of the Bulgarian nurses. Libya had been forced to pay $10 million per passenger victim in the 2 plane attacks to free its innocent nationals and normalize its relations with the international community. Libya finally obtained that the families of the child victims be compensated by a Western power.

Thus Gaddafi, with time, managed to make his positions accepted, no matter how embarrassing they were for the Western leaders.

        It is important to know that Gaddafi has faced very violent attacks that have had collateral damage, such as the death of one of his daughters during the bombing of his residence in 1986. Westerners, in number, have also been collateral victims on other occasions...to be discovered in Patrick Mbéko's book.

Now, we must see the interior balance sheet of Gaddafi, and it is hardly believable. The investigation informs us that water and electricity were free for everyday use, medical care was almost free, gasoline was 15 times cheaper than in France for everyone (8 cents a liter), education was free, even abroad thanks to scholarships. The Libyan state granted loans to the whole population to buy a house without interest and without any time limit. And all of this under an embargo. Other measures were in preparation and were announced at the beginning of the insurrection. It seems to me that the Yellow Jackets in France would like to be able to benefit from such treatment.  

On a purely economic level, Gaddafi built up a 144-ton gold reserve, made no debts and built up sovereign wealth funds worth nearly $200 billion for his country, whose population was, at the time, 6 million. Although it is not in the book, I give below, for comparison, the record of the French leaders, during the period of Gaddafi's power, for a country of 65 million people. The French leaders gave monetary power to private banks, which caused the country to be in debt to the amount of more than 2,000 billion dollars, sold 737 tons of gold, as well as most of the state-owned companies that were flagships in electricity, gas, water, oil, banking, telecommunications, engineering, highways ....  

You will learn that Gaddafi was a pious Muslim but was not fooled by the terrorists who hide behind a religion. He was the one who issued the first international arrest warrant for the leader of Al Qaeda... long before the New York bombings.

This book, written by an African from Congo, also describes Gaddafi's contribution to the African continent. His concrete achievements such as the financing of a telecommunications satellite, but also his investments throughout the continent so that Africa learns to transform its raw materials. The author has of course identified Gaddafi's will to give political weight to Africa by being a driving force in the creation of the African Union, but especially by preparing financial institutions that could free Africa from dependence and submission to endless usurious loans. The author, like many Africans, is grateful to Gaddafi who was offering them a way out of the long tunnel of misery and exploitation. He clearly associates this exit opportunity with the fall of Gaddafi. This episode confirms to Africa that it is still colonized and sends a very clear message to those who would not agree.

Finally, the author gives us a completely different version of the war, with the Arab springs that were intended to set regimes that would have tolerated the infiltration of Libya by terrorist militias or mercenaries passing through their territory. Technological means of information manipulation were used to make it appear that Gaddafi was attacking his people when in fact he was facing an armed external attack that he had contained. There were fewer casualties than in the so-called non-violent revolutions in neighboring countries.

The author also reports on Libyan initiatives during the war to end the conflict and avoid the drama that is still unfolding. Thus, from the beginning, Gaddafi reached out to the insurgents and the international community. From the beginning, he made it known that he was ready to leave power. Journalists, soldiers, lawyers and diplomats from several countries involved in the conflict were warned. As the conflict progressed, he agreed to many concessions, such as holding elections where all stakeholders could stand. He then offered to withdraw on the condition that the country not be left in the hands of terrorist militias. He finally offered to leave the country without conditions. He was told yes, only to be bombed as soon as he departed.

It is possible that you, the reader, will fall from the sky. I invite you, especially the skeptics, to get hold of Patrick Mbéko's book and to compare the treatment of the information poured out in the West and the work of an African author done according to rigorous investigative practices. You will be able, for example, to identify who is using the misleading principles described in the previous chapter. You will also be able to do your own verifications.

Now that you have the necessary elements, I can give you an interpretation of the historical and civilizational significance of this event.

France was built on the meeting of a leader and the people around the values of progress for all while respecting each one. There was first Clovis who was baptized to join Christianity in its original spirit of human brotherhood, Charlemagne who "invented" school for all, Saint Louis who rendered justice, François 1er who developed arts and letters, Napoleon with the concretization of the ideas of the Revolution of liberty, equality, fraternity and universality, and finally De Gaulle who reminds France that all its values make its greatness, that the sovereignty is to the French people and that the State must ensure the basic needs of the people: education, health, life's hazards and security for each individual and taken care of by the collective. This is how the notion of the welfare state takes shape.

It is interesting to note that the moment of De Gaulle's departure to France coincided with the arrival of Gaddafi in Libya in 1969. These two men participate in the construction or reconstruction of their country on their deep values which turn out to be universal. They are both military and defend their country and people by arms against foreign tutelage. Both of them will be called terrorist, dictator, both will suffer assassination attempts and will be harsh towards the conspirators. On virtuous human values, they built the prosperity of their country and the neighboring countries benefited from it. But France after De Gaulle has lost the convergence between the people and their leader on the destiny of the country. An invisible enemy, reduced to being inoffensive under de Gaulle, has infiltrated and taken power, the idea of taking advantage of the other through cunning and domination, embodied in usury. Successive leaders offered themselves, and France with them, to usurious finance. The country has become morally and economically depleted, and is now at the mercy of stateless high finance. On the other side of the Mediterranean, Gaddafi had identified the evil that was eating away at his continent but also at the West and a large part of the world. With his tiny country, whose Muslim culture knows the prohibition of usury, he preserved and developed his country. He was on his Way to rescue Africa and was waiting for the Arab world to respond to his offered hand. France was invited to share the prosperity. But France lacked the humility to recognize its moral and economic weakness. Its leader, badly assisted, wanted and demanded a lot, right away. France hoped that by killing the golden goose, we would have the money to hide our weaknesses. But we exposed them. Our representatives have slandered, lied and colluded with unrepresentative opponents, stateless terrorists and have violated international law. The consequences have been the destruction of a country, the despair of a continent and the loss of the ally that has the antidote to our evil. France sat on its values of justice, dialogue, fraternity, humanism, universality and respect for the law. All of this for the greater benefit of stateless dominating interests that are bringing France to its knees, among others. The French representatives have killed the spirit that animated France, and the people have given their consent. The representatives have committed a crime against civilization and the people have allowed it. There can be no salvation without this awareness.

Yet the warning signs were big. First by the law on the end of freedom of expression of July 13, 1990. Then by the cancellation in 2008 of the people's decision to reject the European Union constitution in 2005. And what we have done in Libya is not an accident. Unfortunately, France continued after Libya, despite a change of representatives, by attacking Syria. It slandered the current President Bashar El Assad and encouraged and supported opponents of whom we know nothing, in the least devaluing hypothesis. I quote our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the head of French diplomacy: "I am aware of the force of what I am saying: Mr. Bashar al-Assad does not deserve to be on earth".  Are we going to let it go on for much longer? Evil is still plaguing us. We have lost our values and the words that designate them are used to attack those who could help us. This is the inversion. The populace has taken over the people. But now the same forces of predation that have fallen on the Libyan people are falling on the French people and Europe. The CETA treaty provides the legal framework for this predation to take place without us really realizing it and without us being able to react. We can see little by little that the end of the month is more and more difficult for more and more people. It is a progressive and ineluctable transfer. The French house is collapsing because it has no more foundations. Reforms will not change anything. Because they are led by puppet representatives who only fill the cracks in the façade. Puppet, the same nickname that was given to the Roman emperors after the death of Aetius, because they had no power. They had become the puppets of the army. Today, the power that controls our rulers is usurious high finance, and we have come to admit that reform is necessary and that it is bound to be painful. But it is only the law of the exponential of usury, always more is needed for those who have a lot. These people now have the means to deceive you and make you admit anything. War, reforms, contradictions, inversion. When the reform responds to a need for justice, it is not painful. The one who used to profit too much accepts that an unjust profit cannot be eternal. But care must be taken to explain. For the others, it is a progress and the former profiteer must be invited to it as well as the others. If it is still painful for some, it is because there are other underlying injustices. Allowing the strong to submit the weak is an injustice. At some point, we will have to discuss the need for free trade, even if some people have to reduce the growth of their wealth. Otherwise, you will be put in competition with those who have no vacations, no pensions, no care, no education, no solidarity. And you will have to align yourselves to survive. The norm will be misery. There is a profound antagonism between the historical aspirations of the French people and the central objective of the European Union, which imposes free trade and the confiscation of monetary power.  When will we ask ourselves where the mistake is?

One day, we will have to say stop, but it is not on a particular reform that we must focus our efforts, it is on the injustice and the negation of our essential values. And the most striking, the most visible and the most selfless is the injustice suffered by Libya and its leader. We must say that we do not consent to what has happened. We must face the situation with justice. Our salvation cannot come from elsewhere. Recognition, understanding and repair is the way to restore dignity to Libya, but also to ourselves. We will regain our values and build prosperity. Do you doubt it?

Let's look at our history once again. For obscure reasons, the French leaders in 1830 decided to colonize Algeria. Facing the unexpected resistance of the population and their leaders, the French military ravaged the country, destroying every green space so that the resisters would have no place to hide and feed. The French people, who I don't know how much they knew about it, let these inhuman practices go on until the Algerians gave up the struggle in 1847. In France, misery was reigning. The people rose up in 1848 to demand a social and democratic regime. Just as the army had been sent to quell the Algerian resistance, so it was given the task of quelling the people of Paris. It was a massacre of several thousand dead. The survivors were sent in great numbers to the prison and the rest of the people were left to meditate on their misery. Shortly afterwards, Victor Hugo gave his historic speech on misery in the House of Representatives and in the following years he wrote his novel "Les Misérables". He planted a seed to get us out of this misery that was present at the time and towards which we are heading again. If you let your neighbor be mistreated, the mistreatment sets in and then you will be mistreated. We let it happen in Libya and our leaders wanted to do it again in Syria. Well, don't be surprised that CETA is coming down on us, because the same leaders who attacked Libya and Syria are now in charge of the Constitutional Council, the institution that guarantees the respect of the French constitution. It is likely that very few people have read this text, but the Constitutional Council, whose mission it is, has read it and yet has assured us that CETA respects the constitution. For those who do not understand the betrayal of the CETA text, I invite you to read or read again the chapter dealing with this subject. Our ancestors let their leaders massacre in Algeria, but our leaders are no better and we still let them do it and today they validate our financial colonization. French friends, learn about our history with Algeria. Algerian friends, tell your History and remind the French that France has started again in Libya. Understand that this will end badly. It is necessary to refuse these acts. And I am not content with calling on you to react, I propose in this book concrete solutions which are discussed in a later chapter. But it is necessary to understand that the subject must be approached and decided by all the French.

Think of a family where the father of the family regularly violates one of the children, to the point of causing physical and psychological after-effects on the child. But the father says he does this for the love of the child. Do you think the family is functional? Do you think the other children will be able to grow into balanced individuals if no one says anything. It is necessary for a voice to tell the whole family that the father's behavior is profoundly harmful. Tongues will be untied and solutions can be found. In 1848, at first, the revolt had rumbled. As a general with a reputation for killing innocent Parisians was about to be appointed to quell the insurrection, the national guard refused to obey. The political leader of the time resigned. Favorable measures were granted to all the peoples of Europe for fear of failing to contain their anger. Simply because the national guard in France said "no" to obeying a butcher. If the lives of the Algerians could have been considered in the same way as those of the French, the guard would also have refused to obey the general freshly arrived from Algeria who dealt with the Parisians a few months later. Please note that I am speaking in the conditional tense, I do not know how the National Guard considered an Algerian. It is possible that the soldiers who composed it did not know what was going on in Algeria. I am saying that if the same reasoning could have been applied to the behavior of a general towards Algerians as to the behavior of the first general towards Frenchmen, the soldiers would have also refused to obey the person who then unleashed the massacre of Parisians.

To conclude, what is essential is first to formulate together that what happened with Libya is contrary to what we are. The victims must know this, but also the leaders, the representatives, the journalists and also our allies.

I leave you to meditate on the lyrics of the song "Né En 17 à Leidenstadt" by Jean-Jacques Goldman written in 1990 who wonders what he would have done in the context of a war crime.

"Born in 17 in Leidenstadt"

"We'll never know what we really have in our wombs.

Hidden behind our appearances

The soul of a brave or an accomplice or an executioner?

Or the worst or the most beautiful?

Would we be those who resist or the sheep of a herd?

...

And that we are spared to you and me if possible for a long time

From having to choose a side" .

Chapter 10: Non-Violence

The common thread running through the previous chapters is that humanity has a great need for peace, and this goal must be achieved by means that are consistent with the goal. There can be no other means than pacifist ones. One of the best known methods is non-violence. It is obvious that the pacification of the world will certainly involve the use of non-violence. It is therefore important to outline the essential aspects of this approach. The core of this philosophy is sustainable success for all parties. It is a way of turning the opponent into an ally. The practitioner is ready to receive violence without giving it back. He wants to convince his opponent that he risks nothing from him. It is a very powerful method but very difficult to implement. In the first place, it is based on truth, on sincerity. This is the foundation stone of the method. It implies first of all being ready to question yourself. Being non-violent does not imply that you are right. It is possible that you are basing yourself on false knowledge or inappropriate attitudes and claims. To convince your opponent, you must be able to listen to him and take his expectations into consideration. This may be enough to break the deadlock, even if you did not get what you expected. The problem may come from the non-violent person. But if you apply the method, you will have the satisfaction of having corrected yourself, the satisfaction of having remained consistent with your principles of non-violence, and the satisfaction of not having used violence for an unfounded reason. Thus, non-violence is not a possible strategy to reach an objective. It is a state of being and the objective may need to be redefined in order to remain non-violent, not the opposite. To implement it, it is necessary to examine your conscience. Am I being truthful? Am I not lying to myself? Am I open to listening and can I admit that I am not in the truth? It is essential to know this before engaging in non-violent action, because you will have to convince your opponent of this, and perhaps take some hits. It would be a waste to suffer hardships that could be avoided by simple self-examination. Another very, very important point is that nonviolent action is not necessarily successful. Examine your conscience to see how far you are willing to go. It is also worth judging the importance to your conscience of what you stand for. Sacrificing your life for a coin may not be very useful, even if you stand for a right principle. Henry David Thoreau failed to stop the wars against the natives. But his conscience told him not to pay the taxes that funded them. He ended up in jail, but claimed he was free. Free for not contributing to a massacre. But his action was noticed and inspired many people long after.

Practicing non-violence is not easy, it requires great human qualities and awareness. It is necessary to be aware that these qualities are superior to domination by violence. Because this knowledge of the additional value that one possesses over the opponent allows one to bear his violence without hate and without the desire to strike back. If when you are insulted or hit, it is very difficult for you not to retaliate, it is perhaps because you have not yet understood that it is useless... in the long run. Your opponent may get to you in the end and will eventually make you react with violence. He will have convinced you that he is right to use violence. You must also be aware that the road is sometimes long, very long, and that it is not because you have accepted a first act of violence without batting an eyelid that the fight is won. It is not a fight against the opponent but first against yourself. Sometimes it takes many long attempts to succeed. It may take a very high level of mastery to practice non-violence in all circumstances. Although it is a necessity, non-violence is not yet affordable for a significant part of humanity. Yet a large majority would like peace. If everyone really believed in non-violence, peace would be immediate. We are not there. Advocating non-violence is not enough. It must be practiced and taught in everyday life in order to propagate it. With children, for example. You will quickly see your limits of tolerance. You come to a situation where you want to admit that sometimes it is necessary to have limits or forbidden things, for the respect of others or yourself.  But the child will not necessarily understand this. This allows you to question your certainties. To avoid constraint or force in such a situation, it is advisable to accompany the child in the effort that is asked to him. Make the effort with him to show him that you are making at least as much effort as he is so that he understands that it is important for you. Your moral superiority has thus been established by the fact that you have been able to endure the necessary suffering, not by a subjective apriori knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.

As I mentioned earlier, it is important to know that non-violence does not always lead to the desired result. However, it is possible to identify certain circumstances that are more favorable to success soon after its practice.

The most important criteria is the sincerity of the opponent. If he is sincere, it is possible to find common ground for dialogue, to understand his expectations and to be able to express and justify his own.

Next, another criteria favorable to the success of a non-violent approach is the opponent's feeling of superiority. History has taught us the lesson that the physically strongest is overcome by the most intelligent, who will develop strategies and technologies that will overcome the physically strongest. Today, the one who thinks he is superior, thinks it in relation to his intelligence or his humanity (or the community he represents). But this belief does not hold when he considers appropriate to use violence. He proves that he is on the level of physical strength and not intelligence or humanity. Sometimes the problem is a little more complex, when the person believes he is superior because he does not bother with humanistic considerations. He believes that he has more ammunition or weapons than his opponents. But today, humanity is at a level where it is necessary that the person who does not have humanity makes believe that he has it in order to have allies in sufficient numbers, otherwise he would be alone or rejected. Thus, even the person who has no humanity, his intelligence dictates that he needs to display humanity to others. The reciprocal of this statement is that the intelligence lacking real humanity, will do everything to show that his opponent is grossly violent. Thus justifying its superiority and its right to use its force. Humanity is morally superior, in the sense that it does not induce the opponent to be violent, and that it does not wish to use violence against the other. Thus another aspect of non-violence is also to do what is necessary to prevent one's opponent from falling into violence. By repeating non-violent actions for a long time, the intelligent and powerful opponent or group will eventually drop its mask: one day or another he will be caught soaping the board of his opponent and will betray his bad intentions to everyone. And the multiple stratagems used in response to the previous non-violent actions will be revealed. Intelligence without humanity can then be seen for what it is: Machiavellianism, causing the disgust of all others. This is how humanism, incarnated in non-violence, is superior to intelligence. In other words, superiority can be recognized in the renunciation of violent action against others. Thus, an opponent who believes himself to be superior can be maintained and guided in a non-violent approach, which brings both parties to the ground of truthfulness, sincerity, and thus resolution of the dispute. It is in this context that Mahatma Gandhi forced the British to give up their domination. This is why an opponent who believes himself to be superior is a good candidate for a non-violent approach.

On the other hand, there are cases where considerations of sincerity, truth or even superiority are not present. It is usually greed that motivates these people. If other people stand between them and the coveted object with greed, it will be very difficult to achieve results with the non-violent approach. Massacring is absolutely no obstacle for some people. Any consideration can weigh against their desire. Showing opposition is experienced as a violent insult, which the aggressor will feel the need to compensate with violence. There were and still are people with this state of consciousness. It should be noted that the object is not necessarily material, it can be power or spiritual authority or honors. A simple "no" can unleash an extraordinary violence. Whoever wants to oppose this type of consciousness risks losing his life.

For this reason in particular, non-violence cannot be made an absolute rule. To ask someone to resist non-violently against this kind of consciousness is not wise. Defending yourself can be wise, if it is not an absolute rule either. So someone who defends himself even with violence does not have to be condemned automatically. It must be understood that the non-violent approach is above all a personal commitment to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of others as well as oneself.

This understanding about non-violence is essential in order to avoid its greatest trap: to submit because the greedy or cunning one tells you to be non-violent and let yourself be abused. No. That is submission, you don't want that for yourself and you don't want that for your opponent. The idea behind non-violence is to offer self-sacrifice to transform your opponent. If the opponent demands this sacrifice you cannot offer it and he sees your act as weakness, not as nobility, which will in no way encourage him to change. This is the trap that financial predators set with the doctrine of free trade. You must offer them the freedom to enslave you. The freedom to trade can be negotiated, but there must be some trade-offs, such as freedom of speech, freedom to refuse a job, freedom to eat healthily, freedom to have a roof over your head, freedom to be in peace.

There are several possible ripostes to predation and greed. Let's take an example. Let's imagine two clans from a warrior culture who have a major conflict to deal with. They are about to declare war on each other as is their custom. But, the voice of a wise man emerges in one of the two tribes. He preaches non-violence and brotherly understanding. War only brings desolation and does not solve the conflict, except to exterminate everyone. And he manages to convince his clan to go and negotiate peace. The other clan does not accept, except on the condition that they get all their land and they leave. The wise man is a great spokesman and manages to convince his clan to accept the other clan's conditions. For this is the beginning of a new life, a better life. So the wise man and his clan move further away. But the first clan sees this surrender as a sign of weakness. In addition, the leaders maintain their power over their clan by their art of warfare ensuring the survival of the clan. They also maintain other beliefs that oppose those of the wise man. Thus, leaders identify that the action of withdrawing from the other clan invalidates the justification for their power over their clan. Members of their clan may demand a change in clan leadership. It becomes strategic for the rulers to remove that wise man and that clan from the Earth. When the wise man learns of the other clan's intentions, he knows that he cannot ask his clan for more effort. He has already achieved a revolution by asking to try to apply his wisdom, he cannot ask for more at this time. That would be to have them slaughtered and end his experiment of brotherhood and non-resistance. So, he accepts the way of the fight chosen by the opponent but reminds his clan of the objective to live in peace. He makes them accept rules of conduct during the fight, which allow to stop it as soon as possible. He also reminds them to always respect the opponent and not to fall into the vices of war that would close the way to reconciliation and peace. The fight takes place and the aggressors must retreat. Defections within the aggressor clan increase. After some time both clans ask to follow the path of the Wisdom. You may think this is utopian, but I think this story is quite similar to what happened at the birth of Islam, the birth of a religion of peace. The wise man is the prophet Muhammad.

How do I know this? By reading their texts and asking friends, work relations, everyday people like cab drivers, who are Muslims. The media messages about Islam do not match my reality. I suggest considering misleading principle number 4: false flag operation. When the media reports something that revolts you, done in the name of Islam, it is reasonable to assume that it was not a Muslim who did it. Even if the perpetrator claims loudly that it is Islamic values that make him do it. If the media is hammering this horror into your head over and over again, emphasizing the morbid details, it is misleading principle number 1 at work: to stir up strong emotion to spread the message that Islam is evil and violent. Remember that greedy and truly violent groups need to make their opponent look violent. Doesn't Islam clearly forbid usury? Is it not usury that allows people to accumulate huge amounts of money, as we have seen in the chapter on interest-bearing loans? To whom do the big media belong in France, if not to large wealthy people? Why do these big wealthy persons invest in loss-making media? Where does their wealth come from? If it came from usury, wouldn't it be logical that Islam would be their opponent? Wouldn't it be logical that these wealthy persons invest to make Islam look like a violent religion? Seek the truth by yourself, ask the people you meet who are the Muslims of your daily life, therefore of your reality. You will then be able to see for yourself the media's inversion of the real nature of Islam.

Islam, in its wisdom to defend oneself against greedy predators, is not the only one to invoke the possibility of reacting to an aggressor. In the Japanese tradition, the Budo martial path is backed by a code of honor, Bushido. In its ultimate expression, the Aikido of Master Morihei Ueshiba, it also comes to the precepts of non-violence. This is what Master Ueshiba said: "Aikido cannot be anything else than a martial art of love. It cannot be a martial art of violence", "The aikidoka's state of mind must be peaceful and totally non-violent. In other words, he must have a special state of mind that leads from violence to a state of peace."

        To require non-violence for another is not the way of non-violence. The only requirement of non-violence that it can be formulated, it is with yourself. It is first of all a work of inner purification. When violence manifests itself, dialogue to identify the source of this violence is a necessity. It can be the occasion to understand a great suffering of the one who committed the violence. Refusing to dialogue is a refusal to recognize the suffering of the other. It is necessary to accept that some people react when they are attacked in order not to die in indifference. Do you accept this? Even if those who do not want to dialogue label him a terrorist? All armed resistance fighters are called terrorists by the authoritarian regimes in place. General De Gaulle and all resistance fighters in France during the Second World War fit the criteria of terrorists. Refusing to dialogue with a terrorist is a condemnation to continue. Do you understand the sentence "It is normal that the weak resort to terrorism". It is only a rephrasing of "Some people do not want to die in indifference". It was Gaddafi who said it. And it is not an encouragement to terrorism, as some might imply, it is a key to trying to understand terrorism and stop it.

So what the West and France in particular did in the Libyan crisis was to require that Gaddafi not defend himself and his people against heavily armed groups. A practitioner of non-violence does not make such demands. What happened next showed that those who required non-violence then used violence with great excess. This is a case of greedy and authoritarian predators. What Patrick Mbeko reports in his book "Objective Gaddafi" is that, despite the slander and aggression he suffered, Gaddafi, throughout the ordeal, did not touch his people and kept his hand out for appeasement. Including the offer to withdraw. He did not make any threats or attempts to attack the interests of his aggressors. How to explain such an attitude, if not the confidence that the truth is on his side? He did not consider himself weak. He just said "you will regret it". The sooner we understand his position, the less we will suffer. And in order to keep the truth hidden, he had to disappear. These are the people who wanted the fall of Libya: greedy, cunning, powerful, authoritarian predators that perfectly executed non-violent actions cannot stop at once. I hope you will reflect and search with the will to know what really happened in Libya. Gaddafi offered us an exemplary behavior so that there is no possible ambiguity about the nature of the visible or invisible forces that attacked Libya. These forces of predation have in their hand NATO which they have used. Is there a force greater than NATO that could stop them? Even if there was, is it reasonable to use it? On the other hand, if we let them do it, only the effects generated by the actions of their unconsciousness will stop them. That is, a large-scale cataclysm, a nuclear winter, a flood.... But if this does not happen or takes a long time to happen, then the vast majority of humanity will be under their control in misery, a minority will live in fear of this misery and will collaborate to maintain the misery of others. But all of them (99%) will be considered as cattle, even as waste. Let's face it, peace is a necessity. Any people that tries to live in emancipation will be reduced to nothing by these predatory and dominating forces. Disarmament is necessary.

Let's look at another case that is not the way of non-violence. Peacefully demonstrating in front of a leader's residence to ask him to leave is not enough to claim that the action is non-violent. First of all, the presence of a crowd in front of a man, even a protected one, imposes a relationship of force, it is not non-violent. If the crowd wants freedom, it is necessary to specify which measures it expects, and that this indeed represents the expectations of those who demonstrate. If the ruling power disappears as requested, how does that mean that freedom will be obtained? Once gone, another leader will take his place, but did the crowd plan a fair way to designate the successor? If it ever did, is this process accepted by all those who are not protesting but who will have to endure this new leader? Then there is the question of what measures will be put in place to achieve more freedom. Free trade? We come back to the same questions as for the appointment of the new leader… A non-violent approach begins with a project elaborated or supported by many supporters. Gandhi and Mandela created their Congress to define their project and gain widespread support. Martin Luther King Jr. did not ask for leadership, but for race equality laws to be voted on. Peace protesters, in order to take the path of non-violence, must remember to turn their opponent into an ally. The current leader must be brought in to implement the expectations of the people, with justice and general acceptance. It is not very important who is going to do it, but it is necessary to pay attention to what and how it is going to be done.

Now, I would like to draw attention to the fact of demonstrating without asking for something specific, like demanding democracy. Or in a logic of pure opposition, as for example, everything but the current leader. As explained before, nothing constructive can come out of it since nothing has been prepared. You have to ask yourself why certain people, parties or interests are working on such demonstrations. Because the issue is that a spark can trigger mob movements and panic. If the crowd is not deeply non-violent, it is possible for the demonstration to degenerate into an insurrectionary movement. It is then easy to move to the stage of changing the leader. By intentionally igniting the spark, a coup d'état can be organized in this way and passed off as a popular aspiration. Do you think that in these conditions the people will benefit? Yet the leader, as a last resort before leaving, offers concessions. But unidentified forces are working for his departure and for the concessions to be forgotten. In his book on Gaddafi, Patrick Mbeko has noted in recent years that many regime changes have begun with anti-regime demonstrations and then the crowd being shot at with guns. Panic takes hold of the crowd, the media denounces this as crimes of the regime in place. Then the "international community" puts extraordinary pressure to change the regime. It supports groups with a name that includes the words democracy, human rights or freedom. But what they do is to try to overthrow the regime by violence. Patrick Mbeko investigated this phenomenon and was able to establish that the shooting of crowds is carried out by forces from outside the country, that strategists have defined and perfected their practices to carry out coups d'état and the first step is the pacifist demonstration. So before you demonstrate, find out what the organizers' intentions are, think about what your reaction will be if you are shot, and if the leader is replaced, make sure it is for progress. It can get really bad. Libya knows something about that. Tunisians tell me that there have been no significant positive changes since their "Arab Spring" revolution, but now they have contracted a debt to the IMF, insidiously putting their finger into the hell of usury.

The approach of authentic non-violence is first of all non-resistance. Opposition must be understood as a difference of position on ideas. It is not an opposition of persons. So when faced with someone of great greed or authority, it is more reasonable for you to leave, because leaving the place is an option. Sometimes there is no better way than to preserve yourself. The opponent who uses violence in these extreme cases will only evolve in suffering, when he suffers an injustice. He will only begin to question himself when he suffers a similar action, and perhaps he will make the connection with what he has done to others. This will be the beginning of compassion. It will be all the more activated as the first victim will not have expressed aggressiveness.

Finally, faced with the unconsciousness of greedy, authoritarian and violent aggressors, there are some wise people who accept to face death, without the slightest resistance, after having used all their wisdom to convince their relatives and opponents. They prefer to leave this world with the message of non-resistance and non-violence. They know that in their lifetime they will not be able to do better. They accept the otherness of the other who wants to see them dead at all costs. The most famous people who had this wisdom are Socrates and Jesus. They die, but their messages still resonate today. Since they have for them the Truth which is eternal.

Chapter 11: The Peace Plan

Everything that has been said in this book so far is not new. Socrates, Victor Hugo, Gandhi, Patrick Mbéko and many others have already awoken on these subjects. Where this book now takes its specificity is to propose an implementation of peace based on the understanding of what is explained above. The previous chapters are a kind of reminder and synthesis. I hope that they will one day be perceived as obvious. But, now, it is necessary to concretize these beliefs so that they become a reality, then a knowledge. The necessary and sufficient conditions are in place to establish peace in the world. This is necessary because otherwise humanity will disappear. The conditions are sufficient because humanity is now greatly interconnected. Ideas and actions can be shared fairly quickly among all humans. And, I think we are in a situation where many humans are yearning for change.

As explained earlier, the basis of actions must be based on respecting the golden rule, namely, not to do to others what we don't want done to us. Thus, the main work is a work on yourself. The efforts that you impose on yourself are intended to improve yourself and to challenge your neighbor to understand your motivations. They must be clear. Finally, it is necessary to make the other person an ally. Everyone has to end up pushing in the same direction. We can't waste energy coercing and punishing the one who is wrong. The miracle happens when a person understands that he has made a mistake and decides to use all his will and energy to make it right.

In light of this preamble, here is a plan that will bring peace to the world. The general idea is to remove all weapons. Peace means no more fighting. If we no longer have the means to fight, peace, which is the goal, is achieved.

Step 1: make France a non-aggressive country.

Some will ask why France? Some may say that there are more aggressive and impactful countries.

The first reason is that I am French, I cannot ask another country to do something that my country does not do. First of all, we have to work on ourselves and give an example.

Then, the question is not to make a ranking of aggressiveness or to know who is the worst or the most violent country. My feeling is that France has gone far beyond what is justifiable in the eyes of a fellow citizen, and in the eyes of an earthman. As a winner of the Second World War, we asked, or rather imposed, on our neighbor Germany to never be aggressive again and to have only a defensive army. Were we legitimate to impose this on our neighbor? Does having one's enemy militarily defeated make our demand legitimate? Were we morally superior to Germany? Algerian friends recalled to me that on May 8, 1945, the date of the German surrender, Algerians demonstrated to remind France of its commitment to decolonize Algeria after the victory over Germany. France had been able to preserve a political and military façade thanks to Algeria in exchange for its collaboration. But the French army machine-gunned the Algerian demonstrators on May 8. All the successive powers passed under silence this event. Who can say that France had a moral superiority at that time? Agreeing never to start another war in order not to fall back into the horrors of the Second World War is moral progress. I think that Germany has progressed because it accepts willingly what has been imposed on it. It would be solidarity on the part of France to recognize the seriousness of what it has done in Libya and to make the decision not to provoke this kind of horror again. France would then be equal in peace with Germany. The golden rule would then be respected. Shouldn't we, the French, make this decision for our country? Brothers and sisters of the whole world, could you help us to do so? The Libyan people will receive a first relief in their ordeal: to obtain by an act the recognition that they have been attacked.

There is another point, both symbolic and important. Taking the decision to never again attack a country will bring us in line with our deepest intentions. We will stop lying to ourselves and to everyone else when we call our military system "Defense". We will simply be in conformity with this word.

The army should only be used to defend ourselves, on our land. It is essential not to retaliate on the land of an aggressor. If this possibility is left open, it could be used as a pretext for false flag operations. Malicious minds know how to organize terrorist attacks in the uniform of the country they want to attack, and then it could be explained to us that it is absolutely necessary to go and exterminate these terrorists who are preparing themselves abroad. And we will remain an aggressor.

This choice results in breaking alliances that could commit us outside our territory. The progress is to put forward the idea of avoiding all aggression. Solidarity in aggression is not progress. If solidarity is a very important value in the eyes of our allies, they can do as we do. We have experienced solidarity in unconsciousness in Libya, and we don't want that anymore.

Now comes a major point. The weapons. Some offensive weapons will have to be abandoned. And in particular atomic weapons. It is not possible to say "I won't attack anybody anymore but I keep my atomic weapons". That would mean that I would only explode the bombs on my country. It is sheer madness to consider detonating such weapons on one's own land. If an enemy invaded a part of the territory, throwing a bomb of mass destruction on it would make the affected area uninhabitable for a very long time. It would take less time to wait for the enemy to withdraw and there would be a chance of recovering something usable or liveable. So we have to face the fact that weapons of mass destruction are offensive weapons. We do not want them to explode on our territory, nor do we want them to strike a foreign population. Nor do we want to be responsible for a general conflagration that would affect the entire planet and all of humanity. We must abandon this burden.

The struggle is no longer only military. Interest groups are using finance to take control of politics, which has control of military affairs. It is necessary to limit the military action of predatory interests. They act wherever there is something profitable to acquire or control. And they do not limit themselves in quantity or in means. If humanity moves towards a confederation of exclusively defensive countries, it is to put limits to these forces of predation that have invaded our daily life and it is a good strategy to start containing them and make them understand that their appetite must be limited. This is a non-violent response to the trap of the free trade doctrine. If populations were able to live with sufficient moral values, without being exterminated or dominated by the military power of their neighbors, their prosperity and joy of living would be a flagrant denial of the superiority theories of free trade. That is why a proponent of free trade needs a powerful and offensive army, so that he will not be challenged by virtue. Virtue does not give freedom for economic plunder and corruption. Free trade should be negotiated with the minimum requirement that it be impossible to attack another country. For history teaches us that those who have refused economic plunder have been taken by force of arms.

Some might say that we must assist those who call on us. A person who is in control of his emotions would say that we don't have to do it militarily. To think that it is necessary to intervene militarily reveals a culture of violence and domination. Why does our civilization have the reflex to help militarily? Is it not a symptom that we have not yet tried to understand the root of conflicts? We have already gone too far down the road of violent aid to continue. On the other hand, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus teaches us another way. That of care and placing the attacked people in a safe place nearby that can accommodate them. It is also appropriate to take care of the arrangements so that the one who receives is not harmed. If you want to help, it is more reasonable to do this than to make the arms dealers prosper and put the victims in debt so that they can rebuild their country. You have no idea how many people you can feed with the cost of dropping a single bomb.

Finally, one last point is that my Christian and Gandhian aspirations make me think that the most effective path would be to demilitarize completely and unilaterally. I don't see which country is likely to invade us militarily. Switzerland and Germany are exclusively defensive countries. Our other neighbors, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy and Spain, do not claim anything from France. We have many productive exchanges with them. Seas and oceans protect us. What navy should we fear if we disarm ourselves? Are we not also protected by our neighbors? They would have to invade them first before invading us. It is true, however, that we have behaved aggressively towards a number of countries in the not too distant past. I am thinking in particular of our former colonies and protectorates where the French power still tries to keep a certain hold. They might have some resentment from the past. They may still have some. But if we no longer had the power to defend what we call our interests, in their country, this feeling would disappear. We might consider having common interests so that their interest is to preserve us. We could hope to rely on them in times of trouble. But my understanding of Islam is that not all people move at the same speed and that it may be appropriate to defend ourselves. It is likely that a significant part of the French do not consider it reasonable to lay down their arms. The step is perhaps a little high. I accept this idea. Peace can be achieved without unconditional and unilateral disarmament. It may be a better idea than my spiritual aspirations would suggest. And I am sure it will bring more French people together. It will be easier afterwards for other countries to imitate this approach of limiting themselves exclusively to defending their own territory.

Now, for the mutation towards a country that is only defensive, it is necessary that many French people share this idea and want it to be put in place. So we must make it known. We must count these people who affirm their commitment. A website has been created for this purpose. It is the first step towards a new era of peace. Those who register can do so with the greatest pride. They offer to posterity a world of peace that is conducive to evolving in brotherhood. They have the opportunity to say who they are, where they live, their commitment, their contributions and their wishes for posterity. They are a beacon of peace. In a speech quoting from the writings of Marianne Williamson, Nelson Mandela said, "And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.".  Posterity will be able to honor and remember each of the stars that were activated, for a long time to come. Thus we fulfill and complete the prayer of the music group OneRepublic in their song "Counting Stars":

“ I’ve been prayin' hard

Said no more counting dollars

We'll be counting stars

Yeah, we'll be counting stars”

This website is addressed to all the inhabitants of the earth. Initially, the goal is to have as many French people as possible asking for an exclusively defensive military position, limited to its territory. Other nationalities can also register to reassure, support and actively encourage the the French people. A first initiative could be to count the people offering to host in their homes French people who would have to flee France in case of a military conflict after France has committed itself not to attack anyone. This site will then evolve according to the needs of the actors.

For this transformation in France to be done in the best possible way, the aspiration of the French must be joined by the aspiration of their leader. This is how France has always been built. Our president, currently Emmanuel Macron, has this exceptional opportunity to do so. But I feel that this position is very difficult. A president in France does not come to power spontaneously. You need a lot of support. At least some of these supporters defend the interests of high finance and the military-industrial complex. These supporters did not give him their support without taking guarantees. The limitation of military power to defense is the first domino that can loosen the grip of high finance on society. It will not let itself be released. The safeguards taken to ensure the president's loyalty will be used if he chooses the path of justice and the public interest. It is possible that the president will be very lonely among his advisers, whose true interests are unknown. Attempts to destabilize him will be made if he ventures to reach out to the people. One should not be fooled by the media, which has already succeeded in getting one of his close ministers to leave because they made a state scandal about the fact that he ate lobster at the expense of the state. And it was not the respect for animals that was blamed. One should not reject the hypothesis that presidents are kept in a cave within a cave to explain such damaging decisions for the country. However, if the president has done regrettable things, they should not be tolerated to buy our peace. We will have to hear him explain and see what he does to repair them. But be aware that most of these movements will take place behind the scenes and we will not know the president's intentions. The sooner he formulates them, the sooner he will have our encouragement to make them happen. We must also be aware that the savior of Rome, Aetius, was a hostage in his youth at the court of the Huns. Some have said that this allowed him to understand their strengths and weaknesses and ultimately make them give up the fight. Others have accused him of being a Romanized Hun. Our president has worked for high finance. He is in the position of Aetius in 430... whose destiny is to unite the peoples, confront the barbarians and suffer ingratitude. Who can have such shoulders? He can choose to manage day-to-day affairs and follow the general trend. He can also be a victim of events and press the button that will bring about the final destruction. It is up to him to choose his destiny. But we can awaken him to the gravity of sending missiles at Syria and its Russian ally in April 2018. Why was such a serious decision made so quickly? Perhaps, our president now has the distance to see that nothing is certain about the data that made him take this serious decision. Perhaps he can realize that Syria is undergoing the same accusers as Libya. The consideration of these accusers for the Libyan population was feigned and everyone can see that today, 8 years later, it is non-existent for the suffering Libya. Why do we want to continue to make a carnage with the same recipes? Our president was lucky enough not to cause irreparable damage. But he could have started a war with the Russians. His conscience must be awakened to this issue. What can we do to help him? Make him think about a neighboring issue, like Libya, where he was not involved. What would he have done? We must also make him aware of the consequences of a war between atomic powers. The idea I have to act, as an individual, is to broadcast Bob Marley's song "One Love". In this song Bob Marley asks the question directly to the people who have the capacity to destroy humanity:

“ Let them all pass all their dirty remarks

There is one question I'd really love to ask

Is there a place for the hopeless sinner,

Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own beliefs ?”

This beautiful song promotes the idea of unity and the love of humanity. Music can reach where words alone are powerless. If the presidents wonder why they hear this song all the time, then someone will be able to answer them and they will be able to prepare their answer to Bob. I hope they will realize that this perspective and therefore their current place is unbearable for a soul. I hope they will come to unburden themselves; for them, for us, and for the next.

Then, journalists of big media, aware of having participated in making the public opinion accept useless wars, could offer a tribune to the Syrian president to give us his point of view on the events of April 2018 and the attitude of France and other countries towards his country. It would also be interesting to ask him what he knows about the plane bombings that have been attributed to Libya. Patrick Mbéko suggests that Syria knew of other suspects. It would be wise, with some distance now, to understand what we, or the previous generation, did to provoke such a violent reaction.

These are some examples of ideas for actions that can lead to the people being joined by their leader. For those who need hope, Emmanuel means "God is with us."

Step 2: Restore credibility and usefulness to international dialogue and coordination structures,  such as the United Nations (UN).

When France succeeds in step 1, it will be a very big step forward. It will create a great wave of hope throughout the world. Some will want to follow the example and keep the hope of a world peace alive. But be careful not to get carried away. France will still be a very young child. It cannot yet explain to other countries what it is appropriate to do. And history reminds us of this. In 2003, our representatives explained to the UN the seriousness and the non-necessity of a war to invade Iraq. We failed to convince the warmongers to give up. But in 2011, we joined them. They were the ones who were able to convince us to go to war, so well that we even zealously put ourselves in the lead of the crusade against Libya. Worse, I believe that we have misled other countries that gave some credit to France's voice. It would be a step forward if we had the humility to recognize that we are not a member of the UN capable of making a permanent contribution to the security of nations. Yet we have one of the 5 permanent seats on the UN Security Council. Do the others get it? It would be interesting to have a secret vote to get the opinion of the other nations on the permanent members of the Security Council. However, what is certain is that the 5 permanent members of the Security Council have nuclear weapons and are probably the 5 nations that have the most. The ones who can destroy all of us are the ones in control of the UN Security Council! Can't we say: "The madmen have taken over the madhouse"?

Let's see how this organization behaves. In particular for Libya. On March 1, 2011, Libya was excluded from the UN Human Rights Council. Because of this decision the Security Council is seized to adopt the resolution 1970 of the UN. It is formulated in this resolution based on unverified accusations, sanctions of freezing assets of Libyan leaders and their families, their travel ban, an arms embargo and the seizure of the International Criminal Court. It is also demanded the abandonment of the respect of the sovereignty of the Libyan State on its territory so that can be exercised the freedom of the media, the free distribution of medicines, the evacuation of foreigners and the work of humanitarian organizations. In short, it is a matter of claims that turned out to be false, in order to subdue an official regime under the pretext of humanist values.

To illustrate my point, I will give you some revealing extracts from this 1970 declaration. Let's start with the preamble in which we have the considerations of the Security Council, one of which is the following:

"

Taking note of the letter to the President of the Security Council from the

Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya dated 26 February 2011,

"

I have not found this letter, but it seems that he is demanding that his leader Gaddafi to resign and leave. It is quite astonishing that the representative of a state, responsible for making requests in the form of a letter to the UN, the Security Council or the UN Secretary General, uses this open diplomatic form to address the one he represents. If he does not agree with what is being asked of him, he must tell him directly and eventually stop representing him. This is what a lawyer must do, for example. In his official statements, the representative changes sides from February 26, 2011, repeating unverified accusations, and now known to be false. He then goes from official representative to public accuser. And so, during all the deliberations of the Security Council, not a single voice comes to the defense of the Libyan regime.

Even if, for some, this regime is indefensible, that is not the issue. We are in a situation of application of the law, with sanctions. Elementary justice requires that the defendant be able to express his defense and give his contradictory point of view. Ancient Roman law already demanded this. This is the worst kind of denial of justice, where the lawyer in court asks his client to confess to the charges. This is more like theater than justice.

There is more in the preamble of the resolution:

"Welcoming the Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/RES/S-15/1 of 25 February 2011, including the decision to urgently dispatch an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate all alleged violations"

It is therefore presented that the initiation of an investigation on alleged facts is the cause of the sanctions that will follow. This means that the UN Security Council is relying on the fact that Libya is presumed guilty.

What can we expect in this context? Let's look at the body of the resolution:

"[The Security Council] Demands an immediate end to the violence and calls for steps to fulfil the legitimate demands of the population;"

We see from the beginning of the resolution the demand for non-violence to others. In the chapter on non-violence, it is explained that having this demand is in no way a non-violent approach. It is a denial of self-defense. This strategy is used by those who do not believe in non-violence and want to fool those who try to believe in it without really understanding it. Moreover, in the following resolution 1973, the Security Council claims for itself the use of violence. We have a Council that applies the adage "do as I say, but not as I do".  This is far from the golden rule, far from the legacy of the wisdom of our different civilizations. The members defending this resolution even went on to show their deeply violent character by dropping thousands of bombs to force the leader to comply, outside the resolutions they were calling for. Then, why is it demanded that measures be taken to meet the demands of the people? The UN has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of a country. Secondly, do we know if there are not already mechanisms in place to take into account the demands of the Libyan population? Providing information to the authorities and taking decisions requested by a fraction of the population are two different things. But in both cases, the internal management of a country is not the responsibility of the UN.

A little further on in the resolution we find:

"ICC referral

[The Security Council]

4. Decides to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court;

5. Decides that the Libyan authorities shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor pursuant to this resolution and, while recognizing that States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligation

under the Statute, urges all States and concerned regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully with the Court and the Prosecutor;"

You will agree that this passage regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC) is not clear and reveals some contradictions. Here are a few things for you to understand. Libya has not ratified the Rome Statute which makes the International Criminal Court valid for that country and its citizens. Therefore, the law says that the ICC does not apply to Libya. Moreover, three of the five permanent members of the Security Council have not ratified the Rome Statute and do not want to be subject to the ICC. So they have to find a trick in the wording to get Libya to be subject without them and others being subject to it. The trick is to say that all states are concerned only with the Libyan case. Once again, we are witnessing a "do as I say, not as I do". This establishment of law is completely asymmetrical. Not only does Libya not agree with the ICC, but all those who do not agree decide that it is valid only for Libya, without asking its opinion. Can we talk about right and law under such conditions?

Yet in its preamble the Security Council recalls its humanist aspirations:

"Deploring the gross and systematic violation of human rights"

[The Security Council] Decides that the Libyan authorities shall cooperate fully with and assist the Court and the

You will agree that this passage regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC) is not clear and reveals some contradictions. Here are a few things for you to understand. Libya has not ratified the Rome Statute which makes the International Criminal Court valid for that country and its citizens. Therefore, the law says that the ICC does not apply to Libya. Moreover, three of the five permanent members of the Security Council have not ratified the Rome Statute and do not want to be subject to the ICC. So we have to find a trick in the wording to get Libya to be subject without them and others being subject to it. The trick is to say that all states are concerned only with the Libyan case. Once again, we are witnessing a "do as I say, not as I do". This establishment of law is completely asymmetrical. Not only does Libya not agree with the ICC, but all those who do not agree decide that it is valid only for Libya, without asking its opinion. Can we talk about law under such conditions?

Yet in its preamble the Security Council recalls its humanist aspirations:

"Deeply regretting the gross and systematic violations of human rights,"

The lawyer who attacks the one he represents, the obligations for some and not others, the impossibility for the defendant to speak, the defendant is presumed guilty. With this resolution, the UN violates the rights of the people and their leaders. And with resolution 1973, which authorizes the use of violence, the fundamental human right to punish on the basis of a judgment based on the evidence provided by the investigation is violated. In this "international justice", the results of the investigation are not awaited before the deliberations. The deliberations result in a punishment and the executioners carry out a sentence different from the requested punishment and without control, without limits, without risking sanctions for themselves.

If there is such a need to trample on justice and truth to this extent, then there is a problem. And the problem is not limited to Gaddafi, a whole country is ravaged and many, many people have died. The people have also been victims of this denial of justice.

Thus the actions of the UN Security Council show that "the madmen have taken over the madhouse". Major dysfunctions are taking place. And it seems that the hysteria is contagious. A majority of countries in the Security Council voted in favor of the resolutions against Libya, with a few abstentions. None against. It seems that no one in the Security Council was in any doubt. However, the information that Gaddafi wanted to create an international currency not based on usury was known, at least by the French dissidence that I followed. The fact that it was a threat to some other currencies was already an obvious motive for this whole masquerade at the time. I find it hard to believe that none of the governments voting on the Security Council knew about the real motive. Why didn't they speak out? Why doesn't the International Criminal Court take advantage of Resolution 1970 to investigate and get the cooperation of all states? If it needs leads, I recommend Patrick Mbéko's book which gives very interesting elements on the exactions that were blamed on Gaddafi... but orchestrated from outside Libya. Is the ICC independent and can it do this job? What has it produced in the last 8 years? Why can some slander without risking anything? To understand what happened at the UN and to repair it so that international law can prevail again seems a colossal and necessary task. And the problem did not happen in 2011 with Libya. Here is a quote from Gaddafi in 2007:

"[It is] normal that the weak resort to terrorism, since the superpowers have violated international legitimacy, international law and the United Nations, and have executed their decisions outside this framework."

It would seem, then, that Gaddafi had identified the problem and that in order to maintain control, the madmen had to get rid of a serious opponent.

If France succeeds in step 1 of the plan, it will no longer have nuclear weapons. It will then be "a madman" who has realized that he is so. We are at the beginning of the healing process, but it is unlikely that he will be able to heal the others in time. The task is far too delicate for France alone.

At this stage of the plan, I must keep the next part quiet for the moment. I leave it to the wisdom master Mikhaël Omraam Aïvanhov to explain:

"How many problems the coexistence of our two natures, superior and inferior, poses to us every day! This is why, when our higher nature encourages us to behave honestly, to make efforts, we must also make sure that the lower nature is not informed, so that it does not put up obstacles. It is a principle of strategy: generals who develop battle plans do not spread them out everywhere, because if the enemy knew about them he would prepare a retaliation. Similarly, when the higher nature makes plans, it must protect them from the schemes of the lower nature. But while the lower nature must be unaware of what the higher nature is doing, the higher nature must keep a watchful eye on the lower nature in order to thwart its traps, for it is constantly busy plotting shady affairs. It is therefore necessary to keep our higher nature constantly on the alert, so that it may observe what is going on and intervene, if necessary, to set things right."

Chapter 12: Universal Basic Income

In the peace plan proposed in the previous chapter, challenges will arise as it unfolds. We need to anticipate them, and I will mention a few of them so that reflections and experiments can be conducted before the problems become obvious. The biggest problem is the way we organize our exchanges: money. Our current system based on credit with interest is by construction unjust and unstable. I invite you to reread the chapter on the loan at interest if you do not understand this statement. It is important to be aware that this basically unstable system is kept stable by injustice: the shortage of money is compensated by free or under-valued labor and expropriation, appropriation or transfer of property. And when some refuse, force, weapons and wars impose them. But these regrettable actions have a stabilizing effect. As a result, the injustice continues. It is necessary to understand that, with peace, this unjust system will lose stability. Injustice will become more and more visible and less and less accepted... and can no longer be imposed. Major monetary and financial crises are to be feared. They would have a very unfavorable impact on everyone. Anticipation is preferable.

Another major problem is the suppression of the military industry and a great reduction in the number of soldiers that peace implies. What will happen to those people who make their living from the business of war? The fact is that it is much wiser to pay them to do nothing than to pay them to destroy us. But these people are paid more than the average person. Is it right that others work for them, without compensation, to provide them with a high salary? We should give them another activity, but which one? What could these people be reassigned to? Is there a great need for worker resources? There are already many unemployed people. We are not in a labour shortage. And would people in the war business be willing to earn a living by doing the remaining, often arduous and low-paying, work?

On the other hand, the problem of unemployment will be amplified by the widespread automation that is taking place thanks to the advent of technologies that allow it. There will be a shortage of work to be done and an excess supply of labor. The market law will lead to a dramatic decrease in wages. A rethinking of our organization for our exchanges and work is to be done. One of the most beautiful ideas to answer this need is the universal basic income. It consists in giving everyone an unconditional income from birth to death to ensure his basic needs. The idea of freedom is very much linked to this income. It is a necessary compensation to property and population growth. In small numbers on Earth, man feeds himself and lives by taking from Nature. He moves away if the resources are already taken or consumed. But now, everything has been allocated and not everyone has his own space where he can ensure his survival and development. Receiving automatically and regularly a sum of money to support oneself preserves this freedom. The societal environment thus recreates the abundance of the natural environment. More and more people are joining the idea of this unconditional income. The problems linked to the end of war activities, automation, mass unemployment and misery make this idea to guarantee to have an income, even if the person is inactive. This idea will be desired and seen as a necessity by almost everyone. Some tasks will become more expensive because there will be no more poor people forced to do them to survive. Only the mentality that sees good in slavery will not want this evolution. The main problem is how to finance this income. In order for it to last, it is necessary that the collecting of money to finance this income is fair. The idea of basic income is based on justice and freedom. Using an unfair means to implement it corrupts the original idea. Some people who would not like to see this income introduced will not say so, but will ensure that its financing creates opposition that will lead to rejection by others. It is therefore necessary to pay the greatest attention to the way of financing it. It must be fair. Do not dissociate the means from the goal.

A very important and necessary point to address is the problem of money creation. In all Western economies and certainly in many others, the money circulating for exchange is not sufficient to meet all commitments. If this problem is not solved, there will always be a shortage of money somewhere. Universal income cannot solve this hole because it is a monetary problem. It would assign to others or extend the role of slave worker, which would make many people unhappy. Indeed, if the main part of an income generated by a labor is preempted to allocate income to idlers, then the former would be the slaves of the latter. The loan sharks might succeed in making it appear that the problem of lack of money comes from the financing of the basic income. It is indeed so simple to say that this income requires too much money to be financed and to sustain. And so, the detractors of this income would insidiously succeed in turning off the majority and burying this emancipatory idea. The usurers, arms dealers and other profiteers of our current system will not easily give up their positions of domination over the rather naive majority.

This brings us back to the first problem, which is money. One possible solution is to create and distribute the missing money to everyone, and in order not to have to create money again, a zero interest rate would have to be introduced, because interest is not created but due. The details of these statements can be found in the chapter on loans at interest. Be aware that this simple solution would still put down our current system based on the existence of non-zero and varying interest rates.

Another possibility is to give monetary power back to the States, which would ensure the right amount of money in circulation. This is simple to do, because it is already known and tested, and it can work if it is properly supervised. History teaches us, however, that it is very easy to corrupt this solution, especially in a democracy. It is very easy to suggest a few tweaks to strict rules, of which few people understand the long-term effects, but which provide a substantial short-term cash windfall. The temptation is too great. Orthodoxy in practice lasts only for a short time and greedy interests, such as private banking, high finance and lobbies, always end up getting their way and taking control of the system. This is what happened in the past with the creation of the Bank of England, the creation of the Federal Reserve, the law of January 3, 1973, the creation of the ECB, ... Sadly, you cannot say that we must educate so that this does not happen again, because all religions have warned and educated about the seriousness of usury. But today, everyone finds the loan at interest normal, even for the state. Making an adjustment to compensate for the defects of the current system should only be seen as a palliative, not a solution.

It is therefore strategic to solve the monetary problem first before introducing a universal basic income. A universal income represents very important amounts, it needs to be based on healthy foundations in order to be established with acceptance and sustainability. Therefore, a healthy currency is needed.

The system to be set up must also be simple or at least clear. For example, if you give an income, but tax it, you introduce complexity and obfuscation. In the same logic, we should avoid taxing basic necessities. Giving with one hand and taking back with the other is a deception. One does not know what has really been given. It is necessary to know precisely what is being financed and to do it in an appropriate way, i.e. fairly.

Now, let's look at ways to recover money. In France, the tax burden is very high. One of the highest, if not the highest, in the world. And yet, we have a very large chronic deficit. For example, over the last 10 years, the budget deficit has been between 20% and 50%. That is to say, despite all the money that is taken in, it is not enough at all, we still have to borrow massively. For one euro taxed, it was sometimes necessary to borrow up to one additional euro. Therefore, all taxes would have to be increased by 40% to 100% depending on the year in order to balance the budget. And with this increase, we have not yet begun to pay off the pharaonic debt that we have accumulated since the law of January 3, 1973. Raising more taxes will only stifle activity and therefore reduce tax revenues. The system is already in a very bad shape, it is virtually bankrupt. So how can we finance a universal income?

Increasing revenues through taxation is impossible in France. Let's look at expenditures to find those that could be reallocated to the universal basic income. The elimination of military budgets and interest on the debt is about 25% of the budget. So, in the best case, 20% is used for budget rebalancing and 5% of the budget remains to be distributed for the universal basic income. However, we are not at all in the right order of magnitude. We would need something on the order of the entire French state budget. Some independent aids from the State budget could be reallocated to the basic income, such as social payments, part of pensions and unemployment insurance. We could perhaps reach a level of 33% of the necessary financing. For information, the calculations were made using budgetary data from the decade before 2019. To have the figures in billions of euros (€), it is necessary to take the percentage and multiply it by 3.

For the next gain, it is necessary to make an assessment of the management of these last 45 years of the French State. It is simply catastrophic. From a healthy state in 1973, the state has abandoned its monetary sovereignty, ran a permanent excessive deficit, built up a debt of more than 2,000 billion euros, sold more than 700 tons of gold, sold all strategic public companies, overwhelmed the country with taxes, abandoned the media to tycoons, abandoned the protection of children, suppressed freedom of expression, lied to trigger unjustifiable wars. And the population is not really aware of all of these. The cause is simple. The state is also responsible for the education of the people. It does not educate the people to understand what is going on. And it spends a gigantic budget on it. 100 billion euros, including education, research and higher education. And, many students follow the teachings of the national education reluctantly. In spite of all this investment, the State managed to adopt a "fake news" law, to give the criteria of what is true and what is not true. Obviously, these political leaders have not understood what is taught in the philosophy program, the foundation of Socrates: "to know that one does not know is the basis of all knowledge". But they don't even know how to explain it to us anymore, so they legislate to define what is true, it is so much simpler. It is thus of crucial necessity to no longer entrust the responsibility of education to a single pyramidal structure controlled by the State. The education budget could be given directly to parents for their children. The only requirement would be that a significant portion of that money be spent on education. The basic income for a child would serve as a scholarship. The educational choices parents make would rarely be worse than what the government currently imposes. Schools would be truly free. This budget transfer doubles the funding of the universal basic income. This would bring the funding to 66%.

Then, we have to keep in mind that eliminating misery through this basic income and organizing the possibility of paying back debts will lead to a revolution in our functioning. Thefts and aggressions will necessarily decrease, since if people need money, they will only have to wait for the next month for it to fall. The expenses of security and justice will also decrease. Many public sector employees, having chosen this status for job security, will no longer see the point of the status because they will have a guaranteed income. They will choose remunerative activities that they like or even occasional activities in the place of their choice, not the place of assignment. Many will be relieved to see their tedious or uninteresting tasks disappear, either through automation or because there is no longer any need to invent schemes to maintain this failing and constraining, in other words bureaucratic, system. Government spending will be virtually eliminated. Its role will be rather to implement fair rules on regalian subjects, such as monetary sovereignty, protection of the weakest, and to monitor that they are respected and possibly to organize consultations to modify them. There are enormous savings to be gained in this way.

Activity could be reduced without generating a crisis. Perhaps only a modest income would be needed. This reduction in activity by the state, and eventually by everyone else, will make it possible to finance the basic income completely.

Another issue is the fairness of the tax collection. It is assumed that the universal Basic Income gives everyone what they need for their basic needs for a satisfying life. Income is given without being reduced by taxes and basic necessities are not taxed. When people want more, they work to acquire additional income. Everything they receive is a bonus. In France, there is a progressive income tax. That is to say, for someone with a low salary, a zero rate is applied. And this rate increases progressively with the amount of salary. 10%, then 30%, then 40%, then 43% and it was even 75% some time ago for the highest wages. Some justify this by the principle of redistribution. But the real reason for this so-called progressive taxation is that the system is unfair. The poor workers work to pay rent and bills for basic necessities. Making them pay anything more would make them personally bankrupt. They work and everything they earn is taken away. This is the same as a worker who is housed, fed and not paid. This is called a slave.  In fact, in order to prevent workers from feeling like slaves, in France they give a bonus to low-wage workers, a kind of negative tax. The law of the market enslaves them and the taxes compensate to buy their acceptance. So we have a system that is seriously in deficit and that, instead of questioning itself, increases its deficits so that those who are exploited can continue to be exploited. Another effect of this bonus is that those who have a little more than the minimum wage have an income quite close to those who have the minimum wage. And that is through state intervention. Lots of low wages and a failed state. Capitalism is definitely very similar to communism. Proudhon had tried to warn us of this in the 19th century... At the other end of the scale, the one who earns well, we can take his money without bankrupting him. The more money he earns, the less the share of his expenses of first necessities is important. Therefore, it is possible to increase outrageously his tax rate. I'll skip over the fact that the very rich have ways to escape this tax. But the fact is that some of these taxpayers have taken significant risks, are talented, hard-working, and do difficult or brilliant things. If we had a uniform tax rate, they would already pay much more than the others, 20% of 100k€ is 20k€, for a salary of one million euros, the same 20% rate is 200k€, that is 10 times more. However, the burden on society is a priori the same. There is no need for progressivity to make the person who earns more pay. In the case of progressive taxation, the higher the taxpayer's salary, the greater the share taken from him and the more he feels aggrieved, robbed. All taxpayers must stand together in the face of the tax and reject this perfidy of the progressive tax. For those who do not understand, it is a transgression of the golden rule. Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you. An injustice cannot be compensated by an injustice. The small wage earner must want the big one to pay the same share of his cake. So instead of solving the problem of misery and forced labor, which is an injustice, the tax system creates another injustice on those who prosper.

This creates tensions among the people. Some people work just to survive and others have the fruits of their labor confiscated. But one sees someone who doesn't want to give away their money that they have in excess and the other sees people who don't work as hard or who are less successful and want to steal it. We regularly hear the phrase, "the money is there, we just have to go and get it where it is". No, our system is designed in such a way that there is not enough money, and that is the heart of the problem. Taking it or stealing it from those who have it cannot pay off all the debts and therefore cannot solve the problem. On the other hand, this sentence reflects precisely the way thieves think. Would you like to have your money taken from your home? No, that is a violation of the golden rule and human law. The issue is to understand that both (the exploited and the confiscated) want someone to solve their problem regardless of the other's problem. Yet their problem is the same, they work under restraint. One must work, the other must pay for the profit of others. And they hope that the system that enslaves them by organizing a lack of money will solve their problem. It is more cunning for the system to put in place a tax that turns them against each other than to address the root cause of the problem, the system itself. For example, a flat tax would be more fair than a progressive tax. It should even be considered to be degressive. Indeed, the cost to society of one person is about the same for everyone. For example, the cost of an x-ray scan is the same for society regardless of the patient's income. But with the same tax rate, the rich person pays a higher amount. Yet it could also work like car insurance, which does not take income into account. So with a flat rate system, the rich contribute more in value. It is important to remember that in a certain light, they give more. So it's possible to consider recognizing that fact with a trade-off, which is to lower the tax rate a little bit, so that, at least symbolically, there is recognition of their higher contribution. I know that this is not the idea that is conveyed in France, but you can think about it to understand why there are so many people who try to escape this tax, either through tax loopholes or tax optimization or tax evasion or even the creation of laws that are obscure to most people that completely avoid making some people pay. Having a fair system is essential and all stakeholders shall be listened to. This allows to realize when the system is unfair and to raise other questions about other injustices. This is what we will do again in the coming sections of this chapter.

To come back to the basic income, it makes it possible to eliminate progressive taxation. Indeed, any work done brings a gain that is not used to meet vital needs. What is necessary is provided by the basic income. It is therefore possible for everyone to give a share of the extra income. There is no longer any reason to overtax only some people.

Another point to consider is that the current system is extremely expensive and bankrupt. But the basic income is also a very important cost. It has a possibility to emerge in a country that does not exhaust itself in waging or preparing for war, as well as paying interest for debts that are imposed. But it is necessary to be aware of its real cost in an economy similar to what we have now.

Let me summarize: the present system is in perdition and can only be maintained by domination over the people and over foreign countries. The replacement of this system of domination could allow to find a balance if we replace the costs of extortion (army, interest of the debt, education, bureaucracy) by a universal income. But it is not yet achieved, because this system, even if we manage to make it fair, still has a significant cost. And in our current operating procedures, it will have to deal with free trade. One of the causes of the failure of the current system is the doctrine of free trade. Indeed, the system has certain positive aspects, and other negative aspects that have a very high cost. And free trade has led to many industries not being able to compete with foreign competitors which do not have the same costs. This is not much mentioned, but in France we have an annual trade deficit of 70 billion euros. I don't know what this deficit includes exactly. It is possible that the amount of money that leaves France each year for good is even greater if we include monetary and financial flows. What is important for a new system to endure is that trade with other countries is balanced. If nothing is done, the end result will be that all of the country's wealth comes under foreign control. Historically, it is the currency that balances these exchanges. The money that goes out matches the money that comes in, but in different currencies. If 100 are going out in one currency and 50 are coming in in the other, the currency ratio is 2. The external currency is twice as strong. Thus, the internal currency does not allow to buy as much; and what is produced with this currency is less expensive, therefore becomes more competitive, which will rebalance the exchanges. But as we have a common currency with all of Europe, we cannot apply the factor 2 between currencies. The balance is made at the level of Europe with the rest of the world. So, some European countries have a very positive trade balance and many others have a negative trade balance. A lot of money comes in to some countries and many others, including France, are losing money and have to fall further into debt to maintain their standard of living for a while. Can France ask Germany to give us back its commercial profits? Do we have to abide by their rules to have the same commercial success? Would their rules allow a universal income? Can the European Union also abandon the concept of a common currency or free trade? Today the answer to all these questions is no. We need to find other solutions to restore the balance and introduce a basic income. As a reminder, I ask whether the EU should "also" abandon its common currency and its free trade doctrine, because to have a fair monetary system, it will already require abandoning its concept of an independent central bank that manages its usury rates as it pleases. This would require a constitutional reform of the European Union. Unanimity of all countries is needed. Can it succeed? But the implementation of peace, followed by the implementation of a basic income, will require this reform. The European Union will face the greatest challenge in its history: to choose between its dogmas (usury, free trade, single currency) or peace and social protection. I believe that a consensus on these issues is impossible to achieve. But these possibilities exist.

An alternative could be considered. This alternative is that the costs of running the political system as a whole should be supported by consumption. That is, all expenditures, especially social expenditures, should be covered by value-added tax (VAT). Thus, competition with other countries would only be on production costs, not on social aspects. For today, if a country does not organize any social protection for its citizens, it has a low production cost and can prosper in free trade zones in which local production costs also include social expenses. As in France, where more than half of the wage costs are social expenses. This would give back a very important competitiveness to countries that respect their citizens. But be careful, it sounds attractive in theory, because if you look at the figures, it makes you think. For France, if we defer all the wage charges and income tax, it represents a gigantic taxation. About 130% of the production cost. In fact, in order to maintain the current balance, we assume that all the money available to households is available through their wages. Today, this is taxed at more than 50%. So for every 2€ earned by an employee, 1€ goes to social charges. So, instead of taxing money when it enters households, we tax it when it leaves, when they spend or consume. So, if we remove the input charges, the flow of money in is twice as big. At the exit, the consumption price must double. That is 100%. To this must be added the current VAT of 20% and an income tax equivalent of 10 VAT points. Let's give an example. Let's consider a product made of cheap materials, having essentially a cost related to the transformation by the workforce. Its cost is 200€. Today, we pay 240€ because we have to add a 20% VAT. We also take from the worker the equivalent of the income tax of 24€, because we consider that all that he earns, he spends it. So for each expense, we apply an average tax of 10%, generating revenues corresponding to the current income tax. This means a total cost for the product of 264€. For a product manufactured in a country without social guarantees, the cost would also be essentially linked to the labor force and would therefore be 100€ because it does not include the 100€ of social charges. The price for the consumer is 120€ and 12€ is deducted for the 10% income tax equivalent. This makes a cost of 132€. I am aware that I am making approximations because I start from the hypothesis that the person pays an income tax of 10% that I spread over all his purchases, I neglect the cost of energy and raw materials, and I consider that the net salary of a worker is the same in two different countries. But the goal is to highlight a concrete situation and to make people understand that free trade in our system is very unfavorable to solidarity spending which is financed by productive work. Thus, a product made by a French worker who receives 100€ of usable salary will have to pay 264€ if he wants to buy this product. He will therefore have to produce several products to buy one that includes all the charges and taxes. If he buys the same product made in a country without solidarity spending, he will pay 132€. There is no photo to decide who will be chosen and who will continue to find work. The market based on free trade as it is regulated today drastically favors the anti social foreign product. The only way to survive without real reform is to lower wages, reduce the financing of social benefits. In short, a return to misery. This is how free trade, within our fiscal framework, makes our social gains destructive to our industries and our social systems. One way to get around the problem is to make everything switch to VAT (consumption tax) at 130%, then the French product costs 260€ and the foreign product also costs 260€. Competition is no longer distorted, industry can (re)develop and the hemorrhage of money to foreign countries can be stopped. And so, when the basic income is put in place, we must beware of the free trade trap, otherwise the country will continue to become poorer and will not be able to finance its universal income. So a very important economic law to understand is this:

Free trade cannot be put above the balance of trade.

But, is putting all taxes on the VAT the solution? I can't say for sure. First of all, it is possible that the European Union limits the VAT to 25%. I believe that this is the maximum allowed today. Why this limitation? Whatever the answer, this 25% limit is contradictory to the principle of free trade, which claims that everyone should be on an equal footing. In fact, the high VAT allows all taxes and charges to be shifted equally between products, regardless of their origin.

On the other hand, having a VAT of 130% is not insignificant. It is enormous. But this is the real cost of the system with the basic income. The real cost of the current system corresponds to a VAT rate of 140%, because at least 10 additional points are needed to compensate the current structural deficit.

It is to be noted that we could have an equivalent functioning by keeping the current system with a VAT of 20% for French or local products for any country of the European Union, but of 130% for products imported from countries without solidarity cost. This is simply a bookkeeping game to make the products equal. However, the European free trade doctrines forbid this social VAT, under the pretext of equality. In fact, it is the opposite. This shows you that we are dealing with dogmas that dictate the right in our actions. It is the inquisition of modern times. And these religious economic theories lead us to slavery and misery. We were promised prosperity and misery is becoming more and more prevalent. It is an inversion of values.

But will people accept such a level of VAT and pay 2.3 times more than the cost of production? The psychological threshold is very high. But we don't lie to ourselves anymore. People will perhaps settle for less. To work less, because the basic income gives us everything we need. Campaigns will become attractive again. Consumption, transport and energy costs, and pollution will decrease. These are the main paths that need to be studied in order to have a healthy and fair system of a size close to the one we have today.

Thus, we have mentioned a large number of injustices for each of which at least one solution has been identified.

But for each of these solutions, the problem is difficult to understand, requires important and sometimes complex reforms. Who will be able to understand them as a whole? Can they be accepted by all or at least the majority? The system has reached such a state of immorality, incoherence and complexity that it is wiser to look for simple and healthy solutions to break with the current system, allowing to abandon this " stuff ".

Now, I am going to widen the field of possible solutions, by thinking first about our needs and about the pitfalls to avoid in order to define a good way of exchanging and functioning.

It is healthy to go back to basics. Money is a means of exchange. The modern system that prevails today encourages hoarding. In other words, it encourages people to keep their money. The system even goes so far that it pays for it. This is a fundamental problem. If two parties want to exchange, the means must not be an obstacle to the exchange. Historically, the monetary reference was based on the scarcity of gold, which led to a desire to hoard. But now, we no longer exchange with gold and we can create money on demand. So today we should have an opposite motivation. Money, the means of exchange, must encourage exchange. It must be easy to exchange. Therefore, we could consider money as a right to exchange and this right would not be unlimited in time. In all the vouchers or discount tickets that retailers give out, there is an end date for their validity. This principle should be extended to money. Technically, it is not very different from today, because the money is created by the bank in the context of a credit by an economic actor. A schedule is associated with this credit. At each repayment the part of the capital repayment is destroyed. So we know on what date the amount of money issued will disappear. A problem with the current system is that someone else can retain ownership of this money and keep it indefinitely, preventing someone from repaying. It would be more fair if all money created had an end date. For example, there would be an end date marked on a bank bill. Automatically, economic actors are more eager to satisfy their needs through exchanges than to keep money that will disappear.

Let's now look at the issue of taxes. Paying 132% tax on our income, our expenses or a combination of both is not trivial. Some people manage to convince themselves that paying taxes is a good thing. I don't. I can see the necessity but not more. In France, taxes are a strong constraint. If you don't do it voluntarily, they will come and take your property and more to dissuade you from your non cooperation. I prefer to give. But I think that, in our present system, it is impossible to proceed by donations in general acceptance. Yes, first of all because there are some expenses that are not necessary and that some taxpayers would not see the point of contributing to. There are even some that no one would want to finance, such as the interest on the state debt. Citizens should be able to choose which spending items they want to subscribe to because they understand the need or purpose. It is easier for usurers to convince people that taxes must be imposed generally and systematically than to find a justification for subjecting the state to usury. Moreover, even in a fair system based on a basic income, it would still require 132% taxation, which is so enormous that a significant number of people would not find the motivation to give voluntarily enough. This would further increase the burden on others who contribute as much as is needed. Thus this authoritarian contribution system is not popular and requires a bureaucracy that is itself burdensome, costly, annoying and unpopular.

In the context of a desire to facilitate trade, it is appropriate to understand the impact of taxes on trade. Let's take the concrete case of a gourmet plumber who wants a pastry. There is a pastry artisan who makes wonders in one hour of work. We suppose that the 2 craftsmen work for 10€ per hour. Taking into account taxes and neglecting minor costs, the pastry chef charges 23.2€ for his work. Since the plumber wants this cake, he will have to get this amount of money.  To do this, he must find customers who have leaks to repair. He will spend about 1 hour per intervention. These customers will pay him 23,2€ per intervention of which he will finally receive 10€ after having paid his taxes. So he will have to do 2,32 interventions to pay the pastry. To work with whole numbers, we will say that the plumber will buy 3 cakes. Thus, he will have to make 7 interventions to pay for 3 cakes that require 3 hours of preparation by the pastry chef. This will give the plumber a total turnover of 162.4€. So to pay the baker 30€, it will have been necessary to sell plumbing services for 162,4€. From this example, we can conclude that when 2 people want to trade, you have to be 5.4 times more efficient for there to be an interest in trading. In other words, you will work for 5 hours and 24 minutes to have someone help you for 1 hour. The first hour goes to pay your helper, you have to work for 1h20 to pay the helper's taxes and another 3h04min to pay your own that apply to the service you buy from your helper. This tax environment is not a very conducive environment for trading.

It is therefore necessary to reflect on the cause of taxes, to understand why this thing so painful and which hinders our exchanges exists, and if we can conceive a possibility to do without it.

Historically, money was based on rare metals, with limited resources and little variation in the quantity in circulation. It was therefore a matter of recovering a part of the money in circulation to finance the needs of the community or the State. With the advent of scriptural money, defined by a writing, it became possible to create money in the quantity defined by the person who had the power of creation and destruction of money. Thus, money can be created as much as is necessary to support the increase in trade, in economic growth. But if the quantity of money increases faster than the increase in trade, we have the phenomenon of inflation. Prices rise because of the excess money available for a smaller number of exchanges. There is more money available for each exchange. The increase in the money supply must be contained, otherwise stability disappears and it becomes difficult to define and predict a price, which significantly hinders exchanges. So when too much money has been introduced, it must be withdrawn. For this, taxation is a possibility. The money collected is destroyed or reallocated to new expenditures, thus avoiding the creation of money.  Since states tend to spend much more than they have the capacity to collect in the form of taxes, usurers have cleverly put forward the idea that they should be entrusted with the management of this money supply. Any money created must then pass through a debt that must be repaid to the usurer, in return for interest that is not created but must be paid first. Thus the state is forced to pay by raising enough taxes and not spending too much. But this introduces an additional expense, namely interest, when the problem is already that not enough taxes are being collected. Paying interest on debts is an artifice designed to enrich the usurers at the expense of the taxpayers. Eliminating this expense does not have a negative effect on the community. We have seen in the past that it does not prevent inflation and that it can provoke monetary shortages when bankers find it too risky to lend. Taxes are not intended to finance this artifice. So the role of taxes is to pay for government spending and to contain the money supply.

Thus, the interest in containing the money supply is entirely consistent with a currency with a validity deadline. The State could issue this money to ensure its expenditures without levying taxes, since after a certain time, the money would no longer be valid. It would disappear by itself. On the other hand, this currency makes taxes and the inconveniences that go with them disappear. There would be no more need to pay taxes for each producing or consuming activity, nor would there be any need for painful and costly administrative formalities. Exchanges are facilitated. We can see that an ideal theoretical solution goes in a totally opposite direction to usury. The ideal solution depreciates the currency until it becomes null and void, while the other solution increases its value infinitely.

Now we need to look at some concrete cases. Let's start with the case of someone who has earned a lot of money. This means that he has amassed a lot of rights to trade. He can then spend them for his greatest interest. He is the one who profits from it or decides who profits from it. But if he doesn't want to profit, the exchange rights he has accumulated are blocked. No one can benefit. But the validity date will end this imbalance. And other money will be created to compensate the one that is no longer valid. So, either he benefits from it, or the money will end up disappearing. But there is another possibility. He can lend the money he has in excess. He doesn't need it at the moment, but he can give it to others who will return it to him at the appropriate time. Thus, the person who has a lot of money has an interest in lending it out in order to keep it. There is no need to ask for additional interest. He lends rights to exchange for a certain period of time. He will get them back later in the same way in terms of value and duration. In a spirit of justice, it would even be better if the possible costs of the loan were charged to the creditor and not to the debtor. Indeed, the owner has a great interest in lending and it is more fair to make the one who has rather than the one who does not. A sharing of the costs can be considered. In this way, money circulates. And even if the rich person of one day ends up using up his money, he will never be in need because he will always have a Basic Income, as will his descendants. With a Basic Income, it is no longer necessary to accumulate to ensure one's old age and give a future to one's children.

Let's now look at how the universal basic income would be financed with this currency, which has a validity period. Well, it would be the lungs of the system: money is created permanently to feed the basic income. It is the foundation of the money supply. Money that will eventually no longer be valid is permanently reintroduced by the Basic Income. This is the basis of exchange rights and therefore of exchange. If it is estimated that there is a growing activity, such as new leisure activities or more activities to take care of the environment, we can decide to increase the Basic Income. If the system works well, one can indeed decide that it is not only a basic income, but it could also be an income with a certain level of comfort.

Companies sell products and services to get these exchange rights and get rich. They make people work who accept it freely. They do not do it because they have to in order to survive, but because they find a positive motivation. Hard work will thus be revalued. Some companies will have more interest in finding alternatives by machines because of the increased cost of arduousness.

Concerning government spending, a major interest of time-limited money is to be able to finance spending without levying taxes. The state creates money to finance expenditures. Care will have to be taken to monitor the amount of spending, because the more spending there is, the more it weakens the value of the basic income. It will also be necessary to reconsider the need to go through the state for a general interest expenditure. For there is the possibility of increasing the universal income to finance public needs according to the choice of individuals. This is a kind of financial vote. It can even be done in the form of a referendum. For example, suppose the country needs an exceptional infrastructure expenditure. For example, a bridge. A budget is agreed upon, which will be increased by a percentage to be defined. It could be 30% for example. We thus obtain a budgetary envelope. It can be decided to allocate this sum and to distribute it to each citizen. The citizen is then asked if he wants to give this money to the project. If some of them consider the project irrelevant, they keep the money for their personal expenses. If enough citizens consider the project important, the necessary budget can be collected and done. If too few people consider the project interesting, it will not have the budget to be done and one can conclude that the money created for the referendum was not needed and therefore not created. The conscious citizen makes the right decision if he understands that too much extra money causes inflation, that is, a loss of reference. And the consequence is a decrease in the value of the money that each citizen has at his disposal. He also knows that it is not reasonable to entrust this power or responsibility to third parties, such as bankers or politicians, without controlling them closely.

Finally, in the context of expenditure control, an important area of savings is health management. Health expenses are in the order of 250 to 300 billion euros in France.

          A simple way to reduce this expense is to liberalize the control system of the health care system slightly. There should be several federations of doctors and medicines. In my opinion, the country would be less sick, better cared for, and we could perhaps cut health care costs in half. This may surprise you, but consider the limiting principles of science outlined in a previous chapter. Consider also the misleading principle number 1: arouse an emotion to spread a message. With your health it is so easy to play on your emotions of fear. These health care decision makers are so confident and frightening that they can afford to impose forced drug treatments and prohibit alternative treatments for serious diseases. However, a registry denouncing dubious or dangerous practices of practitioners would be sufficient to inform patients. It is not necessary to ban the practice or to put in jail those who seek or discover alternatives to certain barbarous and expensive treatments. Currently, in France, it is enough to bribe a few people to control the health policy of all and to decide how the whole population should be treated. And as the treatments are entrusted to private companies, whose aim is to make money, it is illusory to believe that the attempt to corrupt the small number of people who decide on our health has not been undertaken.

        You will also notice the similarity in France in the control of health and currency. A single "independent" agency under the influence of an interest group that dictates the rules. And a public opinion informed by authority figures carefully constructed by the interest group. The others cannot express their understanding or are demonized.

Let us now look concretely at an example of what a time-limited currency would look like. I warn the reader that this is a bit technical, and that he may get lost. This paragraph is given for those who wish to go deeper and see for themselves that it can work. We will therefore call this currency Duty of Exchange Limited in Duration (DELD, abbreviated with D).  To begin with, we can start with a maximum validity period of 10 years. Within the framework of the universal income, we want the person to receive 1000 DELDs (1000 D) each month. One year later, this sum is only worth 900 D, after 2 years 800 D. And so on until 100 D after 9 years and nothing after 10 years. So we have 100 D that are valid for 10 years, 100 D that are valid for 9 years, 100 D that are valid for 8 years, and so on until 100 D that are valid for 1 year. One year after the creation of these 1000 Ds, the 100 Ds valid for 10 years are no longer available. There are still slices of 100 D valid from 1 to 9 years. So the 100 D slices do not have the same value. The remaining duration must be associated with the value. So the value of a DELD is measured in duration, as an energy is the measure of a power in duration. Thus, the 100 D valid initially 9 years are worth 900 DELD*Years or DELD.Annual periods (DA), the 100 D of 8 years are worth 800 DA, and so on until 100 DA of 100 D valid 1 year.  Thus the 1000 D distributed in slice of 100 D by duration of validities had value of 5500 DA. After one year, their value is 1000 DA less, or 4500 DA. In order for the price tags to be unique and not defined by an amount in DELD associated with a duration, we must express the prices in DA. The reference being the DA, one can convert DELDs of different durations of validity. Thus, when one has 1000 D with a validity of 1 year, one can, for example, change them for 100 D with a validity of 10 years, or 200 D with a validity of 5 years.

One could then decide to take for the universal income a uniform distribution of validity in time in DA. So that the disappearance of value in time is each year of 550 DA. These DA reported in DELD with a deadline for each of the next 10 years, would give a distribution of 55 D valid 10 years. 61,11 D valid 9 years, 68,75 D valid 8 years, 78,57 D valid 7 years, 91,67 D valid 6 years, 110 D valid 5 years, 137,5 D valid 4 years, 183,33 D valid 3 years, 275 D valid 2 years and 550 D valid 1 year. This means that 1611 DELDs would have been given uniformly distributed in DA, for the same value as the 1000 DELDs uniformly distributed in DELDs. It would be simpler to reason in DA, which is equivalent to one DELD valid for 1 year.

How can this be implemented? This can be done with paper money, where an amount and an expiration date is written. Beware, the calculations are a bit more complicated, but people with doubts could work with bills valid for 1 year, which would correspond to the amount in DA. Banks could provide these bill exchange services. But when using electronic means of payment, such as a credit card, conversions are done automatically.

Finally, we must see the opportunity that technology can bring for this currency with limited duration. Indeed, the interconnection of computers and their access at any time by many people make it possible to define algorithms in which we enter the characteristics of the currency. These algorithms are open, which means that anyone can audit and execute them. The information and verification of the currency data is distributed among as many machines as desired. The account data of each person is located on several machines under the control of people whom the account owner has deemed independent or competent and honest. To introduce an error, it must be introduced on all machines at the same time, otherwise it is identified at the first synchronization. These technologies are called crypto-currencies and they already exist. It would be appropriate to define one that is compatible with universal income and the time limit on the currency created. It does not seem very difficult to me to make this realization, given the state of the art in the field. The gain is potentially a fully automated exchange system that does not generate any additional costs by its operation and whose control is community-based. This means that we no longer need banks as economic agents with a role of their own. The profession of banker has to be rethought, there will probably be less profit, less people, but their reconversion to other activities can be done serenely thanks to the basic income, just like the war industries.

The prospects are very attractive, but the main thing is not the crypto-currency, it is the rules that define how we govern our exchanges. These rules must be based on a common and therefore fair set of values. Crypto-currency simply implements these rules. And there is no lack of enthusiastic specialists who could implement it. The problem is above all to federate enough people to gather around common values based on justice. The first value to which most people aspire is peace or an end to physical, financial and economic insecurity at the individual and national levels. It is necessary to federate around this value. Anything else will be less unifying and more difficult to achieve.

Chapter 13: Global Warming

Many people, at least in France, are concerned about global warming. Some think that, because of this warming, the planet is in danger. As I am also convinced that the planet is in danger, I cannot remain indifferent to their fear, even if I point out other causes of danger. The golden rule is that I take these concerns into consideration. I would like to take this opportunity to invite those who want us to be concerned about the climate, to also be concerned about peace.

First of all, we have to make a determination. Is global warming real? It would seem that in many places where temperatures are monitored, there is a significant increase. It also seems that in some places the temperature has dropped. But it seems that this is much more rare. Finally, as far as I'm concerned, I can say that snow is less and less present in France. I have been able to observe that the glaciers are shrinking. Does this mean that life on Earth is in danger or even just humanity? I don't think so, at least for the moment. Where I live, in a temperate climate, temperatures can rise by about ten degrees without requiring me to leave my region. I don't feel my life and my children's lives are in peril from which to escape. However, in some regions in the tropics, it could become unlivable for humans... if the climate increased by a dozen degrees. So the consideration of global warming is first the consideration that some other inhabitants of the Earth far away from me are going to have very great difficulties to live. I understand this perfectly, and it is in accordance with the golden rule. I would not want to live in this situation, so I must not behave in a way that causes it. I draw attention to the fact that it is in the same register to want peace on Earth. The first security is not to have war and violence at home. And in terms of respect and consideration for people, making sure that my country cannot militarily coerce other countries to take their wealth and exploit it is a priority. So, I'm fine to pay attention to global warming. But the necessary counterpart is that we must not forget that this does not concern everyone and that any action that might be taken must be carried out in a spirit of consideration for others and peace. This is very important, because you have my support, and the support of many people due to consideration for others, not because I want a lower temperature around me. To go and force or even slaughter or exploit someone for a lower temperature does not have my support. Some people cannot be allowed to do this for global warming reasons. Secondly, I would like to know why the problem of a peril is focused on global warming. Besides the problem of the danger of wars, there are other environmental problems that concern me directly, such as the pollution of the air, water, oceans, our food, radio waves, radiation, deforestation, ... I would not want to support a fight against global warming that would aggravate these other problems. So the goal is admissible, but it is essential to pay attention to the means and the way to proceed.

To act on global warming, we must know the causes. We are talking about a global phenomenon. It is reasonable to think that the problem is multiple and complex. What would be the causes of global warming? I am trying to understand what preoccupies people and governments so much around the climate and everything leads to the IPCC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Unfortunately, we must remember that this group is at the initiative and within the framework of the UN. Yes, I say unfortunately, because this organization has behaved so grotesquely with Libya, as explained in the chapter on the peace plan, that its activities are discredited. If my explanations are not enough for you, please refer to Patrick Mbeko's book "Objectif Kadhafi". I therefore call on those who believe that the activities of the IPCC should be taken seriously, to understand and repair the dysfunctions in the management of the Libyan crisis at the UN. As I mentioned in the peace plan, it seems that the madmen have taken over the madhouse. But in the madhouse, there is the IPCC. One cannot do anything without consequences.

        You may consider the work of the IPCC, but you should be very wary about it, especially about the true intentions of this group. And as long as there has been no reparation for the management of the Libyan crisis at the UN, elementary morality forbids you to use the work of this UN group to assert certainties to someone other than yourself. You should also know that the publications of this group are a synthesis between scientists and politicians. This is not a problem in itself, but it should be kept in mind. What is advocated by this group is thus a consensus negotiated with politicians, in no case it is a "scientific truth". It is a compromise where Science is compromised.

With these precautions in mind, now, reader, you have to take action. Not inviting to action, but acting yourself for your environment. Go and see by yourself what the IPCC says, as I did for CETA and UN Resolution 1970 in other chapters. Make sure that the reality you get about ecology is what the IPCC says and what it recommends for political leaders. It is important that you do this because you will find that these people are not aware of the limiting principle of science number 4, that the statistical model is limiting. Statistics can be interesting, but they will put you in a bind if you don't make the effort to understand and validate your understanding. Since this point is important, I'll tell you an imaginary story, which highlights the fact that not understanding a simple problem and relying on statistical studies leads to big trouble.

Once upon a time, a family had a partially blocked toilet drain. I should point out that this family had very poor lighting in their toilet and that the toilet was adjacent to the living area and not outside. The consequence of this partial blockage was that an odor spread through the house from the toilet without the partial failure of the drain being identified. The family wondered and felt somewhat ashamed that it was their production that was making the odor. During a medical consultation, routine questions about stool were asked and the father reported that he found the smell of his stool unbearable. The doctor ordered humiliating and painful tests but did not identify the problem. However, the doctor had noticed that his patients often ate unbalanced meals, which he believed was the cause of many diseases. Rather than admit his ignorance, he told him that it was probably a food problem. So he suggested that he eat better and less. That's common sense, isn't it? The father reduced his food intake and invited his family to do the same. But with the drainage problem still present, the odor problem persisted and pests began to arrive. Opportunists seized the opportunity to sell whatever they could to this embarrassed family. Each opportunistic seller had his product and his supporting statistical study. All the technologies to kill all types of pests were sold to them. And once a vendor had made his sale, he would sell the family' s address to other opportunistic vendors. It was then that a drug dealer, well aware of their problems, presented the family with the closest studies to an effective solution: cocaine. It was thus justified that the cocaine user kept his energy without eating and therefore without excrements for long periods of time, provided he took enough. Thus, the family would have no more food, no more excrement and therefore no more odor problems and in compliance with the doctor's prescription to eat less. Then, one day, a delivery man came to drop off a package and smelled the odor. He spontaneously told them to unclog their toilet. They did so and the odor problem disappeared. But the family still had the problem of cocaine and drug dealers for a while.

To explain the correspondence with global warming, the family represents the peoples of the earth, the provider of statistical studies is the IPCC, the dealer represents our political leaders, the opportunistic pest killers are the industrial lobbies, the excrement is CO2, the odor is global warming, the insufficient evacuation corresponds to the absorption of CO2 by the environment and the unclogging of the evacuation could be the reconstitution of the forests.

Go and read the IPCC reports and see that not everything that is said is in the direction of understanding. First, CO2 is not toxic or polluting. Yes, it is an essential element for life. If you remove it, there will be no life on Earth. Life is a cycle, the waste of some is the raw material or food of others. Plants, and in particular trees, are the evacuation of our CO2. Our CO2 evacuator, plants and forests in particular, are attacked, plundered. It is common sense and essential to respect and restore this evacuator before speculating on something else.

Yet the IPCC recommends the development of CO2 absorption technologies. While we already have trees at our disposal for free. The IPCC recommends to use the biomass as energy. Therefore to burn them. It does not alert that a third of the excess of CO2 emission is due to deforestation. A basic understanding is that trees allow an ecosystem to develop and trees allow water to penetrate the soil. You don't have to make statistical correlations with CO2 to say that we will have floods or water shortages if water does not penetrate the soil. This is an inevitable consequence of deforestation. Deforestation is a major problem for ecology as a whole, including excess of CO2, if you think CO2 is a problem. Did you know that planting trees is as easy as doing an internet search? Someone had the brilliant idea to tap into the mass of money generated by search engines to plant trees. Are you aware that this can completely solve the problem of excess of CO2? Why don't you know about this idea? Are you using it? Then, if you listen to what the IPCC or its sponsors say, they only talk about acting on CO2, which has gone from 0.03% to 0.04% in the atmosphere. However, there are other greenhouse gases, whose effect is more marked and in much larger quantities, such as water, in the form of vapor or clouds. And the warmer it is, the more water vapor there is. So the gain in CO2 that we can make is already negligible compared to all the extra water vapor that has appeared due to the warming that has already occurred. The IPCC has therefore also found its limit with water, it does not advocate eliminating water on Earth, perhaps that was a little big to pass. But in their logic of greenhouse gases, we are like in a combustion engine where there was a spark plug that causes a spark and fuel. Once the explosion has started, putting out the spark doesn't change anything. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a water vapor model, rather than a CO2 model? Well, there is one, but not at the IPCC, and it is based on water vapor and clouds, cosmic rays and solar magnetic activity. According to this model, human activity has no impact. And their model is much more accurate and consistent than those of the IPCC. The IPCC, rather than questioning itself, prefers to draw our attention to the fact that the significant decrease in fish in the oceans and CO2 are linked. It locks itself into statistics and does not mention overfishing. It is unaware of limiting principle number 4: the use of statistics is limiting. Scientists worthy of the title disengage from this group. With the IPCC, we are typically in the misleading principle number 10: submission to the authority figure. But you may still think that something should be done, because you are in doubt. You are also subject to the misleading principle number 15: the frustration that you want to evacuate and you only have in mind the solutions that are hammered into you by repetition according to the misleading principle number 3. Yes, there is a significant ecological problem, but it is not the problem that the IPCC is raising and the solutions they are advocating will not help. If you want to do something, you have to do something first by yourself. You can follow the IPCC's prescriptions, you, and for you, before trying to impose them on others. Reduce your CO2 production, see what your limit is. The more you try, the more questions you will have. The IPCC has no limits and it is more and more sure of itself. Some people believe that the solution is zero carbon. Eventually, you will have to find a way to stop breathing because it is very likely that you will emit CO2 when you breathe. You can also go to Fukushima and Chernobyl to see by yourself what a nuclear plant can do. If you still think that you should follow the IPCC's recommendation to multiply by 5 the number of nuclear power plants, talk to your neighbors to find out what they think about having a nuclear power plant near you, because by asking to follow what the IPCC says, you must be ready to have it for yourself, and therefore impose it on your neighbors. Your salvation lies in concrete action.

Thus, the recommendations of the IPCC are strangely similar to the recommendations that John Perkins was paid to make in order to get countries into debt or to recommend the construction of a nuclear power plant, which he now describes as the work of a financial hitman You have to look at the fact that these climate experts are recommending investments of 2400 billion dollars a year to make the energy transition. And I believe that this is only the energy part, not the car, nor the insulation for example.

Although the IPCC denies it, it is economic policy. Especially since possible alternatives are not considered, such as the reduction of economic activity or a tax on products imported over a long distance. It's just that it's incompatible with the politics of free trade and usury necessitating growth. Do you remember that the production of the IPCC is a compromise between scientists and political leaders? So it does not seem that it is the scientists who are asking leaders to do something as it is presented to us, but that it is the political leaders who are trying to justify economic policy by scientists. Among these scientists, how many receive money from public funds driven by political leaders? Who pays for their climate research, their specialty, when they are not working for the IPCC? Wouldn't there be a conflict of interest from some members of this IPCC? You should thus come to the conclusion that the IPCC is a tool of political propaganda. The only alternatives the IPCC offers to help the planet are different amounts of indebtedness for more or less of the same solution. The only thing that is left in the public debate is to think about what to tax. It creates dissension, but giving your opinion on who should pay is not acting. In France, we are already fiscally mowed everywhere and in great deficit.

Changing the infernal spiral of debt is much more useful for the ecology. We will always run to more debts to repay others. This means more activity and according to the IPCC, always more CO2. It is incomprehensible that the IPCC does not mention the path of degrowth if it is independent of political leaders. However, peace and a basic income will cause this usurious system to be abandoned. There will no longer be guns pointed at someone's head to force them to pay, therefore to force them to find a remunerative activity. I know it seems utopian and far to you, but it is above all the number of persons saying stop that counts. One of the major causes of the ecological problem, wars, violence is common: the exponential of interest bearing. Choose peace to settle this.

Now, if you want to act and still force others to act according to the recommendations of the IPCC, because you believe it is a good cause, make sure before you want to do good, not to do harm. Has your country participated directly or indirectly in the war in Libya? It is important to understand that the governments had the consent of the people to do this. I invite you to ask yourself if the system in place is not trying to obtain your consent to do something unhealthy. It is necessary that you understand what happened to obtain consent and carry out massacres in Libya. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and associations have flourished with very reassuring names about their intentions to denounce imaginary abuses by Gaddafi and demand military intervention. These organizations are the relay that gives the moral backing to these lies and abuses. Check what is behind these organizations with reassuring names. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. When you learn about the IPCC, you will see an impressive panel of this type of associations and NGOs claiming to be sensitive to our planet and very alarmist. They explain what there is to understand in the recommendations of the IPCC, and want your support to solve the problem.

Often, these associations rely on the IPCC as an authority figure, and ask for full powers to constrain the skeptics because "they put us in danger by not wanting to do anything", these associations ask for the right to punish, the right to indebt the country even more, they are asking for a state of ecological emergency. What they are asking for is a dictatorship, but what they are doing for the planet is nothing. Their action is limited to frustration and claim. This is the principle of misguidance number 15. They can claim that it takes money to act. But we do not need the government to act. If it is relevant for the planet or economically interesting, entrepreneurial people act. Look at what Gunter Pauli is doing, it's extraordinary. He is inspired by Nature and has federated a network to implement his ideas inspired by Nature, where the waste of some are the raw materials of others. He called it the blue economy. These are just local solutions. Maybe you don't know it because it places the producer and the consumer in direct contact, avoiding the big intermediaries who control the market and usurp profits. Why don't all these associations talk about it? You will discover that many solutions exist in the field where you decide to act concretely. Finally, you are deluding yourself if you believe that industrial research will find you an improving solution. There are already some in Nature, but what the big industries do, which will receive research credits from your taxes and debts from your country, is to develop binding alternatives, to associate a permanent rent for them and to make prohibit the solutions of Nature. One of the most glaring cases are seeds. For one seed planted, Nature gives dozens of seeds in the fruits, even many more. Today, you can only recover in commerce or from commercial fruits sterile seeds resulting from crosses, these are hybrid plants or Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The seed companies' lobby has established marketing criteria such that reproducible traditional peasant seeds cannot meet them. They prosecute those who try to save or sell these traditional seeds. The few big seed companies make people work, even very young people, to manually cross the species in miserable conditions. All this so that we buy their seeds endlessly. If you think low-carbon is the answer, then it makes sense to think that cocaine is the answer for the family with a voiding problem. This IPCC, these associations and their messages will allow you to understand that you are in the cave of Socrates, with puppeteers, chains and shadows. The society is in the process of following and submitting to the equivalents of the dealers of the previous story.

Finally, there are some associations that ask to move to another scale in the solutions, without specifying what. This is another way to apply for massive research or funding credits. But this need to grow ever more is the mark of wear and tear, which is exponential. Do you believe that we and the environment could bear to operate in this way, on a larger scale? I think there is a much more important point to develop than technology, it is the consciousness of people living on this planet. Our technology is too advanced compared to our evolution of morals or conscience. In general, we are not aware of the consequences of our actions. As technology is now powerful, we do a lot of damage without taking it on. I place my action at this level, before technology, to already make sure to evolve positively. I hope you will understand the need for it. The problem with the planet is that we pollute it, destroy it and do not respect these operating principles. Let's act on it. But that is not the path we are taking at all, especially following the IPCC. If we make a connection with the chapters on usury and CETA, then we can conclude that debt interest is being transferred to financial costs indexed to CO2. After having taxed and taken control of our exchanges, high finance wants to tax and take control of our activities, including that of breathing. You will have to pay the right to exhale your CO2. The ultimate tax. The usurer is thus hidden behind ecological pretexts and it becomes very difficult to understand our enslavements. But relying on the dealer to solve the problems will kill us and damage the Earth even more. It is even conceivable that the powerful interests that have implemented this vast manipulation, in order to give themselves every chance of success, have also used the principles of misdirection 12 and 15; manipulating the input data and creating a problem to arouse your frustration. How could this be done? By using secret geoengineering technologies to actively influence the climate, especially in the most monitored areas. This could explain the extreme temperature drops in other places at certain times. Because the laws of equilibrium say that if you bring heat to one place, you have to take it from somewhere else... This is just a hypothesis, as a personal opinion, but I have no doubt that if these technologies exist, they are using them on purpose and to the detriment of environmental ecosystems.

Inventing technologies inspired by Nature is a good thing, but it is not enough, we must also use them in the spirit of Nature. To wage war on plastic by replacing it at the cost of cutting down trees is not a good thing. Finding opportunities for discarded plastics is more in the spirit of nature. So to act, you can't avoid raising your consciousness. The elementary elevation of consciousness is to seek peace with your fellows. This is in the spirit of Nature, and you will avoid a lot of pollution with direct and indirect destruction from wars. The way of collaboration will be opened, making possible great and beautiful actions for the planet, for humanity.

If you don't want to work on raising your consciousness, you will be again and again the prey of opportunists who know how to use your weakness of consciousness to manipulate you and get everything from you.

It is now appropriate to assess the action of the politicians in front of the problems of the ecology. I remind you that it is very important, because today, it is on them that rests the management of a problem even more important, namely, the risk of a cataclysmic war.

First of all, the process is dishonest by making people believe that they are basing their decisions on scientific data. Because their "scientific" data is already a political compromise. Second, they impose an economic policy under this pretext. Finally, they organize a racket for its financing. And of course, they do not solve anything. Our problems are for them opportunities to impose their choices without any relation to our concerns. This is what caste we rely on to manage the immediate danger of self-destruction. We are not reasonable if we leave this responsibility to them. The peace plan is designed to correct this.

Preventing them from being able to wage war will limit their power to act in many other ways. It will thus limit their ability to harm us and the environment.

Chapter 14: The Freddie Mercury Legend

When you try to understand certain things deeply, you go through many stages of experiences, reflections, pitfalls, understandings and progress. There is a whole path to take. It can be said that there is a way to go. And on this way, it can be seen that it is already paved or marked out by others. This is what I have tried to report in part in the previous chapters by quoting these people. What I also want to say is that the road must be traveled to truly appreciate the path and the work of the forerunners. In this respect, I would like to both pay tribute to and call upon a man to confirm what I have found on this path. His voice carries much more than mine to encourage you to walk the path. So now that I have done all I can to explain the need to make peace, to motivate you to become a star for others and for yourself, I now give the word to the unsuspected, the awesome, the super star, the great pretender to the title of legend, Freddie Mercury.

To begin, let's study the song "Hammer to fall" by his band Queen . The key to understanding is that the hammer mentioned in the song is the hammer of Thor, the Norse god. This hammer, can send a devastating impulse. "Hammer to fall" represents "the weapon of devastation that will fall", that is the meaning of the title of the song. So here is the explicit meaning of the lyrics:

"

Whether we are dominant or dominated,

in the final struggle,

history won't remember anyone at all

because everything will disappear.

Prepare the death chamber

because everyone will die

on that day, no one will be spared.

Yes. You don't take the time to meditate or reflect.

You don't hear the alerts of danger

but when the call to war comes,

you resign yourself to it each time.

It comes to you as it does to everyone

And what awaits you is the annihilation by devastating weapons

Every day that you give up being who you really are

you lose a little of your vitality.

But you remain proud and dominating as it is done in the West.

You pay attention to your appearance

but your inner self is withering away.

It is so much fun for them to create problems for you to bring you resigned to their solutions.

You entertain as much as you can to forget

And when they call you to general mobilization

It will be time for it all to end.

Whatever your social condition,

the truth is that the flood will come for everyone.

It is inevitable. You may struggle to survive but it will be in vain.

For your servants offering you this show,

who have already grown up in fear of a world arrogant with its nuclear weapons, we are convinced that what we are saying now cannot be understood by our present audience.

So we shout as loud as we can to reach future generations

and that they will understand our message in time:

why on earth do you need to wage war?

Just lay down your arms and everything will be fine.

When you receive this message,

know that you can pray, it will help,

until others understand to lay down their arms.

Because the devastating weapon will finally break out.

Yes, it is going to come down, it is inevitable if you do not realize it.

Do you understand?

If you don't understand then,

It's because mankind hasn't learned enough yet

And we will have to start all over again,

Like after the flood of Atlantis or Noah.

"

What is described speaks well of the end times. Inspired texts have many meanings, you probably didn't expect this one. So check for yourself if what I am rephrasing is not the most coherent meaning of this song.

For copyright reasons, the genuine lyrics are not provided in this book for comparison. But, the reader is strongly encouraged to get them or listen carefully and see what Freddie is saying.

        Let me share with you another one of those songs that goes along with "Hammer to Fall" and clearly confirms that Freddie knows what's coming. It's "The prophet song", from his band Queen. Freddie tells us that he can see the future like a prophet. This song is quite special because it is about visions that Freddie had before 1975, the date when Queen offered this piece and he is talking to people in the future, probably to you, now when you are reading this. I don't understand all the details of this long song, but here's my transcription:

"

Oh people of the Earth, listen to the warnings of the prophetic visions I have. A major storm is brewing and threatening you.

Listen to the wise man.

I dreamed that a man was calling out to humanity in his time,

a man who cried over the story of the song "Love of my Life"

and also because of the cold and insensitive hearts.

I saw the fear in the eyes of the old man who could no longer see the future

and I also saw the extinguished hopes of the youth.

Everyone's face was dull.

Oh people of the earth, listen to the warnings of the prophetic visions I have. For soon a cold night that you have caused will fall.

Those who seek to start a new life will have the opportunity to do so, as Noe did in his day.

The man spoke of a nuclear winter

that would take everything away,

but he was ignored and it happened.

The weak, the poor, the powerful, the rich,

everyone was running around.

The Earth began to shake and split apart, bringing death.

Oh, people of the Earth, listen to the warnings of the prophetic visions I have.

For those who listen and recognize that I am speaking to them,

consider the good plan and even if you are only a few, as in the past, you will not be abandoned,

Those who do not heed my warnings will flee for their lives, but their wealth will cause their downfall.

Don't make mistakes, your life depends on it.

So, do you hear me now?

Yes, I know you understand that I am talking to you.

The earth will shake and split in two.

The cataclysm will kill so many people everywhere.

Listen to the wise man.

I insist, listen to him.

I can hear that you think this man is foolish.

But you should really listen to him.

God has given you the opportunity to clean up this place.

You will inherit peace and the Earth

if you accept my advice to open yourselves to love

My vision ended with a voice asking you to listen to the foolish man.

But I'm afraid you won't understand in time that he is not foolish at all.

"

This prophetic text recalls Jesus' words to the people of Jerusalem warning of their coming slaughter for not listening to the prophets:

"

Truly, I say to you, jall these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate.

" Matthew Ch23, v36-38

In one of his solo songs, "In my defense", Freddie tells us about his difficulties to help us as much as possible to avoid the destruction to come. Again I'm paraphrasing, but the original text is perfectly clear.

"

I'm afraid I'll be blamed for not doing enough or having done enough,

so here is how I can explain the situation most clearly:

it is necessary to assume and repair our mistakes.

This is not easy in the current state of the world, which is tearing apart everywhere.

The best I can do is to write the most beautiful songs to tell you this.

How could I try to correct what is wrong?

I hope my melodies will touch you, stay with you so that you will one day understand.

My visions let me know that this is the only slim hope I have to succeed.

The way the world works now is to destroy Love.

We don't listen to each other kindly enough,

we do not assume and seek the truth.

Otherwise, you would understand and apply immediately what I am saying.

That is why some people show you Love in action,

you like it, but like a tube, you quickly move on

and end up forgetting it.

The best I can do is to write you the most beautiful songs

with the most penetrating melodies.

I can't correct you, only you can.

I cling to my only hope.

I accept and follow my destiny

using my best qualities to show the way;

I sing, I make melodies.

I can't force people to do the right thing.

That is not the solution.

I trust the information I have received, my intuitions.

Mother Earth, God of heaven, let me know if there is another way?

Are we going to succeed or are we going to become extinct?

Please help me.

"

This song also invites reflection on how we use our talents. For whom, for what purpose?

All that Freddie needs is that we give him an opening, that we create a breach in our shell of certainty, so that he can act and help us. He says it in the Queen song "Breakthru",

"

When the light of dawn appears,

a new day begins.

Likewise, when Love breaks through the barriers,

a new way of life is coming.

One way or another, it will have to be done,

so open your heart NOW.

Yes, this is it!

I come alive again because of your decision.

Your person and my spirit are connecting.

I am already accessing your innermost feelings,

it is a divine beauty.

Yes, what you are touching is me.

I am at your disposal, at your request,

don't you realize it?

If only I could reach you,

if only I could get you to smile,

it would be such a great opportunity.

It would be a breach in the barriers erected by pain.

The good weather would follow the rain.

I could make known my feelings for you.

I send you all my light now,

because one way or another,

I have to get through you.

And now I can.

You smile, it says more than a whole book about you.

Each of you who connects with me

makes me more effective in reaching others.

My dear, you light up something deep inside me,

it is the sacred fire,

I am overjoyed,

I want to immerse in this ecstatic connection.

If only I could reach you,

if I could get a smile,

it would be such a big step.

If I could reach you,

make you smile, that would be such a breakthrough,

but I need an opening, an opportunity.

"

Freddie, makes us aware of a great peril, but if we can open up, he also teaches us how to bring about universal peace and brotherhood. This is Queen's song "The Miracle". In the song Freddie explains that:

"Life on Earth is a miracle.

Life and Miracle are synonymous.

The miracle manifests in the wonders of nature.

For example, the life that appears in the desert when it rains;

All animals are a miracle of life.

Humans since Cain and Abel have also realized wonders

like the Taj Mahal or the Golden Gate,

or have developed wonderful techniques

to preserve the miracle of life,

like heart surgery

or to give life even if you are sterile.

This was possible because they believed in it.

You have to believe in miracles.

Look, they are everywhere and from all times and it continues.

Listen to a Jimmy Hendrix solo, it's wonderful.

Leonardo da Vinci dreamed the future before he made us all dream again.

So we should dream that all children

are properly sheltered, fed and clothed.

We just have to believe in it and we can make it happen.

If you have faith that Nature is alive

she will speak to you.

And the most expected miracle of all

is peace on Earth,

the end of wars.

If you think it needs a miracle to happen,

so it is possible.

Believe in it, and it will happen,

Earth is a place of miracles.

And the people will be freed from those who make them fight.

They will be powerless when

you see in each of you your brother or sister.

"

So you may have realized what needs to be done, but, Freddie tells us to not wait. In his song "Time," he is very clear.

"

Time is passing,

time waits for no one

and yet we need everyone.

We should unite to plan our hopes for peace together

or we will simply have no future at all.

This is not nice to hear,

but it sounds like you are blind, deaf and dumb

about the fact that time is running out.

And we still don't openly ask the problem.

Yet it concerns us all.

I repeat, time is running out,

time waits for no one

and yet we need everyone.

We should unite to plan our hopes for peace together

or we will simply have no future at all.

You must not focus on what is wrong,

you already know that you're not doing it right,

but it seems to me that where you have to focus your efforts,

is to take better care of each other

and trust each other.

It seems that your back is against the wall.

I tell you again, time is passing, time waits for no one

and yet we need everyone.

We should unite to plan our hopes for peace together

or we will simply have no future at all.

Time is passing,

time is running out,

time is pressing,

tick tock, tick tock.

Let's free this world forever

and build a bright future for us all.

Time won't wait for latecomers,

we need everyone.

"

I hope you clearly understand the warning message and the way to avoid the catastrophe and choose a bright future. So I encourage you already to submit your commitment on the countingstars.fr website, to contribute, to federate.

Now spread the word. And, as Freddie says in the Queen song "Calling all girls":

"

let it be known with loving words, deeds or feelings.

Be the message and the messenger:

Pass the message of Love to everyone.

Whether you are a girl or a boy, everyone is involved.

Wherever you go, radiate Love.

Receive this Love and transmit it to your kin and to all.  

I am addressing you, I am counting on you.

This message was already sent a long time ago, you know.

Well, it is true.

Spread the message of Love.

And accept it.

Be the message.

Be the Love.

That is the best way to be heard.

Your conscience will also awaken to your mistakes.

You will feel remorse.

Your demons will not let you go easily.

Keep hope, you are on the right path.

Your efforts, your hopes, your successes are contagious,

they impact the whole world

and will be returned to you.

Radiate Love.

Receive and transmit it to your kin as well as to all the others.

Everyone should be able to receive it.

Everyone should have the opportunity to be radiated with it.

All the girls and boys of this world are concerned

"

So listen loudly to all the songs of Queen and Freddie Mercury. Everyone needs to hear, and eventually be penetrated.

Freddie surprises you? That's just the beginning. When you have assimilated his messages from the songs above, I invite you to listen, watch and immerse in his stratospheric, galactic show at Live Aid in 1985 at Wembley Stadium in England.

To be continued…

Chapter 15: Notre Dame de Paris

The will for peace of the French people can take shape in the physical world through the materialization of an idea in the artistic or architectural field.

I also had the help of an artist to make a proposal for the new spire of Notre Dame de Paris. It is the dove, symbol of peace which comes to pour its soft energies of peace on the cathedral and from which all the pilgrims of the whole world come to drink. It is also the dove present at the time of the baptism of Jesus, to whom the building is dedicated. The gutters charge the rainwater with peace energy and the water then comes to bless the cathedral. The dove can also be seen as the phoenix, the animal symbol of Freddie Mercury.

If you wish to reproduce extracts from this book,

please credit the source clearly as follows:

Codex Aquarius Volume 1, Peace, © www.countingstars.fr

An initiative to bring peace to the world.