The destruction of France

For three years, a deep Protest has been rising all over France. It has taken on hitherto unknown forms. Invoking the Republican Ideal, he questions the way in which political collaborators serve the institutions. In view of this, the president of the Republic is pretending to cooperate, which he manipulates at every step. For Thierry Meyssan, the worst enemies of the country are not those who want to divide it into communities, but those who have been elected and forgotten the importance of their mandate.

The destruction of France

The first wave

In October 2018, there was a muted Protest in small towns and in the countryside in France. The country’s leaders and the media were stunned to discover the existence of a social class they did not know and had never encountered before: a petty bourgeoisie who had been excluded from the big cities and deported to the “French desert,” a space where public services are rationed and public transport is not available.

This Protest, which in some places turned into an uprising, was triggered by an increase in the tax on diesel oil, which was intended to reduce fuel consumption in order to achieve the goals of the Paris climate agreement. These citizens were more affected by this price increase than others because they lived far away from everything and had no means of transport other than their personal means.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the world economy has reorganized. Hundreds of millions of jobs have been relocated from the west to China. Most of those who lost their jobs had to accept others who were less well paid. They were forced to leave the big cities that had become too expensive for them and to settle on their periphery.

The yellow vests reminded the rest of society that they existed and could not help fight the “end of the world” unless they were first helped to fight their lack of money at the “end of the months”. They denounced the unscrupulousness of the political leaders who, from their offices in the capital, did not perceive their plight.

The destruction of France

The first political debates between politicians and some of their leaders were even more astonishing: politicians proposed sectoral measures to make fuel prices affordable as they calmly alerted them to the disasters caused by financial globalization. The politicians appeared troubled and outdated, while the yellow vests were the only ones that had an overview. Competence had passed from the political staff to its voters.

Fortunately for the ruling class, the media removed these troublemakers and replaced them with other protesters who vigorously expressed their anger without the same intelligence. The hardening of the conflict, supported by the majority of the population, raised fears of a possible Revolution. In panic, President Emmanuel Macron took refuge in his Bunker under the Élysée Palace for ten days and cancelled all his appointments. He considered resigning and appointed the president of the Senate as interim president. He gave him a rebuff. When he regained his composure, he appeared on television to announce various social measures. None of these grants, however, concerned the yellow vests, because the state still did not know who they were.

All opinion polls show that this challenge is not a rejection of politics, but, on the contrary, a political will to restore the general interest, i.e. the Republic (Res Publica). Citizens are quite satisfied with the Constitution, but not with the way it is used. Their rejection primarily concerns the behaviour of the political staff as a whole, not the institutions.

The destruction of France

In order to regain control, it decided President Emmanuel Macron, therefore, to organize in every parish a “Great national debate”, a bit like the States-General of 1789. Every citizen should be able to Express. The proposals should be synthesized and taken into account.

Already in the first days the president worked to control the will of the people. It was about not allowing the population to say anything. “Immigration”, “voluntary abortion”, the “death penalty” and “marriage for all” should be excluded from the debate. So while the president considered himself “democratic”, he was suspicious of the people.

Of course, all groups of passions can be controlled. During the French Revolution, the Sansculottes, from the stands, were able to disrupt the debates of the assemblies by insulting the deputies. But nothing predicts that the mayors would have been overwhelmed by their voters.

The Organisation of the" great national debate " was a matter for the National Commission for public debate. Now it was intended to guarantee the freedom of expression of every citizen, while the president wanted to limit it to four topics: “ecological transition”, “taxation”, “democracy and citizenship”, “Organization of the state and public services”.

The commission was therefore dismissed and replaced by two ministers. Unemployment, social relations, dependency on the elderly, immigration and security have been forgotten. Then the President entered the stage. He participated in several television sessions in which he answered all the questions asked, taken by himself and by his own competence. From the project of listening to the concerns of the citizens, the idea had come to tell them that they were well governed.

Three months, 10,000 sessions and 2,000,000 contributions later, a report was submitted and then deposited in a cabinet. Contrary to what this summary stated, the interventions of the participants in the “great national debate” focused on the benefits of elected officials, taxes and purchasing power, road speed limits, abandonment of rural areas and Immigration. This exercise in style has not only not brought things forward, but has given the yellow vests proof that the president wants to talk to them but not listen to them.

The destruction of France

Since they are told that we are Democrats

Not during the “great national debate”, but during the demonstrations, many yellow vests referred to Étienne Chouard. For about ten years, this man has been travelling all over France, assuring his interlocutors that a constitution is only legitimate if it is drafted by the citizens. He therefore advocates the formation of a constituent assembly, formed by lot, and the submission of its result to a Referendum.

President Emmanuel Macron responded by creating an assembly formed by Lot, A"Citizens ' Assembly". As a continuation of the" great national debate, " he perverted the idea he was implementing from day one. It was not a question of drafting a new constitution, but of pursuing one of the four issues that he had already imposed.

He did not, however, regard the draw as a means of overcoming the privileges of certain social classes or circumventing the privileges of political parties. He used it as a means to better understand the will of the people, in the manner of pollsters. As a result, the population was divided into socio-professional categories as well as into regions. Then the members were randomly identified within these different groups, as in an opinion poll. The definition of these groups has not been made public. In addition, he entrusted the organization of the debates to a company specialized in the Animation of Panels, so that the result is that of a survey: this assembly did not formulate original proposals, but only prioritized the proposals submitted to it.

Such a process is much more formal than a poll, but it is not democratic at all, because its members have never been able to take the slightest Initiative. The most consensual proposals will be submitted to Parliament or to the people by Referendum. Now, the last Referendum in France fifteen years ago is in very bad memory: the people censored government policy, but it was pursued in other ways in defiance of the citizens.

The destruction of France

The completely illusory character of this Citizens ' Assembly was revealed by a proposal which its members did not want to put to a Referendum, because the people they were supposed to represent would certainly reject it. But in doing so, they admitted that they had accepted a proposal that was presented to them, but they knew that the people would judge it differently.

That’s not me, that’s the scientists

When the Covid-19 epidemic hit, President Emmanuel Macron was convinced by British statistician Neil Ferguson of the seriousness of the threat. He decided to protect the public by applying the generalized coercive restriction recommended to him by Donald Rumsfeld’s former Team. He defended himself against criticism by founding a" Scientific Council", the presidency of which he entrusted to a legal entity which he considered unassailable.

A single authorized voice opposed this measure: one of the most important infectious disease doctors in the world, Professor Didier Raoult. At the end of the crisis, he testified before a parliamentary committee. According to him, Neil Ferguson was a fraud; the Scientific Council - from which he resigned-was manipulated by conflicts of interest with Gilead Science (Donald Rumsfeld’s former company). In an emergency, the role of doctors is to care, not to experiment; the results of the doctors depended on their conception of their profession, which is why patients entrusted to the hospitals of Paris died three times more often than patients entrusted to the hospitals of Marseille.

Didier Raoult’s comments were not analyzed by the media, which devoted their work only to the outraged reaction of the administrative and medical Nomenclatura. However, the question of the competence of the president of the Republic, his government and the medical elites had just been raised by an undisputed member of the medical Elite.

The second wave.

The first round of local elections took place at the beginning of the health crisis on 15 March 2020. The peripheral cities and the country, territory of the yellow vests, had often already found majorities to immediately elect their mayor. As always, it was more complicated in the big cities. At the end of the crisis, a second round was held on 28 June. Then a new step took place.

Six out of ten voters, deterred by the “great national debate” and indifferent to the “Citizens ' Convention”, contested the ballot boxes. The media ignored this silent Protest and interpreted the minority vote as a “Triumph of environmentalists”. It would have been more accurate to say that the proponents of the struggle against the “end of the world” have finally separated themselves from those for the “end of the month”.

Opinion polls assure us that the Green vote comes mainly from state officials. It is a constant in all pre-revolutionary processes: intelligent people, when they feel connected to power, are blinded and do not understand what is happening before their eyes.

Since the Constitution does not provide for this division within the people, no Quorum has been established, so that this election is valid in all major cities, albeit undemocratic. None of the mayors, who were elected by only a fifth or even less, demanded the cancellation of the vote.

No Regime can continue without the support of its people. If this ballot strike is repeated during the presidential election of the Republic in May 2022, the System will collapse. None of the political leaders seem to care.