Les coulisses de la Révolution Française Le décryptage par Marion Sigaut

So ladies and gentlemen, good evening to all. Very happy to welcome you on this July 12, 2024. It is 7 PM, and tonight I am delighted to welcome a guest who has become a regular on this YouTube channel. Good evening, Marion Sigot. Good evening, Nicolas. Good evening, everyone. A big thank you for being here, Marion. I am delighted to see you again. This is your 4th time on this YouTube channel, and I also thank the listeners who are already very numerous, since a few seconds ago you are over 150 live. So thank you for sharing this show as much as possible, for giving it a thumbs up, for subscribing. So tonight we are going to have a special evening dedicated to the French Revolution, which implies dates, facts, events, and it is Marion who will, in a way, give us a live conference, just for us. This show has been planned for some time already, and I thank you infinitely, Marion, for dedicating your evening to us, knowing that current events also allow it, since Sunday will be the famous July 14th, with what that implies in terms of symbols.

So, rituals for this show. No Masonic rituals, but a ritual, let's say traditional for this show: books to accompany us. So, for tonight, I have chosen "The Fabulous History of the French Flag" by Raphaël Delpart, whom I had the pleasure of meeting just before the lockdown in early 2020 at a book fair. Serge Abat-Gillard with "Freemasonry and Politics," "The Republic of Courage" by Florent Montillot and Claude Pernes, Lucien Cerise's "Governed by Chaos," Paul Antoine Martin's "The Lords' Clan: Immersion in the State Caste," and on my right, Vincent Jauvert with "The State Mafia," and finally, Claude Janvier's "The French Deep State." The second ritual, Marion, is, I would say, transparency regarding the CV. What does that mean? It means that personally, I have no conflict of interest, no link of interest with any lobby whatsoever, neither with the CNRS nor with any historical association. Not being a historian myself by training, I only have a law degree, and rather law, and everything else sideways, as Coluche used to say. So I don't have a history background, a legal background, but I am a history enthusiast. So I don't have your specialization, I want to make that clear. Furthermore, I am not, how to say it, I am not a Freemason, nor a member of Rota or Lions Club, nor of any hermetic network whatsoever. I have no criminal record, and I am not suicidal either. So, Marion, could you also detail, as I have just done, your potential conflicts of interest and remind us in a few moments of your CV in relation to tonight's show?

Ah, I have no conflict of interest. No, I am not currently affiliated with anyone. I was affiliated for a long time and in many, many places. I went from the left, no, from Catholic youth associations to the Socialist Party, then to the far-left. I was a Trotskyist, I then joined Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, then I joined Égalité et Réconciliation. Now I am no longer affiliated with anyone. That's how it is. I support Alain Escada and Civitas with all my heart, with all my soul. But I am absolutely no longer affiliated with anyone, rigorously no one. I define myself as a French, Catholic, and patriotic woman, and anything that comes from that, anything that comes from that is defamation. I am a writer. I am not a writeress or a writer-ette. I am a writer. I will explain to you why I am a writer, because "écrivain" is a masculine noun, and why it cannot be feminized. Well, are you a "personne" or a "person"? For example, a person or a person? There is a word in French that says "écrivain," whether you are a man or a woman. I am a writer, and I am not afraid that I will be taken for a man, not at all, not at all. So I don't need to feminize all that. So I am a writer. I point out, by the way, because you should never, never, never miss an opportunity to say that for Wikipedia, I am not a writer, I am a "femme de lettres" (woman of letters). Do you know the difference? Ah, there is a fundamental difference. If you are a writer, you are listed in the category "writer." For example, I would be, if I were a French female writer born in 1950. But since I am not a writer, I am a "femme de lettres," I am not on any list because there is no list of "femmes de lettres." This allows Wikipedia to remove me from the list of people who write books and who, well, who publish regularly or irregularly, but who are called writers. So everything that is said... Well, you should know that if you want a defamatory biography of someone, go look at Wikipedia. Generally, it is very, very, very, very defamatory. The misrepresentation starts from the first line. They say "femme de lettres" and immediately after, "who joins the far-right." I don't see the connection between letters and the far-right. I have never been on the far-right, never. It's not that I left the left to join the right; I left the left to position myself differently. So I am not extreme about anything. I am not extreme about anything. I am not even extremely Catholic; I am just a practicing Catholic, with doubts like everyone else. It's okay, it's good, but I am a practicing Catholic and quite fervent, and quite proud to be so. And then, everything that is said about me on Wikipedia is a series of lies. There have been arguments, well, there have been people who have clashed over me. So if you want to know what I am, what I think, just watch my videos. I think I say almost everything with a lot of sincerity. I think people recognize me as someone sincere. Generally, I receive many, many insults. I am about to receive another barrage. I am homophobic, I am transphobic, I don't know what. I must have a whole bunch of phobias, and so on and so forth. I am an extremist, I am, etc. Well, I don't care, I don't give a damn. I receive, I will tell you, I will receive many more messages of love than messages of hate. Much, much, much, much more. I feed on them, I feast on them, I... You cannot imagine the signs of recognition I receive, what I can, what I can benefit from, feed on, and console myself for my miseries, because I have had many, many, many. I had a very, very difficult youth. It's getting better as I get older, it's getting better day by day, but I have had a difficult, very difficult life. And I had a very difficult youth.

The opportunity to tell us a little about it in some shows. And before we start, thank you for your trust, because I know I am one of the few people you have been able to confide in about certain things. Ah, well, you are not, you are not rare, you are the only one. A big thank you for that. And I also take this opportunity to thank all the public who is following us tonight for their trust, because this week we had excellent ratings because there were guests who seemed controversial to some, and so on. So I had my flow of trolls and company, and I know that many continue to follow the shows because, despite everything, they find interest in them. I also thank Luc, my new moderator, who had a lot to do this week and who has a lot of courage, because you have to know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. I remind you tonight that if people dislike you, there is no need to leave a defamatory comment about you; they will be banned directly. Either we boycott, or we remain courteous and respectful. It's as simple as that. There are many people I don't necessarily like, but I won't leave a scamming, manipulative message; it's of no interest. No, no, but I say it because if you don't like it, don't disgust others, and move on. Absolutely.

So tonight, Marion, you are going to give us a form of conference. I'm going to enjoy this, because all my life I've been passionate about history. I'm almost 34 years old, and I've learned history extensively, from prehistory to the present day. And I learned about the Revolution in different ways, with books by Fernand Nathan, a well-known Freemason. And therefore, tonight, I would like to have another version of history, which does not make me a revisionist, and which does not make me a negationist either. And I remind you that negationism is only the denial of the gas chambers and nothing else. So not tonight either. No, but we have to recall the definitions. So tonight, through this French Revolution, beyond the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the Estates-General, the storming of the Bastille, we will of course talk about "La Marseillaise," the blue, white, and red flag, but also about characters like Robespierre, Danton. So we will weave this whole tapestry, and I leave it to you to talk about it as you see fit, in your own way. I will note the questions from the chat as we go along, so if you see me taking notes, it's normal. I would say, exceptionally, I will be the student, you will be my professor. But still, to make a little risqué joke, you will not be my Brigitte, and I will not be your Emmanuel, if you know what I mean.

In the meantime, because Marion is a little late because she wanted to get ready to be presentable, which I can completely understand. So, in the meantime, thank you all already. You are over almost 500 live, so a big thank you to you. Marion, I'll let you present tonight's topic. Where can we start when we talk about the French Revolution?

So, I would like to say a preliminary remark. I would like to say a preliminary remark because, first of all, to say that this is not the first time I've said this, that I'm saying what I'm going to say tonight. Besides, you yourself asked me to repeat in part what I had already done in Nice recently. I have not done specific research; I have made a kind of compilation of what I had already said. So, sorry for those who have already heard me. That's the first point. The second point is, I beg you not to tell me, "You didn't talk about X and Y." Because it's obvious that you can't say everything. I made choices. It's useless to tell me why you didn't talk about them, or else, possibly, "Tell us about this or that" if there are points you would like me to address in the questions. But please, there are often, often, often people who say, "But you didn't mention this or that." You can never say everything. You can never say everything. For example, in my plan, I hadn't even noted the date of the king's death. I told myself, well, I added it anyway, but it's not the subject, it's not the subject. So the subject is, you will see, listen, I will tell you what we think we know about the Revolution, what I discovered about what the Revolution truly is. And like many people, I was shocked. I was a fervent supporter of the Republic until quite late, even in the middle of my studies, I was still completely convinced that as soon as my research led to the beginning of the Revolution, the sky would open up on this poor France, and the problems would be solved. I believed that for quite a long time. So, everything I'm going to tell you tonight is what I discovered, and it's certainly not what I believed until not so long ago.

So, I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a great man named, who was named Henri Guillemin, whom I discovered particularly thanks to Étienne Chouard, so I thank him in passing. I had already heard of him before, but he is an excellent speaker. The videos, the 1960s, in particular, he already had the art of speaking. Because, I must recall, I had the chance to have excellent history and geography teachers, particularly at the law faculty. If one day they watch this show, his name was Marc Malerbe, always in a tie at every interview, at every professor, every, sorry, every contemporary history course. And the most important thing at school is also to have people who have the art and the way of explaining things, because recounting facts, recounting historical facts, recounting something, that is learned. It is also a talent that is necessary, sometimes it can also be a gift, but when one has the art of doing it like a story, it goes even better, and not everyone has that ability. And that's why I thank you, Marion, for being here tonight, because beyond your skills as a historian and a speaker, you also have the way of captivating people. And for a subject like the French Revolution, with everything we hear politically these days and what is to be expected in the coming days, this show is perfectly timed, knowing that it was not in anticipation of the dissolution of the National Assembly. I've been talking to you about it for at least two months. So I remind the listeners that the shows are planned far in advance. That's important to specify. So, thank you also for having this way of telling things that makes it so that, well, for technical subjects sometimes, and that's why we're going to do a lot of popularization tonight, you're going to explain the characters to us, and we'll show photos later. So, I hand over to you to talk about it. Okay.

So, what I would like, if you agree, is that at the end, you remind me to say a word about Guillemin. The end, about Henri Guillemin? Yes, yes. At the end, when we get to the questions, I'll reserve the first question for you. So, I long believed, and I think what we need to know, what we would like to know, is that the Revolution was a popular uprising against the undue privileges of the nobility and the clergy. That's what we think we know, that's what I was told for a long time, that's what I was taught in primary school, that's what I was still told when I was at university, and that's what is said a lot on social media and on many historical or pseudo-historical educational sites. So, the Revolution made France, would have made France a model for the world. So, in this France before the Revolution, you had a king who defended the privileged and who betrayed the people, and the storming of the Bastille marks the beginning of a process that sees the emergence of the people. And I remind you that the only date we had planned when we decided to do this show together was July 14th, since we said we would do it on the 12th. So, July 14th hasn't changed, and it's independent of the dissolution of assemblies and elections. So, I would like to tell you what I discovered that is essential about the Revolution. And before I talk about the Revolution, I will talk about money. We will talk about money, if you agree, or rather, I would like to talk to you about debt. You've heard of debt. Do you know what debt is? I will tell you about it. In the old days, interest-bearing loans did not exist. It was forbidden. Usury, it was called usury. What is usury? It's giving 100 and asking for 110 or 110 or 130. That's called usury. Usury was forbidden. It was forbidden by morality, it was forbidden by the Church, it was forbidden by the kings. Usury was a sin. Now, when one needs money, when a king, for example, needs money, he is eventually led to borrow, and the lender must find his account, otherwise he will not lend. So, the state debt, the king's debt, the king borrowed money. It consisted mainly of annuities that the king paid in exchange for capital given to him. That is to say, I don't have the right to lend money, but I'm nice, I have money, I'll give it to the king because I'm nice, and the king, because he's nice, will pay me an annuity in return. So, it's an agreement between parties. I say this jokingly, of course, everyone knew that the interest for one was to receive annuities, and for the other, it was to have capital, but it was not considered as an interest-bearing loan. So, when the king can no longer repay, because he has too much, for example, he has borrowed too much, he creates or increases taxes. That's how royalty has operated for centuries. The king needs money, he borrows it, and he pays annuities. If he has too many annuities to pay, or if he has undue or unforeseen expenses, or expenses he cannot escape, he creates or increases taxes. Sound and rigorous management of public finance leads more or less to equilibrium. A good king with a good minister will succeed, whatever the political or climatic uncertainties. Sometimes you have catastrophes that come strictly from heaven and not from politics. We have excellent ministers who have more or less succeeded in re-establishing the balance between expenses and income. And the king manages to continue to balance his budget. But generally speaking, we can say, without stating the obvious, that all kings have always chased after money. Kings have always chased after money. Kings were never rich themselves. So they needed money, and the money, well, it's their people who possess it. There were no banks at the time. Then a war comes, the budget is unbalanced. A war, first of all, it costs money, then it can possibly bring in money if it's won, or cost even more if it's lost. But a war breaks out, it requires money. So the balance that kings have managed to achieve year after year, more or less, is systematically destroyed when a war arrives, and wars are not lacking in our history.

The Hôtel de Ville in Paris, you know, the town hall, Hôtel de Ville square, it's the mairies, as we call it today. The Hôtel de Ville of Paris was the place in Paris where the arrears of annuities were paid. So, you passed before a notary, a contract with the king, you say, "Here, I give, I don't know, 10,000 livres to the king, and the king will pay me an annuity called arrears, and I will come to the Hôtel de Ville to collect my annuity arrears." So, I passed this contract before a notary, and I will go to the Hôtel de Ville to collect my annuity arrears. So, the annuities are nominal. It's me, I give to the king, and the king pays me an annuity. It's a transaction between two parties, with a notary. So, in 1749, that's when the Enlightenment appears, and a certain number of swindlers who will shake things up. The first bearer annuities appear, meaning that you have given money to the king, who pays you an annuity, and then you will sell this annuity, for example, to someone, and that someone will no longer be you who negotiated, who is the king's creditor; it will be someone else, and the king will continue to pay. But the person to whom you sold your annuity can possibly sell it again to someone else. So it will become a value, a value that will have a quotation, a price. It will be able to go up or down. Annuities are good right now, I'll buy one from you, or I absolutely need money, I'll sell this annuity to you, but I'll sell it to you, I'll sell it to you cheaper. So, annuities are for life, which means that when the lender dies, the annuity is extinguished. As long as he is alive, the king pays. But the king always pays, because the king is dead, long live the king. The king, the king never dies. The day the king dies, another king becomes his direct heir and continues to pay. So, the annuity is extinguished the day the lender dies. Madame de Pompadour, Madame Jeanne Antoinette Poisson, whom the king made Marquise de Pompadour, was placed in the king's bed by moneyed circles. She came from a family of financiers who did everything to make her push the king to spend, and the expenses that Louis XV made for Madame de Pompadour were dizzying. Louis XV had no money. Guess who lent it to him? Madame de Pompadour's friends. And the king needed money. Madame de Pompadour's friends lent it to him. Then it had to be repaid, so he had to borrow again.

Question, Marion. Sorry, I'm like in class, I raise my hand. How is it that Louis XV had no money? Is it related to the fact that Louis XIV made lavish expenditures for France? No, no, no, no, no. It simply means that the king had a limited budget, he couldn't make undue expenses, quite simply. The king was not there to dip into the state coffers. Originally, the king was not there to dip into the state coffers. That's clear and plain. The king had money for his current expenses, for his household, for his lifestyle. He didn't have money for a spendthrift like Madame de Pompadour. You have to know how it happened. He was closely watched by this woman who dominated him in many, many ways. So, it is claimed that she did not dominate him sexually. I doubt it very much. They say she was frigid. I don't believe much in these things. I don't believe much in these things. I think she had an enormous influence over him, and she made him spend insane, unimaginable sums. This woman was a ruin on legs, a ruin on legs, and the king, in any case, did not have the budget for such expenses. So he had to borrow, borrow, borrow. So the state budget suffers. And the figure of what the king has to pay increases, but not taxes. Increasing taxes like that, the king doesn't increase taxes with a snap of his fingers. It's more complicated than that. They have to be approved, they have to be, the Estates-General, it's complicated to... You can create taxes here and there, but you can't suddenly increase the tax burden without answering to anyone. Between 1748, the date of Madame de Pompadour's arrival in the king's life, around '47-'48, and 1753, you will have people called philosophers who will attack at all costs what is the reason for being of Christian royalty, which was the prohibition of enriching oneself on the bread of the people. So, I seem to be changing the subject, but I am right in the middle of it. That is to say, I am explaining to you what the bread of the people was. There was a police force under the Ancien Régime that monitored merchants who had to be registered to buy wheat and sell it, the grain, the grain from which bread is made, and bread was the basic food of the people. The grain was traded openly in the markets, and the merchants came after the people in a market. A market is a village square or a town square. The market opens with the sound of the bell. The police are present. The suppliers arrive, that is to say, the local farmers or millers, who unload the grain in the market. First served are the housewives. Behind the housewives, the men, well, generally it's the women who do the shopping, who do the food shopping. Behind the housewives, that is to say, behind the households, come the restaurateurs and the bakers. The bakers come after the housewives because some housewives made their own bread. Behind the bakers and the restaurateurs will come the... That is to say, once the professions, once the people have been served, once the professionals have been served, there will be grain left that has not been sold, and then the merchants arrive, and they arrive, they show their white papers, they show the police who they are, where they come from, how much they bought, at what price they bought it. Is this gentleman your son or your cousin? Is this lady your wife or who is she to you? The merchant will buy the wheat at the price it was at the beginning of the market. He cannot, he cannot lower the price. And once he leaves, he will be asked where he is going, and if he meets the gendarmerie 5 km away, he will have to show a paper proving that the wheat he has in his cart, he bought it at this place, at this price, and so on and so forth. This is called the grain police. What is the purpose of the grain police? It is to ensure that merchants do not hoard the people's bread to enrich themselves. That is to say, there is an instinctive mistrust of the population and of the various governments towards merchants. Merchants are very useful people, we need them, and we will never get rid of them, but we keep an eye on them. So, why am I telling you this? Because, well, another important point to know about the grain trade: when the situation causes grain prices to rise, for example, a climatic catastrophe means we have to bring grain from afar because we don't have enough nearby, it's obvious that the grain will be more expensive. To prevent grain prices from soaring, there is a process called taxation. Taxation comes from the word "taux" (rate). To tax a price is to fix its rate. So, taxation, when it is necessary to prevent the people from not having access to the bread they need, the authority, it can be the local authority, it can be the royal authority, it can be, generally, the local authority will organize what is called taxation, that is to say, by negotiation, and always by negotiation, it will find a compromise between the interests of the merchant, who, if he is not compensated, will stop being a merchant, so goods will not circulate, so we need merchants, so finding a fair balance between the interests of the merchants and the interests of the people, who cannot pay too much. Taxation is therefore, by negotiation, the fixing of a price that, once accepted by the parties, is absolutely mandatory, and the merchant who would sell wheat at a price other than the taxed price, his goods will be seized, he will be suppressed, confiscated. So, taxation is a safeguard measure, unusual, sometimes indispensable, which the people hold dear. But taxation is not mandatory; it is requested, it is possibly granted, and once it is granted and carried out, it is absolutely unthinkable not to refer to it. So, I have a few examples, I have had a few magnificent examples of taxation in Marseille ravaged by the plague in 1720. As soon as the plague showed signs of exhaustion, meaning that health would return and normal life would resume, the Hôtel de Ville organized the taxation of all goods, all products. They called all the merchants, they called the people concerned, and they taxed all goods, all products, because...

Small question in passing. We're talking about debt, money, rates, etc. Were there already Bruno Le Maire figures in the Ancien Régime, if I may say so, people who, how to say it, already caused the collapse of the French economy? Well, I'm going to tell you about that. That's why I'm here. There's a very interesting question that was asked: Who creates money at that time? Ah, well, it's the king directly. The king. So, in fact, the printing press was within the French state? No banknotes? Ah, yes, no banknotes yet. It was just starting. Banknotes? When did that start? Oh, well, it's from 1720, it's from the Regency. No, no, but money is in coin and in kind. It's in coin and in kind. So, before banknotes, what was the means of exchange for the economy? Well, the Louis d'or, copper, silver. I heard that in 1715, when Louis XIV died, I heard that in "Secret d'Histoire" for the excellent "Secret d'Histoire" on Louis XIV in two parts, and at the end, they say that when Louis XIV dies, France is the leading economic power in the world. Is that a reality? I don't know. I have no comparative data. It doesn't bother me. I have no data. And so, from 1715 to 1789, how is it that it collapsed, knowing that Henri Guillemin said that in 1788, and you'll talk about it later, that the harvests had been very bad, particularly due to execrable weather? So, I'll put that aside. But you, what year were you talking about merchants and the bread of the people? It was until 1740, until the Enlightenment, until Madame de Pompadour. Okay.

A small digression on the Enlightenment. I don't want to get too sidetracked, but it's very important, because the philosophers of the Enlightenment, we all learned about them in school: Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, d'Alembert, the Encyclopedia, etc. Voltaire was made a Freemason two months before his death. That's not a myth; it's a reality, to be able to endure until us, because that was the way to perpetuate oneself at the time. Diderot, with "The Skeptic's Walk," notably, one of his works. How is it that they were called philosophers of the Enlightenment? Is it a reference to Freemasonry? What impact, what impact did they have on French politics at the time? And ultimately, do we have the philosophers of the Enlightenment today, but in the version of TV talk show philosophers? Yes, but you're asking me to say right away what I'm in the process of unfolding. So, it's not us who call the philosophers of the Enlightenment, the philosophers of light; it's they who called themselves philosophers. It's they who said they were bringing light. That's their term. That's their term. If there were Bruno Le Maire figures, there weren't any; there were even worse ones. There were even worse ones, but that's what I'm going to tell you. So, the Enlightenment period, it's they who proclaimed themselves bringers of light to the world in the face of obscurantism. So, obscurantism, in a nutshell: Christian obscurantism, the Middle Ages, the Middle Ages.

There, as soon as they mention the Middle Ages, they say the worst. Why? Because the Middle Ages are very Christian. These people have a hatred, they have two obsessive hatreds: it's the people who are truly idiots, and the Christians. And it's often the same people, often the same. So, I'm coming back, I'm coming back to my story about taxation. So taxation is the act by the authority, at the request of the people in general, but sometimes even without the people's request, but at the people's request, the authority that sets a provisional rate, provisional but determined in time, the negotiation that will respect the interests of one and the other and find a middle ground that prevents the merchants from going bankrupt and the people from starving to death.

So, what happens at the time of what are called the philosophers, the philosophers of the Enlightenment? The criticism is directed against the grain police and against this way of managing subsistence, that is to say, under the high surveillance of the king's police. There is an attack that will be particularly virulent in 1753 by a certain Herbert, who publishes an essay on the grain police dedicated to the happiness of the people. And this Herbert will demonstrate that the grain police is there to prevent the people from eating their fill, that is to say, that the grain police reverses the proposition by saying that if we want the people to be able to eat their fill and for everyone to be, if we want to enrich everyone, then the people must eat their fill and allow the king to increase his revenues. Because behind all this, we will explain to the king that we will solve his debt problem. The king is obsessed with the debt that is increasing, increasing, increasing. Why, just at this moment, is an essay on the grain police published? It's to explain to the king that if he changes everything, he will succeed in recovering his funds and solving the debt problem.

So, what does Herbert say? He says, "The police have never made an ear of wheat grow." That is to say, the grain police doesn't make wheat grow. Well, neither do Herbert and the philosophers make wheat grow. It must absolutely be said that the philosophers are people who have all had absolutely outlandish theories on how to conduct agriculture. Not one of them knew what a plow was. They were salon dwellers. What Herbert says is, "We must do like England." So England is the model for these people. England is a country in which the misery of the people is appalling, but that doesn't bother them, it doesn't bother them. England has liberalized its economy, has cut off its king's head, has had a revolution. The misery of the people doesn't concern them. What these people say is, "We must do like England." I dreamed that I was in England, the land of liberties, and so on and so forth. They are Anglophiles, they are Anglophiles, of whom Voltaire was a worthy representative. In England, it would not have been good to be poor, it would not have been good to be a peasant, it would not have been good to be a city worker, it would not have been good to be a small child in England at that time, clearly.

And so, what Herbert says is, "We must let the merchants do as they please." If you let the merchants do as they please, the price will be right, the wheat will be at the right price, everyone will be able to eat, everyone will get rich. Let the merchants do as they please, and you will see that everything will be fine. Why? Well, because he says, "Self-interest is the foundation of all human activity and the main agent of emancipation." When I hear "emancipation," I pull out my revolver. That smells very bad when I hear "emancipation," because people who want to emancipate others generally want to emancipate themselves from common law and get out of the common good, generally, that's how it presents itself. But when he says, "Self-interest is the foundation of all human activity," it's really leaving aside completely, and that's the whole philosophy of the Enlightenment. The notion of the common good, the notion of professional conscience, the notion of the common good and professional conscience, the notion of virtue – all of that no longer has any place, no longer has any reason to be.

What he explains, and he's not the only one, there are several thinkers of the time, but I don't have them in mind, and I won't look for them because it's not of interest for the moment. The way these people operate consists of saying, "If everyone is selfish, there's something called the fable of the bees that explained that. If everyone is selfish, if everyone only thinks of themselves, the correct understanding of their interests will make everything balance out and everyone will be fine, everyone will be fine." So he says, "Self-interest is the most powerful engine of humanity, and self-interest leads to seeking profit, and the search for profit excludes risk, waste, and inefficiency." That is to say, people who are chasing after making the maximum profit will be thrifty, they will not waste. So these people start from the idea that the people they are talking about are all honest. There are no liars, there are no cheats. The profiteer, the one who seeks maximum profit, will understand that it is in his interest to be honest, in his interest not to lie. You're kidding! These are salon theories.

So, profit excludes risk and waste. He says, "Freedom of trade will generate its own rules and neutralize abuses." That is to say, if everyone is free, if there are no more trade rules, abuses will be neutralized by a fair balance between the interests of one and the other. And then he says what? "Taxation is theft. Taxation is theft. Taxation is theft." It will come back like a refrain: "Taxing is stealing. Taxing is stealing." He also says, "We must demystify grain. Grain is a product like any other." Or, in royal France, in old France, grain is precisely not a product. One can invent trade rules that will affect all products except bread or grain, which amounts to the same thing. Bread, grain, flour – it's the same thing. Grain is sacred. Grain is sacred. And what Herbert says is, "Stop saying that grain is sacred. It's not. It's a product like any other. It's a product like any other." And he says, "We must stop speaking ill of merchants. We must encourage all good elements to engage in commerce."

And then, you know, perhaps, well, many people know that in the old days, the nobility did not have the right to engage in commerce, plain and simple. A noble could not derogate by engaging in commerce. Now, they will say, "And why? And why not? If a noble has a good sense of commerce, why shouldn't he engage in the grain trade?" That will give ideas, it will give ideas. So he says, "The police should be there to combat the prejudices of the people instead of reinforcing them." That is to say, for Herbert and for the people he represents, that is to say, the Encyclopedists, when the people want the police to supervise the markets, it's because the people have prejudices. The people never judge; they prejudge. The philosopher reflects; the people prejudge. The people prejudge. So the police should be there to combat the people's prejudices instead of reinforcing them. And when the people ask for taxation, the police must henceforth be there to say, "Taxation is no. We will let the law of supply and demand take its course."

So he says, "If the price of grain increases, well, so much the better. That's precisely what we want. If the price of grain increases, producer revenues will increase, so the king's taxes will increase." That's what we're looking for, that's what we're looking for. He says, "It is bad to have commodities at too low prices. Consumers always find it too expensive. They push justice to always want to lower prices." Consumers are a nuisance, that's what it means. And he explains, "The devaluation of commodities reduces the state's revenues." We understand that. "The sources of production that generate them." That's a figment of the imagination. We don't understand why we don't see that if the price of commodities is low, producers will produce less. But that's a figment of the imagination. But that's the spirit of these people. "It corrupts the people. If prices are too low, the people are corrupted because the people will be able to have something at a low price that it would be more legitimate to make them have at a higher price." But on what grounds? It means that the poor are suckers, that's what it means. Low prices threaten social order by encouraging idleness, the mother of all vices, and creating a race of beggars. I think one cannot more clearly express the contempt one has for the people by saying things like that. By saying things like that, even at the time, it means that it's not recent, it doesn't date from Macron. Contempt for the people dates back several centuries already. Wait, the French Revolution is the victory of these people, and currently, the world we live in is simply the logical consequence of that revolution. It's the revolution of the Enlightenment. We have replaced the common good with the pursuit of profit, and what is good is what is profitable, whereas before, what is good is what is good for everyone.

To ask my question, to ask my question differently: are there particular figures, or is it an ideology that has permeated society at the time of this shift from the common good to the pursuit of profit? Is there a specific date, an event that caused this shift, or did it happen gradually, as a progression? It happened gradually, starting from the debt, from the moment the king could no longer balance his accounts, and a woman was put in charge who made him spend, and who came from circles that lent to the king, and who then demanded repayment. Royalty had its finger in the gears. Royalty had its finger in the gears. Herbert was the first in a long series of people called philosophers who theorized: "We must liberalize, we must liberalize, we must liberalize." And from that date until the Revolution, and even after the Revolution, it's only that, it's only that. So, if I understood correctly, Marion, it would be the intellectuals of the time who participated in this decadence? But they didn't participate, they did, well, they did. It's them who triggered it, it's them. There's a cigarette's throw between the philosophers and the financiers. They're all from the same clique, they're all the same clique.

So, listen carefully to what happens. The Seven Years' War arrives, 1756. The Seven Years' War is a world war. It's France, basically, France against the Protestant nations: England, Germany, and so on. Well, it was an absolutely catastrophic war that France lost, moreover. And it was necessary to borrow again. A war arrives, it's necessary to borrow again. That is to say, the king can't take it anymore, and it's necessary to borrow again. How will he get money? The French must lend to him, okay. Well, since there's no bank, no Bank of France, well, so if he wants the French to lend to him, he must promise annuities. If he doesn't have the means to pay the annuities, what will he do? What will he do? So, to get money, he must promise it, and he must promise it, that is to say, make good conditions. So if you have money, you have 10,000 euros, for example, or 100,000 euros, 1 million euros to spare, you won't give it if you're not promised remuneration in return.

In 1759, that is to say, three years after the start of the Seven Years' War, Étienne de Silhouette was in charge of the budget, well, of the economy at the time. He calculates that the king spends more than a third of his budget to repay his creditors. A third of the budget to repay creditors. He says, "We must reduce expenses or increase revenues." Reduce expenses or increase revenues.

1763 arrives. France has lost the war. France has lost the war, so it will pay, it will receive nothing, it will pay. England now dominates the seas. France has lost Canada. It's a catastrophe for France. On March 7, 1763, Voltaire triumphs in the Calas affair. Voltaire succeeded in making people believe that a Toulouse merchant, Protestant in heart and Protestant in flesh and soul, in a country where the revocation of the Edict of Nantes meant that a priori there were no more Protestants, but there were still some. So Voltaire succeeded in making everyone believe that Calas, who killed his son by strangling him over a family quarrel, was found guilty only because he was Protestant and that the wicked Catholics denounced him, well, that Catholics are barbarians and Protestants are the good guys. That's the thing. Well, I have studied the Calas affair extensively, thoroughly, and with a magnifying glass. I can tell you that Calas was not innocent. He was guilty. He did indeed kill his son. He didn't want to, but he did it anyway. And the judgment that Voltaire succeeded in having overturned was absolutely just. So Calas was never executed because he was Protestant, but simply because he was guilty. The interest of the Calas affair is to make Catholic France feel guilty by telling Catholics, "You are barbarians, Protestants are the good guys." And in the war that breaks out in 1763 between France and the allied Protestant nations, one must take the side of the enemy, and Voltaire is a traitor to the nation, he is a swindler in the pay of the enemy. And the importance of Voltaire in the Calas affair is very important. You will understand immediately, you will understand very quickly.

So, 1763. France has not only lost the war, but in the war between the Jesuits and the Jansenists, it is the Jansenists who triumph. The Jansenists succeed in obtaining, and I will not give the lecture today, it is extremely complex, but in having the Jesuits expelled from France. Now, the Jesuits, if there was a congregation, if there was a body capable, by its intelligence, by its vision, and by its influence, of preventing the king from listening to the sirens of the philosophers, it was the Jesuits. From the moment the Jesuits were no longer there, there was no longer a barrier between all this propaganda. You will see how propaganda was fed into the king's ears, it's absolutely monstrous. So, once the Jesuits were expelled, the way was clear. The way for what? The way for liberalism. And for the first time in 1763, we will see the end of royalty as provider and protector. The grain police will be questioned. Why? So that the king can repay his debt. That's the thing. That is to say, in a nutshell, the word at the time was not economy, it was physiocracy. Physiocracy is government by nature. Nature wants profit; it's natural. For example, police is not natural, but profit is natural. So the word physiocracy was invented by a certain Du Pont, who will be called Du Pont de Nemours to distinguish him from other Du Ponts. He is an Encyclopedist. The theory of physiocracy was invented by a certain François Quesnay, who is a doctor, a fake doctor and a real charlatan, who was close to Madame de Pompadour. He was a type who was quite monstrous, stupid as his feet, but he had a certain success because he treated Madame de Pompadour. And he, the physiocrats, will circulate the idea that all controls must be abolished and that we must let things happen and let them pass so that everyone gets rich. "Let things happen" means prohibiting the control of labor by corporations. The trade corporations were professional organizations recognized by the king, protected by the king, which organized each trade for itself and by itself. They set prices, they set training, they set wages, they ensured social security, widowhood, life accidents, retirement, all of that. Workers were incorporated into a large family, and one could not practice a trade if one was not incorporated. That's how it was. The corporations had the privilege of practicing the trade. That is to say, a trade would form a corporation, then go to the king and say, "Majesty, we have formed a corporation, here are the statutes, grant us the privilege of organizing this profession." And once the king had granted the privilege, the corporation functioned. But then, don't look for all the marvels you see in France, all the marvels you see in France, architectural, in terms of furniture, in terms of buildings, in terms of windows, whatever you want, everything that is beautiful in France was made by the corporations. And from then on, it started to become ugly from the moment there were no more corporations. Don't look, look at a house before 1789, look at it after. It's just decadence. It's getting uglier and uglier. Today, we've hit rock bottom. Today, we've hit rock bottom. But it continued to be beautiful for another century or two because the know-how of the corporations was not finished. But the reproduction, at some point, the reproduction of know-how and because the incorporated worker doesn't just work to earn a living, he works for beauty, he wants to create beauty, and he is deeply religious, he is deeply Christian, he has a saint, they have religious ceremonies, and so on. Once the corporations are abolished, all of that will disappear. But look at the beauty of the cities, look at a city center. Is it not the most beautiful part of a city? And the further you move away from the center, the further you move away from the old days, the more you see that the buildings are getting uglier and uglier. And currently, we've hit rock bottom. It's getting more and more horrible. I don't know if you've seen recently the Loire riverfront in Nantes. It's enough to make you scream, it's enough to make you scream, it's absolutely...

So, that's what the "laissez-faire, laissez-passer" of the Encyclopedists, the physiocrats, consists of: letting people do the job they want, leave them alone with all these rules and regulations, liberate work, and let them pass. Stop with your grain police, let the merchants buy wheat where they want and sell it where they want. Anyway, when it was technocracy before its time, in fact, well, it's them who invented it, it's them who invented it, it's them who invented it. So, let them do, let them pass. So they say, "We must abolish controls and let the free market set prices." So, we must abolish corporations, as I just explained to you, and invent the individual contract. Before, a worker would go to an employer, there was an absolutely minimum wage below which one could talk, he was bound by a certain number of working hours, and so on. But I guarantee you, if he broke his leg, he would be helped. If his wife died, he would be helped. If he died, there would be a survivor's pension for his wife, and so on. The wives of incorporated workers were ultra-protected, ultra-protected. A master's widow, for example, would become a mistress. I knew the case, for example, of the little sister of Damien. Damien is Robert François Damien, the one who stabbed the king in the back in 1757. So we're going a bit beyond the period. He had a little sister who, at 26, was the widow of a master carpenter. She became a master carpenter. And when I cross her path in her story, she puts on her best dress, she puts on her best headdress, and she goes to negotiate with timber merchants, with carpenters, and so on, and so on, for with not carpenters, with suppliers of everything that was needed. And she managed 10 or 12 workers. She was the mistress. She was the mistress. Her husband had died, she had become a mistress. And when she remarried, here in Anjou, she remarried with one of her workers. It was he who became the master, and then she returned to her home, and it was very good like that. No one complained, no one grumbled, they found it very good.

So, Marion, for those who don't know you and are discovering you tonight, I also recall that you gave a very good presentation at the entrance because often the questions are: is she religious? Is she of such and such a religion? Sometimes they are asked. I remind you that you are the antithesis of current feminism. Absolutely. I defend tradition, but with all my might. In addition, if a woman doesn't like tradition, I leave her alone. I don't want to tell her she's wrong. Let her do as she pleases. I would like them to leave alone those who want tradition, those who don't want it, but it really doesn't concern me. If there are women who are fulfilled doing other things, then good for them and good for everyone. People must be fulfilled. So, that's where I was. Yes, the status of the incorporated worker represents more in social protection than what union benefits have ever done. For example, if an incorporated worker has a hard time in life and needs a loan, the corporation will lend it to him at zero interest because the corporation has rich money, so it will lend it to him at zero interest. And if the worker, for one reason or another, after an investigation, but it's normal, an investigation is done naturally, people are incorporated like a large family, he doesn't have to repay it. Try it. Try it.

In short, let them do, let them pass, abolish controls, let the free market set prices, abolish corporations, and invent the individual contract. It's good for factories, they say. Invent the individual contract. Your neighbor earns 10, you will earn 8. Why? Because you're not happy, you'll go elsewhere. And because I'm the boss, and there are no rules. The rule is that there are no rules. So this liberal experiment, which will be tried in 1763, is there to replenish the coffers. We explain to the king: "You let prices rise, you will enrich the base of producers, and once prices have risen, your taxes will increase, you will be able to repay the debt." That's the market. That's the argument that was presented to the king. The king gave in on this part, so important to royalty, which is price control, because he was told that it would settle the debt. On May 25, 1763, grain circulates freely in the country. There is no more grain police. And what happens? Prices skyrocket. Prices skyrocket. Oh, general surprise. There are riots everywhere in France. People are chasing grain convoys. On May 25, 1763, riots everywhere in France. People say, "It's impossible that the king signed this." It's possible, it's written here. The king signed this.

So, I have read texts from the time, handwritten texts from the time. A woman is arrested. She is arrested for what? Well, she and her friends stopped a grain convoy and then they seized the grain that was in the convoy. And then they arrested them because they are not stronger. And then, that's it. What did you do? I went to get grain. Why didn't you buy it at the market? Because the grain wasn't at the market. It left. You arrive at the market, there's no more grain. Why? Because the merchants, instead of bringing it to the market, saw that by going 150 km further, they would sell it for more. Why? Because they have their network. Moreover, they know very well that if they hold the grain long enough, people are willing to buy it at three times the price, once they are really desperate. So, the essence, the reason for being of royalty, has always been from this point of view, because there were others, but essentially the king is the provider. The king is the father, the provider for the people. The people obey because the king guarantees the subsistence. He doesn't produce it. The people produce subsistence themselves. It's at the level of circulation. There will inevitably be a moment or a place that will be in deficit compared to another. Wheat must circulate. Either we circulate it under the surveillance of the police, which works for the common good, or we let it circulate under the private interests of people who will always have an interest in tightening it as long as possible to drive up the price as much as possible. So the police were there to prevent that. From 1763 onwards, they say, "We are stopping the grain police. It's not necessary. The price will rise." And then it will enrich the producers. You think so? Which producers? It will enrich the large landowners, indeed, who bought lordships. But they are not the majority of the population. The majority of the population in France goes to the market to buy their grain. Farmers don't all produce wheat. Farmers produce a lot of things. They have animals, they have vegetables, they have a lot of things. And they go to the market to buy wheat to make their bread. If bread increases, the poor people can no longer buy it. In the cities, I won't even tell you. I won't even tell you what happens in the cities if wheat suddenly starts to skyrocket. What will justify it? What will increase the income of the city worker, the citizen, if the price of wheat increases? Nothing at all. The Encyclopedists, the physiocrats, are people who reason from salons. They have never been to the field. They are figments of the imagination. So, after several years, riots break out absolutely everywhere in France, and there is a general police assembly held at the Parliament in 1768, where a magistrate says, "A crowd of writers, who have neither the mission nor the power to express the public will, claim to be its organ by exalting the most incongruous system regarding subsistence." It's incongruous. We've never seen that increasing everyone's wealth by ruining some to enrich others. It's nonsense. And this Guéret, who was a high magistrate, says, "We must feed the people, not enrich a few merchants." Well, these opponents, who are high magistrates, they are high magistrates, they are magistrates, high magistrates. So I'm not taking the side of saying all judges are corrupt. I'm not saying that. There are a lot of corrupt people in the magistracy, we'll see them again. But in this case, the magistracy, the Parliament of Paris, says, "We cannot overturn the rules of distribution of subsistence like that, because a crowd of writers has decided that it was necessary to touch on it." It's a shame. So, these people who say that, who are magistrates, who are well-placed people in society and who do not want to hear about these reforms, will be called the privileged. The privileged who oppose what? Progress. Progress and liberalism.

Late 1769, the debt continues to grow because, as you have understood, it's not because there are riots everywhere that the king will suddenly bring in money. You see, and he will settle the debt. What the liberal system enriched are the merchants who, in any case, are not subject to the taxes in question. And at the level of the rural population, they have just become poorer. They have not become richer at all. They have not become richer at all.

Late 1769, so the experiment lasted 6 years. A certain Abbé Terray, who takes the reins, whom the king appoints, re-establishes the grain police and prohibits the export of wheat. Boom. They say, "We are re-establishing the grain police because people can't take it anymore. We have always needed the grain police, and people need the grain police, and the king needs the police." So he drastically reduces the rights of the annuitants. What can he do? He can't increase taxes on his own. He prohibits the export of wheat and re-establishes the grain police. But how will he do it? How will he help? He tells him, "We will reduce the rights of the annuitants." That is to say, the king committed, for example, to paying me 1000 every month, well, he will pay me only 500. It's theft, isn't it? If the king doesn't pay where he should, even though he signed, it's totally dishonest. One cannot persist in such a system. There are people who are ruined, who are ruined by Terray. He says, "Yes, the king owes you. Well, he owes you no more. I erase the debt, I erase the king's debt."

I have a book that I recommend, which was also the subject of a very good TV movie: "L'Enfant des Lumières" by François Chandernagor. It's a splendor. If you want to understand what this period was, read or watch "L'Enfant des Lumières" by François Chandernagor. I don't know who made it, I don't remember who made the film. "L'Enfant des Lumières" TV movie. Marion, an internet user is asking if you can explain in a few words John Law's monetary manipulation concerning the deregulation of prices as well. No, no, not today. It's not possible. Another time. Today, no. Today, no. That's for sure. It's complex. It's complex. So, I can't do it. And it's on its own. It takes how long? Because you're talking about French society, but we notice that relations with England also have a great impact. I think you'll talk about it later in the context of the French Revolution and also, how to say, of Freemasonry as well. So, 1769. So, dignity. So, 1769. So, I recommend this book. So, no, I wanted to tell the person asking me to talk about water in my book "Le Tournant de la Régence," there is a large chapter devoted to it. "Le Tournant de la Régence." Link in the comments. So, there is a large chapter devoted to it, and I sweated 100 liters to do it because I am really...

Not gifted in finance, but I believe I believe I managed to to to well to well grasp the to well grasp the subject, but today it's not possible, we can't say that. So, I'll explain what the minister Turgot did. Since he can't raise taxes, he re-established the grain police. Anyway, it was useless to have abolished it. In this regard, I mean, the king never managed to increase his revenues through these stupidities. But what happened is, what happened is, so to reduce expenses, Minister Turgot, what did he do? Well, Turgot, he cut reimbursements. So the king loses his credit, and if he doesn't pay his creditors, who will lend him money? It's dramatic. Turgot launched loans that were failures. No one lends anymore. Can you imagine the situation? It's dramatic, such a situation. It's dramatic. The king has no more money, and when he borrows, no one lends to him anymore. Isn't royalty in danger? The death of Louis XV ends his ministry. The young Louis XVI arrives, and Louis XVI is closely watched by all the enlightened people. They are all like moths around a, around a, around a lamp. They flutter around. "Majesty, Majesty, Majesty, we've found someone very, very good to lead the ministry. His name is Turgot. He's a very good man. He was intendant of Limousin, where he did wonders. We present Turgot to you. He's a liberal, an encyclopedist, a very, very good man. And he has a program." So Turgot comes to see Louis. Turgot was 48 years old at the time, I think, something like that. A small clarification for the listeners: Louis XV died in 1774. 1774. Louis XVI is 20 years old. Yes, young Louis XVI is 20 years old. In what state is France when Louis XV disappears? We don't know how we're going to pay. We don't know how we're going to pay. We don't know how we're going to pay. It's dramatic, it's dramatic. The countryside is still alive, but rather less well than before. And no, no, the situation is deteriorating. So they call for Turgot, who impresses the king. The king is 20 years old. He's terrified at the idea of being king. He didn't want to be. He wasn't prepared for it. He never wanted it, especially since he didn't expect his grandfather's death so quickly. Anyway, he's not prepared, he's trembling. He's a great figure, Louis XVI. He's a very good man. But on the day of his grandfather's death, there was a moment of panic. And they present him with Turgot, who has a good presence and who flatters him, reassures him, takes him by the hand. He plunges in: "Majesty, Majesty, with me, no bankruptcy, no loans, no tax increases." So, wait. Turgot presents himself as being able to solve the debt problem. It's dramatic. If the king has no money, how do you expect him to reign? By telling him "no bankruptcy," meaning there will be no default. No new loans, no new borrowing. No tax increases. How will you do it? Well, he'll perform a miracle. He'll perform a miracle. Turgot, what will he do? He will increase revenues through the free circulation of grain. And here we go again. And here we go again. But this time, it will be more, more, more, more, more, with terrible repression for offenders. It's a horror. I won't go into detail because I have a lot to tell you today. But the policy of economic liberalism as advocated by Turgot will trigger the Flour War. That is to say, the riots between 1763 and 1769 are child's play compared to what the riots of 1774, 75, 76 will be. It's dramatic. So, what do they say? All these rioters are malicious people. They are malicious people who incite the people. The people, when they revolt, it's because there are people who incite them. It's never the people. The people have no autonomy. The people have no will of their own. The people are simple folk, and simple folk are manipulated. Look, it's always the priests, these people. So, in any case, it's never people who are hungry, rioters chasing grain convoys. They are not people who are hungry. They are malicious people incited against the spirit of the Enlightenment. That's how it circulates in the court. That's how they tell it in the king's entourage. That's what he hears. That's what he hears. They create humiliating charity workshops for the poor. Oh, you can no longer afford bread? Well, don't worry, you'll enter charity workshops where you'll do completely idiotic work. We'll give you handouts. So, wait. You have people here who had professions, who had dignity, who had families, and who will find themselves in charity workshops where they'll be given handouts. It's humiliating. Don't look for them. These people will form the crowds of the Revolution. So, the Flour War is presented to the king as a plot against reason. Not just to the king, it's presented to the public. It's a plot against reason. And it's an argument that is still used today. Read Condorcet's book by the Bas d'Inter couple on Condorcet. It's exactly that. It's a plot against reason. Condorcet. So Condorcet, he was the Turgot of Turgot. Where Turgot said white, Condorcet said white, white. I had great admiration for Condorcet because I had read the book by Bas d'Inter in his time. Now that I understand what was behind it, I might as well tell you that the book falls out of my hands. It falls out of my hands. Speaking of Bas d'Inter, we'll do a second show. So, why, why do a show? I didn't understand. There's a controversy about a school that was supposed to be named Bas d'Inter because the teachers were afraid that the children would confuse it with a supermarket that had the same name. I swear. Anyway. So, what I want to say is that the Flour War, which is a popular uprising of rare violence, of rare unanimity, is extraordinary. The crowds formed, they went to get grain convoys, and they sold the grain at the right price. That is to say, the population taxed the price of wheat itself, since taxation was forbidden. It could not be done by the authorities since it was now forbidden. So the taxation was done in a popular way. The women, always them, they chased the grain convoys, they grabbed the sacks of wheat, they ripped them open, they said "the measure will be this," and they distributed it at the right price. And then the sale price was given to the rightful owner. Okay? Do you know what Turgot did? He recovered the shortfall between the price the merchant would have wanted and the taxed price, and he forced some villages to pay the difference to compensate the merchant. Because letting people starve is not a big deal, but preventing a merchant from making his fair profit, that deserves compensation. Can you imagine? Can you imagine? And for the population, taxation is sacred. It's sacred. The king who no longer wants to tax is no longer the king. He's there for that. He's there for that. So, there's a certain Voltaire, who knows about lies. He's extraordinary. He's choking with rage to see that the population disagrees. Because when Turgot was appointed, Voltaire, who was a fervent liberal, said, "I believe new heavens are opening around us. I wish I could live long enough to see it," and so on. He was trembling with admiration for Turgot, with gratitude to the king for doing this. Anyway, he was the best king on earth, who had brought, finally, the Enlightenment had come to power. If good is not done now, it is impossible, and so on, and so on. I don't know if he said that or someone else, but that's the spirit. So, when Voltaire learns that there's a Flour War that has broken out, he chokes with rage. So he invents, he invents the, I'm online, he invents the reporter's report of the absent reporter. He invents a guy who followed a grain convoy and tells what happened. He didn't leave Ferney, that is, he didn't leave the vicinity of Geneva, and he tells what happened near Pontoise, that is, in the north of Paris. It's a completely invented report. So, here's what he says: "When we approached Pontoise, we were astonished to see about 15, 10 to 15,000 peasants running like madmen and shouting 'Wheat! Markets! Markets! Wheat!'". The rioters are people who shout "Wheat! Markets!" Why? We don't know. We don't know. In any case, it's Voltaire who tells us. "They stopped at every mill, demolished it in the blink of an eye." Can you imagine demolishing a mill in the blink of an eye? Do you know what a mill is? Do you know what a millstone is? It's absolutely horrifying. And they threw the wheat, the flour, into the river. Ah, yes, the rioters who are hungry, when they catch wheat, they throw it away. Yes, because they are the people. They are the people. They are stupid. So that's what Voltaire says. And he says, "A little priest suggested to them in a stentorian voice, 'Sacrilege everything, God wills it.'" That's Voltaire's version of the Flour War. And there are people who took it seriously. And Voltaire recounted that gold was found in the hands, in the pockets of these rioters. And the Bas d'Inter people took it up: "Gold was found in their pockets." It's an invention of Voltaire, who lived 700 km away, whereas the Flour War is about people who can no longer afford wheat at the price it has become, and who want to eat and feed their families. So the banker Jacques Necker publishes a text against absolute liberalism. Why? Because he's following it closely. Necker, he lives in Geneva, but he's very connected to what's happening in France, like many Genevans, by the way. Because at the time of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which prohibited Protestant worship in France in 1685, King Louis XIV expelled Protestants from France who refused to submit, and they settled in Geneva. So you have a colony of Protestants in Geneva, not all of whom are Genevans by origin, many of whom are French, but among them are Genevans. And this colony wants to return to France. They want to take their revenge. They will have it, it will be called the French Revolution. In the meantime, Necker is very aware of what's happening in France. He has many businesses in France, and he publishes a text against absolute liberalism. Absolute liberalism, meaning he says liberalism is good, but it must be limited in certain circumstances. It must not be exported, and so on, and so on. So Necker gets involved in the conflict, and Turgot is furious. He says the riots are due to Necker. I don't know if you can imagine. Turgot sees people rising up as one man against his reforms, and it's the fault of a foreign banker who wrote a pamphlet. Can you imagine the rioters in the morning reading Necker's pamphlet and then running after grain convoys saying, "Necker told us to!" It's nonsense. Turgot couldn't admit he was wrong. He was completely dogmatic, fanatical, but fanatical, fanatical. To his credit, he never made a penny from his policy. It should be known that Turgot did not enrich himself through his liberalism. He never enriched himself. He cut his salary in half when he arrived. He wanted to succeed so much that he sacrificed a large part of his income. But he was a furious, furious dogmatic. So he absolutely believed in his system. Not only did he want to, he suppressed the grain police, he authorized anyone to trade grain and sell it at whatever price they wanted without any control. But he suppressed the guilds. When the guilds are suppressed, what happens? Wages collapse. You no longer have the argument to negotiate a salary with an employer, except for asking him. And if he doesn't want to give it to you, the employer will say, "You don't agree, but the one next door will." There's no more protection, no more rules, no more standards, no more limits. So wages collapse. There are people who go to Turgot and say, "Mr. Minister, my Lord, wait, do you realize what you're doing? The price of wheat is rising, the price of bread is rising, it's soaring. It's not just rising, it's soaring. Wheat, bread reached sums that three-quarters, three-quarters of the Parisian population could no longer afford, or they had to do nothing else but eat bread. That is to say, they no longer dressed, they no longer heated themselves, they did nothing else. It's frightening. And wages are collapsing at the same time. But Mr. Minister, how will the poor people manage?" Do you know what he replied? Do you know what Turgot replied? There's a kind of imbecile, one day, I won't give names, but those who know will recognize her. She said, "Turgot, you were a great humanist. You were a great humanist. Everything he did is great." I'll explain what the great humanist did. He said, "The worker will always earn enough to feed himself. It's his wife and children who can no longer feed him, and who should be put to work." May 2, 1775. Who invented child labor? Turgot. Turgot. If the children can no longer feed their father, they should be put to work. And the factories took advantage of it. The factories took advantage of it. And the mothers too. And the mothers who are sent to work, if they have a baby at their breast, what will they do? Ah, yes. So child labor, 1775, by Turgot. There you go. There you go. Okay. There you go. And I have the text. It lasted a while before it was abolished. Well, that is to say, once Turgot left, things tried to go back to the old ways, but since the situation deteriorated constantly, and then child labor was validated after the Revolution, but completely validated, completely validated. It's terrifying. It's terrifying. Children in factories, it's terrifying. It's unbearable. I gave a conference on this. I gave a conference on the end of the guilds. You can find it online. It's on my site. It's heartbreaking. It's atrocious, atrocious. Children who could barely stand, who were children of 3, 4 years old, who, oh, it's unbearable, it's unbearable. Anyway, that's him. That's Turgot. That's the Enlightenment. That's the Enlightenment that brought it, and everyone found it very good. No one, no one among the enlightened people protested. I mean. So, the same year. So, May 12th. May 12th, 1776. The king dismisses Turgot due to unpopularity, because everyone is attacking Turgot. He defends himself by saying it's the privileged. It's the privileged. In the meantime, nothing is going well. The king dismisses Turgot. He has to find someone else. You'll see who. December 3rd, 1776. That is, the year the king dismissed Turgot, he dismissed him in May. Benjamin Franklin, an American Freemason, lands in Quiberon. He comes to plead the cause of the Americans against England. He comes to the French and says, "Tell me, French, you don't like England very much, neither do we. We're fighting them. Come and join us." That's where the alliance will be made. He will do wonders, I don't doubt it for a second. But a war costs money, and who will pay for the war? Going to war against England is fine, but who will pay? France is already on the verge of bankruptcy. It's not bankrupt yet, but it's constantly threatened with bankruptcy. And we're going to have another war, and what will we win? What will we win, other than being enemies of England even more? We didn't need that. But it will only reinforce it. And June 29th, 1777, six months later, the king appoints Necker Director-General of Finances. And that's what Voltaire was useful for. Let me explain. Voltaire is Protestant. We're going to have a Protestant Minister of Finance. It's never happened before. But Catholics are the bad guys, and Protestants are the good guys. We've prepared public opinion for that. Yes, you know, Catholics kill innocent Protestants just because they are Protestants. That's all nonsense. That's all Voltaire's lies. Be that as it may, Necker is a banker. That is, he's a money changer. We've never seen that. A great servant of the state has never been a banker. He's Genevan, meaning he's not even French, and he's in charge of restoring the finances of the King of France. Well, you'll see how. It's going to be fun. It's going to be fun. How will he do it? The debt is already enormous. Franklin has convinced us that we must help the Americans. So we will go to war for them, and we will borrow again, since we have no more money. But we have a miracle called Necker, and he will wage war without raising taxes. Mirabeau will mock him, saying he wages war without taxes. He's a god. Ah, do you know how he finds money? Necker? Well, he's a banker. He borrows from himself. He lends to the king, and he manages to get money in. How does he get money? I explained it to you. You have to promise, and you have to promise a lot. What does he do? He will inaugurate new life annuities on 30 heads, and no longer on one or two. 30 heads. So you will lend money, and you will be reimbursed based on, your claim will be guaranteed by 30 heads. It's no longer yours, it's not yours, it's not your wife's, nor your children's, nor your loved ones'. They are 30 anonymous heads, Genevans, young girls between 10 and 11 years old, I think, who have nothing to do with the affair. They are simply designated to serve as collateral, as guarantee. And as long as these young women, even when they are old women, are alive, the king will continue to pay the annuities. Life annuities are guaranteed on 30 very young heads. If one head dies, there are 29 left. The annuities constituted by this loan are forever exempt from any deduction or tax. It's the most incredible deal for a money lender who wants to become an annuitant. The public rushes to buy, to put its money into these annuities, and the king will ruin himself. The king will ruin himself. The old life annuities on the creditor's head lasted about 20 years. The new annuities will last 60 years. Royalty will be indebted for 60 years with these annuities. Necker creates them in series. People rush, they fight to get them. In less than 5 years, Necker borrowed more than 530 million livres, which were added to the previous deficit. That's the price of the war in America, for whose benefit? France will continue to pay this debt in 1885, a revolution later. Necker has made followers today, absolutely. But he's the one who showed the way. The methods remain. I don't know what he said. "We hold a people by two things: either by debt or by war." I don't know anymore. I have to find that. Debt, that's clear. But the Romans. The Romans governed all the Mediterranean by debt. The Romans arrived, they lent money, and then people couldn't repay, so they enslaved them. And then, I don't want to go into ancient history, but what did Julius Caesar do in Egypt? He went to get the debt money. He went to get repaid what was owed to him. He paid himself from the spoils. He left with the queen, well, we won't go into that. It's not my specialty. Be that as it may, what does Necker do? He borrows more than 530 million livres, which are added to the previous deficit. And he was the man of private interests against the treasury. Everyone who had money got rich with Necker, and who got ruined? The treasury, that is, the king. Necker had an overrated reputation for humanism. So, what was Necker's humanism? He was against the free export of grain, but he was not against the circulation of grain within the system, you see, within the kingdom, I mean. So he was against the free export of grain, like everyone else. You know that exporting grain under the Ancien Régime, that is, before this liberal revolution, exporting grain, taking grain out of the Kingdom of France during a famine, was a crime of lèse-majesté, and I won't tell you how atrocious that crime of lèse-majesté was, leading to death. And here he says, "Well, no, I'm against it." Turgot was not against the export of grain. He didn't say it immediately, but it would come. Turgot's dream was that Europe would be a large market for the free circulation of grain without any control, but all of Europe, it was a European grain market. And Necker was much more reasonable. He said, "No, no, we must not export, but internal circulation, he had absolutely nothing against it." And he would be considered to have been extremely popular, but popular with whom? With the annuitants, no doubt. But with whom? With whom could Necker have been popular? A Genevan banker established in Paris would be popular with whom? Well, he was popular with the suckers who believed the propaganda amplified by his wife and daughter. Voltaire had two public relations agents: his wife Suzanne, who was unconditional. So, Suzanne Necker, she was, oh my, she was absolutely, she spent her time saying good things about her husband. He was a demigod, he was this, he was that. Since she was very fashionable in the salons, she boosted her husband, who was considered a great man. And he had a daughter named Germaine, who became Germaine de Staël by marriage, and who did the same thing. So this Necker published, to get the true picture of Necker, read François Chandernagor's "L'Enfant des Lumières." You'll see the other side of Necker. François Chandernagor paints a scathing portrait. Yes. An internet user also told me about "L'Intrigant" by Aurore Chéry. Do you know it? Yes, but I haven't read it entirely. I haven't read it entirely. Yes, well, I've read a few things that have greatly, greatly, greatly annoyed me. No, I don't want to get into that debate because it's really about Louis XV, and it's not about Necker. It's about Louis XV, and I can't get into it. I mean, I have a big gap in your plan. Yes, yes, I've heard of it, yes, yes, absolutely. I have it, but I lent it to a friend who hasn't returned it yet. So, I can't talk about it like that. So, what do I want to say? Yes, so Necker is considered a great man. I tell you, read François Chandernagor's book "L'Enfant des Lumières." You'll see the scathing portrait she paints of Necker. I read a biography of Jacques Necker, he's really quite an odious character, quite odious. He's evasive, he's hypocritical, he's everything you want, but he was considered a demigod. So, in 1781, he publishes an account of his management. Well, that's good. Here you go, Majesty. Here are the revenues, here are the expenses, and the budget is balanced. How does he do it? He didn't include the debt. He presents a budget that doesn't show the liabilities. Where have you seen that before? He's a crook. He's a crook. The king, the king says, "But this is impossible. What is this guy?" But then the annuitants start to tremble. He says, "If you dismiss Necker, the annuitants will pay." Oh, the annuitants are starting to stir. We'll find a new minister. His name is Calonne. He arrives in 1783. And he arrives at the moment when France and England are going to sign a peace treaty. Ah, because the war in America is over, and France and England have signed a peace treaty. Incidentally, I won't go into detail, the Americans betrayed us. We went to war for them, and then they turned against us. Well, we won't go back to that. Be that as it may, France and England are going to sign a peace treaty which includes a commercial treaty. And at the helm of the drafting of this commercial treaty, always the same Du Pont de Nemours. You know, the guy who invented the word physiocracy. The, the, the follower of Turgot. Yes. So he's a physiocrat, a true physiocrat, an admirer of Turgot. He's a cosmopolitan Protestant who writes, believe it or not: "It is a dangerous error to want to manufacture everything at home that is manufactured elsewhere, because trade is sustained only by exchanges, and these exchanges are impossible when a nation wants to give everything and receive nothing." No, when a nation wants to sell everything and buy nothing. Because giving and receiving is not the same thing. That is to say, what he explains is that a free trade agreement with England must be signed, because we need it. It's useless to pretend to manufacture everything when you can import. Do you follow the reasoning? Do you follow the reasoning? In September 1786, the Eden-Renval free trade treaty will be signed, announced in 1783. Free trade treaty with England. England, which has been employing children for 100 years. England, which lives with a working population of appalling poverty, appalling, appalling, and which has manufactured products that are therefore much cheaper than French manufactured products. Well, try, if you are a French manufacturer, to sell products at the same price as English products. You can't. The floodgates open on France. The floodgates open on France. The Eden-Renval treaty triggered an appalling economic earthquake. We are in 1786. The treaty was announced in '83, signed in '86, and operational at that time. Du Pont de Nemours is entirely its instigator. Faced with public indignation at the influx of cheap English products, he replies by quoting the Gospel: "Untie him and let him go." Do you know what "Untie him and let him go" means? It's a word from Jesus when he resurrects his friend Lazarus. And here it was the bindings that he was covered with, like a corpse. So he gets up from his tomb because Jesus resurrects him. Jesus says, "Untie him and let him go." And he has the nerve to say about trade: "Untie him and let him go." That is to say, trade represents the friend, the intimate friend of Jesus, Lazarus. Can you imagine? He personifies trade as an intimate friend of Jesus. Jesus, when he saw that Lazarus was dead, he wept, and so on. Then he said to the bindings, "Let him go." Lazarus is resurrected. So it's this part of the Gospel that Du Pont de Nemours uses to say, "Let the bindings of trade be removed and let it go. Free trade." So he says, "We must let in the products of those who know how to do better." But they don't know how to do better, the English. They just know how to do it cheaper because they don't pay. They know how to do it cheaper. They know how to make people sweat. They know how to make children work. Misery. Listen, I've read texts about the misery in London at that time. Believe it or not, you had people who worked all day in factories. Do you know where they slept at night? It's heartbreaking. They slept standing up, leaning their elbows on a rope. You had rooms with stretched ropes, and people slept like that, and then they went back to work. Can you imagine what misery was like in England? It's appalling. It seems there were hangings in the streets. So we're going to let manufactured products made under these conditions into France. I don't need to tell you the price difference. So free trade means no more customs duties, and French manufactured products with French standards will be unsellable. Lightning strikes France. Thousands of unemployed workers leave the cities to wander in search of work. The king doesn't even have the means to send aid to the cities that beg for help. The king has no more money. He can't help. We see workers begging from town to town and village to village to beg for a piece of bread. And where misery had not yet appeared, it arose at the beginning of the winter of '88. Humiliating charity workshops were created everywhere to build roads or destroy useless old ramparts for desperate unemployed people. The English merchandise is pretty, but it's of mediocre quality. It's cheaper because it's mediocre. It will create hordes of wretches who will form the crowds of the Revolution. To solve the debt problem, which is still not solved, we still haven't solved the debt problem. The notables are convened. An assembly of notables, that is, all the great, all that matters in the Kingdom of France, that is, the nobility, the magistracy, the states, all the important people are convened to say, "Now, we must find a solution to the debt. What do we do? Will we make those who don't pay taxes pay?" Ah, no, but that's the notables themselves. They are. Ah, no, no, no, we won't pay taxes. A magistrate doesn't pay taxes, you know why? Because a magistrate is a noble, and nobles don't pay taxes. Except that, a military noble pays the tax of blood. He pays twice. I mean, when the king sends him to war, he sometimes comes back with one eye less, one arm less. He fought, he gave his all. So you can't ask him to pay in addition. But magistrates are not nobles by origin. They are ennobled. They are ennobled people who have taken the advantages of nobility without having its burdens. That is to say, ennobled people to whom the kings, the kings, this started at the end of the Middle Ages and then increased. The kings told them, "You will have the privilege of not paying taxes." And then the years pass, and they continue not to pay taxes. And when everyone has to pay, and they say, "You will pay."

No, ah no, no paying, no, no, and on top of that, paying taxes, then they won't pay, inequity, huh, inequity, there you go. So we say, we also say, so the Church doesn't want to pay, but the Church pays, the Church already pays, the Church pays in services rendered, ABSOLUTELY free of charge. That, that, that would truly deserve our conference. The Church pays, and every year it makes a substantial free donation. So the Church pays, but does the Church want to be taxed? That is to say, to see tax agents come and take stock of everything. It says no, you want money, we'll give you some. The Church is generous, it gives. A small parenthesis, Marion, what you're saying is fascinating, and frankly, I thank you infinitely because it makes a lot of things, and I hope the listeners take as much pleasure as I do in listening to you. You're talking to us about the Church, and I'd like us to take a slight digression because we're approaching the fateful date of 1789. But precisely, in the years before the French Revolution, you say the Church pays, but what is its, what is the, I was going to say, the impact of the Church? Because there's no secularism at the time, there's no separation. Uh, what is precisely its, its power within royalty itself, I was going to say, in the daily lives of the French, if I may express myself that way? Is it, is it shocked to see that the people are hungry or that there is debt? Does it, does it participate in these affairs, or does it remain in the background and only concern itself with its religious affairs?

No, well, listen, the Church is many people, huh. There are the parish priests, the village priests who form a body with the population, and the high clergy is in a position, well, throughout the period, the 30 years preceding the Revolution, the high clergy is in a besieged position. That is to say, the people of the Enlightenment have truly besieged the Church and want to legislate on religious matters in its place, in the Church's place. The Church is absolutely besieged, it is in the position of the accused, it is in permanent danger, it is in permanent danger. So the power of the Church on the eve of the Revolution is an illusion, it's a vast joke. I gave a conference on this that can be found, I've given several, but I have one that can be found as a reference called "The War of the Judges Against the Church." "The War of the Judges Against the Church." You can find it on my channel.

What you're telling us is very interesting because compared to what we're experiencing today, and I don't want to make too many comparisons to today because otherwise we'll get off topic, nevertheless, it also means that the so-called French Revolution, as Philippe Loncard d'Assac, whom I greet, tells us, is ultimately also and above all a spiritual and religious impact. It's not just political, nor economic. It also touches the heart of what made France up to that point, that is to say, what many detest today when we talk about it: the Christian roots of France. Absolutely, but France is profoundly Christian, the people are profoundly Christian, and the dechristianization of France will lead to civil war. But I'm getting to that, I'm getting to that. The Church at the time I'm talking about, the time I consider, the Church is besieged, besieged, it's in a very, very bad way. And Tocqueville wrote, "I started my study full of prejudice against the Church, I finished it full of admiration."

Interesting. I was, I was, I was a very anti-clerical ex-Catholic. When I started doing history, I threw everything away. I threw all the arguments I had for saying that the Church was this, that it was that, these were lies that I eliminated. I'll find something again, something that shocks me about the Church, but compared to everything I've learned, it's a joke. It will allow us to answer a question because some people asked in the chat if you were a Jesuit or a Jansenist. I defend the Jesuits, that's clear. I defend the Jesuits, of course, of course, of course. The Jesuits have been, so I've given several conferences on the subject. There's no one more slandered than the Jesuits, it's crazy, huh. I was so shocked to hear the ultimate imbecilities that were being told about the Jesuits that I said, "Okay, I'm stopping all my work and I'm doing something on the Jesuits because I knew it wasn't true." So I went to research. No one has been slandered like the Jesuits, but there were, there were factories of slander against the Jesuits. And in a nutshell, because I don't want to go into it, otherwise I'll abandon the other topic, but in a nutshell, when you talk about the Jesuits, are you positioning yourself on the Jesuits up to 1963 or after 1963? Because they are not the same. That is to say, the Society of Jesus shifted during the Second Vatican Council. It shifted to the opposite of what it had always been. So if you say the Jesuits have always been, no, if they have always been, it's because they are no longer. And if they are today, it's what they weren't before. So someone who says, "How is it, uh, uh, if I say to someone, the Jesuits before or after 1963, if they say to me, why are you asking me that?" I'd say, "To know if you know the subject. If you don't know the subject, talk about something else."

What is it? No, but no, for the chat, what is a, what is a Jesuit? Because in fact, the definition of a, of a Jesus, a member of the Society of Jesus. Yes, exactly. Exactly. It's a member of the Society of Jesus. There you go, to explain. So the Jesuits, the Jesuits have been, in order to launch economic liberalism, it was necessary to get rid of the Jesuits. That's what I explained, what happened in '63, 1763, huh. But the Jesuits, they will come later, much later. They were chased out, militarily expelled from France, they were chased out, all their property was taken from them, they were chased out of their schools. It's infernal. But all the, all the kids they were teaching, they had to be replaced. You can't replace such exceptional masters just like that, on the fly. Well, it was a fall into, well, it's another subject. The Jesuits. So, where was I? Yes, so I was talking about the privileged. We were talking about the besieged Church on the eve of the French Revolution. Yes, but that's because you made an aside, because I was talking about the meeting of the notables who said they didn't want to create new taxes to which they would be subject. So they said, there's another solution, there's another solution to solve the debt problem. Well, it's the free circulation of grains, and we start again, and we start again. 1763, we stop in 1769, 1775, we stop in 1776, and then we arrive at 1787, 1788. What are we going to do? What are we going to do?

So, no, it's 1787, February 22nd, the first session of the Assembly of Notables. The notables agree to say, we must increase the revenue from land, therefore re-establish the free circulation of subsistence goods. And then the king can no longer say no. He has what other solution? And then they explain to him, they explain to the French now, liberty becomes the usual state of the kingdom. But there's no more king there. The king is the provider. If the king says the free circulation of grains becomes the usual state of the kingdom, what is he good for? The revolution hasn't even started, and it's already lost for the king. Besides, the revolution was lost for the king in May 1715, 15, 15, when Turgot had three grain rioters hanged, and the king refused the pardon. The people didn't understand, they said, "This is not possible, this is not possible. We've never seen rioters hanged for reasons of subsistence." So they're going to do it, and the king refuses the pardon. To say the king has lost his mind twice. He lost it on January 21st, '93, but he had already lost it in May 1775 because he's no longer the king. He does that. But you'll see, I'm rehabilitating him, Louis XV, because Louis XVI took a long time to understand because he was really closely watched by a bunch of [ __ ] and he finally understood when he had, no, no, he was a great man, Louis XV. He didn't have, you're king, you don't have money, what do you do?

So, would there have been, I was going to say, from today until the last century, would there have been Louis XVIs in the 20th century, for example? You know, from the Revolution onwards, the people lost control. From the Revolution onwards, there's no more politics, there's only finance. Because Louis XVI, I've heard a lot of things, and then it's rumors and so on, but the fact that he wanted to suppress a lot of taxes, lower taxes, when precisely in history books they paint him as someone, as a simpleton, well, someone who is even worse than Louis XIV, or that's nonsense, that's nonsense, but that's nonsense. He was a good man, he was a good and genuinely good man who was very intelligent, whom they made out to be a simpleton, who was absolutely not a simpleton at all, at all. He was, but he started his career very young. You're 20 years old, you don't have the same experience as when you're 38. And I find that at 38, at the time he died, he had exceptional maturity. It's true that he died young, 38 years old, he died very young, he died very young. And you know that he was very handsome. So it's extraordinary because all the portraits we have of Louis XV, he doesn't look like it at all. He was a handsome man, he was almost, and I saw a portrait of him that was done from a sketch at the time, a magnificent man, a very, very handsome man, very handsome man, with a lot of virility, a lot. It's crazy, huh. They always present him as a simpleton. Not at all, not at all, not at all. I like Louis XVI very, very much, but he was extremely manipulated. And how, at 20 years old, could he have had the means to know, you know, with a pack of wolves around you, and then the most serious thing is that he lost the crutch of the Jesuits, which had been the crutch of all his predecessors, and he didn't have it because the Jesuits had been expelled. So since it was Louis XVI who experienced this so-called French Revolution, I don't know if it's still the time to talk about it, but we could start the subject on the impact of Freemasonry, of networks.

No, but I'm getting there, I'm getting there, I'm getting there, I'm getting there. Let me unfold my plan, you'll see, I'm getting there. So, on June 17th, 1787, the free circulation of grains was established in France as the usual state of the kingdom. For 30 years, the French have said they don't want it, and now it's said to be the usual state of the kingdom. Salaries collapse, and the price of bread skyrockets. We are in 1787. The king thinks that's what the peasants are asking for. The king is surrounded by people who say, "The people of the countryside are demanding free circulation." What they call the people of the countryside are people like Voltaire who are landowners. That's what they call the people of the countryside. What's important to know is that the intendants, the intendants were the king's envoys, what prefects would be today. The intendants were the king's envoys in the provinces who reported from the province to the king through the sub-delegates and then through the Council of Dispatches, dispatches that told the situation of the kingdom. From Louis XV onwards, the intendants are no longer the king's envoys to the province; they are the envoys of the Masonic lodges of the province to Versailles. The Masonic lodges have absolutely controlled all the intendants, all the intendancies. Not necessarily the intendants themselves, the intendants can have remained honest people, but the intendancies are closely surrounded by people of the Enlightenment, by Freemasons, who report to the king what they want, what they want. So the king thinks that's what the peasants are asking for, and he's been persuaded that the rural population is demanding economic liberalism. He thinks that Turgot's failure was due to the resistance of the privileged. You remember the privileged? Well, the king wants to do good, and in November, he restores civil status to Protestants. He makes Protestants citizens again, equal to Catholics. That's very good. There will be peace, you'll see, you'll see what peace that will be. The debt is now abysmal, nothing seems to solve the problem. The Parliament is calling for the Estates-General. The Estates-General is the meeting of all the provincial assemblies that represent all the constituted bodies, like Congress today when the President of the Republic gathers everyone in Congress, right? Yes, except it's many more people, it's many, many more people because the Estates are provincial assemblies that function year-round. And then the Estates-General is gathering them all, but the Estates function, they function year-round, they function year-round. So not all the provinces of France are "pays d'état." You have countries with, you have regions that are "pays d'élection" because the kingdom was formed bit by bit. In fact, one of the, one of the key pieces of, well, one of the essential goals of the Revolution will be to standardize everything. But the kingdom of France, you have each region had its privileges, and privileges were acquired rights, huh. They weren't undue. A privilege wasn't, it's an acquired right. If you have the coal miners who obtained the privilege of taking retirement at 50, is that an undue privilege or a legitimate privilege? If you are a coal miner and you're dying of lung disease from coal dust, it's a legitimate privilege. Well, the privileges of the Ancien Régime are this type of privilege. That's what can be called acquired rights. So, the entire kingdom of France is formed by different concessions, and each, each, each region, each city had its, had its liberties, had its, had its privileges, and the population held onto privileges very, very strongly. Privileges were the acquisitions of society, the acquisitions of merit, the acquisitions of work, the acquisitions, there you go. So the Parliament is calling for the Estates-General, saying, now, the last Estates-General was in 180, it was in 1600, 1614, huh, after the, after the death of Henry. So in July 1788, a gigantic storm devastates the north of France, and in August '88, the treasury is in dire straits. It suspends cash payments. That is to say, look at the kingdom of France, it's as if God himself is angry, huh. There's a monstrous storm that devastates all the crops at a time when the king has no more money, he's almost in a state of default, and we're going to, and we're going to gather the Estates-General. But who has control over what? We're on the verge of chaos. But it's coming, it's coming, don't worry, it's coming. End of August 1788, what does the king do? He recalls Necker. But he has no choice, he has no more choice. Who would want to become minister of a kingdom in such a state of perdition? It's dreadful, dreadful. So, that's what Henry Guilmain said in his conference, absolutely, absolutely, yes, yes, the summer of 1788, I think, June, July, something like that, if I'm not mistaken, when there was a terrible storm, and it's like us when there are hurricanes, well, storms like Cynthia and company, the harvests are destroyed, so of course it leads to famine. And then, in a period when taxation is forbidden, so what happens? The winter of '88-'89 is appalling, with no work and bread at a prohibitive price. The people grumble, and they grumble. Taxation, taxation! Taxation is now forbidden. Women at the forefront, rioters gut sacks of wheat and share them at reduced prices. It's popular taxation. At first, they tax to get a reduced price, then they tax more, they steal. Riots erupt everywhere, and they are suppressed weakly by the authorities. Why? Because the authorities are not used to shooting at the people who are hungry. So the authorities don't shoot into the crowd. So the brigands mingle with the rioters, and it's general chaos, anarchy, pillage, extortion, abomination. The overwhelmed authorities give in to everything, everything becomes permissible. Chaos sets in. Who will impose what authority in such chaos? The beginnings of the Revolution, what are they? End of 1788, convocation of the Estates-General to solve the problem of public debt. We agree, I'll recap. But in May 1789, the meeting of the Estates-General, organized behind the scenes by Masonic lodges that cover the entire territory. The Estates-General declare themselves the National Assembly on June 17th, 1789. They have no mandate. The king said, "You will go to your parishes and write lists of grievances. You will send these lists of grievances to Versailles. We will read your grievances, and you will send delegates who will read your grievances, and we will listen to them." The delegates in question put their grievances in their pockets, they arrive and say, "We are the National Assembly." No one gave them a mandate to declare themselves the National Assembly. They received a mandate to present the people's grievances, many of which called for new corporations, the restitution of corporations, the end of the free circulation of grains, the return of grain police. This is not listened to, this is not listened to. They say the Estates-General arrive saying, "We are the national representation." On June 17th, 1789, without a mandate, they say, "We are a new National Assembly." That's called a coup d'état, and all of this was organized by the Masonic lodges. The Masonic lodges cover the territory, they are absolutely everywhere, everywhere. In Paris, agitation is constant, unemployment is very serious. You have 10,000 unemployed people occupied in charity workshops. The Parisian workers did not participate in the elections reserved for merchants at the Hôtel de Ville. They voted. So in Paris, they voted as everywhere else, huh, for the Estates-General. Well, the Parisian workers were excluded from the vote because if the Parisian workers had voted, they would have voted for the corporations. As corporations were to be abolished, it was the merchants who voted, who voted in Paris, and it was the merchants who represented the Third Estate in Paris, not the workers. So the Parisian representation was made by the Hôtel de Ville, it was taken by the merchants, by the merchants, whereas it could have been taken by the workers. So the Parisian workers did not participate in the elections. That's beautiful, democracy, huh. It's well done. So you have unemployment, scarcity, it's explosive, it's explosive. It's going to explode. We're there, huh. We're there, we're there. It's 1789. The French Guards are a regiment recruited from the people. They are sure of themselves. For power, they parade at the Palais Royal. So what is the Palais Royal? The Palais Royal is the palace in the heart of Paris, in the first arrondissement, which is the property and residence of a cousin of the king named Philippe d'Orléans, who is Grand Master of the Grand Orient. We're going to get to the end of the show, huh. We're going to get to the best part of the show. Open your eyes wide, listen. Ah, no, but now this is where the Athenians will clash, and all the points will be connected. You were talking, yes, you were talking about Tocqueville earlier. He said this famous sentence: "I do not fear universal suffrage." The vote, the people vote as they are told. He will say that. So the king no longer trusts the French Guards, and he calls for foreign regiments. The king has always had foreign regiments in his pay, huh. It's not, it's absolutely not new. But the French Guards are agitated by the people of the Duke of Orléans, Philippe. So when I say Philippe, it's Philippe d'Orléans, Grand Master of the Grand Orient, Duke of Orléans, okay? Philippe, either Philippe, or Grand Master, or the Duke, okay? Cousin of the king. So cousin of the king at the seventh, eighth degree, since they had in common their great-great-great-great-grandfather, I think, anyway, cousin in that way, right? But he's still, when the king saw him, he said, "Hello, my cousin." Okay. So the Palais Royal is the residence and headquarters of Philippe d'Orléans, Grand Master of the Grand Orient. Imagine that on July 9th, 1789, huh, you see the date that will be close, the Duke of Orléans, Philippe, gathered at the Mousseaux. The Mousseaux, that's it, it's now Monceau, by Monceau, before it was the Mousseaux, now it's Monceau. So it's in the north of Paris, he has a beautiful property. He gathers at the Mousseaux, a great, a great, oh, wait, I lost my paper. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, there.

So, we are still in 1788. So we are in July, July 9th. The National Assembly, it's the Estates-General that declared themselves the National Assembly, representatives of the people. And Philippe d'Orléans gathers at the Mousseaux. So he has his headquarters at the Palais Royal and his headquarters at the Mousseaux. He has others elsewhere, but these are essential because it's in Paris. People like Sieyès, Mirabeau, Necker, the famous Bailly, Lafayette, Destutt de Tracy, and some friendly deputies, and what does he tell them? Laab, yes, invited like the others by Philippe d'Orléans, he says, "Gentlemen, in the desperate state of affairs, the French nation has only one recourse left: to place itself under the protection of the Great Prince who presides over this illustrious assembly." What does that mean? It means that the king's cousin gathers these people at his home at the Mousseaux to prepare the deposition of Louis and to take his place. We agree. To place the kingdom under the protection of the Great Prince who presides over this illustrious assembly. So we are preparing the regency of the kingdom in his hands. Let us all swear here to neglect nothing to lead this immortal prince to the summit of government. So it's about overthrowing Louis XVI, isn't it? It's 1 year before the so-called French Revolution, and it's already in their minds. But it's not a year, it's 3 days. Ah, 3 days, sorry. It's July 9th, 1789. Ah, okay. I heard 1788 earlier, that's why. Ah, yes, we were before. We are here in 1789. The Estates-General, it's the Estates-General, it's '89, yes, of course. But '89, the Estates-General, so the Estates-General in June declared themselves the National Assembly, huh. And in July, the Duke of Orléans gathers at his home at the Mousseaux, people to whom he makes them swear, "All of you here, swear to neglect nothing to lead this immortal prince to the summit of government." That is to say, it's about overthrowing Louis XVI, that's what it means. All the invited guests take the oath of fidelity requested by these, and at dessert, the Duke is proclaimed Regent of the kingdom in secret consistory, and the expulsion of the king is sworn. There can be no regent if there is a king, we agree, huh. Either there is a regent, or a king. So for there to be a regent, Louis XVI must have been dethroned. These people, 3 days before July 14th, are preparing the deposition of Louis XVI. And you know what they're organizing? They're going to say, "We're going to have an insurrection." Let's go, the 13th, July 13th is a good date. So what do they say? "We will eliminate and replace the heads of Parisian security." Parisian security is not, it's not reliable, it's not necessarily with us. We will replace them. We will create a bourgeois guard. We will make the population believe that the king's regiments are foreign mercenaries who are going to slaughter them. And we will make a list of proscriptions, that is to say, the list of all the people who need to be gotten rid of. And then we will distribute the list of proscriptions. And those who want to kill them for us will do us a service. Is this not sedition? Is this not, wait, what is this, huh? It's a coup d'état in progress. Two groups are formed. One will go to the Palais Royal, will distribute the list of proscriptions. The Palais Royal. So the Palais Royal is really at the heart of it. It's a delightful place in Paris. The Palais Royal is a very beautiful palace that I've never entered because it's the Constitutional Council. I don't have, I don't have access. And it's also the Ministry of Culture. Ah, yes, I've already been to the Ministry of Culture for Gina Lollobrigida's decoration. Yes, I had an invitation for that day. I won't say how, but the Palais Royal, huh. Because I was working, I was working at AFP, and I had a friend who was a copy editor, working at AFP. Well, well, especially since it was next door, it was right next to the Palais Royal. So the Palais Royal is also a very beautiful garden, and the garden is surrounded by railings with arcades, and it's a place. But if you go to Paris and you don't know it, go to the Palais Royal, go to the Jardin du Palais Royal, and tell yourself that the Revolution was largely made there. It's not the most glorious part of the revolution, it's far from it, but it's truly steeped in history, and it has generally remained as it was at the time. Generally, you can find, you can find the places. So at the Palais Royal, all the seditious people gather, and another group spreads throughout Paris to call to arms. They go into the neighborhoods, "To arms, to arms! The king is coming to slaughter you! To arms, to arms! He's abandoning you, the king is calling the foreigners, and so on, and so on." And then, simultaneously, brigands who were held at the barriers are brought into Paris. The barriers of Paris are used to let in who you want and prevent who you don't want from entering. So you have brigands held at the barriers, they go get them, saying, "Hey guys, there's money to be made, come on, come on, it's open bar, you can do all the extortions you want, we'll pay you more, you break more, you'll be paid." I, I, I exaggerate, well, I don't exaggerate, I'm paraphrasing, but that's what it amounts to. At the Palais Royal and around, money is thrown in folded papers. You find a small paper on the ground, you unfold it, it says, "Money, there is money in it, it says: 'Be one of ours, you will not lack money.' Signed, the Duke of Orléans." So recruiting is not difficult under these conditions. The king, on his side, at Versailles, has just understood that Necker is in cahoots with the Duke of Orléans. The king has been informed that there was a plot to overthrow him, and he learns that his minister, his minister Necker, who is supposed to solve his debt, is in cahoots with the conspirators. Well, he calls him and says, "My dear sir, you will take back your little affairs, you will go back to Geneva. I am parting with you. You are no longer my minister." Who would have done otherwise? Okay. Saturday, July 11th, 1789, 9 PM, at the Palais Royal, Mirabeau arrives and announces that the counter-revolutionaries are preparing, hold on, the dissolution of the National Assembly, the arrest of all its members, as well as all those of the Assembly of Electors of Paris. The sabering and caning of all Parisians who resist. Paris will be handed over to 6,000 brigands. The electors of Paris will be hanged. And it is urgently necessary to print and disseminate this news, which was written by Danton himself. That is to say, Danton arrives saying, "Here's what we're going to do to make the Parisians believe it." And we write it. 235 years ago to the day, the National Assembly was already dissolved. It's interesting when you think about it, isn't it? It wasn't dissolved. Why? No, he said it was all false news. It was all, ah, there was, yes, there were already fake news at the time. Ah, no, no, but it was all false news. He announces that the counter-revolutionaries are preparing this, this, this, and that. And what he announces is what he just invented. He just invented it. And he says, "Here's what's being prepared, here's what's being prepared," when he just invented it. And he writes it himself with Danton. That is to say, he sees the effect it has on the audience. They say, "Well, it's working. Now we're going to print it and distribute it everywhere." It's a lie. It's a lie. At 11 PM, what do we learn in Paris? Necker is dismissed. Ah, the false news from Mirabeau and Danton, which I just told you about, are already circulating. The real news arrives: Necker is dismissed. We start the calls to arms with the distribution of signs of recognition. Well, it will be blue, white, and red. I'll explain to you right away why. So they tell people, "To arms! The counter-revolution is about to come and slaughter us with our daughters and our companions. The king has dismissed Necker. Everyone to arms! Signs of recognition: blue, white, red."

Sunday, July 12th, at 10 AM, the news of Necker's dismissal reaches the public. Ah, that's it, the public knows. Necker is no longer minister. Agents claim to arrive from Versailles, writing that the deputies are being taken and slaughtered. This is obviously false, it's part of the false news. And that the Duke of Orléans is in the greatest danger, that they are going to set Paris on fire and blood. And then they start saying that armies of foreigners, sent by the king, are coming to slaughter us and will bombard us. The crowd gathers in the garden of the Palais Royal around the agitators. The rioters leave the Palais Royal and go to set fire to the barriers and elsewhere. That is to say, rioters leave with torches and set Paris on fire. The Royal German Regiment mobilizes. It is in the service of, it is in the service of Louis XVI. It receives 1000 offers to change sides, and it resists. That is to say, those who will remain loyal to the king are the Germans. That's how it is. At 4 PM, Camille Desmoulins harangues the crowd, standing on a chair, then on a table. Listen to what he says. He has 6,000 listeners. "Citizens, you know that the entire nation had asked that Necker be kept, pardon. The entire nation. What was Necker to the entire nation? Necker was the banker of the annuitants, he was the favored minister. What is he saying? What is he saying? He says, 'I'm coming from Versailles.' Liar, liar! He wasn't at Versailles, he didn't leave Paris. Necker is dismissed, dismissed again. And the toxin of a St. Bartholomew's Day of patriots, no kidding." So the patriots are the good guys, basically, from this period onwards, the patriots are the good guys, and then the others are aristocrats. Even if you're a baker, you're an aristocrat if you're not a patriot. And if you're a patriot, you're with these, with these seditious people. He says, "Tonight, all the Swiss and German battalions will leave the Champ de Mars to slaughter us. There is not a moment to lose. We have only one resource: to run to arms and to take cockades so that we can recognize each other. To arms!" And then they force all the dance halls and theaters to close as a sign of mourning. Well, around the Palais Royal, that's all there is. Theaters, there are theaters and dance halls everywhere. You're going to stop rejoicing, it's the revolution, you have to stop. They break into armories, they forcibly remove all the weapons they find. The bourgeois, without becoming the thing, everyone barricades themselves behind their doors, bang, bang, bang, they put up the shutters, the wooden shutters, they close everything. And that's the case all day in Paris, between the supporters of the Duke and the regiments loyal to the king. There are extortions all day. The Duke's supporters commit all sorts of extortions, and the regiments loyal to the king try to resist. I assure you, it's not easy. The armories are looted. The next day, it's the 13th. It was planned for the.

You will see, there was a setback. It won't be the 13th, it will be the 14th, at the first hour. Philippe goes to the king's court, who refuses to receive him. The Grand Orient, he is the Grand Master, writes to all the lodges of France to ask for an enlightened government. That's it, he launches Philippe d'Orléans, launches all the lodges of France against Louis XV. At the Hôtel de Ville, only Flessel remained loyal to the king. Flessel, he was the Provost of the Merchants, that is to say, a sort of old-fashioned mayor. The Provost of the Merchants at the Hôtel de Ville, it was the merchants. The Provost of the Merchants, he was the chief among them, if you will. He alone remained loyal to the king. All the others have become partisans of Philippe d'Orléans. He constitutes a permanent commission for the provisioning, order, and defense of Paris. He decides on a bourgeois militia of 70,000 men, of which immediately 12,000 among the best citizens of the city, to which is quickly added all the riff-raff, that is to say, the Hôtel de Ville is in the process of forming an army for itself. You imagine, it is the king who has the privilege of armed force, not in the kingdom. Well, in Paris, militias, in fact, that's the bourgeois militia. So, he foresees a bourgeois militia of 70,000 men, so 12,000 immediately, immediately recruited, and to which, well, the best citizens of the city, to whom is quickly added the riff-raff. And the riff-raff, they will be present constantly, constantly. The Duke's valets patrol Paris on horseback to recruit, recruit 2,000 men who will be paid by Philippe. Tuesday, July 14th. That's it, that's where it begins. So, at 2 a.m., they come to tell the Hôtel de Ville that 15,000 inhabitants of the Faubourg Saint-Antoine are arriving to seize the Hôtel de Ville. So, the Faubourg Saint-Antoine is to the east, the Hôtel de Ville is in the very center. They come to explain to Flessel, who is still Provost of the Merchants, "Look, there are 15,000 inhabitants of the Faubourg Saint-Antoine who are marching on the Hôtel de Ville." Flessel says, "I don't believe you. I don't believe you. How so?" Well, I don't know why he didn't believe them, but they were liars, and Flessel knew it. Three times the lie is told. "Sir, sir, the 15,000 inhabitants..." "No, I don't believe you." The third time, it's the signal. The committee sends the order to sound the alarm, to unpave the streets, to dig ditches, to form barricades. While there are not 15,000 inhabitants of the Faubourg marching, they are organizing the uprising of the Hôtel de Ville. They raise the French and volunteer guards to oppose the enemy who is devastating the Faubourg Saint-Antoine. That's false. No one is devastating the Faubourg Saint-Antoine, but they are raising the French guards and organizing volunteers, and they are organizing this National Guard to take power over Paris. These are lies. No one is devastating the Faubourg, and Flessel knew it. He had understood. He knew who he was dealing with. So, since 9 a.m., they are shouting at the Bastille. So, Philippe takes refuge at the Mousset. So, he launches the riots, and then he hides. All that we have seen Philippe d'Orléans do, he lets go, he lets loose his dogs, and then he goes to hide. He has always done that. A band goes to the Invalides, requisitions weapons. The Invalides, it's the Hôtel des Invalides, the war invalids, the invalids corrupted for 10 days. For money, people have been going to see the invalids every day, saying, "You will give us weapons, and we will give you money, and so on, and so on." For 10 days, they have been worked on by the Duke of Orléans' seditious elements. So, they open the door to the invaders, who find 28,000 rifles in the cellars and cannons, and they leave with them. So, the rioters are now armed, but they have no ammunition. Do you know where the ammunition is? At the Bastille. At the Bastille, the famous prison of the Bastille. And there it is, a fortress that serves as a prison and a garrison. So, led by Desmoulins, always the same, the entire people are calling for Camille Desmoulins. What did I say? You said Desmoulins. It's to be precise. Camille Desmoulins, who was a great lover of his wife, Lucille. He was a guy who was absolutely completely crazy and adorable, by the way. He was the best and the worst. No, no, but he was touching. He was... No, no, but he did all the crooked things. He did all the crazy things. A lover at the same time? He was crazy about his wife, crazy, crazy, crazy about his wife. Ah, yes, no, but crazy about his wife, yes. But I mean, he was a good guy, or he was... He was a good guy with his wife. Wait, he did horrible things. Wait, he's the one who launched, he's the one who launched the assault on the Bastille. Wait. Well, you need to know what the assault on the Bastille is. Wait, I'll explain. At the Bastille, there are invalids, invalids who have been won over for a few days. That is to say, the invalids have been harangued at the Hôtel des Invalides, and those who are inside the Bastille, for several days, they have been told, "We are coming, we are coming, you will welcome us, and so on." And there are 32 Swiss, loyal Swiss. That's the Swiss, the nice, friendly, and loyal country next door, which provides not only the Pope but also the King of France with excellent soldiers, who are tall, well-built, extremely loyal, extremely loyal, and extremely good soldiers. So, there are 32 Swiss who guard the Bastille, and at the bottom of the Bastille, it's a big fort with big towers and big walls, 1,000 men come to demand weapons and ammunition from the governor. French guards, workers, bourgeois, priests, and so on, arrive at the bottom. The crowd gathers at the foot of the Bastille. You have two emissaries of the Duke of Orléans who come to summon the governor. The governor tells them, "Very nice, but your master is the Duke, mine is the King, okay?" Well, the crowd waves a flag of the city and is surrounded by the so-called deputies of the commune, because the commune has now constituted itself as the government of Paris. So, the crowd waves a flag of the city as if it were no longer the flag of the Kings of France. Paris is seceding. At the Hôtel de Ville, on the other side. That's the Bastille. So, the Bastille is in the far east, the Hôtel de Ville is in the center. At the Hôtel de Ville, Flessel is accused of having hidden the existence of weapons at the Invalides. Well, to teach him a lesson, they put a bullet in his head. Well, that's quite expeditious. Well, why bother? There's no pleasure. If you want to make a revolution, you need what it takes. The king had just summoned Flessel to Versailles to consult with him to solve the problem of provisions, because Flessel, he had... Oh dear, I'm falling badly. Flessel had... views on provisions that were absolutely not those of the liberals. So, the king was going to ask for his advice. I am very, very embarrassed. Here I am, here I am. The king had advised him, had summoned him to Versailles to bring up the problem of provisions again. So, I think those who put a bullet in his head knew it. They certainly didn't want anything to be questioned regarding provisions, since it was out of the question to move on to anything other than the free circulation of provisions. Do you still see me? Because I still see myself. Do you still see me? Robespierre, and so on, we'll talk about that later. It's coming, it's coming, it's coming, it's coming, it's coming, it's coming, it's coming. So, only the Orléans party remains in Paris to negotiate with the king. So, the shooting at the Bastille begins at 10 a.m. and lasts until 5 p.m. They shoot at thick walls, and one shot accidentally hits an invalid. If you shoot with a popgun against thick walls like those of the Bastille, nothing happens. The governor, whose name is de Launay, agrees to have his cannons withdrawn from the embrasures. They say to de Launay, "You have cannons in the crenellations of the fortress there. They are aimed at the crowd. Have them withdrawn." The governor says, "But if I can have the cannons withdrawn, I'll have them withdrawn." He has them moved back, and they make him swear not to shoot. He swears. He says, "Okay, I won't shoot." He invites a first delegation to lunch and allows the envoy from the Hôtel de Ville to visit the entire fortress. That is to say, the governor de Launay spends his time negotiating to try to calm things down. They tell him, "Give us weapons." He is there to protect the Bastille, he is not there to give it to seditious people. He is under the authority of the king. He will be loyal to the end. So, he endures several volleys without retaliating. He even lets the first bridge be carried away without firing a shot. Well, believe it or not, the Bastille was not taken by force, one of the combatants will say. It surrendered before even being attacked, by capitulation, on the promise that no harm would be done to anyone. That is to say, they promised de Launay, "If you open, we will do nothing wrong. We swear to you that no harm will be done." The garrison was very disturbed by the sight of this crowd. The garrison was really afraid. From the top of the parapets, it seemed to the 120 men of the garrison, there were 120 men inside, that all of Paris was overflowing. From the top of the Bastille, it was black with people, all of it. So, it was they who lowered the drawbridge and let the enemy in, on the promise that no harm would be done to anyone. And then the massacre begins. As soon as they entered, they started breaking everything, and the last ones to arrive shot the first ones at random. Everyone shot without paying attention to where or at whom. The bullets hit the crowd. They spare the Swiss who shot at them and attack the invalids who opened the door for them. There will be 100 dead, disemboweled, eviscerated, with their eyes gouged out. Can you imagine the savagery? A hundred dead. They drag the officers, they kill five of them with three soldiers, and they drag de Launay outside. He receives a sword blow to the shoulder. They drag him towards the Rue Saint-Antoine and make him walk to the Hôtel de Ville. The crowd beats him, pulls his hair, tortures him, stabs him to death, insults him. Arriving at the Hôtel de Ville, he is already very wounded, he is almost dying. They shout at him, "We must cut off his head, we must hang him, we must tie him to the tail of a horse." Desperate, he cries, "Give me death!" He kicks one of the men holding him in the lower abdomen, who pierces him with a bayonet. At that moment, they drag him into the gutter and strike his corpse, shouting, "He's a leper, a monster who betrayed us!" The nation demands his head to show it to the public. Who is the nation, in your opinion? A butcher's boy carries it out. His head will end up on the end of a pitchfork. They will go to exhibit it at the Palais Royal, then at the foot of the statue of Henry IV, where they will say to him, laughing and bowing three times, "Hail your master, hail your master, hail your master." Flessel's head will join him. The rioters hold the Hôtel de Ville and establish a Parisian government. It will be the first commune. Among all these rioters was the banker Le Cerf, with his children, his clerks, and his servants, who came to get weapons and participate in the riot against the dismissal of Necker. Because if Necker is gone, who will pay the annuities? The taking of the Bastille was, first and foremost, a riot organized for and by annuitants. On July 15th, the National Assembly urgently wants a National Guard in Versailles. Lafayette is appointed Vice-President of the National Assembly. He comes to Paris to congratulate the Parisians on their heroism and announces the king's visit. He is proclaimed Commander-General of the Bourgeois Guard, and Bailly becomes Provost of the Merchants. The king has lost Paris. The revolution will not stop. On August 4th, well, wait a moment on this detail, if you allow me, because it's crucial what you said there, or something I've never heard in a history course in the 20 years of courses I've had in total. The riot by the annuitants, is that what you said? The riot is triggered at the time of Necker's dismissal. So, Necker, if Necker is no longer there, who will pay the annuities? Well, Necker was a banker, he wasn't very popular, and so on, but if they fire him, there's no one left. Well, he's the one who made the annuities, he's the one who developed them, these annuities. If the king, if the king dismisses Necker, perhaps, perhaps he will betray his word and refuse to pay the annuities. The annuities were so important, the annuities on the 30 heads of young people, were so interesting that people put their fortunes in them. People who had money put colossal sums in these annuities. So, they gave a huge capital to the king in exchange for annuities. If the annuities are not paid, the capital will not be reimbursed either. That is to say, the annuitants risk ruin. Well, a good revolution will fix that for you, won't it? No, but I haven't finished, my dear. Wait. So, sorry, we continue. On August 4th, a preparatory meeting for the session is held, a night-long meeting with 1000 deputies, 100 deputies, pardon, who prepare the destruction of all privileges of classes, provinces, cities, and corporations. It will be the destruction of all acquired rights. The session of August 4th is presided over by the Freemason Isaac René Guy Le Chapelier. The Declaration of the Rights of Man, which will follow, will celebrate the freedom of everyone to work as they wish, where they wish, if it does not harm. It will be the freedom of the fox free in the henhouse, free. It is the de facto suppression, not of juries, but de facto of corporations. All privileges are suppressed, and each corporation was a corporation by privilege of the king. All privileges of cities are suppressed. All acquired rights over centuries and centuries of royalty are suppressed, and they say, "Now, we are all equal. We are all equal." On August 29th, well, wait, the Assembly constitutionalizes the indefinite freedom of commerce, against which the French people have not stopped expressing their opposition for 30 years. Taxation is now forbidden by the Constitution, and the price of bread will be fixed by supply and demand according to the Constitution. That is to say, market economy, economic liberalism, and the prohibition of taxation have been constitutionalized. On the following October 4th, the Commune of Paris, you understand that it is the new government in Paris, which is completely seditious, which no longer obeys the king, prepares the march on Versailles, which will bring the king back to Paris. It passes a decree, well, listen carefully, imposing the blue, white, and red cockade as the only one that citizens must wear. So, now, if you want to be on the right side, you must have the blue, white, and red cockade attached somewhere to your hat or to the lapel of your jacket. What is the cockade? What is blue, white, and red, after all? Well, it's first the colors of America and England, if you look closely, but that's not all. They are the colors of the Duke of Orléans. It's the livery of the Duke of Orléans. Each great personage had colors corresponding to the livery of their domestics. All the domestics, a coachman, a valet, or even, well, all the household staff of a great princely or noble house, were recognized by the costume of these domestics. It was called the livery, and Philippe d'Orléans' livery was blue, white, and red. So, the cockade, which is the symbol of the French Revolution, is blue, white, and red, the colors of the Grand Master of the Grand Orient, Philippe d'Orléans, who launched the insurrection in Paris. On October 5th and 6th, second coup d'état. The Assembly of the Constituent Assembly brings the king back to Paris. The king is deprived of the right to participate in the making of laws. What is the king in France? He is the legislator in his kingdom. When the king says, "I want," it is the law. Now, that doesn't mean he says "I want" alone and does whatever he wants, because the king has a council that listens to him, but the king's will is the law. So, the king is deprived of the right to participate in the making of laws. He is no longer the king. He is a prisoner in Paris. He can't even leave Paris. So, in your opinion, when the people say "the king," did anyone ask their opinion? At what point? At this point? Listen carefully. On October 21st, martial law is established against any gathering. Any gathering means that from October 21st, it becomes impossible to demonstrate for taxation and the fair price of grain or bread. This amounts to the death penalty against opponents of the wildest capitalism. If you no longer have the right to demand a low price for bread because it's called taxation, because it's forbidden to gather due to martial law, it means that the death penalty has just been established against opponents of the wildest capitalism. Well, that's the revolution, and the price of bread will not stop increasing. At the end of the Revolution, people were dying of hunger in the streets. Or I think to buy bread, you needed a whole cargo of coins. No, no, no, no, no, there weren't any. Ah, a cargo. So, I don't know. That's an image you're giving. It's the image that is remembered from the years before the Revolution or after. I think it's before the Revolution, where they took, not carts, I don't know what they're called. Are you sure you're not confusing it with the Weimar Republic and the years before Adolf Hitler in Germany, because that's what it was, they went to get their bread with boxes of banknotes. No, no, I don't know what I know is that during the Revolution, people are hungry, they queue at the bakeries, there are none, and when there are, it's expensive. It's infernal. The French Revolution, people are hungry all the time, all the time, all the time, all the time. And it's because the king eats too much, it's well known. The king eats too much, and he eats the people's food, you see the point. Anyway, on April 12th following, we are in 1790. So, listen carefully, listen carefully, it's interesting. The Archbishop of Aix offers to immediately settle the 360 million of due debts with a mortgage loan of 400 million on the church property. What does that mean? It means that the king can no longer borrow, okay? Because no one lends to him anymore because he doesn't repay. The National Assembly said that revenues would increase through economic liberalism. We are still waiting for that to come in. So, the state continues to owe 360 million livres, okay? It doesn't have them. And the Church says, "Wait, if we launch a loan, people will lend to us. People will lend to us because they know we will pay, because we are solvent. The Church's assets have been accumulated for 1500 years without ever being alienated. The Church is very rich. It is rich from its assets, so it is reliable. It has a word. The clergy's credit is very strong. If the clergy says, 'We are borrowing money,' people will lend because they know they will be reimbursed. So, the Archbishop says, 'We will settle the entire debt immediately.' Response from the Assembly: 'Never. Leave here. Leave here.' To conform to the social contract, the Assembly must suppress all intermediaries between the state, the repository of all individuals. The Church has no place here. We don't know you. Get out of here." Even though he was coming to settle the debt in full, in full. On July 12th following, the Assembly votes for the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, which places all priests under the tutelage of the state. So, wait, that was the dream of the Jansenists, now disappeared: to subject the Church to the state. We will have priests who will become civil servants, who will swear allegiance to the Constitution, which has decided on a market economy. A priest cannot swear allegiance to anything other than the oath he has made to the Church. He cannot swear allegiance at the same time to a constitution that has decided that the market economy will henceforth be the normal state of the kingdom. It's the opposite of secularism. The state begins to meddle in religion. The state says, "Priests will be civil servants. We will pay them. We will take the Church's money. The Church is rich, so we will expropriate it. We will steal the clergy's assets." And God knows, it's monstrous, what was stolen from the clergy to put at the disposal of the nation. Well, well, well. To enrich profiteers. And the priests who were previously paid by the Church, you know, the Church had its own budget. The Church absolutely did not depend on the state budget. The Church had its own revenues. It passed through tithes, and in exchange for tithes, the Church provided a quantity of services for free. Services to the poor, until the General Hospital took over the services to the poor, primary education services, higher education services, hospitals, care for the sick, research, all of that was free. All of that was free, and it was paid in advance by the people through tithes. So, the Church's budget did not depend on the king. The Church's budget did not depend on the state. The Church was financially independent. So, it was extremely rich, since the priests were not married, there was no, there was no transfer of patrimony for the benefit of any potential children, if you will. So, all the priests who had property and wanted to give it to the Church, gave it to the Church, and this property accumulated, accumulated. So, the Church's wealth was enormous, but in exchange, it provided a quantity of services completely free of charge to the population, completely free of charge. And the Revolution decided, "Well, we will take all of that from the Church because they are rich. There's no reason. We have to, we have to repay the debt." So, they didn't want the Church to repay the debt with its credit, but they claim that we will repay the debt by stealing from the Church. What will we steal from the Church? We will put it in private pockets. It will be a real pillage. And all the priests who were paid by the Church, all the nuns who were paid by the Church, all the services that were paid by the Church will be paid by no one. No one anymore. So, the Revolution, they will say, "Well, we will pay the priests." How did they pay them? They paid them with kicks in the backside. First of all, they paid them on the condition that they were willing to swear allegiance to the Constitution. So, there were those called the "juring priests" who agreed to swear allegiance to the Constitution. But most of the priests said, "Wait, we cannot swear, we cannot swear that we will obey such an anti-Church, anti-religion government. It's not possible. And then, they will not swear allegiance to a constitution that has just liberalized the grain trade, which has always been the most incongruous and, well, the most hated thing in the Kingdom of France. Free trade of grain was unthinkable, and it has just been constitutionalized, and they are going to ask priests to swear allegiance. But they can't. They will be called "refractory priests." And the persecution will begin now. We have the refractory priests. Before, no, the refractory priests. So, the Revolution will begin to turn against what are called the refractory priests. On June 20th, 1791, the king leaves for Montmédy, that is to say, he tries to join his loyalists, an army loyal to him, to try to regain control. The king is escaping. He is escaping like any prisoner has the right to escape. It's the principle. You are arrested against your will, and you feel that, moreover, he has not been judged. The king couldn't even leave Paris. He tried one day to go from Paris to Saint-Cloud, a riot prevented him. He was truly a prisoner. So, they organized his departure for Montmédy to go and join his loyalists, with whom he hoped to regain control and retake Paris, but with his loyalists. And he was arrested on the way because he was recognized. He was recognized. So, I read a particularly touching and moving episode at one point. He got out of the carriage, the large carriage in which he was, and he accompanied the little prince who wanted to pee, and he accompanied him. So, you have the king who is bent over, who, dressed as a bourgeois, makes the little one pee. And then, as he brings him back, he meets a brave peasant who looks at him and says, "But, but, Your Majesty, it's you, it's you, Your Majesty." And then the king, well, it's crazy. He didn't dare say no. He didn't want to disappoint him, and that's when the other one gave him away. "I saw the king, I saw the king." But he was happy. He was happy. So, he was betrayed by his kindness. It's sad, it's sad. So, after they were brought back to Paris, it was, well, anyway, he is brought back to Varennes, he is brought back to Paris and stripped of his functions in August 1791, just after the election to the Legislative Assembly. So, the Constituent Assembly has finished its work. Now, we will elect deputies who will draft laws. We have the Constituent Assembly, we have drafted a constitution, the king has signed it. Now, the Legislative Assembly, we will make laws. And for this Legislative Assembly, only the property owners will vote. That's good, we are progressing well in the revolution. The Legislative Assembly will be elected by people who own a minimum of property. All the others can go to hell. On September 13th, 1791, the king accepts the new Constitution. He signs it. For 3 years, since the beginning of '88, it's been 3 years that the king is a hostage of the deputies who have taken power. He is nothing anymore. The king signs. He is nothing anymore. He has no personal guard. He has no right to anything anymore. He can't go out. He is absolutely a prisoner. In March 1792, in Étampes, the furious crowd tramples to death the mayor, whose name is Jacques Simoneau, who had given the order to fire on the crowd that wanted, guess what? Taxation. The crowd comes to the market and wants grain at a taxed price. Simoneau, the mayor, orders the troops to fire, and he shouts, "Fire on the crowd!" And Mayor Simoneau is dead because the troops fired on the mayor. He did not want to fire on the crowd. Simoneau, at that moment, turned to his municipal council and said, "What do we do?" The council told him, "Mr. Mayor, we said we were going to the market. We must go to the market." He didn't arrive in time. He was trampled to death. He was the first martyr of liberty, the liberty of commerce, and the liberty to enrich oneself at the expense of the poor. The following April, that is to say, a month later, while the entire Paris Basin is in a state of insurrection against the high cost of living and the prohibition of taxation, the Assembly declares war on Austria-Hungary. In your opinion, the entire Paris Basin is in a state of insurrection against the revolution, since they want free, they don't want the free circulation of grain, they want taxation and the return of grain policing. So, we will start a good war, that will calm them down, you know the argument. So, the Assembly declares war on Austria-Hungary. The king has no power anymore. He can only sign. The king organized the war. He organized nothing at all. He has no power anymore. The mobilization at the borders will calm all these seditious elements. The Paris Basin is in a state of insurrection everywhere, everywhere, everywhere. I saw this in the Archives des Temples, it's really the archives of Essonne. I saw the riots. I couldn't list them. I said, it's the entire Paris Basin that is rising up. There were the bells, the entire Paris Basin, the entire Seine-et-Oise. The Assembly is making a show of it. The king makes him sign a decree for the deportation of refractory priests. Look, Your Majesty, we have the refractory priests who don't want to sign the Constitution. We're going to deport them. You're going to sign. And then they want 20,000 fédérés at the disposal of the Jacobins. So, what are the Jacobins? The Jacobins are a completely Freemason club that meets in the former convent of the Rue Saint-Jacques, hence its name, Saint-Jacques, giving Jacobin, okay? The king, who has been deprived of his personal guard, cannot, in good conscience, sign that priests who obey their conscience will be deported, and sign that 20,000 fédérés will be at his doors to keep him in line. So, it's not possible. So, he has the right of veto. The Constitution gave it to him. It says if the king does not agree, he can oppose his veto. So, he opposes his veto. He says, "I refuse." So, he is a tyrant. You agree, since he is doing in good conscience what he has the right to do, he is a tyrant. We will not stop shooting at this unfortunate Louis XVI. It didn't stop. On June 20th, 1792, a violent assault is launched against the Tuileries Palace. The king is disarmed. He has been disarmed. His guard has been suppressed. The king's guard has been suppressed. They bring 600 men from Marseille who know how to die, they say. Send us 600 men from Marseille, 600 men who know how to die, with cannons. Their march begins on July 5th with men gathered from all over, from Montpellier, Avignon, and some other cities. Marseille is the place where criminals vomited from the prisons of Genoa, Piedmont, Sicily, all of Italy, Spain, the archipelago, and barbarism, that is to say, North Africa, gather. Who are these Marseillais who are going to Paris? They are brigands. A Marseillais deputy tries to alert Parisians about the quality of these brigands. They are swashbucklers, denizens of bad places. Everything was found good. The real Marseillais, they are few in number. Do you know where they are? The real Marseillais are at the borders, since they have been mobilized. So, those they brought to Paris from July 5th, knowing how to die and with cannons, are all the riff-raff they mobilized from all the prisons around the Mediterranean available. So, they arrive in Paris on July 30th, singing, guess what? What do the Marseillais, or pseudo-Marseillais, arrive singing? La Marseillaise. And that's why I can no longer sing it. That's why Rouget de Lisle cried when he saw what they had done with it. So, Rouget de Lisle, was he a Freemason or not? Yes, I think he was a Freemason. Yes, he was not a supporter of these horrors, however, because "Le Chant des Partisans" was created when? Ah, that's later, that's later. Yes. And so, this anthem, we will really redo history as if we were in primary school. Where does this anthem come from, and what was its significance at the time? So, the anthem, "La Marseillaise," became the anthem of the French much later, much later, long after the Revolution. But the Marseillais, when they arrive in Paris, sing that. So, it will be the song of the Marseillais. It will still be a song that will... But what the people sing in the streets is not "La Marseillaise." It's "Le Chant du Départ." "Victory, singing, opens the barrier for us. Liberty guides our steps." It's the Marseillaise. A little song like that, because it seems you are also a singer. Yes, yes, I have...

Voice thread, awaiting victory, the victory sung opens the barrier for us. I hope I'm not saying something foolish. If someone can verify, the victory sung opens the barrier for us. I hope I'm not saying something foolish. If someone would kindly verify the era this dates from. But it's not the Marseillaise, it's not what they sang at the time. But it is indeed the song sung by the Marseillais, the federated Marseillais who came to Paris to bring Paris under control. It's the song of departure, the song of departure created in 1794 by Marie Joseph Chénier. There, that's it, there, there, there. So it's after the Battle of Fleurus. This song was performed for the first time on June 26, 1794, after the Battle of Fleurus, to celebrate the victory of the Republic's armies. There, that's it. And I used to sing it at the top of my lungs when I was a kid. I can't tell you, it's "Victory sung opens the barrier for us, Liberty guides our steps, and from North to South the war trumpet has sounded the hour of combat. Tremble, enemies of France, kings drunk with blood and pride, the sovereign people advances." The sovereign people, that makes me laugh. Descend into the tomb, tyrant. The Republic calls us, let us know how to conquer or perish. A Frenchman must live for her, a Frenchman must die. A Frenchman must live for her, for her, a Frenchman must die. So I'm willing to sing it for history, but frankly, I can't anymore. I can no longer adhere to any of the words of this song that I sang at the top of my lungs as a teenager with my sisters. We would roam the countryside, howling the song of departure because we were Republicans, because we believed it was good, you know. I didn't know all those things. The Marseillais, when they arrived in Paris, I'll tell you the rest of the story. They arrived in Paris, they were treated to Santerre, who was a brewer from the faubourg. He filled the bellies of the agitators with beer, then he let them go, and they attacked Parisian National Guardsmen. They killed people, and nothing happened to them. They would control Paris for 3 years, sowing terror in the city under the benevolent protection of the Commune of Paris. The Marseillais committed all sorts of abuses in Paris that they wanted. No one ever stopped them. They were the armed militia, truly armed, of the seditious. They completely sowed terror in Paris, and no one could stop them anymore. They would be the henchmen of what was being prepared. All public force was in the hands of the Commune. The Commune is the government in Paris, we agree. There is a mayor in Paris named Pétion. He was elected, believe it or not, by 9,000 votes against 3,000 for La Fayette. That's a good victory, you know how many were registered? There were 200,000 registered on the electoral lists. Oh my god, he was elected by 9,000 against 3,000, meaning with 4.5% of registered voters. That's not democracy, is it? Well, wait. July 30th arrives, the Brunswick Manifesto. So who is Brunswick? He's the commander-in-chief of the anti-French coalition who threatens the Parisians. We declared war on Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary has a general at its head named Brunswick, who on July 30th sends a threat to the Parisians saying, "If you touch a hair of their Majesties, I will bring Paris to heel." Well, he threatens the Parisians with the ultimate repression if ever a hair of their Majesties, the King and Queen, is touched. But then they say, "Can you imagine that scoundrel Louis, who is consorting with the enemy?" Except that Brunswick was a Freemason, an ally of the Jacobins, and he served the Jacobins with his threat. The King isn't even aware of it. The King isn't even aware of the Brunswick Manifesto. The King wrote a letter saying, "This manifesto bears none of the signs that can guarantee its authenticity. It's a fake. It doesn't come from Louis." And the King is accused of being behind it. So the King threatened the Parisian population with being massacred to the last man with his accomplice Brunswick, even though Brunswick is an accomplice of the Freemasons, he's an accomplice of the Jacobins, he's an accomplice of the Jacobins. On August 9th, Danton ordered cartridges to be given to the Marseillais because the Marseillais hadn't necessarily had enough cartridges until then, and he refused to give cartridges to the National Guard. So the National Guard, we saw that apparently they weren't necessarily on the right side, but they weren't the worst either. And cartridges were given to the Marseillais and refused to the National Guard. At 1 a.m., the toxin was tunneled, and the Commune of July 14th. The Commune, the government of Paris that was established on July 14th, is replaced by the Insurrectionary Commune. This means that the men of the revolution that is being prepared enter the Paris City Council. They grab the councilors of the July 14th Commune, they beat them up, they send them flying, they knock them off their seats, they take over, saying, "Now the government is us," and it will be the Insurrectionary Commune that will govern France until the end. The Insurrectionary Commune summons the commander of the National Guard because the National Guard still existed. They bring him in and put a bullet in his head and throw him out the window, into the Seine. And they go find Santerre, telling him, "You are the new commander of the National Guard." They found Santerre. They found Santerre. He will be found in the Vendée. On the 8th, at 8 a.m., on August 10th, the assault on the palace is launched. All these swordsmen will be unleashed on the Tuileries. It's a horror, it's an unspeakable unleashing of atrocities. Men, women, and even children, because it's a palace, there's a whole population in the palace. It's not just the people who live in the palace, it's the people who work in the palace. Men, women, and children will be massacred, burned alive, mutilated, and even eaten. We will drink human blood still beating. We massacre even the dogs. It's vile, it's abominable, it's illegible, it's illegible. And there are people who today... But of course, but of course, it's the assault launched against royalty, look, against the tyrant who dared to say "Monsieur Veto" and "Madame Veto." The new Commune that has just been installed the previous night comes to the Assembly to give its orders. That is to say, the famous Legislative Assembly, which says it will do what it will do, is overthrown by factionaries who say, "Now you will do as we say, you will do as we say." It overthrows royalty. The royal family is seized and locked up in the Temple. And the gates of Paris are closed. The gates of Paris are closed. You can't get in or out anymore. A passport granted by the Commune is required to circulate, enter, or leave Paris. All newspapers are banned. Marat retrieves the material for his newspaper. Marat is a journalist. He's a loudmouth, Marat, but he's a journalist. He writes every day. He writes every day. And when we enter... It's not the one who was in his bathtub, is it? Yes, that's it. He was assassinated in his bath by Charlotte Corday, if I'm not mistaken. Corday, Corday, Corday, that's it. So Marat retrieves... He's one of the great shouters of these assemblies. Marat, so he retrieves all the material for his newspaper. That is to say, it's not lost for everyone. And on August 24th, August 24th, so the Revolution, the overthrow of royalty, is August 10th. On August 24th, the first heads start to roll. Trials begin, and trials, and trials. And what are the first heads that will fall? All the people around the king who could exonerate him from all the atrocities and all the lies that will be spread about him. So all the people loyal to the king who can say exactly how much the king earned, how much he spent, who he was, etc. They will invent things like "we found an iron wardrobe in which..." All of that is all of that is lies, lies, lies, lies. On August 29th, the massacres begin to be prepared. Why are massacres wanted? To impress the population, to paralyze them with fear, and to impose new powers. So needy citizens capable of bearing arms are recruited, and they are allocated a salary. And needy citizens... That's not it. It is decreed that all citizens absent from their homes must return. All houses will be lit at the windows all night. House visits are announced in each neighborhood, and any house not lit will be visited. All cars will be garaged by 10 p.m. On the 30th, in the morning, the prisons are full. People are arrested by the armful. Sunday, September 2, 1792, in the morning, all the city gates are closed, all horses are requisitioned, and the cannon is fired. The prisons are overflowing with all the people arrested since the 10th. Those they want to protect are released. Marat protects a friend of his who had stolen... And he lets him out. And at 2:30 p.m., the massacre begins. It starts with the priests. In the evening, they go to the Châtelet, which is also a prison. The Châtelet is also a prison, a tribunal, a prison, a fortress. Well, the Châtelet is many things. It's where the Châtelet is today. It's really the heart, the very center of Paris. So in the evening, the massacreurs go to the Châtelet to massacre common criminals, that is to say, petty thieves, even people in prison for debt. They are massacred with sabers, with picks, with hammers. Hundreds of unarmed people. How do you want to massacre people in a prison other than by the worst abominations? A prisoner cannot defend himself. A prisoner... The prisoners are brought down into the courtyard, and they are massacred with... To arrest so many people, you need lookouts, you need the equivalent of the secret service of the time. It doesn't happen like that. You need people. How? How? But to arrest people, to arrest people at their homes, you send up four armed men, and the person comes down. They do that all day. They do that all day. You need personnel, well-informed people. Ah, you need them. But you have in Paris a number of unemployed people. Money is not lacking. Money is not lacking. You have a number of unemployed people ready to do a certain number of dirty jobs. In terms of finance, you have to think about it. It reminds me of the health brigades during COVID, strangely. I didn't see health brigades, but perhaps not in France, but in some countries like China, etc., where there were health brigades responsible for... But it's true that it recalls the current era in certain ways, strangely. Of course. No, but really, the September massacres were carried out by paid unemployed people. We have the names, the first names, the addresses, and the money they received, and their signatures. So what you need to know is that the original archives of these atrocities have disappeared. In 1700, in 1870, I'll explain. The archives, the archives of all these abuses... What is that beeping? It's not at my place, it's not at your place. What is it? Oh, wait, it's annoying me. Oh, it's audible. No, no, I don't hear anything. Ah, you don't hear anything. I only hear it. Yes, I'll explain. The September massacreurs were all paid. So there were ledgers. They received a salary. We know their names, first names, etc., etc. And these archives were plundered in the course of the 19th century, and books were written about what... about the episode. And subsequently, in 1870, the original archives burned. So we no longer have the original archives, but we have traces of the writings that were made from these original archives before their destruction. So I can't give you an archival reference for the identity of the September massacreurs, but we know because it was worked on by serious people at the time. We have their names, first names. They were unemployed people who were told, or rather, who were made to believe that the king wanted to slit their throats, that this and that, and that they would be given so much money to go and massacre, and they went and massacred. In terms of finance, they remind us of the year of this September. So it's September 1792. The Tuileries fell on August 10th. The Marseillais arrived at the end of June in Paris. The insurrection caused the fall of the Tuileries on August 10th. The September massacres begin on September 2nd. And September 2nd begins by massacring the priests. The common criminals are massacred at the Châtelet. The fury, the massacre will last 5 days. Blood flows in the streets. Yes, the same scenes of barbarism, cannibalism, and outrage are repeated. That is to say, you have people armed with picks, sabers, and they don't have firearms. That is to say, the National Guard, which is in reserve and has rifles, if it receives an order, it aims and stops the massacres. The order was never given to stop the massacres. People went to the Commune of Paris, they saw Robespierre, they saw Danton, they saw this one, they saw that one, saying, "Stop the massacre." They said, "No, no, no, justice must be done. Justice must be done." There's a journalist named Louis-Marie Prudhomme. He accompanied a delegation that went to the town hall, saying, "Stop the massacre." He was there. "No, no, justice must be done." And the justification they will give is that the prisoners in question, from the depths of their prisons, were plotting against the state. They were plotting. Prisoners were plotting. So they were killed so they wouldn't carry out their... No, but it's monstrous, it's monstrous. So the September massacres, which were passed off as the vengeance of the people, were nothing more than an enterprise of absolute terror organized by the government of the Commune of Paris, in which Robespierre, don't try to tell us he was sick and not there that day, he was part of it. And it was organized to sow terror, to reduce the population by terror. I mean, when you know that you have to leave a light on by your window, otherwise thugs will come into your house and break everything, I mean, you turn on the light, you see what I mean? Organizing resistance to that is unthinkable. A city within a city. People are extremely fragile, moreover, let's not forget they are constantly hungry. They are constantly hungry. It's terror, and it's not even official terror yet. It's day-to-day terror, it's petty terror. It's pre-terror. I would like us to pause for a second on this period because we still have well-known figures of public notoriety at the time, like Danton and Robespierre. Today, in the French political class, if you had to find a Danton and a Robespierre, who would you choose? On Robespierre, I tend to think it's Mélenchon, but I might be wrong. Well, there's a lot of Robespierrists. Mélenchon, I was thinking of him. But I even saw Mélenchon as Danton. We'll call him Danton and Robespierre. No, but Robespierre was rather, between quotes, the far-left of the time. Yes, a fanatic. And Danton was also... No, there's a difference. I'll tell you, there's a fundamental difference between Danton and Robespierre. There's a fundamental difference. Danton was venal. Danton dipped into the till, more and more, he got rich, you can't imagine. Robespierre didn't touch half a billion, he didn't touch anything. Robespierre was an idealist. And someone had said, "This one believes it. Be especially wary of this one. He believes it." Whereas Danton was there to make money. Danton was really corrupt, he was corrupt to the core, not for nothing. None of them are worth the other. None of them are worth the other. No, but a figure, there's a figure, wait. The September massacres, the September massacres, it was Danton. It was Danton. The September massacres are Danton. So Danton, he sat on the Commune of Paris, he was, he was Minister of Justice, I think. No, but they are monsters, they are monsters. And the King was forced to deal with these people. It's frightening, it's frightening, frightening. And we haven't even mentioned Napoleon yet, because even though he was very young at the time, did he have a political role or not yet? Well, no, he was a soldier. I think he was there during the assault on the Tuileries and he spoke about it. Yes, I think he was present. Yes. So, I'm not following him as a character because I can't, I can't be interested in everyone, of course. But I think during the assault on the Tuileries, he was present. I think he was there, that he saw it. Okay. So, the Commune, so yes, at the Salpêtrière. At Bicêtre, Bicêtre is the general hospital where the men and young boys are. The general hospital, I've talked about it many times. It's the place of confinement for the poor. So at Bicêtre, which is in Kremlin-Bicêtre, south of Paris today, it's the general hospital where men and young boys are imprisoned. 33 children are massacred, and they are piled up. And there was a comment, "Oh dear, it's hard to kill children. How they resist." And at the Salpêtrière, where the women and young girls are, the young girls are released to wait for them at the exit, and they spend an entire night raping the little girls in the dormitory of the little girls. An entire night. It's an atrocity. And then the prisoners are massacred. That is to say, at the Salpêtrière, there is a prison within the prison. The Salpêtrière is a kind of prison in itself, and there is a prison within the prison. That is to say, within the enclosure of the Salpêtrière, a prisoner who deserved prison is locked up inside what is called the Force. So the September massacreurs arrived at the Salpêtrière yesterday, after having released the young girls, raped the little girls. They took out the registers of the prisoners of the Force, they made them appear one by one, and they massacred them one after another with cold steel. And the girls saw themselves die, and they saw... It's appalling, it's appalling. And throughout the massacres, I think it lasted 2 days at the Salpêtrière, the authorities of the Salpêtrière, who were neutral in the story, they were the authorities who managed the establishment, they didn't stop sending calls for help to the Commune of Paris, saying, "Send us help, send us help." Why would you want the people who send murderers to also see help? It was one or the other. I also take advantage, Marion, since it was mentioned in the chat, to also think about children today, because we talk about it. It's incredible, because even if I knew a little bit about what you're saying, having seen your conference in Nice on YouTube, which you can find, dear listeners, which is sublime, we often talk about the children of the Republic. But children, it's there that we see that the language has been perverted from the start. And the two of us, who are, I would say, people of letters, if I may say so, we love the French language, we cherish it with all our soul, for its etymology, etc. We see that there is a perversion when we talk about the values of the Republic and symbols of the Republic, when we have Republicans who, I nickname them "Rublicans" rather, because we have more corruption than real ethics behind all that. I know you are very committed to child protection, to, how to say, pedocriminality, etc. Ultimately, when you think about it, based on what you're saying, pedocriminality was already present at the time in other forms, but even more brutally, and, I would say, even more, how to say, exhibited, but without any filter, without any taboo. People were massacred like that arbitrarily. It's a real slaughter. So I'm going to ask you a question where the answer is already a bit within it, but how is it that at school we were never taught these things? Because school defends the values of the Republic, that's all. School defends the values of the Republic. Discuss. School, what is a history teacher at school? It's not someone who studied history, it's someone who regurgitates what they were taught. You are a historian from the moment you are not a history teacher in a high school. It's almost incompatible. It's almost incompatible. The high school, I amuse myself from time to time by looking at the programs. There are sites like uscol and things like that where I look up what they say about this and that. It's just the dogma, it's the ready-made thinking, it's the Republican dogma. It has nothing to do with history. I was surprised as soon as I started doing history to see that it didn't correspond. I even talked about it to my professor. I had an excellent professor when I was at the University of Besançon. I did it by correspondence. I said, "How is it that historians don't say this?" All historians know. The people who make history programs are not historians, they are ideologues. All historians... It's the problem of national education, and I salute it, by the way. The truth doesn't interest them, propaganda interests them. I'll let you get back on track. Sorry. You know, I'll tell you something, because it's not part of my conference today, but I'll say it now since we're talking about it. We have testimonies that at the end of the Revolution, the Palais Royal was the place where, for a few sous, you could find very young children to rape. There was a market for young children. It's horrifying, horrifying. I talk about it in my book, "La Marche Rouge." I talk about it in my book, "La Marche Rouge." There was such misery. And they say, "Oh, it's the parents who prostitute their children." Wait, when there's nothing left to eat, and you tell a child, "If you accept this, you'll have bread," well, well, you don't want the child to starve to death. That's also it. It's not because the parents are degenerates, it's because there's a stage of misery where prostitution is the only way not to starve to death. That's how it is. That's the corruption of the people. It's abominable. Oh, that's disgusting. These stories are repugnant. But it's necessary because we are in a period, I think, of apocalypse, where... Yes, yes, yes, it's revelation. The masks are falling. And precisely, towards the end of the show, when you have developed your entire conference, we will talk about current political events, because there is an almost disturbing parallel. All of this is almost a mirror that exists in space, as if we had learned nothing from history, which is repeating itself because we often say we haven't learned anything. It's that we've been lied to. We've been lied to. We've been hidden everything. It's true. We've been hidden everything. It's true. So that's why I'll let you continue. Go ahead. Yes, the Commune, the Commune, so the Commune in Paris, the Insurrectionary Commune, launches a call for generalized murder throughout the country to do the same as what has just been done in Paris, in the name of the right of peoples to take revenge. That is to say, the victims are accused of wanting to slit the people's throats. The victims are accused, and all calls to stop the massacre will be in vain. Justice must be done. 1500 will be abominably hacked to death alive, and that's all Robespierre will say. He will say it's a popular movement. It's a popular movement. We have not failed, I swear by the overthrown throne and by the Republic that rises. Oh, really? He has not failed? 1500 women, men, children, little girls. It's abominable. And the first to be taken were the priests. The priests. I visited at the Catholic Institute of Paris, in the 6th arrondissement, the place where the priests were massacred. It's striking, it's striking. We visit the place. Yes, these stairs, it was there, it was this place, and they came down one by one. There were three or four steps, and people were pushing the priests from outside. They stumbled on three or four steps, and they were hacked to death by sabers that didn't stop until there was nothing left. Ah, and it lasted 5 days. 5 interminable days. Stop the massacre. No. Stop the massacre. No. Stop the massacre. No. Well, now we're going to talk about the birth of the Republic, because there's still a king. We're not a Republic yet. You wanted to talk about the massacre of the Vendeans. Are you going to talk about it? Of course. I'm coming to it. It has to come first. The Republic. Well, yes. I was born on September 21st. Exactly. 198 years before my birth was the birth of the Republic. That's it. September 21, 1792. Exactly. Birth of the Republic. There you go. So there will be elections to the Convention, since the old one has been overthrown. We have overthrown the old one. The new ones have replaced the old ones. The National Assembly has fallen under the control of the Commune of Paris, and they say, "Now we will form a new Constituent Assembly." The first Constituent Assembly was the one that studied the Estates-General. We have just overthrown the Legislative Assembly. We are forming a Constituent Assembly again. We will call it a Convention. What does Convention mean in French? It's an agreement between two parties. It's an English word. It's a Masonic word. It's a convention. It's Freemasonry at the helm. The convocation of the Convention dates from August 10th. "Every Frenchman aged 21, living from the product of his labor and not a domestic, will be an elector." Well, that excludes many people. It excludes all those under 21. It excludes all women. It excludes all the unemployed. And it excludes all domestics. It excludes many people. But they will say there are no more active or passive citizens as there were for the Legislative Assembly. It's closer to universal male suffrage. So they will say there are no more rich citizens or poor citizens. All citizens who can be electors will be electors, regardless of their income. So it's closer to universal suffrage, but it's indirect suffrage. So I'll explain how it works. You have primary assemblies everywhere, everywhere, everywhere. You have neighborhood assemblies, sections. So in Paris, the sections meet in churches. You have the section of the church of X, the section of the church of Y, the section on the right, the section on the left. Churches are practical. They are open 24/7. There are chairs. You are sheltered from the weather. There is light. There are candles. So you can meet in the churches. So the primary assemblies run 24/7. If you want to pass an important decision, you just have to go between 3 and 5 a.m. with a few friends, say "the assembly unanimously voted that," and with four people, you distribute the motion, you pass it in three other sections, then you say "the people have decided that." It's practical, isn't it? The assembly of sections, because during that time, normal people are sleeping. Important decisions are made in the middle of the night while normal people are sleeping. Well, anyway, these are the sections, the sections. So there are primary assemblies in which electors will be appointed, will be elected, or rather appointed, electors, and then the electors will appoint the deputies. So the deputies to the Convention will be elected by indirect suffrage. So the elections take place in a climate of terror. During the elections, massacres are happening. That is to say, on the one hand, Paris is closed, and you need passports to leave, okay? So everyone is scared. It's terror. People are terrified. And if they cross paths with Marseillais, they can easily have their wallets stolen, their throats cut, and nothing will happen to the one who cut your throat. Well, it's terror. So the Assembly of Electors in Paris will... The primary assemblies take place in the middle of the night. The electors will meet in Paris in the Jacobins' hall, that is to say, practically at the headquarters of Parisian Freemasonry. For a vote that will be carried out aloud by roll call and in the presence of the public. So the September massacres took place between the appointment of the electors and the appointment of the deputies. That is to say, the crucial election that will elect deputies to Paris for the Convention takes place while blood is flowing in the streets, and it's done by a show of hands, by a public vote. Can you imagine the climate of terror in which you will dare to say you vote for this person, when you should vote for that person? It's monstrous, it's monstrous. The pressure on the vote is monstrous, and it hasn't really changed since then. So, and the fact of making people vote at night, it reminds you of something. It reminds you of a certain period of health passes, vaccination passes, especially. Yes, it reminds you of something too. So the elections at the Jacobins, by a show of hands in front of everyone, take place in a climate of terror. These are not words. Blood is flowing in the streets. And the abstention, well, hold on, this is important to know what the Republic in France is. Abstention is 90%. What does that mean? It means that the franchise has been extended to... They say there are no more rich and poor, okay? Once we have eliminated women, the too young, and domestics, etc., we no longer eliminate anyone. It's no longer the rich against the poor. Well, there are 7 million potential voters. 7 million potential voters. Out of these 7 million, only 700,000 will turn out. Abstention will be 90%. The franchise is extended, and 90% of French people do not turn out to vote. Okay. The population, the French population is 2 million inhabitants. Out of these 28 million, only a quarter are supposed to express themselves. When women, the too young, domestics, and those who are unemployed are removed, only 25% of the population remains. Of this 25%, only 2.5% come to express themselves. Okay, since only 10% turn out. There are 700,000 electors, and there are 7 million electors, and 700,000.

Voter, but hold on tight, they're going to elect 749 deputies, so we'll have much more than today, 749. Today, 577. Yes, yes, yes. And back then, there were no microphones to be heard. I'm telling you, it was chaos. Yes, like chaos. Oh, that's an understatement. Throwing insults in each other's faces. That is to say, we complained because the last, the last legislatures were Corsica and so on. But it seems that during the Third Republic, we were almost fighting. As we saw in Italy recently, and so on, they were really going at each other. Yes, yes. But that's not the Third Republic, that's the first one, the very first one. The king is still alive, it's not yet a Republic. We're getting there, we're getting there, we're getting there to the Republic. On September 20, 1792, at Valmy, we will, we will, we will celebrate, we will, we will defeat, uh, the Duke of Brunswick, so the general of the coalition armies against France, by the armies of Dumouriez. General Dumouriez will achieve a resounding victory against Brunswick with his 100 culottes. The 100 culottes are the poor people of Paris. A culotte is, is, is, is a long and elaborate culotte. And what they have are, are kind of small, small, uh, what do you call them, what we call sans-culottes. They have, are kind of, of, of Bermuda shorts, striped, which, which are the poor people, you know, they are the, they are the poorly dressed people, they are the culottes of poor people, sans-culottes. So the victory of the sans-culottes is the common people of Paris who, by shouting "Long live the Nation," made General Brunswick flee. So I don't know if you can imagine, it's been two and a half centuries that they've been feeding us this story, that an army of ragged people shouting "Long live the Nation" will make the commander-in-chief of the coalition armies against France flee. Where have you seen that? If I told that to my horse, he'd slap me. So what is the real victory of Valmy? It's that Dumouriez and Brunswick, Dumouriez the Frenchman, Brunswick the German, are not only both Freemasons, which is already something, they are both members of, you should know that. You say, I didn't understand. I said, it's almost an exception at the time. So they are both Freemasons, but they are not only Freemasons, they belong to the Order of the Brothers of Saint John the Evangelist of Asia and Europe. What is this Order of the Brothers of Saint John the Evangelist of Asia and Europe? For those who follow Pierre Hillard's work, the sect in question is a sect originating from Sabbateanism and Frankism, which advocates the new order through chaos, for evil and by evil. The Frankists are organized people. So they are crypto-Jews who deny traditional Jewish teaching and who practice a kind of satanic Judaism, absolutely abominable, disguised as Christians. And they advocate the new order through chaos, for evil and by evil. That is to say, Dumouriez and Brunswick are both members of this satanic sect. So what happened at Valmy? Dumouriez told him, "Go away." He said, "Yes, I'm going. Bye, we're leaving." And they're going to make people believe that it was the sans-culottes who made them flee. In fact, the Battle of Valmy didn't happen. It didn't happen. He retreated. But the victory is so resounding, the victory of the future Republic is so resounding that in Paris, on September 21st, the next day, they went to bring the news. Quadruple, the Galot. The Republic will be proclaimed unanimously, unanimously by the new chamber. So I told you that the new chamber should have 749 deputies. Yes, it's like North Korea. But no, no, no, no, because there are only 200 deputies present. Ah, okay. Because, first of all, how, those who come from the far reaches of France haven't arrived yet, and those who have arrived, the doors were closed. They said, "You'll come back in two days." Paris is closed, Paris is locked down. There are only 200 deputies. So we're going to have 200 deputies vote instead of 749. And these 700 deputies represent a quarter of 2.5% of the population. Do you agree? That is to say, we're going to have the Republic proclaimed by 0, the representatives of 0.6% of the French population, who, under duress, in a climate of terror, abolished 12 centuries of monarchy in the name of the people. Well, these are the values of the Republic. We overthrow by a, a, a hallucinating coup d'état, following a lie, a setup. Fake news. Today, you just have to call it a setup and state lies. We made people believe that there was a military victory, a battle that didn't happen, and we made 200 penguins vote when we prevented others from entering. There were people at the doors and they testified afterwards, saying, "We were there, they didn't want to let us in. They said, 'You'll come back later.'" So, to recap, incredible, because it's the first time, I think, I'm really hearing how the Republic was born. It's like imposing sanitary tyranny, it's like imposing the pension reform on us, to be a bit contemporary and to remind the listeners, and all those who will watch later, that each time, it's, quote unquote, a handful of people who decide for the majority. So, I would like us to go back, if you allow me, to make a small digression, because you tell us 90-97% abstention. In your opinion, 90%, 90% abstention. If, for example, for the legislative elections, we had had 90% abstention, what do you think would have happened, in your opinion? Well, we had a, we had a specific situation. It was de Gaulle. I remember there was an election, I don't remember which one. It was after that that he resigned, I think. There was an election where there was such a rate of abstention that they said, "Well, we give up." But do you think they would lower their flag today if there had been a rate of abstention? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think it's a vast masquerade, elections, a vast masquerade. If people vote as they want, they impose their law. If they don't vote as they want, they rig the results. I don't believe at all in the sincerity of election results, not at all, not at all, not at all, not at all. I think they vote the dead. I'll tell you a story. Oh, I'll tell you an absolutely authentic story. In 1981, I was a socialist, I was for Mitterrand, blah blah blah. And I lived in the 5th arrondissement, imagine, the heart of Paris. I even met Mitterrand several times, or his wife, at the market where I went, yes, yes, yes. I saw the gentleman with his hat. Did you see Mazarine too? No, no, no. I saw the gentleman and his wife at two different times. I lived in the area. And in the legislative elections that followed Mitterrand's election, I was in the Socialist Party, so, and with a friend, we said, "You know, we have the impression that they're playing a lot with, with, with, what do you call them, proxy votes." And we saw, we had a little lady at the market who said, "Yes, yes, I have my proxy vote. Mr. Tibéry came to get it. He sent me people, and so on." So he went around the retirement homes to get the proxy votes and everything. Oh, no, enormous. So he sent me his people. I gave my proxy vote to go vote. So, already, all the retirement homes and so on. And with a friend, we said, "You know what we're going to do between the two rounds of the legislative elections?" We went to the town hall of the 5th arrondissement and asked for the registers. And what did we see? We saw that all the proxy votes on the register were all written by the same hand, in the same handwriting, and in the same ink. And they were all from the same building. They all had the same address. We caught them red-handed. You say, how did Tibéry get them read? They had, but they were Corsicans, they weren't, there was a whole, a whole community of, of, so they lived there, or they didn't live there, we don't know. In any case, they were listed as being there. And there were entire lists of buildings. There was a block of social housing. It was, it was on a street, I think it was not Rue Poliveau, but somewhere in the 5th arrondissement that I knew like the back of my hand at the time. And we discovered that the same hand had, had collected dozens and dozens and dozens of proxy votes. And in a department, dozens and dozens. That makes, that makes 3.2 million proxy votes for the second round, 1 million. Well, well, electronic. So I'll tell you the story. So we arrive triumphantly, we take notes, we arrive triumphantly to see our friends from the Socialist Party. We found the trick, and everything. Well, you have to go back, you have to go back tomorrow. Well, we arrive, and he says, "No, we can't, we don't have the registers anymore. We're sending them to the prefecture." We arrive at the prefecture. Ah, well, no, the registers, you'll come back later. We didn't succeed. We wanted to, we wanted to be able to expose the thing. So, well, our friends told us, "Forget it, they're going to lose anyway. Don't worry, Mitterrand will have his majority." It was at a time when I thought it was good. I've changed since then. At the time, I thought it was great. But in any case, the fraud, the fraud with proxy votes, I saw it live. And I told you, in the first broadcast, it's very rare, well, it's more common to see someone go from the left, or the far left, to the right, rather than the opposite. I don't know any personally. Yes, ultimately, there was a transition, you see, because some people were delighted to be Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, and so on, in their youth. It looked good, especially at the time of May '68. And then, well, you who worked on pedophilia, and so on, of course, you saw the sexual liberation of the 70s and what it could cause, let's say. And it's true that today, you've had such a prolific journey, I was going to say, no, but that's it, because we can't really pin you down if we don't get to know you, because at the beginning, we know you're more, let's say, more inclined to the right, and so on, but you weren't necessarily like that from the start, because, well, at your age today, it's true that you've had, you've made your way, let's say. I've accumulated some funny experiences. Yes, on top of that, I learned Hebrew and Arabic, so you see, I'm complicating my case. Absolutely, absolutely. Well, that's it, that's it, that's it, where we are, that's it, what I wanted to say, 1792. That's it, and Year 2 will begin the following year. There is no Year 1 for the Republic. It will begin in Year 2 when we, when we redo the calendar. So, I'm going to pick up what I said later about the Vendée. So, well, I can't go into detail about what Robespierre said, what Danton said, what Desmoulins said. You understood that Robespierre sits in the Commune of Paris, he sits, he will find himself on the Committee of Public Safety. Wait, I'm going to pick up my, please, please, I'm going to pick up my, my narrative, because it's quite chronological, which is logical for history. To do history without chronology, you have to be really a recentist to spout such nonsense. It's true. No, but I completely agree. I learned history through chronology, and frankly, obviously, obviously, obviously. So, what I'm saying is that the representatives, of 0.6% of the population, have just abolished, in a climate of terror, really terror, 12 centuries of monarchy, and they did it in the name of the people, in the name of the people. And these are the values of the Republic. That is to say, people who take the place of the people, who, as the magistrate said, claim to speak in the name of the people, when they have no authority, no competence. And all these horrors were done in the name of the people, and you'll see that it will, it will, it will still worsen later. On January 21, 1793, after a rigged, shameful trial, the king is executed. That is to say, the Republic was in a hurry to have a completely rigged trial for the king. I said that we had, we had removed all the people who could have shown that all the accusations against him were absolutely false, particularly the story of the iron brand, and many other things. I'm going to give you a completely delirious account concerning the king. When the, when the crowd entered the Tuileries, they noticed the absence of the gold and silver furniture that the king had, that everyone knew the king had. So when the crowd rushed into the Tuileries, they saw that there were no more gold and silver furniture. So that's proof that the king had sold them to put them in his pocket. The king never had gold furniture. No, but you see, proof by absence of proof, proof by absence. I have the impression that nothing has changed. In fact, we're just changing the heads. We are in a Republic, we are in a Republic, we are in this system. The system in which we live is the continuation of what I am recounting. If I tell you, if I tell you about France in the time of Louis XIV, it's something else. It's something else. This is our world. So we had a rigged, shameful trial for the king, a shame, a shame, a shame. You know, people were having fun. There were people who, during the king's trial, wait, I have to find it. I've lost it. Well, in the meantime, I'll take this opportunity to thank all the listeners who are with us after 3 hours and 4 minutes of live broadcast already. You are almost 1000, give or take 40 people. Thank you very much. Hello. So Marion, say hello. She thanks you for being here tonight. She's been working, as you've seen, for days, even weeks, for this live conference tonight, for free, moreover. So a big thank you. But yes, so I'll let you continue. Go ahead. Well, where was I? Where was I? Where was I? Because we talked about, so, the Republic, and it will be good at some point, I think it's planned in your, in your conference, to talk about the blue, white, red flag, liberty, equality, fraternity. I even took out the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen too, to put it back in the context of 1789, the symbols, like I, I'm not going to talk about the boat, no. The blue, white, red flag, we understood that it's the colors of the Duke of Orléans. It's the Masonic flag. Blue, white, red is already the colors of England, and it's the colors of America. We'll drop it. Blue, white, red. We understood. We understood. We understood. So, what did I want to say about the, yes, the, regarding the rigged trial, during the king's trial, while people were coming to defend the king, there were people in the crowd who were doing this to them, people in the audience who were doing this to them. You understand what? You understand what? We're not having a trial. First of all, the Convention is the one that judged the king. The Convention was not a tribunal, it was an assembly, a constituent assembly. So they made themselves both judge and jury. It's hallucinating. And the people who wanted to defend him were doing this to them. Wait, wait, you see what I mean? So the king's trial was completely rigged. In any case, the king was condemned on August 10th. August 10th. You have to read Pierrette and Pierrette and Giraud de Coursac. Pierrette and I don't know who, Giraud de Coursac, the Giraud de Coursac couple. They wrote "Enquête sur le procès du roi Louis XVI." There's everything you need to understand what the Revolution truly is. When I read this book, my vision of French history wavered. There are two books that changed my vision of French history. There's the book by Pierrette Giraud de Coursac on the trial of King Louis XVI, and there's the book by Reynald Secher on the Vendée genocide. With these two books, my entire vision of French history was turned upside down. I am no longer a citizen of this country as I was. So, Sunday, this Sunday, July 14th, means, according to everything you've told us for 3 hours, ultimately the end of France as it should have continued in reality. I'll tell you, it's the end of democracy. Because in the old days, the people decided for themselves, through their trades, they decided for themselves through village communities, they decided for themselves. The Revolution said, "You will no longer decide for yourselves. You will send us people who will decide in your place." And these people, once they get there, are manipulated, and they will do what they are told to do. That is to say, until the Revolution, the people governed themselves for all important decisions, and for decisions called sovereign, that is to say, defense, currency, these things, it was the king. Okay? But the king, one day, someone asked me, what was the name of Louis XVI's Minister of Education? It's an aberration. A Minister of Education responsible for children's education? It was each parish, it was each community, it was the parents who voted on the programs. A teacher was someone paid by the village community, and he was hired by the village community, and he taught the children what the village community ordered him to teach. If he didn't agree, he left. Okay? The only intervention, the only intervention of the king in the choice of teachers was that the king forbade them to be paid too little. The king invented a kind of minimum wage for teachers. The king said, "You will be obliged to provide the teacher with a room with a fireplace and access to water, a minimum of such and such a surface, I don't know what it corresponds to, and a salary of X. You will not be able to give a teacher less than that." That's the king's intervention. Now, the king wasn't going to tell them, "And the teacher will teach them this and that." He wasn't going to teach them to, to, to. Now, it's, it's, it's, it's worse than anything, because they're taught sex. But for a long time, it wasn't the king who said, "You will teach them to read, write, count." Now, they'll be taught selective sorting. They'll be taught non-selective sorting, in my opinion, that would be more intelligent. Learning the basics of the French language would already be a good start, because that would already be a good start. But the king didn't need, the king didn't need to develop a program. Parents were intelligent enough to know what they wanted their children to learn. They wanted to learn to read, write, count, know Latin to read grimoires, and that's it. And that was the basis, because primary education was the education that was done in the villages, and it was the parents who decided. So, the Minister of National Education, for what? There was no national education. There was local education. And above primary school, that's where the Jesuits came in, and they created colleges everywhere, which allowed the sons of farmers and the sons of princes, in Jesuit colleges, the son of a farmer, like you, the son of a prince. If you allow me, Marion, I would like to, because I forgot to do it at the beginning of the broadcast, since we started late, I'll take 2 minutes. And it allows you to have a drink if you want at the same time. Yes, I'm a bit thirsty. Go ahead, take advantage of it. First of all, to thank the listeners again for being present, because there are almost 1000 of you live. A big thank you, because tonight, it's true that it's the demystification of the French Revolution as we've never heard it in school and so on. I remind you that I am not a historian personally, and that I have no history degree. And so Marion Sigot, well, she tells history, I was going to say, as she also discovered it in her research. Then, I would also like to have a thought for all the churches in France, vandalized, burned, martyred. The cathedral of Rouen, which I know well, since, well, I knew it well, since I am from Évreux. So the cathedral of Rouen means something to me. I also think of Notre-Dame, of course, and all places of worship in general, whether it's churches, synagogues, mosques, and so on, all places of worship that are affected by vandalism and so on. So, I have a thought for them. Then, it's July 12th, and I wanted to start this broadcast from the beginning to recall two significant dates in recent contemporary history, of course. It's July 12, '98, for the victory of the French football team. It's also important because it was a moment of jubilation at the time, and it was still what could be called a form of national unity. And then to recall, even if it's not the subject of tonight's broadcast, July 12, 2021, because 3 years ago, a certain president of the Republic spoke of a health pass. And we spoke about it briefly with Marion earlier. And so this health pass, which was then imposed with the law of August 5, 2021, then September 15th. And so I'm thinking about maybe doing a broadcast in homage to those suspended, 3 years later, perhaps in September. And so, paradoxically, it's also a form of victory, 26 years ago, and a form of end to a tyranny that began 3 years ago. And we have the impression that this tyranny hasn't evolved much. It has changed in other forms, notably with the carbon pass or things like that for the Olympic Games. So, before Marion returns, I would like to share my screen with you, dear listeners, to, in particular, present you with this Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789. I am on the website of the Constitutional Council. So, in a few words, but it's something I learned in my law studies a long time ago. The representatives of the French people, constituted as a National Assembly, considering that ignorance, forgetfulness, or contempt for the rights of man are the sole causes of public misfortunes and the corruption of governments, have resolved to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, inalienable, and sacred rights of man, so that this declaration, constantly present to all members of the social body, may remind them without ceasing of their rights and their duties, so that the acts of the legislative power and those of the executive power may be compared at any moment with the aim of all political institutions and may be more respected, so that the claims of the citizens, henceforth founded on simple and incontestable principles, shall always be directed towards the maintenance of the Constitution and the happiness of all. Consequently, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen: Article 1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can only be founded on common utility. Article 2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. Article 3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body, no individual, can exercise authority which does not emanate expressly from it. Article 4. Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others. Thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those limits that ensure to other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These limits can only be determined by law. Article 5. The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Everything that is not forbidden by law cannot be prevented, and no one can be compelled to do what it does not order. Article 6. The law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to participate personally or through their representatives in its formation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all dignities, places, and public employments, according to their abilities and with no other distinction than that of their virtues and talents. Article 7. No man can be accused, arrested, or detained except in cases determined by law and according to the forms it has prescribed. Those who solicit, expedite, execute, or cause to be executed arbitrary orders must be punished. But any citizen called or seized by virtue of the law must obey immediately; he becomes guilty by resistance. Article 8. The law must establish only penalties that are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one can be punished except by virtue of a law established and promulgated before the offense and legally applied. Article 9. Every man is presumed innocent until he is declared guilty. If it is deemed necessary to arrest him, any rigor that is not necessary to secure his person must be severely repressed by law. Article 10. No one shall be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not disturb public order established by law. Article 11. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Every citizen can therefore speak, write, and print freely, subject to responsibility for the abuse of this liberty in cases determined by law. Article 12. The guarantee of the rights of man and of the citizen requires a public force. This force is therefore instituted for the benefit of all, and not for the particular utility of those to whom it is entrusted. Article 13. For the maintenance of the public force and for administrative expenses, a common contribution is indispensable. It must be equally distributed among all citizens according to their means. Article 14. All citizens have the right to ascertain, by themselves or through their representatives, the necessity of the public contribution, to consent to it freely, to follow its use, and to determine its amount, its basis, its collection, and its duration. Article 15. Society has the right to hold any public agent accountable for its administration. Article 16. Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers determined, has no Constitution. Article 17. And this is the last one. Property, being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of it, unless public necessity, legally established, requires it, and under the condition of just and prior compensation. So, it's very important to recall all this. So, I'll put it back a bit like this, otherwise you can go full screen. While Marion is still busy, she'll be back in a moment, but I thought, why not look at the Constitution of 1958 to give us an idea at the same time, because often, and I'm thinking of Sylvie Charles who was at Géopolitique Profonde last night, she often talks about the Constitution. So Marion, I'll give you the floor again in a moment. Let you have a drink, because you've been talking for almost 3 hours without interruption, so you well deserve to refresh yourself a bit. I've just read the Declaration of the Rights of Man. I heard you, I heard you from the next room. I heard very well. So, the President, I'll talk to you about the Declaration of the Rights of Man. I'll talk about it. The preamble of the Constitution of October 4, 1958, and I also have a thought for the whistleblowers Virginie Dornier and Jean-Pierre Coq, whose 2500-page file I am currently reading, and I can tell you that it's very, very heavy. It's astounding. The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the rights of man and to the principles of national sovereignty as they were defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and supplemented by the preamble of the Constitution of 1946, as well as the rights and duties defined in the Charter for the Environment of 2004. By virtue of these principles and that of the free determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the overseas territories that manifest the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and conceived with a view to their democratic evolution. Article 1. France is an indivisible, secular, democratic, and social Republic. It ensures equality before the law for all citizens without distinction of origin, race, or religion. It respects all beliefs. Its organization is decentralized. The law promotes equal access for women and men to electoral mandates and elected offices, as well as to professional and social responsibilities. I won't read everything, of course, but just the first, the first lines. Title I is about sovereignty. It's written in capital letters. So we are no longer sovereign. So already, the Constitution is being violated. Sovereignty. Article 2. The language of the Republic is French. I repeat, the language of the Republic is French. The national emblem is the tricolor flag, blue, white, red. The national anthem is La Marseillaise. The motto is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Its principle, and I think in these times, it's good to recall it, is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. So that means that when there are three and a half people in the National Assembly, it's not for the people, by the people, and for the people. So Article 3. National sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and by means of a referendum. So that clearly shows a representative democracy. It reminds me of the words of Abbé Sieyès, "What is the Third Estate?" Everything. No section of the people, nor any individual, may claim to exercise it. Suffrage may be direct or indirect, under the conditions provided for by the Constitution. It is always universal, equal, and secret. So, secret remains to be proven now, in the age of social networks. Yes, clearly, it's a bit like medical confidentiality. All nationals of French nationality, of legal age, of both sexes, enjoying their civil and political rights, are electors under the conditions determined by law. Political parties and groups, Article 4, contribute to the expression of suffrage. They are formed and carry out their activities freely. They must respect the principles of national sovereignty and democracy. They contribute to the implementation of the principle set forth in the second paragraph of Article 1, under the conditions determined by law. The law guarantees the pluralistic expression of opinions and the equitable participation of parties and political groups in the democratic life of the nation. I won't go too far, just the President of the Republic, because we're right in the middle of it right now. And I assure you, I won't be too long. Article 5. The President of the Republic ensures respect for the Constitution. He ensures, by his arbitration, the regular functioning of the public powers and the continuity of the State. He is the guarantor of national independence, territorial integrity, and respect for treaties. Article 6. He is elected for 5 years by direct universal suffrage. No one may serve more than two consecutive terms. And the question recently arose about amending the Constitution for a third term. I didn't think I'd talk about the 1958 Constitution tonight. It's because you left in the meantime. So it's very important. We are really in the thick of current events. The conditions for applying this article are set by an organic law. He is elected by an absolute majority of the votes.

expressed, and so on, and so on. There you have it, in case of vacancy. So no, I will continue so that it is simpler. Article 7. The President of the Republic is elected by an absolute majority of the votes cast. If this is not obtained in the first round of the ballot, a second round shall be held on the 14th day following. Only the two candidates who, if applicable, after the withdrawal of the most favored candidates, then find themselves to have received the largest number of votes in the first round may present themselves. The ballot shall be opened upon convocation by the government. The election of the new president shall take place at least 20 days and at most 35 days before the expiry of the powers of the incumbent president. And there we can talk about current events, if ever he were to resign, for example, Gérard Larcher would be interim President of the Republic, as was the case for Alain Poher in '69 when de Gaulle left power, and it took several weeks before a new election was held again. In case of vacancy of the presidency of the Republic for any reason whatsoever, or of impediment established by the Constitutional Council, seized by the government and ruling by an absolute majority of its members, the functions of the President of the Republic, with the exception of those provided for in Articles 11 and 12 below, shall be provisionally exercised by the President of the Senate, and if he is in turn prevented from exercising his functions, by the government. So that would mean that it is the government that presides in reality. In case of vacancy or when the impediment is declared definitive by the Constitutional Council, the ballot for the election of the new president shall take place, except in cases of force majeure established by the Constitutional Council, at least 20 days and at most 35 days after the opening of the vacancy or the declaration of the definitive nature of the impediment. If, within the 7 days preceding the deadline for the submission of candidacies, one of the persons who, less than 30 days before this date, publicly announced their decision to be a candidate, dies, or is prevented, the Constitutional Council may decide to postpone the election. If, before the first round, one of the candidates dies or is prevented, the same council shall order the postponement of the election. So there, these are all the cases, yes, of death, and so on. The President of the Republic, therefore, appoints the Prime Minister. He terminates his functions upon the presentation by the latter of the government's resignation. And here again, it is very important current events. Yes. Then, on the proposal of the Prime Minister, he appoints the other members of the government and terminates their functions. He presides over the Council of Ministers. He promulgates laws within 15 days following the transmission to the government of the law definitively adopted. Before the expiry of this deadline, he may request the Parliament to reconsider the law or some of its articles. This new deliberation cannot be refused. After that, there are questions of referendums, yes, but I invite you to go directly to the website of the Constitutional Council. I have done a job that I didn't even do when I was a student, because I confess, I have never read the Constitution in its entirety. I don't remember that. Etienne Chirac talks about it quite often, so I pay tribute to him tonight too. But there you have everything. So Marion, I give you the floor back. Before leaving, you were talking about the beginning of the Republic. So I... Yes, I'm coming, I'm coming, I'm coming. So the Republic begins by killing the king. Yes. Ah, I'm not sure. I need to find my glasses. I'll find my glasses and I'll be right there. Yes, however, yes, I apologize, I made a mistake. It's not after de Gaulle's departure, it's Alain Poher. It's after Pompidou's death. I got confused. Precisely, Pompidou died, there was a vacancy of power, and so on, and then interim president. So you will see that I will talk, I will also talk about what you just said. So we are January 21, 1793. After a rigged, absolutely shameful trial, the king is executed. France is in a state of shock, of suffocation. The king is dead. People who cry in the streets are declared suspects. You don't even dare to cry in front of others. It's absolutely terrifying. People live in a climate of terror. Absolutely. But terror is not decreed, it is permanent. It is permanent. You no longer dare to say what you think. And this is January 21, '93. And early March, that is to say, barely a month and a half later, early March, the Vendée insurrection begins. So what is happening? The Vendeans are defending their priests against persecution. The priests who do not want to swear will not swear. They are forbidden to say mass, and they will say it anyway. The population protects them, and the authorities hunt them down, arrest them. It's an insane persecution, absolutely horrible. A mother was condemned because she had given protection to her proscribed son, who was a priest, and she said, "But even a hen has the right to protect her chicks. You are tigers, you are monsters. You refuse the most elementary nature, the protection of a son by his mother. Monstrous, monstrous." So the persecution of priests angers the Vendeans, the Bretons too. But here we will talk about the Vendée, because the Vendée insurrection begins in a town called Machecoul. And Machecoul defends its priests. The population is still waiting for the promised better future, while things are getting worse and worse. The population mourns its king, and hatred accumulates against the fine speakers from Paris or appointed by Paris, who took power at the time of the Estates-General. The Vendeans, like everyone else, sent their grievances. They wanted things to change, they wanted to fix things. Result: nothing they wanted to fix is fixed, and things are getting worse and worse. Now, it happens that suddenly a levy of 300,000 men is announced to go fight on the borders, that is to say, you have seen that the war was declared in '92, in '93 it is in full swing, and people are being sought to be sent to the borders, to be sent to fight abroad. Hatred accumulates against the newcomers, and here come the newcomers saying, "We are going to levy 300,000 men," meaning, "We are going to come and get your sons, we are going to come and get your sons." It's the insurrection. "We will not go die for these people." And imagine, 600 parishes rise up, revolt all at once, 600 parishes all at once, without consulting each other. Suddenly, people say, "No, no, we will not go to war." I recommend the excellent film "Vaincre ou mourir" (To Conquer or Die). It's the film to see. I saw it twice. I saw it once at the cinema, I saw it once on the internet. It's absolutely the film to see. If you want to understand what the Vendée insurrection was, and understand the beauty of the character of Charette, it's sublime. Go see it. Go see it. So 600 parishes rise up all at once. And since then, believe it or not, and this is what our friend just told us, since the beginning of the revolution, we have been repeating to the population that the purpose of any political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. Well, the entire West rises up as one man, takes up arms, finds leaders, and rallies behind them. Why? To resist oppression. That's it, and nothing else. They have been told for 3 years: "Resistance to oppression." Well, here they are. Oppression is your mass levy, and not only the mass levy, but also all your dictatorships. They are persecuted by the people of the new regime. They liked the old regime much, much better, and they don't want to hear about it. And on top of that, they mourn their king, that's clear and simple. They did not want the king's death. They know the king's family is in prison. People are exasperated. They don't want any more. What is happening in Paris on June 2, 1793? In Paris, the Montagnards replace the Girondins. What does that mean? We will tell you. We will tell you in a much more modern way: the left overthrows the right and takes power. The far-left comes to power. The Montagnards are the far-left. It's Robespierre. It's Robespierre. It's the people who say "the people, the people, the people." The people against the rich, the people against money, the people against others, against the powerful. The people, the people, the people. And it's the left that will come to power after overthrowing the Girondins. The Girondins would be the equivalent, let's say, of the Republicans today. The left, let's say, La France Insoumise on one side, and the Republicans on the other. So they overthrow the Girondins and they take power. And they take power in Paris on June 2, 1793. Three days earlier, the Convention had voted, and everyone, everyone agreed, they had voted that when the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people, and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties. Well, the left that has just come to power will show how it applies these fine principles that it has just voted. Agreed. So the ministry in Paris is the meeting place of the incompetent and the incapable. Under the pretext of democracy, friends and cronies are put in key positions. And in terms of republican sentiment, you have, for example, a certain Ronin, who is a playwright by profession. It's a perfectly honorable profession, I have nothing against it. But he was appointed, wait, I pressed the wrong button. This Ronin was promoted in November 1792, at the very beginning of the Republic, as war commissioner in the army of Belgium. Well, he was there. They told him, "We need a war commissioner, you'll do the job." He took it on the fly. And now, with the overthrow of the Girondins, he will be entrusted with the direction of all the armies of the Republic. What is the man's competence? He is a playwright. He is a playwright. Any resemblance to a recent era is purely coincidental. Absolutely, absolutely. So he becomes director of all the armies of the Republic, and he chooses to assist him other playwrights like him, who had some service record in the Paris Commune. So you have a bunch of friends. They are sufficiently left-wing to know how to lead an army, because now competence is being left-wing. Agreed. So they will lead the armies of the Republic. And when the Convention realizes that the Vendée is more than a simple riot, and that something serious is really being prepared there, whom will it send to restore order in the Vendée? Well, Ronin. Yes, because he is the director, he directs all the armies. So he will leave with his comrades to save the people or perish. He will save the people. He will go to the Vendée to save the people from the people. The people are attacked by the people. So we will save the people. So he leaves with his friends to save the Republic. Between Paris and the Vendée, he passes everywhere, and at his leisure, where he lives the good life at the Republic's expense. But there are testimonies, I'll spare you, I've been talking for a long time. There are testimonies about their attitudes, about their swagger, about their way of showing off with [ __ ], well, it's frightening, frightening. They set an example of both arrogance, coarseness, vulgarity, well, frightening. And it is they who will install the "save the people or perish." So he leaves the memories that I leave you to guess, at leisure and at his whim, and he continues. And Ronin is the king of the window. So he is the king of the window, and he appoints his friends from his troupe as generals. This comedy, yes, he has a friend with whom he acted in such and such a play, well, he will appoint him general of this, and then of that. And there you have it, these are the improvised generals who will collect defeats and look down on the real soldiers that the Republic has enlisted. The Republic has enlisted Kléber and Haxo, who are real generals. But a real sans-culotte from the left is necessarily better than an experienced soldier from the right. You agree to wage war? You have a man from the right who is a general, but he is from the right, so we don't want him. Whereas you have a sans-culotte who knows nothing, but he is from the left, so we will take him. Yes, that's the revolution. That's what's at stake. That's what's happening. Does that remind you of anything? Does it not remind you of anything? Among the soldiers that Ronin promotes, one will leave his name to posterity. Remember, Turreau. We will talk about him later. So on August 1, 1793, while Ronin and his little comrades are taking direction of the Vendée, in Paris, the Convention decrees: "Here, the committee, with your authorization, has prepared measures that tend to exterminate this rebellious race." We are talking about the Vendeans. "Exterminate this rebellious race, make the lair disappear, set fire to their forests, cut their harvests, and fight them as much by workers and pioneers as by soldiers, soldiers of liberty. The brigands of the Vendée must be exterminated before the end of October. The salvation of the homeland demands it. The impatience of the French people commands it. Their courage must accomplish it." What is this? What is this? Exterminate a rebellious race, what is that called? Well, believe it or not, on August 15 following, that is to say, 15 days later, we will talk about debt again. You remember the debt? Listen carefully. Cambon will say to the Convention, where he presents his report on public debt: "It is perhaps to the existence of these loans that we owe the beginning of the Revolution. The government, embarrassed to pay the commitments it had made, convened the Estates-General to provide for it. The portfolios were overflowing with royal effects. The owners of these effects, fearing to lose their capital, put on the revolutionary mask, and joined the friends of the Republic. From then on, the Palais Royal was the meeting place of patriots, and it is from this hearth that the sacred fire that inflamed souls departed on July 14 and October 5 and 6, 1789." It is they who say: "The revolution is for the rentiers who didn't know how to get their money back." Well, the journalist Rivarol, who is a journalist of that time, will explain it further. He said: "60,000 capitalists and the ant colony of speculators, you know, speculators on financial products, so 60,000 capitalists and the ant colony of speculators decided the Revolution. They wanted Mr. Necker to pay them, that a revolution be attempted to pay them, that everything be overturned, as long as they were paid. They did not conceive that the National Assembly could be anything other than a finance committee." So, and here they are saying, 15 days after the decision to exterminate the Vendeans, that the revolution was made for the capitalists who had ruined the royal finances, and by miserable crowds of unfortunate unemployed people with empty stomachs, to whom they made believe that the king was preparing to come and slaughter them. Mirabeau himself will congratulate the blessed deficit, celebrate the blessed deficit, and this public debt which was the seed of our liberty. Do you realize? He admitted it with all simplicity. Well, the liberty that was conquered, that was acquired thanks to these 60,000 capitalists, will become genocidal. At the end of 1793, Turreau arrives in Nantes. Turreau is the one, the first one appointed by Ronin. He arrives in Nantes and comes to implement the decrees that ordered that the forests of the Vendée would be cut down, its crops burned, its harvests cut, its livestock seized, women and children expelled from their villages and taken to distant regions. And I knew a kind of penguin who said, "The proof that the Republic is not genocidal is that it wanted to put women and children to safety." Safety from what? Without men, without anything to eat, and without shelter over their heads. What is that? Do you know how the Turks exterminated the Armenians? They took them out of their homes, made them walk without anything to eat, without anything to drink. It lasted 3 days. Sometimes there is no need for sophisticated means. Once the livestock has been seized, the men massacred, the women and children expelled to distant regions will not be put to safety to be kept safe, but to be made to die. You spoke of Pierre Hard earlier, and I allow myself to give him a nod, as he was my special guest for the 100th episode I did in February last. And I asked him this question, and it is very relevant to what you are saying with the end. And I asked him, what would make people today get out a little, revolt, and so on? And he answered me with this sentence that still follows me today: "People will only revolt in misfortune." That is to say, as long as the refrigerators are still full, and as long as there is no famine, and as long as we have not been drained to the dregs. So for now, we are still living well, we are still in comfort, as long as there is no famine. I would say the Yellow Vests were the last straw. Today, 50 cents, 60 cents more, it's possible. Yes. Covid passed through there, anesthesia, and so on. And therefore, do you think today, as many things recall this period, that the end will justify the means? Will there be anything else? No, there is something else. There are children. Ah, there are children. Remember what revolt is. Revolt in Machecoul, the uprising, the 600 parishes around Machecoul rising up, saying, "We will not send our children to be killed for the Republic." For now, it's sending children to Ukraine to be mowed down. Yes, yes, yes. And then, and then, and then the sexualization of children. People will eventually understand. It's a long-term job. Corruption through sex is a job that goes back more than 70 years in France, at least. More than 70 years. It's a sapping job that has been absolutely infernal, infernal. I believe there is a possible return, a possible reversal. It will be long, it will be extremely difficult, but I see progress. I see progress. I have been fighting on this subject for 30 years, I see that the subject is advancing. The subject is advancing now. Yes, I think parents will take... Parents, yes, there will be a reversal. I am used to saying: bread and children. Bread will not be enough. Children will not be enough. Bread plus children. You will see, I think that's what will happen. It will be necessary. Yes, I think... I think that's it. But the revelations, the revelations about child trafficking are rampant at the moment. They are rampant. They are rampant. I have never seen this. I have been on this subject for 30 years, I have never seen revelations at this speed. Well, the problem is that there are revelations at this speed, but what do we do with them? Because most people say, "Yes, but what can I do?" Let it ripen, let it ripen. You cannot react at the moment you have the information. Wait for it. Let it ripen. It is ripening. It is ripening. Have you seen Barnérias' film? Yes, of course. I received Pierre not long ago. I will receive two other survivors on July 31, including Inda. Yes, I will also receive Inda. But I know Inda. I know Inda. She is magnificent. Inda. Yes, yes. So on July 31 at 7 p.m. on this channel, we will have a special evening. Survivors again. Yes, yes, yes. No, no, but it's magnificent. It's magnificent, this film by Pierre Barnérias. No, no, but things are happening now that didn't happen before. It's moving forward. How it will tip over, I don't know. I'm not God. God knows how it will tip over. It's a conjunction, an accumulation of energies that realize themselves, that intersect, of small details, of information that will awaken consciences here and there. We don't know. We don't control it. We don't control it. We must continue to move forward, and by the grace of God, by the grace of God, by the grace of God. I continue. I continue. Go ahead. So at the end of '93, Turreau arrives in Nantes and says that everything must absolutely be burned, but women and children must be kept away. That is to say, in August 1793, the program was inapplicable, and it will become so. So, well supervised, the Vendean peasants become a victorious army that will hold in check the soldiers that the Republic will send as reinforcements to subdue them. The Vendean soldiers, that is to say, the Vendean peasants, go from victory to victory. They have sublime generals. We talk about Charette in the film. There are others. They have generals who are young men that the peasants went to find and asked to lead them. We talk about guys like Michely or even Victor Hugo. Ah, what is '93? It's the nobles who will force the peasants to follow them. It's the peasants who will force the lords to follow them. It's not the same thing. You don't go to follow them, you go to command them. So the Vendeans go from victory to victory, but they cannot win because the Republic has reinforcements. When you kill 100, when you kill 10, if 100 come, then 100 come. But when the Vendeans, when you kill 10, if 10 come, they don't come. They are dead. And the Vendée will succumb to numbers. In fact, it will succumb to numbers, to division too, but that's normal. They were not prepared for war. They were heroic enough. They had enough victories to deserve all our admiration. The War of Vendée is... it's an heroism that goes beyond what one can imagine. Go see this film. Go see this film. I had already read the books of René Sécher. Go see the film, it was the icing on the cake. So believe it or not, while the Vendeans are going from victory to victory, they are peasants. They left their oxen, they left their plows, they took their pitchforks. They were given muskets, they were taught to use them, and then they went to kill the blue soldiers, the Republicans were the blues. And believe it or not, during this time, during this time, in Paris, the Vendée had a deputy. Yes, because there were legislative elections, so there were deputies to the Convention. Not legislative, there was a deputy named Fillon, who was a deputy from the Vendée. And on November 6, 1793, this is what he says to the Convention: "We have not burned enough in the Vendée. The first measure to take is to send an incendiary army there. We must ensure that for a year, no man, no animal finds sustenance on this soil." That is to say, the representative of the people of the Vendée says this to the Convention, the representative assembly of the French people. Isn't the Republic beautiful? Not bad, huh? Imagine that your deputy, whom you have just elected, arrives in Paris saying, "Well, we must exterminate all the inhabitants of this and that. We must burn everything." You know, we heard statements, and without seeking controversy or going off-topic, but on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which were not trivial either. But I would like us to return to some vocabulary points, because I myself often confuse Girondin, Jacobin, Montagnard. Could you give us a quick recap? Yes, yes, absolutely. So Jacobin, I explained, is the meeting. Jacobin is the adjective that means Jacques. Jacques, Jacobin. We don't say Pierre Perrien, we say Jean Joanni, for example. That's it. Jacques, Jacobin. So it was a convent. The convent on Rue Saint-Jacques, which was disused because there were fewer and fewer communities throughout the 18th century. Communities closed, and buildings became available to the public. And on Rue Saint-Jacques, the Jacobin convent was the place where the Freemasons, the Freemasons, the Club of Friends of the Constitution, these Freemasons around La Fayette, Chapelier, all these people who formed themselves at the time of the meeting of the Estates-General, gathered in Paris saying, "We will gather among ourselves." And it is the common people, that is to say, the Freemasons, who are leading the revolution, outside of any pressure on public opinion. They don't make legal decisions, but they have influence decisions. And in fact, the deputies to the Convention were elected to the Jacobins by acclamation, while... So what is a Montagnard? The Montagnards are those who are up high. And in the Salle du Manège, where the National Assembly met, the left was up high. So they were called the Montagnards simply because they were up high. So it's the left, it's the left of the left. It's Robespierre and his associates. And the Girondins, well, they are the others. The Girondins are... So why Girondins? Because the first ones who formed themselves came from Bordeaux. It's the equivalent of what I would say Republicans today. That is to say, moderates. Yes, so that it speaks to everyone. So the Girondins would be the current Republicans, the center-right. The Jacobins would therefore be the left. No, the Jacobins do not sit in the National Assembly. They are an external club to the Assembly. Montagnards and Girondins oppose each other in the Assembly. Yes. Whereas the Jacobins are for themselves, outside, outside. Agreed. Okay. So the Montagnards can meet at the Jacobins, and the Girondins can also meet at the Jacobins. Yes. They are forced. You see. So Montagnard and Girondin is their positioning in the Assembly, in the Convention. So Montagnard is the left, and Girondin is the other. Yes. So the Great Vendée Army, in fact, is the Great Catholic and Royal Army, will hold the Republic in check. They will go from victory to victory, and the Republic does not like that. It will send increasingly numerous troops to crush a rebellion that it will succeed in defeating. That is to say, by dint of sending new troops and forces, and again and again, they will overcome, they will overcome the rebellion. The peasants have their farms, their agricultural exploitation to manage, and then to go fight and come back. They cannot be everywhere. It's just not possible. At some point, there is exhaustion. Exhaustion of forces, not exhaustion of motivation, never, never. There has never been exhaustion of motivation. Charette managed to remobilize his troops as soon as they had a moment of weakness. It's heroism. It goes beyond understanding. Napoleon himself will say it. Napoleon will say of the Vendeans: "They are a race of giants." Napoleon was utterly admiring of the Vendeans. I have no sympathy for that man, but for what he said about the Vendeans, hats off, hats off, hats off. He even rebuilt the Vendée. He had the Vendée rebuilt. I'm going to step on Marion's toes a bit, because for almost 4 hours now, we've been talking about this French Revolution, and it's fascinating the way you tell it, and the public is, I'd say, listening attentively. I haven't heard you talk so far about the impact, I don't know, of the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, etc. Forget it, they come later. Forget it, they come later. Agreed. Yes, they arrive in the middle. They arrive in the middle, but we will see them later. They arrive in the middle. They arrive later. I gave a whole conference on that, with... the arrival, yes, yes, but I can't say everything. That's what I said at the beginning, I have to... Yes, yes, but they arrive. The Rothschilds arrive once the work is done. Agreed. Okay. So, in January 1794, January 1794, at Noirmoutier, conquered by the Vendeans, it was retaken by the Republicans, and the surrender of the former will be made under the formal promise made by General Haxo that they will be spared. So, I explain Noirmoutier. I recap. It was retaken by the Vendeans, who then took the Vendeans prisoner, who had agreed. So, for the Vendeans to surrender, General Haxo, who was leading the operation, told them, "I swear to you, I promise you your lives." So the Vendeans surrender. Agreed. A military commission decides that they will all be shot in small groups, so that the next ones will not know what happened to the first ones. That is to say, the Republic does not feel bound by a promise made to brigands. So they are not dealing with men. When you are dealing with men, you give your word and you keep it. Does that remind you of anything? Subhumans, animals that you have the right to eliminate like that. Does that not remind you of something? To eliminate the adversary, you dehumanize him. And witnesses will report that the members of the military commission were people who came from nowhere, who were given the national uniform, and these people prevailed over General Haxo, to whom they said, "Your indignation? Put it aside. It will get you nowhere." That is to say, the word of a general who promises to spare the lives of rebels counts for nothing, weighs nothing, against the decision of a horde of [ __ ] to exterminate them to the last, out of contempt. And this is the application of the rules of this nascent Republic. Haxo, he is perhaps a Republican, but he is above all a general. He is a military man who learned the art of war and knows its codes, and knows its codes of honor. Well, they told him, "You, now, be quiet. Be quiet. We didn't ask you anything. You shouldn't have promised, and we don't care. You promised rebels, it doesn't count." In early 1794, the Vendée is defeated. It lost the war. It began in March '93. In early '94, the Vendée is defeated. The surviving peasants have returned to their homes and their fields. They have surrendered their weapons. They have surrendered their weapons. If the Convention had wanted an honorable peace at that time, the former insurgents would have accepted it. But the Convention will decide otherwise. At that date, the total destruction of the Vendée, decided at the Convention on August 1, will become effective. That is to say, they waited for the enemy to be defeated to exterminate him. Man, woman, child, livestock. These will be the infernal columns that received the order to burn everything, to kill everything, to leave nothing, neither woman, nor child, nor beast. Turreau is at the helm, always the same Turreau, the one who was appointed by Ronin at the beginning. Only Kléber will protest. Turreau will send him to Brest. Kléber is still a general of the old school, a general from the right, that's what they say, far-right perhaps, if you look closely. 12 columns will set out, led by six commanders promoted by the revolution. We do not know of any war waged by military men that has committed such cold-bloodedness.

Atrocities in such proportions, they don't exist. These new ones, they've just come out. We don't know the savagery, the number, the modus operandi of the destruction, the selling off of the military. And it's unprecedented, it's methodical, appalling, and monstrous. I won't give you the details, it's unbearable. R. Sécher, he has everything. All the worst atrocities were committed on unarmed populations, and the more you beg for mercy, the more you are martyred. It's atrocious, it's atrocious. The horror will stop with the fall of Robespierre, but he had nothing to do with it, he was nice, he had nothing to do with it. Nevertheless, it stops when he falls. Agreed. What are the reasons for this depopulation? Why did they do that? Well, believe it or not, there are reasons for that. We have the testimony of a young man named Joakim Vilat, who was 26 years old at the time of the events, and he lived in close proximity to the leaders of the Committee of Public Safety. So, what was the Committee of Public Safety? It was 10 people, including Robespierre, meaning Robespierre plus 9, who represented the government of France. In fact, they sat facing the stage there, on the first, on the second floor, in a... well, we can see approximately where the Committee sat. So, the Committee of Public Safety sat in that location. Now, there's a lot of controversy about Robespierre, was Robespierre a dictator, was he not a dictator? Listen, I'm telling you, Robespierre was a tenth of a dictator. The dictator was the Committee of Public Safety. He was a tenth of a dictator, but since he wrote a lot and many people idolize him, was he the dictator of the other dictators? Barère, Barère signed for the Vendean genocide. Agreed, he signed, he signed. Don't say he didn't sign. R. Sécher found the signature, he found it, he found the signature. The order to exterminate to the last man. Why did they do that? What's the point of exterminating French people? They speak the same language. Who hasn't been tainted by these genocides, these massacres? Is there any personality at the time who resisted, who fought? I would say, who, yes, who? Ah, well, on the ground, yes, of course, there are generals, of course, yes. But they are not people who remained in the history books, particularly because they were not necessarily Freemasons, you know? No, no, no, they didn't remain. Well, later on, there's Napoleon who distinguished himself by saying that it was a horror and that the Vendéans were a race of giants. Well, I didn't understand why the Vendéans I knew liked Napoleon. I understood later. I don't like Napoleon, but I'm not into that, and I have other reasons, I have other reasons. Anyway. So, I'll explain what Joakim VAT recounts. So, Joakim VAT was in close proximity to the 10 members of the Committee of Public Safety, and on October 17th, so October 17th is the day after the trial of the Queen began. That's another fine piece of filth, isn't it? The Queen was never guilty of anything they said, it's nonsense, they invented anything to send their enemies to their death. It's no scruples, no morality, no values, nothing at all. It has to pass, it passes or it breaks. And so, on October 17th, he hears them together with, there's Barère, there's Saint-Just, and there's Robespierre, and he hears them, he hears what they say, and he's suffocated. He hears that they are worried about the large number of enemies of the Revolution. That is to say, at least they admit it, the Revolution is very unpopular. The French people are rising up in all corners of the Republic, I would say of the kingdom, old habit. They are rising up in all corners of the Republic. People have had enough. Lyon will rise up, Marseille will rise up, there will be uprisings absolutely everywhere. So they are extremely worried, they say, how will we succeed? How will we succeed if everyone rises up against us? And then someone says, I think it's Robespierre, "The ship of the Revolution can only reach port on a sea reddened with waves of blood." That's right, meaning if we want to win the Revolution, we have to kill thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people. And he says, "A nation only regenerates itself on mounds of corpses." But then, another one who wants to regenerate. What do they have with their regeneration? They should regenerate themselves and leave others alone. They didn't ask us to regenerate them, did they? The first one who wants to regenerate me, I'll receive him, you see what I mean? And so, what is their plan? Their plan is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's plan. Robespierre is a fanatic of Rousseau. Ah, Rousseau, Rousseau, ah, Rousseau, Rousseau. What does Rousseau say? The one who abandoned his children. Oh, but if he had only abandoned them, if he had only done that. And Rousseau says, "All citizens must be equal, and none of them too much." That's the egalitarianism of the Republic, everyone at the same level. I don't want to see a head sticking out, I don't want to see a head sticking out. So, each French family must be given a portion of land in the middle of which will stand a hut covered with straw, where they can live happily for the rest of their days, with their wife and children, a small cottage with a small... And so, how did they manage to realize this dream? Well, they calculated. They have the approximate available arable land, cultivable land in France, and they have the number of inhabitants, and they say, "No, wait, something's not right." Because at the moment, there are 1000 inhabitants per square league. A square league is 16 square kilometers. A league is 4 kilometers by 4 kilometers. So, on every 16 square kilometers, there are 1000 inhabitants. That's too many. We won't be able to give everyone a cottage. We need to reduce it to 700. Well, we have to kill 300. We have to kill a third of the French population to realize Jean-Jacques Rousseau's dream. Isn't that beautiful? And while he's serving the dishes, the guy hears this. He goes home, he writes, he testifies, he's going to tell this. No, but can you imagine? So, we have to depopulate and reduce to 700 inhabitants per square league instead of the 1000 they count, meaning reduce the population by 30%. We have to level the population, otherwise order and stability will never be established, otherwise a Republic cannot exist. That means they say, there can be no Republic if we don't exterminate a third of the French population. Say it again, say it again so it sinks in. Order and stability will never be established without leveling the population. A Republic cannot exist if we don't exterminate a third of the French population. So, at the time, how many inhabitants were there in France? 28 million. So, a third, so we had to exterminate 9 million people. And who made these statements? Robespierre, Barère. So, what explains what will be explained later. So, Joakim VAT will testify. He will testify, and the very sympathetic and very... he was a Robespierrist, moreover, he wasn't one for contradictions. What's his name? Gracchus Babeuf will say, indeed, the depopulation plan explains, once we understand the depopulation plan, it explains not only the drownings of Nantes, the atrocities, the Vendean genocide, and so on and so forth, but it also explains all the troop deployments to the borders for an interminable war that never ended. We sent soldiers, we sent soldiers, we sent soldiers, and the important thing was that they didn't come back. That is to say, we wage war, war, war to purify, purify... I don't know, I'm saying something stupid, to reduce the French population. But tell me, our dear globalists today, have they drawn all their deadly ideology for the world population from these texts? So, in fact, everything we're talking about for 4 hours is the major support for the New World Order, the 2020s, you know? Well, listen, the New World Order, the New World Order, I'll step out of my reference period, but I'm talking about the work I'm doing right now. The New World Order was announced as ready and operational in 1969. In 1969, a man named Dr. Richard D. let the cat out of the bag. He said, "Now the plan is ready, we can no longer turn back. The New World Order will unfold." And the plan of the New World Order is depopulation. We will... no one, no one will be able to stop us, and no one will be able to stop us. Or, so, and Sarkozy said that no one could stop us, and the doctor had also said it. So, that means that... Oh, I lost it. So, that means that in 1969, the New World Order was announced as being tasked with carrying out the depopulation that had begun during the French Revolution. To give the alpha and the omega. If we want people to behave, we have to give them each a little something that makes them leave us alone. And it's quite obvious that all these valiant revolutionaries installed in the Tuileries Palace, before it burned down, they weren't going to settle in a small house with a small cottage. So, in fact, to summarize, if I understood correctly, it's that today, well, Sunday, those who will celebrate July 14th are especially those who are serving their ancestors who brought them the globalist ideology of today. It's a bit like a son paying homage to his great-grandfather, well, a child. So, that's why there's this connection between the two eras, a mirror effect, because in fact, it's just a matter of numbers and dates. The eras, the eras change, but the methods remain. That is to say, we've just adapted the means of implementing them today, but it all started with 1789. So, were there no events before 1789? Weren't there preparations beyond what you told us about the bread police or things like that? No, the grain police, that's really when I'm telling you that it's happening. However, what's important to know is that the questioning of the authority of the king and the authority of the Church didn't stop throughout the entire modern period. That is to say, the Parlements on the one hand, the... well, first at the end of the Middle Ages, the Sorbonne, and then the university, and then the Parlements during the period from the Renaissance onwards, didn't stop contesting the king's power and undermining royal authority, undermining ecclesiastical authority, undermining... And the Revolution is, after all, their victory. It's their posthumous victory. It's their posthumous victory. But the grain police, all that, it worked, it worked, it worked until 1748. It worked. So, how do we get out of this historical straitjacket for two centuries? I don't know how to do it. I know what I know how to do, which is to seek the truth and tell it. That's all I know how to do. I don't know how to do more. I don't know how to organize people. Courage is to seek the truth, to tell it. It's a phrase... Ah, yes, no, but that's clear. And that's what I know how to do, that's what I know how to do, is to seek the truth and tell it. I get a lot of insults, but I get so many signs of recognition elsewhere that it compensates. Wait, I'm finishing, I'm finishing. I'm really at the end. So, at the time, so I say the Republic claimed to be genocidal, but it didn't say genocide. We said, at the time, and it was Gracchus Babeuf who found the word "populicide." So, if the word "genocide" is bothersome, we're willing to accept "populicide" because it's truly the word of the time. So, on February 5, 1794, Robespierre said to the Convention, "We must stifle the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it." That is to say, physically eliminate opponents or the useless. It's in the genes of the Republic. Well, I wonder what the values of the Republic, which I've been hearing about since I was born, can possibly look like. End of my conference. Listen, bravo, bravissimo, dear Marion Sigot, it was exceptional. So, I have a question because I talked about it with Philippe Loncardassac, and I would like to have your version. We hear a lot, especially at the moment, about the extreme right. So, the extreme right, I've heard it said, because I listen a bit, that they are the ones who want to overthrow the Republic. So, I ask you, etymologically, extreme right. So, I'm sorry, I studied history, and how should I say, I was recommended to read MCF, and I started reading it because I think if we had read it sooner, we might have avoided a lot of trouble in the past. Anyway, you have to read everything, no black books, no censored books or anything like that, to know what you're talking about. But apparently, Hitler in his youth had history teachers who fascinated him, and that emerges in his expression. But the extreme right, when we talk about it today, we must remember that Hitler, Stalin, etc., they all came from the left. Even Mussolini. You, who are a historian, can talk about it even better than me. That is to say, those who are extreme right came from the left. So, that means that when we talk about fascism, it was born on the left. Am I, am I... No, but until... No, but you... To everyone. No, but it's true, it's true, it's true, it's true. No, but wait, I'll tell you what I think of the extreme right. Go ahead. Regularly, people tell me I'm extreme right, which makes me laugh a bit. What I like is that I know people who are extreme right, really extreme right, and they say I'm extreme left. That puts me somewhere. Ah, that's excellent. Ah, yes, I was called a leftist not too long ago. Wait, there's a moron from the Alps who's active online. She told me one day that I was a Villero-Marxist. So, I should talk to Philippe de Villiers about Villero-Marxism. I haven't heard that yet. Villero-Marxism? It's me. Oh, my goodness. Villero-Marxist. I think among the Yellow Vests, I met an anarcho-Buddhist, I think. But to invent, to invent... I'll explain to you. I'll explain to you what extreme right means. During the Revolution, they said we were patriots or we were aristocrats. There were no half-measures. Today, we are well, or we are extreme right, we are republican, we are extreme right. It's an insult, it has no reality, it has no political reality. I'm willing to believe that people who organize themselves into militias, who do... although not, because the fascist militias, they originated from... socialist things, I don't know. I'm willing to accept calling extreme right people who organize military punches, without obviously the antifas... it's how... extreme right. For me, the antifas, well, they're in the National Assembly. So, precisely, regarding what we've talked about for 4 hours, what has really changed today? Not much, except that we continue the montage, the... how to say, the democratic fantasy and illusion. And today, if so many people are starting to open their eyes to elections, well, it took me a long time too, because conditioning, you know, it worked well. The school of the Republic. That's why I advocate for restoring national instruction, because it's instruction, it's not education. It's not up to the teacher to educate the students. The government educating, that's called communism. So, parents are for education, and teachers are for instruction. And since we change the words, and we don't even say teacher anymore, we say school professors, etc., we do permanent newspeak. That way, we don't know who does what anymore. It's practical, at least, because that way, well, we say no, no, we don't say that anymore. So, it's a form of linguistic dictatorship, and I refuse to submit. Ah, yes, absolutely. I completely agree. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. No, but extreme right, it's just, it's just, it's just to devalue, it's just to denigrate. But in any case, dear Marion, I'm looking to see if there were any questions, because there was so much... So, dear listeners, ah, yes, you asked me at the beginning what I thought of Henri Guillemin. So, I'll tell you, because it was Étienne Chouard who also introduced me to Henri Guillemin, whom I followed with great interest until I started studying the period he talks about on my own. And well, I disagree. I disagree. That is to say, Henri Guillemin, the creation of the National Guard, he sees it very well. The rise of the Revolution, he doesn't see the contradiction. But then, what you need to know is that history progresses in stages, so to speak. And there's a historian named Steven Kaplan, who is American, who wrote "Le Pain, le Peuple et le Roi" and "La Bataille du Libéralisme sous Louis XIV et la Fin des Corporations." These are two absolutely essential books that show what economic liberalism is. And until you have that, you can't understand what the Revolution is. That is to say, if Guillemin had read Steven Kaplan's books, which couldn't have been written yet at the time he gave his lectures, he would certainly have given different lectures than the ones he gave. That is to say, Henri Guillemin, well, he's a magnificent orator, I mean, his things are magnificent, they're moving, they're beautiful, they're a treat. But Henri Guillemin, when I know what I know and I hear him, I say he's a leftist sympathizer. Then you have to say, and I was a leftist sympathizer, and I moved from sympathizer to leftist sympathizer, and from leftist sympathizer to leftist, and then I left the left and returned to being a sympathizer. Whereas he didn't have time, he didn't have time to make the return. He didn't have time to make the return. So, many things that I leave aside. But many... I had seen an excerpt from a show from the 70s where Edgar Faure was presenting a book, because Edgar Faure was also a very erudite person. There was Guillemin, but it's true that beyond that, we must remember these people who had an erudition, who already had exceptional French, we must say it too. When I watch old movies from the 60s today, I'm so ashamed of French cinema as it has become, and yet I love cinema. There are still a few films, gems, etc., but today it's harder to find, especially since they all make politics now. It's starting to get tiresome. But today, there's a channel on Twitter that I salute, Colonel Farès, for those who know it, that shows excerpts from films from... how to say... the 70s, Jean Rochefort, etc. And it's true that it's a delight. Well, I grew up with "Le Cerveau," "La Grande Vadrouille," I've seen it I don't know how many times. So, yes, that's why I try to keep this little thing. Well, in any case, we've done almost 4 and a half hours of broadcast. So, a huge thank you, Marion, for dedicating your entire evening to us for this magnificent conference, voluntarily. Why voluntarily? Not everyone does it voluntarily. Some people get paid, tell me. Ah, not on my channel, not on... They all come voluntarily to my channel, anyway, they don't have much choice. So, yes. But in any case, a big thank you to you. Thank you. You are more than 1000 live, so we had more than 900 people who followed us live tonight, Twitter and YouTube combined. So, one word to... well, to make this history, this other history of the so-called French Revolution known, is to share, to subscribe to the channel, to give a thumbs up, to reference. And I've put the links in the description to follow Marion Sigot. You can find her books at FNAC, well, you can order, etc. And thank you to you, Marion, for this great evening. So, I imagine that on Sunday, you won't be celebrating anything special. I will be in mourning. I will wear great mourning. I will be in double mourning because unfortunately, on July 14, 2016, there was the attack in Nice, and so, of course, today, July 14th, for me, represents something else. Well, the attack, and so thinking of all those innocents. So, I think July 14th must now be a thought, and especially a resistance against the oppression of the system. And especially an awakening of consciousness. I think the greatest weapon today is information, re-information, and especially the greatest war waged against us, beyond the spiritual, etc., is the war of information. And so, we have a duty, for my part, respecting the Munich Charter, to seek the truth and tell it. That's why I invited you, Marion, and I thank you infinitely for giving us this entire conference for over 4 hours. So, dear guests, dear listeners, thank you. Marion, I'll let you have the last word, after all you've told us. Do you have a little optimistic word for the future? I'm so exhausted. I'm never pessimistic. I'm not pessimistic. I have moments of weakness, moments where I'm exhausted, where I say, I won't see it, I won't see the liberation because I'm getting old. But the liberation will come, it will come anyway, because the whole system is based on the perpetuation of a lie that is leaking from all sides. The lie is collapsing, and the truth is seeping out everywhere, everywhere, everywhere. Everywhere. And they won't stop this truth, they won't stop this truth. I wish that you may see the liberation in your lifetime, and especially that we can celebrate it together. That would be even better, and with all those who are following us. So, you are over a hundred who have subscribed during these 4 hours of live broadcast. So, a huge thank you. So, it was the end of the week for these broadcasts. Subscribe to my channel too. I have a channel. Yes, well, in any case, I'll put Marion's channel in the description. Thank you, dear listeners. Have a good weekend. I said, rest well, because I'm going to rest too. The week has been intense. Rest well, Marion, too. And I'll have a big sleep. A big... Good evening. Good evening, everyone. Goodbye. Thank you.