« On va sauter dans les 24 mois qui viennent » – Charles Gave

You have powers in place today in England, France, Germany, etc., which are legal but which are no longer legitimate. That is to say, they are hated by the population. The day it blows up is the day the police will be fed up. All these regimes fall when the police stop supporting them. It takes years to ruin a country like France. And then when you are really ruined, the fall is so rapid... It will be like a sudden... And then there will be a drop in the standard of living which will be appalling. And who will

take the most in the mouth? The little people. It is better to end in horror than to have horror without end. Well we come to a horrifying end. We're going to take a lot of it, but we'll be free. Hello, Charles Gave. Good morning. Thank you for accepting our invitation. You are welcome. I'm delighted to welcome you to this show. THANKS. You are a financier, economist, president of the think tank the Institute of Liberties. You are also the author of several works and you have recently published a new essay entitled “The Truth Will Set You

Free”, published by Pierre de Taillac. So. So, in this book, you denounce in particular an enterprise of destruction of nations and transfer of their sovereignty to supranational authorities. A technocratic project led by those you call “the men of Davos”. Can you tell us who these men from Davos are and what their ideology is? It's difficult to answer your question because it's more a type of man than a particular person, but they are people... Who have, in a way, swallowed the notion of globalization and who think very fundamentally that nations , basically, it comes from the

past, that it is not useful, and that the future belongs to a world government. And since they are the smartest ones who went to the best schools, etc., they are the ones who will get that. So they feel absolutely called by a divine power, I don't know which one, to govern us and do what is good for us, even if we don't completely agree. And so they are very curious people because they went to the same schools, they did the same studies, they ended up at Harvard, at MIT, at the London School of Economics, at

Sciences-Po Paris, I don't know anything about it. They spend their vacations in the same places, they marry each other. They have very, very strong relationships with everyone in the media. And if you ask them if cows have horns in front of or behind their ears, they don't know. They have never been to a countryside, they have never seen a peasant, they have never seen an artisan, they do not know what it is. So they live in a kind of completely ethereal, artificial world, they talk to each other and they convince each other that they are

the smartest, the most brilliant, and that thanks to them the world will finally experience a period peace and remarkable prosperity. That is to say, it is not so different, as curious as it seems, from the kind of... From what Lenin said, it was the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat if you like, which was also an elite who was supposed to lead us in the right direction, whether we killed a few of them didn't matter much, and so after bringing down the Berlin Wall, we got rid of what Reagan called the "Evil Empire" and

replaced it with exactly the same thing, but with slightly different guys. And I call it the “Empire of Lies”. The Lord of evil is the devil and the Lord of lies is the devil too. So these are people who think they are superior to others, who are convinced of it, they don't need... If you want it's the Bill Gates, all these guys, it's Attali. We have forty-two, it's not... And it's not even a conspiracy because they tell you so quietly, you just have to read what has been said in Davos for twenty years and then...

They quietly tell you what they are going to do. For example, it would be necessary to do increase the human population from 8 billion to 500 million because there are far too many of us. Yes, because in your book, that's it, I believe that at one point, you explain that they are driven by a profoundly Malthusian ideology. Deeply Malthusian, that is to say that, once again, they explain... It's... it's what I really call a civilization of death. They've been pushing for years, they started with abortion, and then, if you like, we're getting to euthanasia. Birth

control. And what is surprising is that they have one common characteristic, which is that almost none of them have children or grandchildren. That is to say that at least the problem will be resolved over time because they will not have transmitted their DNA. But they quietly tell people: above all, don't have children. Which I find completely bizarre. We have Emmanuel Macron who spoke of demographic rearmament not very, very long ago. Yes, if you want, it's like the... It's like the deserter who pushes people to go into battle. How many children does this animal have? Zero.

So if you want... To get out of the trench, the guy behind whom you are leaving, your officer, must have some credibility in previous battles, otherwise you stay warm and you tell him: you are there. go ahead, but… Go ahead, go ahead and have children, this animal is young enough to have children. Do you think that the French ruling class shares the ideas promoted by these men from Davos, this Malthusian ideology, how does it position itself in relation to all that? Well yes, if you want the French ruling class, from what I understood, I read

that somewhere, I don't know. On promotions, the latest promotions from ENA, Polytechnique, HEC, Sciences-Po or I don't know what, I believe that 80% of the promotions came from thirty kindergartens in Paris. That is to say that in the past the republican elevator went through education. We called it... we called it... It's not National Education, public education I think we called it, it was much better. And so we took out guys like Jaurès who came from I don't know where, from Tarn or I don't know where, we took out guys like Camus whose mother didn't know

how to read or write, they were... and when they arrived, it was a renewal of demographic potential because they were different. There, they are all the same. So of course they buy this idea, but they buy this idea like... like robots are excited about the robot maker. They are nothing. That is to say that these are individuals, very curiously, who have no culture. They are... they have the words, the techniques to pass exams. But it is the first time in the history of France, in at least ten centuries, that there is no longer a single

great French intellectual. This is what you say in your book, you talk about an “intellectual desert”. But complete. When I was your age and I was studying, a long time ago, I had the choice between Raymond Aron, Sartre, Jouvenel, René Girard, Revel, François Mauriac. There were… I can tell you twenty-five and today, there is no longer a single great French intellectual who is translated, in any language. Whereas in the past you went to the great American or English libraries, half of the shelves were of great French thinkers. So, we were... we were the people... What

Bernanos said, he said: France, country of madmen, philosophers and cathedral builders. There were three of us. Today, we are nothing at all. No more cathedral builders, no more madmen and no more philosophers. We are not going to talk, we are going to be charitable, we are not going to talk about Bernard-Henri Lévy all the same. We are not going to fall to that level. Or Enthoven, well, I don't know what his name is anymore. Raphael Enthoven. Yes, it's degree zero. That's what my dear son says, he has a formula that I really like. He says

that all the big epidemics always come from China, the Black Death, etc., it kills billions of people, and that all the stupid ideas always come from Boulevard Saint-Germain. And it kills about the same number of people. Yes, because you also devote an important chapter of your book to the control of the logos, therefore the control of language and reason. A control carried out by the ruling class and which involves in particular the establishment of a Newspeak. How does this newspeak manifest itself today and why political power necessarily needs... Well, it doesn't need it, in principle

in a true democracy the logos is open, that is to say to say that everyone gets on each other's throats with a lot of enthusiasm, and then we try to find something in common and then we manage. But what they are trying to do is that there are a certain number of words which are loaded enormously with historical memories, with reality, I don't know, for example family, homeland, nation, flag, the Marseillaise, and for about twenty years if you use them, you are treated as if you were an old moron. That is to say, we ridicule

the guy who loves his country. And having ridiculed him, as soon as he begins to speak, we interrupt him because he will use words that others immediately recognize, and so at that moment we must silence him at all costs. So the purpose of Newspeak is not to give information , it's that if you go outside of Newspeak, at that moment everyone spots you immediately. You have a speech... And what is curious is that silence falls around you at that moment, people listen and say to themselves: hey, he doesn't speak like everyone else, this one there.

And for twenty years, when someone did that, they found themselves retiring at fifty somewhere in Ariège. He was no longer invited anywhere, his books were no longer received, it was over. And it's an extraordinary way of liquidating great intellectuals, because, by definition, intellectuals speak differently . They...they sound different when they speak. And from the moment you spot them and eliminate them right away, it's no wonder we only have morons talking in the station. You actually say that there are two very powerful weapons: exclusion and derision. Exclusion and derision. So, it starts with derision and then

it's exclusion. I will give you an example, which is that I had published a book, it was my first book in fact, which was called “Lions led by donkeys” where I explained that the euro was going to create too many houses in Spain, too many civil servants in France and too many factories in Germany, so that it was going to be a terrible failure for Europe, that it was going to put Europe in danger, etc., that's what happened . Twenty years later, this is what we can see. Thirty thousand copies were printed, no one knew

me, I was Robert Laffont's second print that year, who accepted me. I had sent a book to Laffont, they took it, I was amazed. So thirty thousand copies, second edition of Laffont. And I understand that there are very powerful people who were in power at the time, who received the book twelve times from their friends saying: you have to read this! And who gave instructions to Laffont never to take a book from me again. And so, the goal of these guys is still extraordinary, it's... Somewhere, a guy like... They think they have the truth. And

they also think that having the truth, we must avoid disturbing people, so somewhere, they think that the people are idiots and that we should not let people they don't like speak to the people because I don't know, they might... they might... it might interest them. And so they are naturally totalitarian. This is what a guy like Bock-Côté says who is extremely astute, he says that the difference between the right and the left is that the right knows that original sin exists, and the left thinks that it does not. does not exist. So the left thinks

it is good and therefore, because it is good, it has the right to send you to the gulag. And that's true. Totalitarians... Totalitarians are always left-wing. And they seek equality. Yes, because you also talk about it in your book, you talk about the French Revolution and you say that it was “the matrix of all totalitarianisms” and that we are witnessing today a form of resurgence, finally. She keeps coming back, that is to say... That's what Chantal Delsol says, who has very clever language. She says: there is a big difference between the French Revolution and the

American Revolution, because the American Revolution, which was the daughter of the English Revolution which happened in 1689. The Glorious Revolution was 1689, and the The goal was to build institutions that would prevent the monster that is the State from tormenting citizens. So it was necessary to put counter-powers everywhere, etc. And they did that very well. Whereas for us, it wasn't that at all. For us, it was... We started from a Rousseauist idea that man is born good and that it is society that corrupts him. So what was needed was to change society so that man

could finally be good. But it turns out that in today's society, there are half of them who weren't... who are forty years old and who have already been spoiled by society. And so these must be liquidated. This is what happened with the... In Cambodia where all the guys, we never say it, but they were all studying philosophy at the Sorbonne. The guys who killed half the population, they had all studied at La Sorbonne, under all the communist professors of the time. So the left is naturally criminal. I believe that Lenin was also inspired, moreover, by

the French Revolution. Lenin was inspired by the French Revolution in ideas and by the Jesuits for the organization of the Party. “Perinde ac cadaver”: you obey as long as you are not a corpse. So if you want it 's both... It's both ideas. But that's what Chesterton said, he said something very interesting. He said: the world today is damaged by Christian ideas gone crazy. And that's it. We are all equal in the eye of God, but that does not mean that we must seek equality on earth. However, the search for equality is naturally criminal. Besides,

equality is one of the... it's part of the revolutionary motto. Yes, but what is very annoying about equality, if you like, is that... Well, for example, there was a book which was published in the years... at the end of the 40s in United States and in which the people who were in power thought it was abominable because there were some who were beautiful and others who were ugly. So we had the entire population undergo surgical operations so that we were all the same. And they were very upset when they left because there were some who

had charm and others who had no charm. So what do we do ? Well, we must kill everyone who has charm. So with the same face and everything, there were guys who had crazy success with women, and then the others... No matter how hard they brushed themselves, they never succeeded. So if you want, it's a diabolical idea because we have... DNA... There has never been another DNA than mine, there will never be the same DNA in the future, You see what I mean ? I am completely unique, you are completely unique. So they refuse this

wonderful, total diversity. I believe that you also say in the book that, precisely, this equality can also promote envy or jealousy. Ah yes, that’s the great idea of ​​this brave René Girard. He says: a completely egalitarian society, as violence always comes from the mimicry of appropriation, well at that moment you are going to put yourself on the face in an extraordinary way for a cherry stem. That is to say, the more egalitarian the society, the more violent it is. It's automatic because you put fourteen kids in a room like this with the same ball fourteen

times, little boys or little girls, and then you come back twenty minutes later, they all get on their faces to get the ball of the one who is the most... And so it's not the ball that they want, it's the fact that this guy took this ball, that meant that he is better. So at that point, we're going to get on our toes to get this ball. And this is what René Girard shows. So the search for equality... The search for freedom always leads to more freedom, more prosperity and more equality. The search for equality

always leads to more poverty and more violence. It's a kind of headlong rush. This is a goal that cannot be achieved. They tell you the search for equality, but in fact it is jealousy. However, jealousy is the only one of the seven deadly sins which cannot have objective satisfaction. If you like women, from time to time you have objective satisfaction. If you like to eat too much, from time to time you can fill your stomach with it. But jealousy, you are never satisfied. And that’s the left’s only mortal sin. Jealousy. Look at Mr Mélenchon, he

is angry all the time. He's angry all the time. But besides, you also say in your book that there are points of convergence between the extreme left which you call, I believe, "the anointed of the Lord" and these "men of Davos". And you write in particular that the extreme left and the men of Davos “are natural allies in reducing us to slavery”. Yes. Because if you want, the... The... The men of Davos, through the immense fortunes behind them, have taken control of the media. And as long as you have control of the media, you can

have fun trying to enslave the population. So, as people on the left want to enslave the population, they will agree with people in the media. We enslave the population, and then we'll see what we do next. If you like, it's a bit like the communists and the... and the ayatollahs in Iran who agreed to overthrow the Shah, and then the ayatollahs liquidated the communists, because the communists had not did not have time to liquidate the ayatollahs. But first they agree to kill freedom. Look how the left supported the ayatollahs when they brought down the Shah.

You are young, but it's extraordinary, everyone... All the left-wing types were raving early about Ayatollah Khomeini, who was still a completely obtuse old fool, while the Shah was building a modern country . And people have been demonstrating in the streets in Iran for thirty or forty years, women have been murdered and the left has said nothing. Didn't they also support the Cambodian revolutionaries at the time, at the very beginning? Well, completely! I remember Jean Lacouture very well, this great man. When we started to learn that there were massacres, that they had massacred half the population,

we asked him: But did you know that? Why didn't you say anything? He said: Because Le Figaro announced it first and I cannot support theses defended by Le Figaro. So there was a genocide and Le Figaro, and what was the most serious was Le Figaro. That tells you how much these guys love humanity. In fact, we are no longer in the search for truth, but ultimately in ideology. That is, they cannot admit that they were wrong. They can't admit they were wrong. It's hilarious. I'm in the financial markets, I make mistakes every thirty seconds. And

I'm not dying from it. And you also speak of a desire to create a new man, moreover. But that's the goal of the French Revolution, it was to create a new man. We come back to it all the time. So, we were hit with the proletariat. Now, the new man is the immigrant who is the noble savage, who cannot have bad thoughts. I don't know if you saw the stunt that just happened with Google's artificial intelligence. Did you see that ? It came out in the last two or three days. Didn't you pay attention? Well,

Google you know is the archetype of the right-thinking of these men from Davos, well there is no worse than Google. Ideas... So you couldn't, for example, ask Google's artificial intelligence for a joke about Biden. You asked about Trump, you had three volumes, but about Biden you don't have the right. So there was a guy who said: Show me some elite German troops during the Reich. Photos, because they were photographic constructions. And these idiots made all the elite troops of the Reich black. Because the elites can only be black people. So they programmed their artificial intelligence

to stuff people's brains. That is to say, it's natural stupidity that they do, it's not artificial intelligence. And it's hilarious because they got caught red-handed, so they were forced to remove their program, finally they're in deep trouble. The value dropped by seventy billion dollars in one day, but that's taking you for... They want to manipulate images , ideas, etc., to put in your head that the crime always comes from the male white, never black people. It can come from blacks or whites since we all have original sin, we don't care . There is no difference.

That is to say, Black Lives Matter is very important because in Black Lives Matter, it also means that there are “only black lives that matter”. All lives matter. You see what I mean ? But not for them. Do you actually think that perhaps the election of Donald Trump in 2016 or... Well the election of Donald Trump, it's quite simple if you want, it's that it's was... For years in the United States, there were the important leaders of the two parties who had to meet in a quiet room when no one was looking, and who nominated

the two candidates. And then we presented them by saying you're going... It's as if we had had a presidential election, we had some that looked like that in fact, with Juppé on one side and Fabius on the other side, and who defend ideas... You look, they are the same, they are the same, they both have a criminal record, they are both on the Constitutional Council, because to be on the Constitutional Council you have to have a criminal record now, you know, it's... Roland Dumas had a criminal record, he was president of the Constitutional Council. Fabius

too, he has a criminal record. So we had fake debates, fake candidacies, and then in fact it was always the same group that governed. And then there was Trump who arrived, who had enough money to pay for his election on his own and he made an unbelievable mess of things. It's like Musk with... What Trump did to the political system, Musk did to the GAFA system, in one fell swoop to show that they were rotten to the core. Didn't the election and victory of Trump also have an effect on the desire to control the logos

on the part of these men from Davos? More and more. But that's where Musk came in and broke the deadlock with Twitter. And there are rumors that he is maybe trying to afford Disney, which is really the heart of the system. And if Musk manages to buy Disney, there will be panic in Hollywood, we will have to close the border to prevent them all from leaving. But in fact, they always say they're leaving but they always stay. But besides, Thierry Breton was quite critical of Elon Musk... Thierry Breton, let's talk about something else, please .

This is not serious. He's not a guy you can talk about, he's rubbish. He's the one who screwed up Atos. He is grotesque. So this is the type, the archetype of this type that I spoke to you about earlier, which has no qualities but which knows everything and which understands nothing. And what do you think of the DSA, the Digital Service Act, which is this European digital regulation? We have to put an end to this all the time . Amendment number two of the Constitution of the United States is that the Congress of the United

States shall make no law impeding the freedom of speech, period. So no one has the right to make a law to control what people say, but no one. The DSA will concern the European Union. But whether in the European Union or in my family, I forbid anyone to control what people want to say. It's... it's unheard of, morons like that... And besides, a pretty funny phenomenon happened, he told Elon Musk that he was going to, I don't know what, piss him off and everything. So, Elon Musk replied that he would do whatever had to be

done within the law, because that's how the United States works. Everything that is not prohibited is permitted. Whereas for Monsieur Breton, everything that is not permitted is prohibited because he is a big moron. And so he started to say that he was going to do what was necessary and that Mr. Musk could no longer do this or do that. And Musk told him: you know, it's annoying because Ariane, which sends rockets with satellites, they're two years late now. Because they can no longer fire their rockets. He gets some with his rocket system... He gets out

I don't know how many per month, and I think Europe needs lots of satellites, for example to monitor what's happening in Ukraine. . He said to her: You know, I might put you way back on the list if you keep bothering me. End of the discussion with Mr. Breton who was silent and said: well yes, because I need my satellites. To control people you need information. Where do they come from? Satellites . And who sends them, the satellites, is Musk. So if you want to control people, don't bother Musk. But if you don't piss off

Musk, he'll set the people free, so they're done. Musk is the new Solzhenitsyn. As the Russians were killed by… As the Soviet Union was killed by Solzhenitsyn, the GAFA will be killed by Musk. They don't know it yet, but it's obvious. And besides, we also have this fairly recent decision from the Council of State, which… It’s incredible! By Reporters Without Borders and who has... But Reporters Without Borders asks that... This guy arrived, I saw him on television, I was dying of laughter. He disguised himself as Che Guevara with something, a kind of green battledress, etc.

The guy must never have left the seventh arrondissement. And it's frightening that a journalist is asking for censorship... And as a result, the Council of State has ordered Arcom, the Audiovisual Communication Regulatory Authority, to re-examine the management of pluralism by CNews. But that means we're going to make files! Yes, because what is new is that now, in fact, it is no longer only the speaking time of political figures who intervene, which must be taken into account, but also that of columnists, guests or animators. So, for example, I don't know why, apparently in these columns, I

was told that I was far right, which makes me rather poiler because I am a good old quiet liberal in the style of Bastiat or Locke, or Benjamin Constant. So I'm a good old liberal, I have nothing... The liberal, if you like, is the one who seeks to protect citizens against being martyred by the State. And the extreme right is in principle, as Mussolini said, everything by the State, everything for the State, nothing outside the State. So calling me a fascist... The real enemy of fascism and Nazism has always been the liberals, it has never

been the socialists. Moreover, half of Pétain's government were former Popular Front guys. Moreover, Mussolini had belonged to the Italian Socialist Party. And Nazi means National Socialism, don't mess around. So if you want this kind of myth, that it was only the left who revolted against the Occupation in the 1940s, it's grotesque because... There are people from the right and people from the left who have come forward. They were people who loved their country. That's where the nation was coming back. So yes, it's very interesting. And what is quite emerging is that... You have today powers

in place in England, in France, in Germany, etc., which are legal but which are no longer legitimate . That is to say, they are hated by the population. And that is extremely dangerous politically. Because they use state powers to maintain power. But they no longer have people's support. And that's what always leads to... Finally, it ends with a pitchfork. We're going to pick them up with pitchforks at the Elysée. Well, we had the Yellow Vests a few years ago. The Yellow Vests, we hit them in the face. Now there are the peasants. Angry farmers. Angry

farmers. And the day it blows up is the day the police will be fed up. All these regimes fall when the police stop supporting them. So the day the police say: no, I'm not hitting the Yellow Vests, it's over. Do you have the feeling that the police are being used? We increased it, we're giving them a lot of money at the moment, but... She serves as a bit of a praetorian guard, in quotation marks, of the regime? There you have it. He goes for a walk at the farmers' fair and he is surrounded by three

battalions of CRS and two companies of gendarmes, so you say to yourself: but he takes us for tenches. He didn't go there alone. Normally, he would have taken his moped, gone to the market and gone up to the guys there and shook their hands. Nothing at all. He arrived surrounded by a Praetorian guard, huge guys, with bulletproof vests, well we say... To go see French peasants. You realize ? Have you passed in front of the Elysée? It has become a bunker. You can't go past, you can't go around, you're... But I remember when de Gaulle

was there, and everyone wanted to assassinate de Gaulle. Nobody wants to murder this bastard. But you went, you walked past the Elysée quietly when de Gaulle was there, and when Pompidou was there, and even when Giscard was there, and even Mitterrand. This guy is a coward, he's hiding in his bunker, it's grotesque. And he knows he is hated. And how do you explain the fact that he was still able to be re-elected for a second term? First, there are lots of people who didn't vote. And then what this brave Stalin said, who was nevertheless a

specialist, was: what counts in an election is not what people vote, it's who counts the votes, it's much more important. We saw it in the United States. I think that in France the elections were fair, but... I don't know. It's incomprehensible. But besides, you are talking about the communists. We had Emmanuel Macron who, during the tribute at the Pantheon to Missak Manouchian, spoke of the “communist ideal”, I believe. Finally, he had rather laudatory remarks on communism. They really take us for fools because... What I would like to know, I studied all that well but... He

was certainly a very good man, he was executed by the Germans, etc. But we would have to know when he started to resist, did he start after the Germans made Barbarossa to return to Russia or before? Because the real resistance are those who started before. Did he resist to defend France? Or did he resist to defend Russia, the Soviet Union? At that time, if he resisted to defend the Soviet Union, I wouldn't mind him being in the Pantheon there, in Russia. You see what I mean, it's... Yes, because we remember that before the invasion of

Germany by... Well of Russia by Germany, there was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which was a non-aggression pact. And the leaders of L'Humanité were at the Kommandantur in 1940 to request the publication of L'Humanité and to explain that they were very ready to help in the factories, etc. And Georges Marchais went to do the work in Germany, voluntarily. Yes, that is to say that the leaders of the French Communist Party were subservient to Moscow at the time. So they started to resist once we attacked Moscow, but before then there was nothing at all. So this Pantheon thing

bothers me a little. We talked about the DSA, this famous European digital regulation. We also have the Central Bank and the European Commission working on… That’s rubbish. a digital euro. A digital euro is rubbish, it’s unimaginable rubbish. What do you think ? Well, if you want, what that means is that you will no longer have your account in your usual bank, but at the central bank. There will be a direct link between your account and the central bank, and like that the central bank will know exactly where you go, what you buy, who you had

lunch with, where... So it is a surveillance instrument but unheard of. So what I tell people is: collect as much cash as possible if you want to stay free. Moreover, the Italian Prime Minister said that under no circumstances would she ban cash and that she would allow people to use it more and more. So at least she saw the danger. But it's one of those things, if you like, it's like, you know, the little form that we had to fill out, the little program that we had in our phone when we had covid. The app.

The app, etc. Well, the next step is we're going to take that from you and we're going to turn it into a license to consume energy. You've flown to the United States three times, that's too many. You've been... You've driven down to your house in the South twice , that's too many. So this will allow us to say: Sir, you have used all your energy coefficient for this year and now you are staying. Their goal, if you like, is that... All liberations always involve an increase in freedom of movement. As soon as a country becomes

rich, as soon as it becomes free, people rush to the next country to see how they live, it's funny but men love to wander around to see how others are doing, you see. So the goal of humans is to carry around everywhere to meet others. And they want to connect us to the soil. You know, as we were in the Middle Ages, we were peasants attached to the soil, we had no right to abandon it. They want to turn us back into serfs, that's their goal. And they will be the lords. That's their goal. For

you, this digital euro could... We must above all ban this! It could be a programmable currency that would allow, as you say... It allows total surveillance. And then to restrict access to certain goods in the name of... In the name of energy. In the name of ecology… In the name of energy. You're going to give your credit card to buy a steak or a rib of beef for I don't know how much. And the thing will look in your account and say no, you've already eaten three prime ribs this month, no, no, no. Now you

take artificial meat or insects. Since they want to feed us insects. So these are tools that could be put at the service of a political vision and become instruments... They are created to enslave us, all. The obligation... If you like, we have had the greatest... the greatest decline in our individual freedoms because of covid. No more right to go to mass, no more right to assemble, no more right... It was in real time the abolition of all our constitutional rights and no one said anything, especially not the Council of 'State elsewhere. Nor the Church, to

my amazement. In the past, when there was an epidemic, we did processions, we all got together, we stuck together, that way everyone caught it, but at least it was good, we found ourselves together . Nothing. No more a procession, no more a church, no more nothing. Everything closed. We found ourselves at home. There are a number of divorces. Moreover, this restriction of freedoms has always… It is always done “in the name of good”. Always, but all these guys are still slaughtering us in the name of good. In the name of the collective good, the common

good. Good. Ah, they always massacre us, they massacre us, they put us in slavery, but it is for our good. You also speak in your book of the “great return of collective morality”. There is no such thing as a collective morality . There can only be individual morality. You say that this idea is completely contrary to our civilization. Completely contrary. The basis of our civilization is that there is law which applies collectively, and there is morality which is individual. So what a great... a great... one of the great French philosophers said eleven centuries ago, who

was called Abelard, he said: the State must deal with crime, but in no case with sin. But now, they talk to us about sin all the time, they have become priests. They annoy us, you consume too much, you go too much... you laugh too much, you don't behave well, you say stupid things on television, so you are... Because the most surprising thing about these guys- Now, what amazes me the most is how annoying they are. That is to say, we can no longer laugh. I don't know, there... 150 years ago, everyone came to France because

the French laughed all the time, everything amused them, they were a cheerful people. Today, we're all pumped up on antidepressants and we 've become grim. And they're even more sinister than everyone else, they're annoying. And they are boring. They're ugly, they're boring and their goal is to annoy everyone . You realize ? As a goal in life to annoy everyone? It's frightening. You also say that this collective morality can be a marker, precisely, of socialist thought. Completely. Completely, because first they spot you. If you say: well no, I don't accept your thing. Take something that

seems completely unheard of to me, which is putting abortion in the Constitution. The abortion was passed with Ms. Veil on condition that there was a conscience clause for all doctors. The doctor who did not want to have an abortion could not have an abortion. But from the moment it is in the Constitution, that is to say the supreme law, will the doctor be able to say no? And so their kind of collective morality applies to something essential which is, is the fetus a child or not? And when is he a child? And do I have

the right to kill him or not? But that comes out of each individual. Of every woman, of every man. But it's not a decision that the state can make, because if they decide that they can kill fetuses, tomorrow they can decide that they can kill Jews or they can kill Arabs, or that they can kill white people, or that they can kill... Do you know what I mean? From the moment it is the collective that determines the sin, you can commit all crimes. That's how all the guys ended up in the concentration camps, guarding the

concentration camps because they were given orders and it was explained to them that the Jews were subhuman. Those who resisted were those who never accepted that Jews were considered subhuman. So for me it's abominable, because moving from collective morality to individual morality is what allows men to be free men. If you are forbidden from having your individual morals, you are screwed. And you say: “Collective morality is the beginning of horror. » This is the beginning of the horror. The only resister is the guy who says no, I don't accept this order. So you also explain

in your book that “the destruction of France as a nation was wanted and organized”. And you insist in particular on the destruction of the French economy by the various governments which have succeeded one another in recent years. How is this destruction of the French economy voluntary for you? For a very simple reason, if you like, but which is quite, perhaps quite profound. This is because I have always considered that France was an alternative civilization to the Anglo-Saxon world. That is to say that we are... We have another way of living, we have another way of

seeing the world, we have another way of... And we have been a very powerful nation which has very successful. So, if I had to say something stupid, which I never do of course, I would say that France was the favorite girl. And that the girl who is not the favorite girl, the Anglo-Saxon world, has only one idea and that is to pay for the favorite girl because probably the French project was the one that did the most laugh God. Because people loved each other if you like, men loved women, and then we liked to eat,

and then we were gay, and then... When you read the Gospels, Christ spends half his time at the table, and so... He drank wine. He seemed very happy to drink wine. I believe that France had succeeded in creating this beauty which made people in France live in beauty, were happy. Whereas in the rest of the world, that wasn't really the case. And that makes… it makes people crazy. When someone is happy if you like and everyone is unhappy, everyone falls on the happy one, he's the scapegoat, everyone wants to hit him. We come back to

envy and jealousy. Exactly. Happy as God in France, say the Germans. What do you think of the action of Emmanuel Macron and Bruno Lemaire on the French economy in recent years? We're going to jump in the next twenty-four months . We're not going to pass, it's not going to pass. I did some small calculations, we're going to end up... We're going to need something like 300 billion euros to raise this year in the financial markets. In my opinion, that doesn't work. That is to say that the markets could refuse to lend us part of this

sum? And at that point, what are they going to do? They will block your accounts. They will collect the money from your account. Besides, we heard from Bruno Le Maire quite recently… I said to myself: wow! Compared to a European loan. A European loan, but which is prohibited by the treaties, I point out to you. Finally, “a European savings product”. No, no, but the European treaties prevent France from being guaranteed by other countries or from France guaranteeing another country, it is in the German constitution. So we can't... They can freely come and invest with us,

buy French bonds if they are stupid, the Dutch or the Germans. But we can't force them to buy bonds. So what they're going to do is they're going to take a bite... They're going to take for example... They're going to stop reimbursing life insurance since that's already provided for by the Sapin law. And then they will go and use, as the government of Cyprus did, your bank account. Do you think this is a really plausible perspective? Well otherwise it doesn't work. And then when they have done that and they have taken all our money, well

it will be Argentina. The future of France is Argentina or Venezuela. And you also talk in your book, precisely, about what you call “a debt trap”. The debt trap is not difficult, it is a very simple concept. This is because if you borrow at five and you invest at two, after a certain time, the exponentials at five grow much faster than the exponentials at two and you jump. But now, the borrowing rates at which France borrows are higher than the GDP growth rate. So that means that we are arriving at the moment where the debt

begins to accelerate absolutely exponentially while wealth no longer grows, and that is always where the country jumps. So that's it, we're in a debt trap. When you talk about 300 billion, so what is the sum that the French State must borrow this year, in fact it is a sum which will also be used to repay the interest? There are approximately 170 billion coming from the new deficit. You have about 30 or 40 billion coming from rising interest rates. You have about a hundred or a little more billion coming from stuff issued seven years ago or

ten years ago and which is maturing. And then you have... You arrive at close to 300 billion like that, but I don't see how it's going to happen, who is going to lend us 300 billion? And what's more if we have a recession, because I think we are entering a recession in France, if we have a recession, we will collect another 100 billion more... Because tax revenues will drop and all expenses will increase. So it is not impossible that we will need to raise 400 billion this year. But it doesn't happen. I don't understand how

this can be avoided. But what surprises me is that I make Excel tables like all my friends and everything, I look at that and I say to myself, this doesn't work , but am I the only one to do it? But at Bercy, they do nothing? They do n't warn the president that there is a wolf? You know what I mean is... I don't know, but the president doesn't know how to make a rule of three work? Well, Bruno Le Maire doesn't know . We know that because he did Normale Supérieure Lettres. But the president

has been to the Financial Inspectorate, they must know the rule of three at the Financial Inspectorate. Not sure. Not sure. They should not be overestimated. And besides, how do you explain the fact that France, which is still a champion of tax pressure, I believe that we are world champion this year. World champion this year, yes. So a compulsory deduction rate of 45%, more than 45%. And these compulsory deductions cover 60% of expenses. That is to say, what we don't say is that 40% of the expenses are covered by the loan. So we are champions of

pressure and with that we do not succeed in getting justice, the police, the army, or anything to work. But where does the money go? Yes that's it. How do we explain this… I don’t know. I said, the first thing that needs to be done in France is to carry out an audit of state spending, to find out where the money is going. That's what a guy like Charles Prats says. He says: there are 67 million French people or I don’t know how many, and there are 72 million Vitale cards. Perhaps we could try to understand…

Where the difference comes from. Why are there five million Vitale cards that no one knows why they are there? No, no, no, you shouldn't hurt people. Because we see that there is also ... The State has a lot of difficulty maintaining the quality of public services, we see this every year with hospitals and education. Nothing works anymore. The police, the justice system, the army. Every time things are not going well in France, people tell me: the State must do something. I tell them: definitely not! Because show me something that the State has taken charge of

for forty years, pensions or I don't know anything about it, and which works. So definitely not! Don't ask anything from the State, especially Sire you have done enough for us, Sire don't help me! And you also say in your book that a large part of the French people “are convinced that they are the object of organized theft” on the part of the State. Well, obviously. That’s what you just told me, right? In selected terms. You explained to me that money is stolen from us everywhere and that you don't know what it's for. Well, it's not

lost on everyone. So the question is: who are these guys for whom this is not lost? Maybe we could try to spot them. Isn't there also what we call the administrative millefeuille, that is to say a lot of... Whatever the reason, I know, but whatever the reason. Anyone who makes an Excel spreadsheet at five years old knows that in at least five years, it will be over. So what I don't understand is this whole class who continues to explain to us that they all think it will last. But what Oscar Wilde said, who was... who

had a lot of wit, when he was asked how did you ruin yourself, he said: slowly at the beginning and very quickly at the end, that is to say that It takes years to ruin a country like France. And then when you are really ruined, the fall is so rapid... It will be like a sudden... And then there will be a drop in the standard of living which will be appalling. And who will take the most in the mouth? The little people. Yes, that's it, the first victims are... They're the little people, they're the farmers,

they're the Yellow Vests. They are always the ones who taste the most. I find it absolutely odious. You also talk about the destruction of the French industrial system in your book. Well yes, we sold everything. And yet, Emmanuel Macron has made reindustrialization his hobby horse. There isn't really much connection between what this man says and what he does. So for you, the ambitions in terms of reindustrialization are not... People make me laugh. For a very simple reason, it is that the cash flow, that is to say roughly when you are... what remains once you have

paid everything from the companies, once you have amortized, that you paid the salaries, everything. There remains the gross cash flow of French companies, producing in France, not producing abroad because that is something else. It is approximately between 50% and 70% of the gross margin of Italian, English or German companies. And 50% of the gross cash flow of Swiss companies. So, how do you want to achieve reindustrialization if the profitability of capital is half of what it is in Switzerland? If you are a little bit smart, you put your factory in Switzerland. You must be completely

stupid. So there is no industry in France because... But there is an extraordinary paradox in France, which is that we no longer have an industry, but we have very good values industrial. You have Air Liquide, you have Schneider, you have… you have around fifteen like that. Total. But they no longer produce anything in France. They have their headquarters in France, they have their board of directors in France, but they produce outside because… They closed all their factories in France because it was not worth it, but that is to say we kept an intellectual capacity, which

is not the case in England, which This is not the case for Italy. And so we have kept a ruling class which knows how to do industry, but which has no interest in doing it in France. If one day France becomes a normal country again, they will come back. And they will set up factories right away. And at that point, the cash flow will be double what it is in Switzerland today. Which implies that we leave the euro, that we leave Europe and that we stop all this nonsense. There is also on this question of

reindustrialization, the question of compatibility with the objectives of decarbonization and ecological transition. We're not done, if we start going there, we're not done. What you call by the way… I think you call solar panels “magic mirrors”, and wind turbines “windmills”. It's no use, it doesn't work. We have spent 7,000 billion euros worldwide on these things and they are intermittent industries which are of no use. On the other hand, oil companies spent 700 billion per year on research to find gas, oil and everything, it fell to 300 billion because the banks no longer lend to them.

And twenty years ago , around 82% of the world's energy came from fossil fuels. So we spent 7,000 billion euros to change that. And today we are at 82%. We have made zero progress. So we spent 7000 billion euros for nothing. And you take the share price of green companies, they have gone crazy, it's terrible, because they don't make a cent. If it weren't for the subsidies, they would all be bankrupt. And you take the stock price of Total or Royal Dutch... So sensible people... There is no sensible person who invests in that because the

only profitability is if you impoverish others by intermediary of subsidies. There are people who made a lot of money from the subsidies, which were once again taken from the little people. In each electricity bill there is the subsidy that you pay for the ten families who have installed solar mills or wind panels, or I don't know what I call it. You also talk a lot about the EDF case in your book. It's monstrous, the EDF case, it's... It was a deliberate destruction to please the Germans. Succeed... You have to have done very long studies to

do this, because to succeed in indexing the price of electricity in France on the gas spent by the Germans, whereas we don't make gas with... we does not make electricity with gas, you must have done the Financial Inspectorate because I never understood how they could have done this. Why did they index the price of electricity in France to the price of gas? Especially since these stupid Germans don't even use gas anymore, they burn coal now. It's really taking us for tenches. This is where sovereignty comes in, it is... The French spent under de Gaulle, Giscard,

Pompidou, etc., lots of money to achieve their energy independence, well we keep it quiet for us. And then our electricity will be cheaper and we will have industries that will stay in France. There is no reason for others to benefit from the investments we have made. The Germans who have closed their power plants, let them die. I don't give a damn about it. The Germans are not my problem, it's not me who manages them. You also say in your book that for a liberal, you are not against a monopoly. There are places... there are places...

The problem... The problem is you have places where the duration of the investment is so long that you can't do economic calculation. For example the energy cycle, I worked a lot on it, it's between thirty-five and forty years. That is to say you have... You see an energy cycle with a low in 1920, and then in 1950, and then in 1981, and then it goes up again. And you see, there is this energy cycle, you see it very well. Well, he's here. And that is to say that... That is to say that the moment... is

the moment when, the investments not having been made, if suddenly demand increases because for example , India begins to boom, demand increases, we go from 100 to 102, to 103 million barrels per day and there are only 98. And at that moment, it is the moment when the oil prices quadruple. Boom! Because it is very inelastic in relation to prices, the demand for energy. So we are at a time when energy risks... Fossil energy risks seeing its price rise extraordinarily. At that point, we're made like rats. But when you see... When they were caught with

Pompidou and Giscard, and even before with De Gaulle, to obtain energy independence for France we built power stations which gave us forty or fifty years of vision. But if you take... Interest rates were seven, eight, ten at the time. If you try to calculate the present value of an investment that will pay off in forty years at 7% or 10%, it's zero today, because the discount effect is so strong. So, there are places where the private sector cannot go because the duration is too long, but that is energy. And so at that point, you say

to yourself: perhaps it is the government's responsibility to bet that nuclear energy will be better than others. Now is the time to make French society less fragile. This is the government's prerogative. So, there are places, in fact, where we can have public monopolies, yes. But you have to be very careful because it has to have a very long duration. There aren't that many. And so you also talk in your book about the right to property on this question, you say that all our economic setbacks also come mainly from the fact that the French State constantly

flouts the right to property. All the time. But look… The squatters. If you have a squatter in Texas, it lasts 24 hours, not even 2 hours. The cops arrive and chase him away with great force. The Paris town hall or I don't know who decided that housing which was poorly protected against the cold would no longer be rentable. So all of a sudden, you have 10% to 15% of apartments in Paris which become unrentable and their value has collapsed. But what gives him the right to do that? If people want to be cold and not

warm. Plus there isn't 10% to replace that. So there is going to be a monstrous housing shortage, we can already see it. The tax on... If you want the tax on real estate that we are in the process of raising, the tax on rents, we are blocking rents so... It's not up to you. In addition, once you are dead, they steal 60% from you, you have worked your whole life like a rat, you put money aside for your children, they steal 60% from you. You have paid taxes all along and in the end you still

have to pay taxes. When I was in Hong Kong, I lived in Hong Kong for ten years, it was great, my tax return, they sent it to me saying: you earned so much this year, send it us 17%, thank you very much. I sent them a check, and there's no point in committing fraud at that point, there's no point in setting up shoddy structures. At 17%, you say to yourself, I'm not going to bother, I'll pay. And what's more, things worked well in Hong Kong, the administration worked. So today, the state... You have three ways

of raising taxes: to pay for public services, to pay for some kind of improvement of society like... I don't know, education for those who need it , the stock exchanges in the past, and the third is to react to social justice, that is to say, to promote equality. And so we find ourselves brought back to the previous problems. Equality is hell. And besides, I don't know if you saw a study which was published by INSEE at the end of December and which once again revives the idea of ​​taxing fictitious rents from owners. They did it

to me. And is that something that could… But why? By what right ? But by what right? What gives the government the right to take money that was not earned anywhere? But that's always the question I ask people, if you want to take someone else's money they explain to you that it's being noble and generous, but I've never understood why if I want to keep my money it's selfish and if someone wants to take it from me, it's generous. You can explain to me ? What are they buying with my money? The asshole vote? If

you subsidize people who don't work and if you tax those who work, you shouldn't be surprised if unemployment increases. Today, everywhere in France, you can't find work even though there are plenty of... You can't find workers, because the guy prefers to stay at home, he gets paid more by staying at home. You also say, moreover, that the political class is never held responsible for its failures, that the system protects itself... That's what I'm saying, if you like, is that in the past... always, there is the people, above the people there is the administration to run

the necessary machines, these are people who have done very long studies with a horse's memory and who have no no character, that's why they are in the administration. And then above that, you have the political function whose goal is to be thunderstruck when they are wrong. So, the administrative function took control of the political function from Giscard and we no longer have a political function. All we have left is an administrative function that has gone crazy. We no longer have politics, it's over. The difference between Juppé and Fabius... They are both bald, they are both

ugly. I do not see. That is to say that there is no longer a statesman, someone who has stature... But if there is one, he is liquidated immediately. You know, that's what Churchill said: in politics, there is the time of the lions and the time of the jackals. We are in the time of the jackals, but the lions will return because with the days ahead, it is not the jackals who will solve the problems. The sovereign in France, according to the Constitution, is the people who are sovereign. And so the people must regain power. Because

for thirty years we have been talking about problems to be solved that do not interest us, and no one is addressing the problems that interest us, such as education, justice or immigration. So perhaps we should be the ones to decide with a referendum and the first… The first referendum should be, perhaps, can civil servants play politics? If they do, they must resign from public service forever. This is the case in Germany, the United States and Great Britain. It is only in France where they can play politics. They are beaten the next time and they return

to their original body where their careers will continue as if nothing had happened. So the politicians who come to France, who are all civil servants, do not take any risks by doing politics since whatever happens, they will find themselves paid the same way. So the first thing is to make the official ineligible. You also talk about liberalism in your book, recalling that it is not an economic theory, but that it is a legal doctrine. It's a legal doctrine, a legal doctrine, that's all. Today, liberalism often appears, as you say, as the “ultimate abomination” on the

left, but not only on the right. We regularly hear from right-wing people... It simply proves that people have no culture, know nothing and that they only repeat the stupid things they read in the newspapers and listen to on television. Liberalism, if you like, is the only way we have found in history to prevent the monster that is the State, which we created to protect us, from martyring us. The only problem with political science is that you created this thing... You are a nation, you need a state to protect you against internal enemies, external enemies, once

you have created it , he has a monopoly on violence, how do you ensure that this guy who has a monopoly on violence does not torture you ? This is the only interesting question in political science. The only valid answer that was given was by Locke. No one else gives an answer. And isn't there also... Because today when we hear people who, precisely, criticize liberalism or neoliberalism, we more often hear people criticizing neoliberalism, is that Is there no confusion with what we call crony capitalism, for example? Yes, it was me who created the name crony

capitalism a few years ago, but that has nothing to do with it. It's as if you were saying that... I don't know, you're comparing the parish priest with the highwayman . Crony capitalism is a crime. They are criminals. Liberalism is a guy who lives within the law. So you tell me that... You put a name on it, you call it neoliberalism as if people went from respecting the law to being criminals. Well no. The liberal, by definition, respects the law. But aren't the people who criticize liberalism wrong, precisely... But they are not wrong. There are

only two possibilities: either they are wrong and they are morons, they have never read anything and they know nothing. Which is not impossible. Or on the other hand, if you want, they lie because it suits them. Because, as Boudon, who was a sociologist that I liked, said, he said why is liberalism hated by intellectuals in France? Because in a liberal country, they would be paid at their true value. You also recall that liberalism allowed in three centuries the doubling of life expectancy in the West and then throughout the world, the end of slavery, education for

all, the rise in the standard of living… Yes . And it is he who is accused of all the sins of the world. And you will see that French intellectuals are... There is not a tyrant they have not loved. It's still surprising. When you think about it, Stalin they loved. You had a bunch of them who liked Hitler too. Mussolini fascinated them. Pol Pot let's not talk about it. Mao, when I was twenty, there was only one for Mao. Ho Chi Minh, nothing better. And they spent their time saying bad things about poor Pompidou, Giscard

or... who were rather good people, who didn't kill anyone. Well Mitterrand, I'm not sure. You also talk a little about currency when you talk about the destruction of France, the voluntary destruction. You talked a little about the euro earlier, you seemed very critical of the euro. Of course, that can't work. For you, did that also really contribute to destroying the French economy? Well, listen, I'll explain this to you quickly. For historical reasons, we have 70% more civil servants per 10,000 inhabitants than the Germans. Personally, I don't give a damn, it's not my problem. If the

French are happy to have lots of civil servants, that's not my thing. So how did things go over time? French companies must pay these civil servants additionally, because of the cost of the head office. France is higher in France than in Germany, so taxes are higher. So the way they coped was that because there were far fewer civil servants in Germany than in France, the French currency was falling over time. So we paid civil servants in monkey currency, if I dare say so, and businessmen, with the currency falling, exported in the currency of the next

country and they earned a good living. So the French industrial system remained profitable because the currency was devalued. But now, if you block the exchange rate, we can no longer devalue and at that point, what does the adjustment variable become? It becomes the profits of French companies which collapse and all the factories close. This is what I wrote twenty-five years ago, and this is exactly how it goes. And after that, twenty-five years later, the idiots who imposed the euro on us are saying that we are going to reindustrialize France. But they are stupid, it's crying.

And how do you precisely explain that the euro has managed to hold on, is still alive today? Because they didn't respect any of the rules that were there in the beginning, if you will. When Mr Draghi arrived, he did not have the right to buy government bonds, the Central Bank did not have the right to finance budget deficits. The balance sheet of the Central Bank, the ECB, has been multiplied by five, that is to say that the money supply has increased by five and the wealth created in ten years has increased by 20%. That's what

we call "quantitative easing", when the Central Bank buys back public debts... There you have it, the bonds. But it was forbidden by the treaties. So they didn't follow any of the rules. And that also contributed to creating monetary inflation? That simply means... But if you put interest rates at zero, etc., what happens? It's that people who really have money like Mr. Arnault, he puts his building on the Champs-Elysées as collateral, and then he borrows a few more billions at zero and he goes to buy the building opposite the Champs- Elysees. So the rich are getting

richer and richer. But there are no more buildings. So labor productivity falls because no one makes investments, everyone speculates in real estate and therefore, as labor productivity falls, the poor become even poorer. So the ECB's policy was made for Goldman Sachs and the one who paid was the Yellow Vest. And I've been saying it for twenty years, and we see the results every day. It enriches the rich and impoverishes the poor. So, they stopped doing “quantitative easing”. It's been over since... From the moment inflation rose to 5% or 6% or 7%, it was over. But

you picked up a mess on the bond markets... Ten-year French bonds still lost 25%. So all the people who had life insurance, bam! 25% in the teeth. Because we also often hear people who say that if we leave the euro, it will be a disaster for France. Wait, I'm going to stop you for a second. It was explained to me that if we entered the Euro, it would be a huge success for twenty-five years. It was a disaster. So the same tough guys, like Attali, who are going to say that women will be more beautiful,

the weather will be nice all the time, we're going to become rich... So this tough guy, now he's explaining to you that if we go out it's going to be a disaster, but why do you believe it? He has been wrong about everything for forty years. He was always wrong about everything. But stop being afraid of people who said stupid things to you fifty years ago, who continue to say stupid things. They have no credibility. You have to chase them away with slats. Moreover, in the last part of your book which is called “The defeat

of the technocrats and the victory of the people”, you are very optimistic about the outcome... Very optimistic, very optimistic. That is to say, we are going to get rid of... That's what I always say, that's what the Germans say. It is better to end in horror than to have horror without end. Well we come to a horrifying end. We're going to take a lot of it, but we'll be free. And so we will be happy. You say that the society of control that is being prepared for us is extraordinarily fragile and that all technocratic power

structures generally collapse at once. Very quickly, very quickly, very quickly. Everyone says it will last a thousand years, like the Reich, and then it lasts twelve years. It ends badly, it's not... It's not a good moment, it's... No, but we're going to... It's all going to blow up with great enthusiasm. There were some who lasted a little longer. The USSR still lasted... Yes, but they also killed thirty or forty million people. If you can murder people, it might last a little longer, but still... I don't know if we'll do it again. Well, you never know,

they might be quite stupid. And you also say that for you it's... You don't believe at all in collective efforts to get rid of collectivism. Only individual initiative. What brought down collectivism was Solzhenitsyn. And John Paul II. That's all. So each of us must become better. Let people realize that we are good around you, that it's like a... an oil stain. What I always say to everyone is that education is about teaching children to say no. No, I won't do that . And if there are more and more people saying that, I won't do it,

they're screwed. You talk about refusing lies too. Refuse the lie, refuse the… The lie must not pass through you. That's Solzhenitsyn. Yes. That is to say that you have the right, if your life is at stake for example, or your career, to say nothing. But you don't have to repeat it. You can keep quiet, but you can't tell the lie because at that point you're screwed. Isn't being silent and not denouncing the lie just half the... It's half, but at least... But if you start contributing to the lie, you become a liar. And how, for

you, are the notions of truth and freedom linked? This is the end of my book, it is to say... It is John Paul II's definition of freedom which says: freedom is being able and wanting to do what one must do . So the power is that we don't stop you from doing it. Wanting it means you have the internal strength to do it and you have something in your head that tells you what needs to be done. You are... you... It's not license, freedom is to be... to stand up straight. Well yes, so you have

the power, the will and the duty. But if you can do it, you'll be fine. And at least you will be happy and the people around you will be happy. Thank you very much, Charles Gave, for answering our questions. My pleasure.