Fitch Dégrade la France : l'esclavagisme par la dette !

My friends, good evening, welcome to the Aldoceran Channel, the factory of standard revolutionaries. No, let's reduce France's grade from AA to single A or higher. The higher is the consolation prize. So where are we at? If you want, you have below A, you have triple B. I think Italy is in there. And triple B is the last step in, if you like, before. Well, before the sewers. It means once you go below triple B, you are in the so called zone, you are no longer in the investment zone, you are in the so called speculation zone. So here we are in the cold, right? So, well, you do what you want, but it's a bit of a jungle. In the immediate future, what is likely to happen to France is that some large investment funds, foreign pension funds and others, what they are going to do is probably start selling French paper, French debt, they won't want it. They have nothing against France, but quite simply, if you like, they have criteria, criteria that make them enter and criteria that make them have to exit. And when these criteria are met, well, that's it. The rest is automatic, Right? So the markets are currently sanctioning the inability of Macron and the people who gravitate around him to manage the country. When you look at the figures, all the figures for the French economy are extremely worrying. We won't go into detail, but we will go into detail on other things tonight. So, before coming to make this video, I read about 30 articles, which is completely unusual for me. I don't usually read them, I don't watch others, etc.

Why?

Before I come and make a video.

Why?

Because I don't want to be influenced. The flesh is weak. I don't want to be influenced against my will by other content. And for this to prevent me from giving you a unique, original, fresh perspective, which can sometimes accidentally align with what has been said, but which can also be completely different. So I was shocked by the 30 articles I read.

Why?

Because they all repeat the same thing. Not one of them goes into depth on the subject or really explains what is happening. So, my friends, I'm going to tell you something very simple. You know, I don't want to. Or maybe it's not even a question of wanting to, it's that things are what they are. Maybe one day I'll draw my own conclusions. Maybe one day I won't be here anymore. Maybe I'll retire, right? I want to leave behind revolutionaries when I'm no longer here, every day, people who have the tools to continue this march. So that's why today we're going to go beyond the headlines. We're going to go. And I really thank you for being here because I'm going to tell you something. Most people aren't interested in what's beyond the headline. Look at the headline. It stops. I know that you're not like that. The proof is that you're here. So I'd like to thank each and every one of you for being here. That's it. So let's stop the, let's stop the Salome and we're going to talk a little bit about debt confiscation through debt and what that means today, because the Fitch story is not, it's not just, well, there you have it. France Macron behaved badly. We're going to punish him, we're going to give him a bad rating. Worse than that, if you like the markets that give money, easy money, easy money. And then after a while, they start to tighten the noose around the neck of the victim, who is over indebted. Once over indebtedness sets in and the victim really starts to have problems, well, what do they do? They're going to worsen the technical situation of the Zerie. They're going to worsen the situation by downgrading the rating. By downgrading the rating, they will automatically increase the interest because those who are going to lend money to France will say, well, your rating is bad. I'm ready to give you a little bit of money, but I want to have a. I want to cover my risks with you because you are still a creditor, you are risky people, right? So what I want, what I want, you are a loan or risky borrower. So what I want is a risk premium quote. And at that point, what is going to happen to the country that is over indebted? Well, the bill, the burden of the debt will become higher and higher and we are heading towards a logic of confiscation. So let me tell you, a lot of contemporaries associate the history of the French debt with 1973, January 1973, the Giscar Pompidou law on the subject, which stated in extremely twisted terms, which simply said that the state, the French government does not have the right to borrow at zero interest. It's not zero interest. It simply does not have the right to borrow from the bank de France. The bank de France does not have the right to borrow from the French government. This mechanism was later strengthened by Maastricht, Lisbon and so on. But broadly speaking, this is the point we're going back to. In reality, this Is not true in reality. I'm going to tell you several things today on this subject and a very important point about 1973. The 1973 Seller IT law in reality is not that it prohibited the Banque de France from holding French debt. This is not true. Often it is sold like that, and it is not true. Once again, in reality, this is what happens. In reality, the law prohibited the bank de France from lending directly to the public treasury, but nothing did not forbid him. What does that mean? To lend to him indirectly? Let me tell you. It means that in practice it works like this. The state issued bonds, so it liked a demand for debt, right? Private banks buy them. The bank of France does not have the right to buy them. Private banks buy them, demand interest in return. They say, okay, I'll lend you, I want time. So a market is made and then the banks buy French debt. The next moment, sometimes five minutes later, the bank of France comes on the secondary market and buys French government debt from private banks. That means that in reality what we did with the 1973 law was to force the government to have a mandatory intermediary. We told the government, okay, you can still borrow from the bank of France. So in reality, the 1973 law does not prohibit the bank of France from holding French debt. In fact it can and. And it holds a lot of it to this day. But in fact, what it says is that it does not have the right to acquire it directly. It must acquire it through intermediaries and must therefore pay them commissions. So what often happens is that there is a run. The banks sell, the government buy the. There are even sometimes blows, collusions, aren't there, where there are phone calls that are made. Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, buy it time. I'll buy it back from you right away and I'll give you a bonus. So what we did was create rentiers. We created rentiers, intermediaries who are just there to parasitize, right to parasitize the state and take money. Just to tell you what we did now, one thing is that this is not something. This is not a mechanism or a phenomenon that dates back to 1973. It is a mechanism that can be traced back a very long time. And today we are going to read a very interesting document. I am going to read you a few passages and explain them to you. But I really recommend that you read the entire book. I am going to go to chapter 24 of the book Capital by Karl Marx. And here I am in the first volume. The first volume was published in 1867. I emphasize 1867. You see, this is more than a century before the 1973 law. Okay, so just to give you an idea, let me tell you that this story is nothing new. And I'm going to tell you how debt imprisons people. It doesn't imprison them by accident, it imprisons them by design. It's a prison, isn't it? It's a structural prison. It's structurally designed to imprison people and expropriate them. So I'm telling you, uh, I'm on page 847. I always like to give my sources. You see, the system of public credit, that is to say state debts, the origins of which we discover in the Middle Ages in Genoa and Venice, took hold of the whole of Europe during the period of manufactures.

Okay.

In 1800, in the 1800s, he's writing that the period of manufactures. Manufacture, that means between the 16th and 18th centuries. Right. We have a system of public credit. We have a public debt system that is starting to eat away at the system. So I'll continue. State debt, that is to say the alienation of the state, whether despotic, constitutional or republican, I could add royalist, or whatever leaves its mark on the capitalist climate. The only part of the so called national wealth that is actually held globally by modern peoples and their public debt. So yes, indeed, it's quite extraordinary. Do you realize that you have countries that are said to be rich? In other words, the United Kingdom, a very rich country, France. Yes. Well, the G7, an extremely rich country. Yes. But when you talk to the people and address them, the only thing they really hold is the public debt. But where is the public wealth? I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that.

Okay.

You blame the public debt because very often you look at the newspapers, they say it's been a while, the debt has increased this year. It's been a while household or its time per French person, for example, or time per British person. So we divide the debt by the number of people.

Oh, okay.

And we are told, we are spoken to, we are addressed as if we had taken this money and then we have been burned. But then where is the public wealth? So you see the public debt and the property of the people. And we will see a little bit what this will lead to as a consequence. Hence the modern doctrine, quite consistent, which states that the more we borrow, the more a people without debt, the richer they become. There you have it. We are rich. We are rich in debt. We are rich in Negative public credit becomes the credit of capital. And the sin against the Holy Spirit that knows no forgiveness is followed by the failure to believe in public debt. So there you have it. In April, we have the sin that knows no forgiveness, so that is the sin against the Holy Spirit. And then we are going to replace it, right? Because that we are going to take out religion, okay, the secularists now we are going to take out religion and we are going to have the sin against the public debt, or the lack of faith in the public debt, which is what I am doing tonight in front of you. So what we are going to do is as if by a magic wand, it gives unproductive money, a procreative talent that transforms it into capital without it having to expose itself to the disruption and risk of industrial investments and even US serious investments. That means the advantage with this has always been the advantage of lenders. It is that in a way they do not need to take any risks, especially with the state, because even the lender called a usurer, who lends to people, you know, who lends to Mrs. X. Mr. Why risks not being repaid, whereas here they are lending to the state, so they have zero risk and therefore their unproductive money start working. But then be careful, there's worse than that, there's worse than that. And look at this one. And this is where we're going to get closer to 1973. Look, in reality, the state's creditors aren't giving anything. And you're going to see why. The debt is exploding and we have staggering figures. In reality, the state's creditors aren't giving anything because the amount lent is transformed into easily transferable public bonds that continue to function in their hands exactly as if they were cash. This step is essential. It's absolutely essential. Look, my friends, I'm lending. There's a couple in difficulty. I'm lending them €10,000. I need a document, an acknowledgment of debt of €10,000. What's this acknowledgment of debt worth? It's not money. I can't afford to buy a car for €10,000. So I'm going to the car dealer. Your car is good. I'll give you €10,000. So listen, I don't have any cash at the moment. On the other hand, look at this paper. The Michu couple over there on the third floor, they signed this acknowledgment of debt for me. Here, €10,000. Okay, you can give me the car. Then you'll check with Them, they'll laugh in my face. You can see that since the MeToo couple on the third floor aren't necessarily solid, they might be. They might pay me back. Maybe not. My paper is risky paper, it's junk. On the other hand, if I have a government bond, so I lend the money to the government, in reality, I haven't given anything.

Why?

Let's start again. I have €10,000 here. I lend it to the Michu couple. Do I have €10,000? No, the Michu couple, we have it. They do what they want with it. But me, what do I have? No, what do I have to do? I have to wait until he pays me back so that I can regain control of my €10,000, so that I can spend it. He can also not pay me back. Okay, that's the classic loan. Now, speaking of the state, it's different. I lend €10,000 to the state. What does the state give me? Bonds. Government bonds are negotiable financial instruments, just like cash. I can pay someone with them. I can pay for a house with them, I can pay for whatever I want with them. They're accepted as money. So in other words, I can absolutely pay someone €10,000 in government bonds. So maybe. Well, if I come across someone who doesn't know what they are, well, that's another thing. But if I come across someone who knows what a French government bond is, for example, I'll tell them, listen to your car. I'm going to transfer my bonds to you. I have €10,000 worth of bonds. I'm transferring them.

Okay, great.

So he's going to give me the car. So you can see that on the one hand I gave €10,000 to the French state, but in a way, it's as if I didn't give anything, because I continue to have it. I just spent money on a car right there in front of you. Do you see what I mean? So that's very important. It means that in reality I didn't give anything. It's a debt that is generated out of nothing. And that's why it can swell to such proportions that if we look at the debts of states today, it exceeds all the money circulating in the world.

Why?

Because these are debts that are artificially created. So, yes, the debts and the figures are artificial. On the other hand, the chains and the slavery that come with them, and the expropriation that comes with them, those are real. Because as much as we can do to you, we can block you with an artificial debt, but at the same time, we're going to take ports, we're going to take airports, we're going to take entire streets, buildings. We're going to take an entire country. You see? Ah, these are concrete things that we're taking from you. Okay, I'll continue. So, because debt is money, and what he says is. I'm not going to read you the whole passage. He says, uh, that it creates improvised wealth. Uh, wait, I can't find the passage. But in fact he says that it will create a cast of rich and idle people, rich and idle rentiers. Look at the damage that is done throughout the world by people who are rentiers, who have a lot of money, far too much money and far too much time on their hands. These are people who don't work and who just receive money like that. Since their birth, the big banks have been raising national securities. National banks too, Right. They were just private speculators who sided with governments and were thus able, thanks to the privileges obtained, to advance the money.

Okay.

Banks, speculators who would lean on the government, who would ultimately come between the nation and its government, who would insert themselves in the middle, and who simply wanted the public to give them their share when it spent money. It was a confiscation, by the way. But confiscation came even more, you'll see. So he talks for a long time about the bank of England, Holland, etc. And he says at one point, at the very time when England stopped burning witches, they began to hang counterfeit banknotes.

Okay?

That is to say, at one point, legal counterfeiting. So banks that issued banknotes, which in reality issued counterfeit money, so currency out of nothing, they want to have the exclusive right to issue counterfeit money because the counterfeiter gets rich. Except that if someone is going to issue counterfeit money, an individual is going to manufacture counterfeit money in an engraving workshop and everything. Well, what is he going to do? He is going to compete with them. So at that point we are going to condemn. We have stopped burning witches, but instead we have condemned to death those who counterfeit. So we are now coming to the third and last page that I have printed. I will not go any further, but we are going to continue to hammer the point home and see a little bit what it will give. Since the public date is based on the state's revenues, which must cover the annual interest payments and so on, the modern tax system has become the necessary complement to the system of national imprints.

Okay.

By the way, when you look at the press releases that are issued by Fit and others. And you look at press articles like the 30 articles I told you about that I read, there are many that talk about France's tax policy. Okay, tax policy. There is always a relationship between the state's debt and taxation.

Why?

Because quite simply, as I told you earlier, it's these two corollaries. The state borrows in the name of the population, the state borrows in its name. That's why the people of so called rich countries own nothing but debt. And in fact, we tell them, yes, you own debt in the amount of time per person, and in fact you have to pay it through taxation. So the two go together. That's why they say one is the corollary of the other. Loans enable the government to meet extraordinary expenses without the taxpayer feeling the pinch immediately, but then demand high taxes, and then there's a number of things to pay back. On the other hand, the increase in taxes caused by the accumulation of debts contracted one after the other, forces the government to constantly contract new loans in the event of new extraordinary expenses. Modern taxation, which is based on taxes on basic necessities and increases in prices, isn't it? But because taxation, when you have a tax that affects workers, raw materials, transport, energy, all that, it becomes a tax that makes the means of subsistence more expensive. So everyone has to pay this tax in order to survive. So wait a minute, let me back up a bit. Modern taxation, which is based on taxes on means of subsistence and basic necessities, therefore carries within itself the seeds of automatic progression over taxation, is not an accident, but rather a principle.

Okay.

So we have a principle of constantly increasing taxes because the debt is increasing, so the debt is increasing. We have an overall increase in prices, we have a decline, a shift of the middle classes towards the bottom. And at the same time, we have classes of the wealthy, classes of the unemployed, classes of people who live on income, not work, and who themselves are increasingly registering. And we see the gap that is widening. The large part that goes into the capitalization of wealth and the expropriation of the masses to the public debt and the tax system that is the result leads a whole host of writers like so and so and all. Well, in fact, the reality is that we are in a system expropriation through debt. And what you have seen from France today is that with the downgrade of its rating, the forced increase in interest rates, the borrowing markets will demand more money from France. France will demand more money from its citizens, or it has two ways of doing it. Either it will demand more money or. Or what do we do? We do shrinkflation. Shrinkflation. You know, when you go to the supermarket and you buy a product and it is lighter. A bar of chocolate will weigh 90 grams instead of 100. A bar of butter that weighs 250 grams will go up to 200 grams and so on. So these are two ways of increasing prices. Either increase them directly or increase them by giving less in return. In other words, in return for your money. So what the state will do in the current situation in France is either increase taxation or. And if it cannot increase the taxation, what is he going to do? He's going to reduce what he gives in exchange for taxation. So he's going to destroy public services. There's no choice. Debt always ends up in higher taxes and the deterioration of public services. That means you're forced to. And just look at what's happening in the Royal Municipality, which has never had. Which has always operated according to a neo Victorian system. You know, with toucher. At the time they had the. There was a fairly clear deal that was in the Victorian United Kingdom. There's no concept of public service, but in return we don't pay much tax, we give you absolutely nothing, but you sort it out for yourself. Here's your go. Buy public services from the private sector. Today we still have the idea that there are no public services, but we raise taxes and we reach. We even surpass France in some respects, you see. So we're in a logic of expropriation and dispossession. There you have it, my friends. I just wanted to talk to you about all this to tell you that the history, what you need to remember from this video is that the history of debt is not a history that dates back to 73. It does not date back to the fit rating. It is a much more complicated system that dates back centuries, that can be traced back to the Middle Ages, right? And that has destroyed a lot of countries in its wake, and that it is regularly put back in place until it causes the collapse of the country, then a reset is needed. So the reset comes with a war. It comes with a major economic crisis. But in general, a war is needed. And then we have a reset and we can start from scratch. People start to produce, they feel like they are getting rich, and then we start again with the same system and we expropriate them, because that is how it works. We let them work, we let them raise their heads above water, we let them get a little rich, accumulate a little, and then we come and take everything from them, Right? It's like the robber who sees the gold prospectors passing by in the morning. Well, they have nothing, okay? There's no point in attacking them. We have to let them get rich. We have to let them collect nuggets, come back with bags full, and from there we attack them and take everything from them. That's why when you look at the capitalist system, it's cyclical, right? You have ups, downs, ups, downs at the top. It lets society accumulate reserves, it lets society fill its accounts, it lets it fill its savings and all that. And then it comes along and makes a clean sweep and takes everything, right?

Okay.

It's like the brigand who waits for the gold digger on the way back. Thank you, my friends, for listening so far. I would like to remind you of my book, Swindler. Swindler, okay. It's a book that explains how the forces of money are manipulating ecology and fears, visceral fears. Fear of the end of the world, fear of collapse, fear of climate change, fear of all that it is manipulating them to ruin people even more. You know, I'll tell you, history, the entire history of humanity, written history, is nothing but the struggle between us and them. That's always been the case. And these are struggles that are sometimes apparent, sometimes hidden. Sometimes you see them, sometimes you don't. But that doesn't mean that when you don't see them, they're not there, right? And that ends in generally, either through the revolutionary transformation of society or through the destruction of the two classes that are in conflict. There is no other choice. That has always been the history of humanity summed up in one sentence.