Présidentielles 2022 : la dernière séance

Friends, I watched the debate between Marine Le Pen and Macron. Honestly, I don't think this debate will change the outcome of the election in any way. For the Macronis, Macron won the debate hands down. For the pro, Marine Le Pen, she won the debate hands down. And there's no way to reconcile these two positions. Nevertheless, we can say that on a strategic level, this debate had a very interesting positioning. That is to say, it was between someone who is very. If you look at Macron, he's someone who represents nothing but himself and his system. He's not on any particular ideological line, unless subsidizing and selling the country to American interests is considered an ideology. In any case, he's someone who is very, very mentally flexible in the sense that he doesn't care, he just wants to be there. He doesn't really have any particular problems to solve. He just wants to be there for the next one. He wants to be the next president, and that's it. Then there are business matters. There are many interests at stake. That's a bit of what comes out, but not necessarily French interests. It's the interests of an oligarchic group, the interests of a certain group. There's Marine Le Pen, who's there with him. She's more on an ideological line. It's a well known ideological line, or a very precise outline. Security, immigration, Islamization, borders, sovereignty. In short, the classics. But in the sense that what's strange about the positioning of this debate, and last night Ipsos even confirmed it, is that Marine Le Pen had nothing to gain from this debate. That means it's not like imagining a guy who doesn't know who Marine Le Pen is, watching this debate and then saying, hey, I'm going to vote for her. That person doesn't exist. There are no such people. Because the people who are aligned with Marine Le Pen are people who are supporters, because she represents a doctrine, a very specific ideology. They are people who are aligned with this ideology and they know Marine Le Pen. So the debate won't bring them anything. And even though I've seen a lot of comments saying that no matter how she performs during the debate, the people who were going to vote for her weren't really going to move, weren't really going to change. The one who stood to gain from this debate was Macron, because he was there. It gave him a platform, it allowed him to explain himself, it allowed him to revisit a number of things he had done. And then he was someone very clever, very skilled, you know, a tyrant or a Dictator can be intelligent, he can be skilled, he can. He can handle numbers well, he can handle words well. There's no problem with that. And so I think that in a way, even if this debate did not change or could not have changed the outcome of the election in depth, it could have influenced the score at least a little bit less. And in that sense, I think Macron had more to gain. I'll remember a few key words that were used during this debate. For example, the ric, a Citizens Initiative referendum, means that Marine Le Pen is quite close to this idea. I must say that I like the idea. Fundamentally, it will help restore or improve, let's say, the democratic situation in France. France suffers from a huge democratic deficit. I don't need to prove it. I think that the RIC could be a solution. But not only that. For example, one of the other democratic problems in France is, for example, the subjugation of foreign interests, for example, the transfer of decision making centers to Brussels, and therefore the positioning with the European Union. I'll talk about that in a second. And there's also the fact that France signs binding pacts and agreements indiscriminately. You have to know that when you put a politician somewhere and he goes and signs pacts on your behalf, like the Marrakesh Pact or the Glasgow Accords or whatever, or agreements with the WHO and all that, and that these are binding agreements. It's a part of your sovereignty that the person has sold. This guy can leave, he can finish his career, he can retire, he. He can die. But you are still bound by these pacts that were signed, and these are binding agreements. It means that your ability to decide your fate, to decide your country, to make decisions for yourself, well, that ability has been taken away from you in certain areas covered by the pact, and it has been transferred elsewhere. It has been transferred to people for whom you cannot vote, you cannot sanction through a democratic process. So that, for example, is very serious. But I didn't really hear it in the debate, even though in terms of democratic deficit, it really is very important. Secondly, there is a contradiction, let's say fundamental, in Marine Le Pen's speech, and it is a contradiction that will generate all the others. Because the problem, you know, is that there only needs to be one contradiction in her reasoning. If you accept a contradiction, we can demonstrate that we can then build a whole world of fantasy from it. Because when you accept the contradiction, you say, okay, close your eyes to that. From there, you use it as a premise for other reasoning, and then you will build increasingly Aberrant reasoning, increasingly untenable. So let's say Marine Le Pen's fundamental contradiction is that she is not pro European. In other words, she is anti European in some way. Okay, she is anti Europe. She is anti European, but for purely electoral reasons. Like what? Sometimes electoral insensitivity. Uh, because on many other subjects, she doesn't have it at all. She won't dare say that. Well, uh, I'm proxyte, and if I pass, I'll propose a referendum and then we'll talk about Frexit during the first six months. And if the French want to leave the European Union like the British do, or have done, and they didn't die from it, well, we'll do the same. We'll leave the European Union. She doesn't dare. She doesn't dare to talk about that when she's anti Europe. And in fact, she has a lot of things in her program and a lot of things that she would like to do that she expresses, except that these things are impossible within the framework of the European Union, you see? So there's a contradiction there, and from there it feeds everything else. So it will weaken it, it will put it in a precarious situation, in a fragile situation, and then a situation that sometimes does not withstand contradiction, because as soon as it arrives, as soon as we. As soon as we bring out these elements, it will find itself a little bit stuck between two stools, as they say, the ricort to the Rick. Okay, I'm going to tell you what I really think about the Rick, even if in absolute terms, even if on the surface the Rick is interesting, the referendum, basically, I'll tell you the truth, I don't think it would change the situation in France in any way. Why? Let's imagine that tomorrow we say to ourselves, okay, here we go. We're going to offer referendums on questions X and Y. How are the French going to vote? Well, they're going to vote according to their favorite newspaper, as will the actors, comedians, singers, footballers, artists and TV hosts. Do you understand? That's it. Actually, today, French democracy is sick. It's deeply sick. It's sick of a people who are completely led by the nose, by people who don't live the same life as them. We have people who all have properties that are all over the place, who have properties with barbed wire, who have properties where you stop to look. You. Oh, do you have the actor who lives there? Is the security service coming? Go away. Drive. Don't stand there in front of us. You see, there are people who Enter places that you don't have the right to enter. Right. There are people who live in environments that have access to things that you don't have access to. That means the average citizen doesn't have access to. These are people who, if tomorrow they are sick or their child is sick or their partner is sick, can just make an appointment with the best teacher, and I don't know what. And I don't know which hospital, all that kind of thing with just one phone call. So that means that these are people who don't live the same reality as you. So I can understand the fact that they don't live the same reality as the majority of French people. It still gives them the right to vote, to vote for their own interests. And in that sense, they want to vote for those who help perpetuate this system. And that's completely logical. I don't hold it against them. On the other hand, I do hold it against people who are sometimes in degraded social and economic situations when compared to the average actor or singer and who vote according to what these people tell them. You see, it doesn't make sense. Okay, so that's it. Look at the referendum in Switzerland, for example. The Swiss, well, aren't very far behind. The French, uh, the French, for example, were forced to have the vaccine pass, just to name one thing. They were forced to have the vaccine pass. So someone might say yes, but if it had been proposed by referendum, maybe they would have had the opportunity to vote against it. I don't even believe it. Look at the Swiss. They were offered the vaccine pass by referendum. They voted yes. They voted for it. There you go. It's simple. I mean, today you can't defend people who are enemies of themselves. You can put any democratic process in place, and the more power you give to the people, the more they will take advantage of it to vote against themselves. There you go. It's a kind of vicious circle. Another key word that I heard that is very interesting is the act of expelling illegal immigrants. I am expelled. Their papers. I know that many people say yes, they're illegal papers. They must be expelled. We need to deport. I'm not very convinced by this solution. I think on a demagogic or populist level, it's true that it sounds good if you say yes to deporting people with papers and all that. Well, you. You have a lot of people who are with you. Okay, on a populist level, yes. On a practical level, you're talking nonsense. I'll tell you why. When you take in undocumented people, and especially when you have a country with porous borders like France, porous with the blessing of the state, people arrive by boat and so on en masse. You won't be able to deport them. They are yours. They are yours forever. You really must. You. You must really mourn any form of deportation in the future. I'll tell you why. There's a very simple reason, actually. Look, let's imagine that, I don't know, Morocco or Algeria or I don't know what country. Uh. Stop, Stop. A guy who was causing trouble, he sees that he's a foreigner, he's not from there. He can feel himself speaking Spanish. He seems to speak Spanish. He seems to understand Spanish when we address him in that language. But he doesn't say his name, or he talks nonsense, or he tells us that we ask him the question 10 times for two days in a row, and each time he gives a different name, a different date of birth. What are you going to do? What do you think? Do you think you're going to take him to the Spanish? They'll tell you, okay, we'll take him. They'll tell you, no, he's Mexican, he's Ecuadorian, and not from here. It's not because the guy. Because the guy, he mumbles a little in Spanish. You're going to take him to the Spanish embassy, and then they're going to make him a provisional document or a Spanish emergency passport and then take him to Spain to see who he is. If you. It doesn't work like that. I mean, that's not how it works. The problem is that when we talk about illegal immigrants, there are two demographics. There are two populations. First, for example, there's the illegal immigrant who entered France legally. That means the guy who entered with a tourist visa, who stayed, the guy who studied, and then everything collapsed around him. School vouchers, you know, foreigners are no different than the French in these things. There are people who leave, they are badly guided, so start studying, it fails, and that's it. And then they decide to stay. So this demographic, let's say, is easier to tackle. But in my opinion, it does not represent the majority of the problem. The biggest part of the problem, if only because the majority of students succeed. What fails is a minority. In particular, those who come with a project, they come from abroad, they will spend a lot of money and all that. Most of them are not there to fail. And what's more, when they finish their studies, if they are successful, they will have professional opportunities and Legal immigration, whether in France or elsewhere. So people don't spend five years at university to then go and work in a pizzeria in Clichy or sell kebabs in Barbis. Right? Do you understand? These are people who will potentially have opportunities outside of France. People who come with a valid tourist visa. You have to see that embassies today, when they offer or issue a visa or they grant a visa, they ask for proof that the person has is linked to their country, that the person has a family, a job, a business, has money, has already traveled in the past, all that. So it can happen. There are lots of people who come with a tourist visa who do not leave. But if we look at the problem, it is not with this population, because this population, since they have obtained a visa, there is in a centralized database, there are fingerprints, photo, nationality, photocopy of passport, the whole thing. So this person can potentially be deported to their country. But I am talking to you about the 100 documents. I am talking about the 100 documents that were entered illegally. Those are yours forever. That is the rule today. No country will accept them. It's not that their country doesn't want them, it's that you'll never be able to prove which country they belong to. Find the guy. I don't know. Find a black guy. What are you going to do? You're going to take him to the Senegalese guy? You say he's yours, take him. If you don't take him, I'll punish you. I mean, it's not because the black guy is black that he's Senegalese. And it could be that he's from Gambia or Somalia or Mali or Mauritania or whatever. Okay, I can't tell you that. Or maybe the Brazilians. Okay, so that's the problem. I think the problem with this is that as long as a country doesn't protect its borders, like France doesn't protect its borders, and sometimes even considers it a supreme virtue not to protect them and allow people to enter legally, let's say in France, it's become an optional act. Really, it is a voluntary act. Those who want to enter legally by going to the trouble of going to embassies and consulates to provide paperwork and expose themselves to the risk of refusal, do so on a voluntary basis, because you can also come illegally. And that works very well too. Do you understand? France considers it a supreme virtue to allow people to enter its country illegally, which it assumes afterwards you can't go to other countries and yell at them, telling them, yes, we're punishing you. I don't know. Take your citizens or we have people there, we pick them up. They belong to you. Take them, Sort it out yourselves. No, you. You can't do that. They belong to you. They come to your country, they belong to you. That's all. What do you want? You want all the countries, all the other countries in the world that have people who have illegal immigrants, who speak French to give them to you? And you are ready to take back the French speakers in the world? I mean, no, it's because the guy is French speaking and is French. So that's also a problem that I think requires more and more solutions. So protecting the borders and also avoiding creating incentives, because France is a country that creates a lot of incentives to come, and so that inevitably attracts people. We live in a country. These are not people who come because they are bad. We mustn't. I'm not criticizing these people. We live in a shitty world. We live in a shitty world. There is poverty, there are wars. There is a lot of social unrest in many countries in the world. France is not known today for being a factor of stability. That means you can't. It's like the United States sometimes they screw things up. In Mexico, they gave weapons to gangs, drug gangs, for example. The United States gave them weapons. Then when Mexicans flee violence, flee the misery generated by gangs, and everything arrive in the United States, you say, yeah, he's just, get lost, go home. No, no, that's not how it works. That's not how it works. There's some justice in this world. You can't screw things up in a country because it suits, I don't know, your big companies, it suits this politician and all that. And when in this country, well, there are millions of people who find themselves unemployed and millions of people who find themselves in precarious situations, they come to you, you say, no, no, no, go home. It's unfair. No, it's not unfair that they come to you. It's not unfair at all. It's completely fair, I would say, but we have to. We have to protect ourselves anyway. But I think that one of the protections, and first think Marine Le Pen could have done her part by talking about it is to avoid causing trouble. A little bit on the right, a little bit on the left, a little bit on the right in the world that would allow a little bit of. Today we have a France that is a feudal lord to the United States. The United States are professional troublemakers. And then France, well, it's behind, you know, Today it's the poodle. Before it was the British who had that role. They still have it to a large extent, but France has joined the poodle club a little bit. So from that point on, the United States creates chaos and then France comes behind to up the ante. Uh, so there was that. There was also, uh, the question of the veil. I think that here, I think that here it is a question. It is the profound stupidity of talking about this issue during an election. It makes absolutely no sense. It makes absolutely no sense because Marine Le Pen wants to ban the Islamic veil in the street. So that means that we are going to have, we are going to have trials on the sidewalk. The police are going to stop. We see a woman wearing a headscarf, okay? The police have to stop, look and consult the different religious beliefs and everything to try to understand whether this veil is Islamic or is it just a scarf that the person is wearing on their head. Right. Because sometimes there are discussions on this subject. Then we stop, approach the person and ask them what their religion is. We give them a religious trial on the sidewalk and give them a religious pass. Maybe you have a religious pass. So, for example, if the person is Jewish, they have the right to wear a veil because there are Jews who wear it and cover their hair. So they will have the right to cover their hair. There you go. She shows. Okay, I'm Jewish. I have a past that was validated by my family. Ah, okay, that's good, ma'. Am. You can move along then. You can also work on the customer's face. You know the face well, sometimes it's true that between Jews and Muslims, it's a bit hard to tell the difference often. But you can also work on the customer's face. You look at what her name is, for example. So if she has a European sounding name, you might look like a potential convert, but you're not going to dig that far. You're going to allow her to move around. If she has a name, I don't know, I think it sounds a bit North African or something. It's probably because there's an Islamic intention behind it. She should remove it immediately. There you go. This approach makes absolutely no sense. Okay, It's Marine Le Pen. When we talk about it, it's just to make, to offer easy points to try to reach out to our electorate and in part the more right wing electorate who are not an electorate. I have to tell the truth today, they are not an electorate that is inclined towards reflection. Huh? Towards reflection. Let's say evolved and Complex and structured. They are an electorate that just wants to hear things that please them. Huh. Okay, there you have it. Did you see? Did you see how she blew their noses? She said the veil, uh, the want the veil in our country. Uh, uh, we have this thing, we don't want it. So there you have it. Marine Le Pen said it, she's going to do it, and that's it. Then Marine Le Pen falls on her face because she has put millions of French people on her back in the process. But they're not interested in that because they are interesting. It's just that using only the presidential elections, the presidential debates or the presidential campaigns, because the cameras are there. Just using them to throw out stuff that makes no sense, that is neither applicable nor makes sense, but which allows Ghost, given the forum, to have this speech that will be carried, that will be listened to by many, but it goes nowhere. Gives us something. The veil, the Islamic veil is not a veil that is imposed by law. In France, there is no law that obliges women to wear the veil. We agree. However, many wear it, okay, many wear it. That means that it will correspond. If I look at the Islamists who insist that in every Islamized society, women wear the veil in the vast majority, and ideally in all, the Islamist is doing a job. It is a work of communication, it is a work of society, it is a work of ideology, it is a work of propaganda. That's what they did to get millions of women to wear the veil and consider that they can't go out without it. You can't fight that with Allah. You won't be able to. It's not possible. Look, even the laws on the NICAP are not enforced. There are plenty of laws in France that are not enforced. So first, can't see Marine Le Pen coming to power and then having a bunch of agents like that running around the streets to carry out religious trials on the spot. She's sending the cops. In that case, we need to send educators, we need to send people who speak out, people who work with these communities. Try to see what this pro veiling propaganda is in France, how to counter it, how to ensure that women aren't affected by this propaganda, how to establish a counter discourse to this propaganda. And that requires work. It won't be resolved in five years or 10 years or whatever, because the Islamists are ahead of the game on these things. They've been working on them for years. So now you're saying there are too many veils. I'm sending the police. No, it's a very deep seated social problem in France today, as in many other countries, and it won't be resolved by military force. Okay? The story about the veil was, in my opinion, just a joke to show off to his right wing. But it's going to cost him a lot. It's going to cost him that there are millions of people, there are millions of people who will perceive, even people who don't necessarily wear the veil. Imagine a very modern woman, all of that of origin, I don't know, half Moroccan or Algerian or Tunisian origin or whatever. This girl doesn't wear a veil, doesn't intend to wear a veil. She may have daughters who don't wear a veil and don't intend to wear a veil. But the problem is that we know how it works when a war is launched against a group of people. Okay, well, we know very well that it won't be limited. We know very well. Uh, today Marie Le Pen wants to ban the veil. Tomorrow she might say, I'm going to ban Ramadan. The police stop and eat here, I'll give you a bottle of water. You have to drink in front of me now, otherwise there'll be a fine. For example, do you know what I mean? Uh, tomorrow you'll have a restaurant owner. I can go into a restaurant in France. No, I don't like face. You look like a rebel. Today we are a secular republic. Your face is not very secular. I can't help you quote. Do you understand? That's the thing. Once you have a part of the population that is attacked, the attack will never be surgical. Right? Surgical strikes don't exist. Once you start down that path, the mandate is then broadened. And then at the grassroots level, we hear a mandate that is much broader than the initial intention of the people in power. Okay? So in my opinion, it's not even a project that he has in mind. Besides, you know what? I would have been in favor of banning the veil in the street. I would have thought that sending the police would have been a solution. I wouldn't have believed Marine Le Pen capable of doing it. Because I know that legally it's impossible. And I know that we're not ready. She's not prepared. She's not prepared. She didn't convince me. She didn't convince me. I felt it was more like a cookie that was given to people with this sensitivity than a truly prepared project. There's no preparation behind it. There's absolutely none. Because if she had at least been prepared a little bit on this point, she wouldn't have confused Algeria, Tunisia, Borgiba. I don't know what. It's still a big project. The Islamists have been veiling it in France for 25 years. They've been working for 30 years. Okay. You just have to look in the streets and see their success. They've been working for 25 years and they're working seriously. They're not funny, the Islamists. I don't know if you thought that these were people who just sent cops and solved the problem. No, no, it's much more complicated than that. It's much deeper. So we won't solve their problem by sending cops, and we won't solve their problem even less by confusing Algeria and Tunisia and not understanding what we're saying about these things. Okay. Anyway, my friends, I'm going to look at the election results tomorrow. Last year in 2017, Macron's first round was at 66% in some change. Marine Le Pen was at 33% in some change. So we'll see how things go, how they evolve. Uh, I think things are going to slip a little today. Macron is going to have his second round and there are some dissatisfied people. So I imagine that Macron's vote will probably automatically fall below the 166% of last time. So instead of being at 66, it will probably slide maybe even towards 40, which will automatically push Marine Le Pen back up towards 40. That will push her back up towards 40 and she will slide towards 60. That's about it. That's what I see. But hey, I could be wrong, but for now, I should have roughly 60 to 40, give or take a few percent, but I don't see things like that. From 49 to 51, I don't think there's a contest. There's no contest at all. I think it's pretty clear cut at this stage, with probably a high abstention rate. I think the party of abstainers, it's the leading party in France, I think, today, and we're going to have to talk, we're going to have to talk in the future because there are big problems in France and there's no beginning of a solution. In fact, it's not that I don't see the beginning of a solution to these things. Okay, the French. It's true that I talk to a lot of French people. I feel like they're fed up with Macron. I understand they're fed up with Macron. Yes, that's true. But in return, it's not because they're fed up with Macron. That they're ready to vote like they were fed up with Chirik in 2002. But that doesn't mean they're ready to vote for a Le Pen card, you know, that's clear. You have to be yes card. Not even Le Pen like Zamor. He played on the same, on the same register, even going further, nothing at all. 7%. Uh, that means that we really have to understand that the country, the electorate today is not ready for this kind of discourse today. I understand now and for the years to come that any discourse based on too many foreigners, uh, security, immigration, deportations, the headscarf, etc. Is a discourse doomed to failure. That's all. Uh, I think we have to take this will into account and then work towards that will. Otherwise, well, we go ahead, we say what we think, we have fun, we build dreams, we make movies, we fall on our faces and then others vote, others pass, and that's it. And I'll tell you today, there's also something else. There are other things too. It's also working within the system. It's working with the system's cards. Sometimes it's not that bad. I'll give you an example before I go. You know, if you look at, I don't know, let's look at Stalin, for example. Stalin. Do you think that all the people who were around Stalin were convinced Stalinists? And take all the people of all the men of power, whether they are of sinister memory or not, from the last century, do you think that all the people who were around them were loyal? Were absolutely people who were 100% on their line? No, there are people who are more in illogic, let's say pragmatic. They say, I am in this system, I fight from the inside. I get what I want from this system. That's why often in English speaking countries, for example, through this political pragmatism, you generally have two major parties and that's it. It's because people are not all Democrats. For example, in the United States, not all Democrats are Democrats at heart. Not all people are Republicans. They are Republicans at heart. What do you think, thinking that in a country like the United States, for example, there are only two political Republicans and Democrats? It's much more complex than that. On the ground, we know that. We know that Americans have a spectrum of political positions that range from the far right to the far left. But when we look at the expression of these opinions on the political level, we only have two sides. Why? Because people are simply pragmatic. That's All. Well, I've spoken to people here. I once spoke with a politician from the Conservative Party, and through him, whom I had known for a long time. Well, now I've kind of forgotten. I actually understood a bit about the mentality, how it works in the sense that he told me, yes, I'm in the Conservative Party, but that doesn't mean that I'm 100% on the party line or that I like the party or that I agree with the Prime Minister or whatever. No, not at all. He told me that on many things, I'm the opposite of them, but I'm in it because I'm pragmatic, that's all. And I can't advance my ideas more by being in that party today, with which I don't necessarily have a connection, but I've had the opportunity to be there. I've advanced my ideas much more than people who are in the eternal position. What do you think of that? Understand, that's it, actually, that's it. There comes a time when you have to face reality. The reality is that something called the National Rally, the National Front, call it what you want with its ideas, doesn't work. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. It works in a young country. It works in a country that has just been decolonized. That worked in the 70s, and even in the 70s, it didn't work. The National Rally, written in 73, 74, even back then, it didn't work. I'm going to have it passed in 2022 today. I'm going to have it passed in 2022 with lots of mixed couples, lots of mixed race people, lots of people born in France with parents who come from five different continents. I mean, that's over. That speech is over. It won't happen. It will never happen. So while France is disgusted with Macron, I don't think there's a place for it. I don't think the answer that the electorate is a national rally type answer. That's it, my friends. So I'm talking to you. I'm not here to make friends or anything, you understand? I'm telling you what I think. And I think that one of the problems of what are called nationalists, for what that means in France, is their disconnection from reality. Unfortunately, that's all. They're very emotional, they're very much into. They're getting into election time. There's almost a kind of quasi religious devotion to their political group and all that. And this religious devotion, even if it honors them in some way, huh? I'm. It's still good to see people like that committed and everything, but in reality it's completely disconnecting. It's disconnecting. How can you listen to the electorate? How can you feel the electorate? How can you feel what you can say, what you can't say? What is the electorate ready to support you on? Don't tell me, yes, but convictions. I don't care about convictions, okay? I don't care, okay, you can't tell me, yes, I have convictions. But you're being screwed by Macron. You're being screwed by a technocrat, by a kid. Then you tell me I have convictions. I don't give a damn about your convictions. They say, yes, well, we'll say our convictions. Well, let's say convictions. Get lost, go home. That's all there are, our convictions. Our convictions represent the ideal that we would like to achieve, but maybe we'll never achieve it. But beyond our convictions, what compromise should we make? What compromise is the electorate ready to support us towards? Where is the electorate ready to go? What can we achieve now in this five year term? What do you think? Do you think that a five year term will solve the problem of France and it has brought it back to France in 1880? Do you really believe that? I mean, you can't have a situation that deteriorates over 40 years. It can be resolved in five years. Okay, I can, I can take a sledgehammer. I can break you. I can break you. I don't know. Give me, give me. I don't know. I can, I can break it for you for four hours and you'll see how long it takes you to repair it, huh? It won't count in hours, I can guarantee you that. It's easier to break than to build. Of course, you go through a listed building with a bulldozer, it will probably take 20 years to rebuild it. The other one, the cathedral, Notre Dame. Notre Dame, it burned down. It burned down for one evening and it's been I don't know how many years and they're still building it. You know what I mean? It's the same in a country when you have damage that occurs over 40 years, it might take 100 years to at least try to patch it up a little bit. Honestly, the most realistic project that you can come up with for a term. I'll stop there before I say too much. The most realistic project that you can build for a five year term, let me tell you what it is. The most realistic, huh, is to say I'm taking Precautionary measures. That means that really, if I had been. Let's imagine that I had been. I would never be. I couldn't be. I would never be. Imagine if I had been a candidate for something like that in a situation like that. The program I would have proposed. You know what? The only promise I would have offered is that you see the situation as it is crap today. I guarantee you one thing. It will be just as crappy in five years, but it doesn't want to get any worse. That's all I can do. I can. I can block it for five years, take measures to prevent it from deteriorating. I know that fuel is expensive. You can't afford it. Well, you know what? I'm not going to offer you a solution to make it cheaper. It won't be cheaper in five years. But I guarantee you that you'll pay the same price for it in five years. Okay? If we can at least stabilize it. Because today, as you've noticed, everyone makes us regret someone. Every time we have a new president, we have to regret the one from the past. Every year that passes, we regret the previous year. That was crappy while we were living through it. But today we regret it. It's clear that we're on a downward slope, right? Whether in France or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, things are no better. We are experiencing the same situation everywhere. But your example is very striking. So that's all we can do to start with. Stabilize people, Stabilize them. We stop. And from there, if we manage to get the situation under control and stop the downward spiral, we can gradually get our heads above water and slowly start taking initiatives and start seeing improvements. That means that over time, the situation that was completely degraded, well, for a period of five years is just as degraded. But then we start to see that there is a little improvement. I feel that things are improving in terms of insecurity, unemployment, purchasing power, access to medicine and all that. We can see a change. But at the beginning, we have to stop the spiral. Because now we are in a downward spiral, right? It's as if the Titanic is sinking and someone I don't know is saying, yes, how long is it going to take to get to New York? I don't know if we can speed this up. No, no, for the moment, you're not speeding anything up at all. For the moment, you're just trying to stop it from sinking. You're just trying to plug the holes. And from there we'll see. We'll see what happens next. Okay, that's it. We have to Prioritize. We have to be reasonable. We have to see what we can do, what we can't do. Unfortunately, the camp that is in opposition to Macron, Macron is a tyrant. Macron is a real thug. He's a man without cold or law. Really. If I judge the tree by its fruits, and I look at what France has become in five years, he's a guy, but I think he's one of the most abominable guys who has ever run France. But look at him. It means you have a fight somewhere, right? Okay? Because you have a fight against a really bad guy. So really, it's. You have a fight against a Frankenstein. It means that normally, morally, you can very easily be superior to a guy like that and win. But no, no, we come up with muddy stuff, we come up with approximations, we come up with stuff that no longer has any bearing on reality. Do you understand? From there, well, that's it. He wins. He wins Frankenstein. That's all. Well, I can say the same for the Islamists. The Islamists, believe me, the Islamists, they are organized, they are structured, they have a goal, they have a vision. That's all. That's their strength. That's their strength, huh? The Islamists, where there is a local elected official who runs for office, who plans for three years, who plans for five years, who plans for a term, the Islamists plan for 1,000 years, okay? That's all they have going for them. They have this vision, this strength. They start to act, and then they say, anyway, I'll do what I can, and the previous generation will continue, nothing more, okay? And before you know it, you find yourself in Iran, okay? Big problems no longer exist. Today, he sees his existence threatened by this.