The French military betrayal of May-June 1940

The French military betrayal of May-June 1940

Visit our Youtube channel

After 60 years of secrecy, the archives of the Battle of France were finally opened to researchers in the year 2000.

They totally challenge the famous “Blitzkrieg” theory that: “The German victory was actually due to three main factors:

  • Incomprehensible coincidences.
  • Incomprehensible errors of the Allies.
  • A no less incomprehensible individualism of a few “go-getter” generals at the head of the armored divisions and who confronted not only the Allies, but also the German leadership with a fait accompli. »

End of quote (K.H. Frieser 1940 French defeat, German victory under the eye of foreign historians page 86)

In other words, a story that no one understood but that, for lack of anything better, the public had only to accept as it was.
However, there have never been any coincidences or incomprehensible errors, even less a series of “miracles” according to another consecrated expression, having enabled the German columns to defeat four Allied armies in twenty days, but a very long series of betrayals.

Another observation: The omerta since imposed by the French state was also imposed by all those directly concerned. Indeed, how can we imagine that Germany, which was the main beneficiary, England, which was the main victim, but also Belgium, Holland, then all the occupied European countries, Russia, or the United States wouldn’t have understood the obvious?

Information now within everyone’s reach, since the works dealing with this betrayal and the “family conspiracy” (in the plural) that accompanied it are available for sale.

To make it easier for you, also watch our films on our YouTube channel.
We develop the main information there.

The betrayal in a few lines

French revisionist historians who have been able to work effectively on the archives of the Battle of France, since their official opening in the early 2000s, have been able to establish with certainty that:

  • The German army was in no way superior to the Allied armies. The troops and materials at the disposal of the Allies on May 10, 1940 were superior in quantity and quality to the German army, including with regard to aviation.
  • The Wehrmacht’s resources of ammunition, gasoline and armament only allowed it to fight for a maximum of one month. It was therefore absolutely necessary for Hitler to win a decisive victory within this time.
  • The details of the German Plan, known as “Manstein”, providing for the main effort to be carried out in the Ardennes, on Sedan and Givet, were perfectly known to the French and Allied Intelligence Services, at the latest at the beginning of March 1940, i.e. more than two months before the attack.
  • These same services also knew for certain the date of the attack, eight days before it took place.
  • Based on this intelligence, General Gamelin, Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies, devised a plan to lure General von Kleist’s Army Group A into the Ardennes trap.
  • This trap planned to block the enemy advance in front of the Meuse by blowing up all the bridges and accumulating powerful reserves in the immediate vicinity, in order to support the three divisions in charge of holding the banks of the Meuse from Sedan to Givet.
  • In a second movement, once von Kleist’s columns were entangled on four narrow roads in the heart of the massif in the greatest traffic jam in history, so without the possibility of quickly turning back, the generalissimo had planned a counter-attack in Belgium in the back of his adversary, at the height of the “Gembloux gap”, in order to cut him off from his supplies and from General von Bock’s army group B, still engaged in Holland.
  • Finally, in a third phase, three reserve armies stationed on the Maginot line were to attack to the north via Luxembourg in order to join the 1st army at Gembloux to begin a counter-attack in Germany which would have made it possible to seize the regions industries in the Rhineland and the Saar, before moving on to Berlin.
  • Knowing that the German army only had petrol and ammunition for one month, this plan, forcing it to fight on all fronts at the same time, would have quickly led it to capitulate, or to continue the fight by launching pebbles…

This excellent plan was sabotaged by the generals in charge of applying it

Contrary to the planned provisions and the clear orders given by General Gamelin:

  • Static defenses that should have been deployed in the French Ardennes in areas slated for destruction were not deployed. The German columns crossing the Ardennes trap in a very perilous position were not bombarded for three days.
  • The necessary modern armaments (tanks, planes, radio equipment, machine guns, etc.) were not delivered to the armies, but kept in depots, waiting to be handed over intact to the Germans.

On the front of the Second Huntziger Army

  • On May 13, from 5 a.m., when the Germans under the fire of French artillery could not cross the Meuse because they were unable to build the pontoon bridges essential for the passage of Panzers, tanks and French infantry elements that which can be designated under the term “special cagoulard sections” attacked from the back the artillery blockhouses and the various points of resistance on which the whole French device was articulated.

  • Around 3 p.m., the Bellevue blockhouse, the most important of the line, was destroyed by these French elements.

  • It was only from this moment that the first German infantrymen were able to cross the river on inflatable boats, without being mowed down by the fire from these blockhouses.

At the same time, while the Panzer Divisions and all their crossing equipment were clumping together in compact masses on the right bank of the Meuse, ideal targets for the artillery, the French General Huntziger ordered the withdrawal of these guns, this from his own initiative and without any strategic or tactical reason.

  • At the same time, he ordered the reinforcements that had come to the aid of the defenders of the Meuse to turn around, while the latter were still holding the banks.
  • The sabotage of the artillery and the gradual weakening of the troops remaining on the spot thus allowed the Germans to throw their bridges over the Meuse without suffering any losses, and the Panzers and heavy armaments were then able to cross without any opposition, the next morning May 14 at 7:20 a.m.
  • The excuse officially invoked in front of the general public to justify this withdrawal was a “collective hallucination” which caused the “panic of Bulson”.

Shameless lie, demonstrated by the production of archives and testimonies.

  • Finally the bombardments ordered for May 14, with the aim of destroying the German bridges were also sabotaged by the high command of the Air Force, in particular General Têtu, notorious Cagoulard, who stopped the waves of French attack . The British bombers, despite heavy losses, could not destroy a single one of these bridges.

On the front of the 9th Corap Army at Givet:

  • While the Republican General Corap had dispatched reinforcements in the direction of Givet to organize the defense of the Meuse and a powerful counter-attack, this was sabotaged by General Martin who, also without any reason, withdrew the troops sent in reinforcement, leaving the 1st Heavy Tank Division unsupported at the same time. Without infantry, without supporting artillery, without petrol, the 1st DCR was totally annihilated, most of the tanks having had to be destroyed by their own crews.
  • The other two armored divisions were deliberately scattered so as not to be able to effectively counter the Panzers arriving in compact masses.
  • During these two crucial days: 13 and 14 May, the fighter squadrons were either grounded or dispatched to areas where there was no enemy aviation, giving up domination of the skies to the Luftwaffe above. above Sedan and Givet, in order to further facilitate the construction of bridges and the passage of Panzers.

These orders were given by the generals who were members of the conspiracy, again against those of the high command.

On the entire front, between May 15 and May 25:

  • On the night of May 14 to 15, Generals Georges and Billotte, Commander-in-Chief on the North-East Front and the main responsible for the betrayal, ordered a general retreat of the Allied troops from the North Front in Belgium. This order was given when their position was extremely strong, facing Army Group B of the German army.
  • This orderly movement, again against the orders of General Gamelin, knowingly sabotaged what can be called “Plan Gamelin N°2” which, after the failure of the “trap on the Meuse” , had planned to “pinch” the German Panzers at the exit of the Ardennes.
  • Plan Gamelin N°3, which ordered a somewhat similar maneuver to be implemented from May 19, was sabotaged by the same generals who, again, did not carry out the orders.
  • Between May 16 and May 19, certain officers, in particular commanding tank regiments, voluntarily abandoned, and without being attacked, the bridges to the Germans who presented themselves on the Somme on the Aisne and on the Oise. (Generals Duchemin and de Beauchesne)
  • On the night of May 18 to 19, General Georges ordered, still in opposition to the formal orders of General Gamelin, to withdraw the French forces able to stop the Panzers on a Valenciennes – Laon line to withdraw them south of the Somme, thus opening wide the road to the sea for Guderian and Rommel. (Order No. 102)
    Similarly, he sabotaged the planned tank counterattacks to the north and south. The French tanks were reduced to watching, guns at their feet, the Germans pass.
  • At the same time, many elite divisions remained without a fight in the Maginot Line and were kept there until their surrender.
  • On May 20, after the dismissal of Generalissimo Gamelin, General Weygand, as the new commander of the allied armies, definitively interrupted Gamelin Plan N°3 and kept his troops without orders until May 25. It was only once the situation had been definitively compromised and the northern troops completely surrounded that he gave the necessary orders for a retreat towards Dunkirk.
  • Behind the scenes, throughout the battle, Marshal Pétain informed Hitler through the Spanish ambassador of the military decisions taken and the evolution of his political maneuver to bring down the government of Paul Reynaud, then to overthrow the Republic and sign the armistice as soon as possible.
  • When this goal was achieved, he stopped the fighting as soon as he had the power to do so.

Access to new testimonies makes it possible to establish that the state lie that followed the defeat was implemented in the following way:

The main witnesses, in their “Recollections” books, lied using writing stratagems ranging from the outright omission of essential data, to the crudest lies.
They are Generals Weygand and Georges. (speaking through the book of his chief of staff General Roton)

Among these high-ranking soldiers, other false witnesses such as Beaufre, Ruby, or Minart, as well as certain senior secret service officials used the same stratagems.

The goal was to propagate a completely false version of the Battle of France, so as to exonerate the real culprits and accuse the men who, on the contrary, had tried to counter it.

The main accused was to be Generalissimo Gamelin, while everything shows that the real culprit was General Georges.
The means employed by all these false witnesses, was to adopt without restriction, and especially without the slightest concrete element of proof, the version given by General Georges and the officers holding the Vichy regime, by trying to make believe that Gamelin did not had done nothing but count the flies in his HQ at Vincennes, totally uninterested in the battle.

This legend of the “aboulia” of the general-in-chief allowing to pass over in silence the orders he gave, and were not executed.

The French State, the main craftsman of disinformation

This state lie organized by Vichy was, in full knowledge of the facts, propagated after the Liberation by the most eminent French historians, and endorsed by the republican governments of the Fourth and Fifth Republics allowing the official version to prosper, since a number indefinite archive always remains beyond the reach of historians and that the most important of them, namely the Journal de Marche du Cabinet Gamelin – that is to say the precise day-to-day account of all events of the battle kept by the generalissimo’s staff – as well as his notebooks and personal diaries were stolen from his home before their filing in the archives by officers mandated by the Ministry of Defense only a few minutes after his death in the Val de Grâce hospital, April 18, 1958. This while Madame Gamelin was absent, and did not even know that her husband had just died (none of these documents reappeared at the time of the opening). official opening of the archives in 2000).

That is to say a few thousand absolutely essential pages as to the preparation and the unfolding of the battle, on which Generals Gamelin and Doumenc relied when writing their “testimonies for History” in order to accredit their statements, when they denounced the betrayals they suffered during the battle, as well as their actions to counter them, and the plans implemented.

To know everything about the intervention of the Ministry of Defense in 1956

Click here

If we add to this recognized theft, the “unfortunate” destruction and the disappearance, “incomprehensible” of course, of tons of archives after the war while they were under the responsibility of the Service historique des Armées, we understand better under which authority the “official” historians have totally discarded for nearly eighty years, the three books of Souvenirs written by General Gamelin, the Souvenirs de captivité of President Daladier, as well as a large number of official archives and reports.

Ditto for the two major works of General Doumenc: History of the 9th Army, and Dunkirk and the Battle of France, but also his Secret Papers, analyzed and published by the historian François Delpla in 1991.

Indeed, all these works, perfectly known to everyone and totally contradicting the “miraculous” thesis, were systematically either ignored or cited by these historians most often to divert them from their true meaning, namely a formal denunciation of the betrayals committed. work.

We will note here that it is undoubtedly unprecedented in history that the highest authorities, both military and academic, take the liberty of disregarding the testimony of the generalissimo in charge of leading a battle and of the main soldiers concerned.

The same lack of consideration for those of many Allied generals and political leaders, such as General van Overstraeten, military adviser to the King of Belgium or Minister Van Zuylen. And even that of General Winterbotham, head of the British Intelligence Services, concerning Enigma.

Ditto for the work of Anglo-Saxon historians denouncing the real war aims of certain American and British interest groups.

Throughout the world hundreds of works by Historians remain deliberately ignored

I am thinking in particular of those who, in the 1960s, looked into the real role of the German Democratic generals who, since Hitler’s accession to power, informed the Allied Intelligence Services of the smallest, most secret decisions taken by the Führer. .

So to the works of Mrs. Pierre Accoce and Pierre Quet concerning the Roessler network, entitled: The war was won in Switzerland and published by Perrin in 1965; as well as: It was called A 54 written by Mrs C. Amort and I.M. Jedlicka, published by Robert Laffont in 1966, which both describe precisely the way in which the Allies were informed of all the details of the Manstein Plan at the same time from March 10, 1940. And as for the date of the attack: from April 31!

This information, qualified by the Allied SRs as coming from extremely reliable sources, was concealed in all the so-called “historical” works to make way for the official thesis of the “blindness” of the Allied leaders, and other preposterous theories based on surprise effect”.

I am also thinking of all the testimonies from the period and works by historians concerning the state of the finances of the Reich and the pitiful reality of the German army.

And it will be understood that starting from these totally false bases, it was not very difficult to impose an “incomprehensible” thesis on the Peoples dumbfounded by so much incapacity on the Allied side, and so many brilliant initiatives on the German side!

Finally, knowing that these multiple betrayals, just like the real context and the issues mentioned above, are still actively hidden by ALL the States concerned, here is the ultimate proof of a will imposed on the Peoples beyond the borders to preserve the secret about this “strange defeat”.

Read more

To put an end to the conspiracy theory

To put an end to the “conspiracy theory”

To put an end to the “conspiracy theory”

“When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness”,

Alexis de Tocqueville

We affirm that it is now possible to put an end to the “theory” and even to clearly demonstrate that there was indeed a plot and that it remains relevant. That all the conspiratorial theses, whatever their name: Elders of Zion, Illuminati, Rosicrucian, Synarchy, Jewish or Freemason conspiracy, and other Lemurian scarecrows only exist, and are blown up by the media, only to better hide the one and only conspiracy of which historians have proof:

The one organized by certain powers of money throughout the 20th century and until our days, to impose the wars which made it possible to plunder the resources of so many countries.

Indeed, the French military betrayal, which in itself would be only a banal historical event because they abound in our History, opens another question much more important for our 21st century: Why certain French patriots, often even republicans, did they wanted this reversal of alliance to associate with the Nazi Reich?

And this is where we come in, since while waiting for the works to appear to finally inform the Peoples about this essential part of their history, we are now offering you to take note of the major economic issues which, alone, could bring such “incomprehensible” decisions…

All information also developed on our YouTube channel, while waiting for the works on the question, currently in the writing phase, to be available for sale.

Our YouTube channel


The war aims of the great Empires

L’historiographie mondiale nous présente les conflits du 20ème siècle comme le résultat de tensions entre pays.
Or, rien de plus faux, puisque les deux premières Guerres mondiales ainsi que la Guerre froide qui suivit, résultent d’une confrontation entre les deux grands Empires dominants : France et Angleterre ; et les trois émergeants : États-Unis, Russie et Allemagne.

Le premier de ces conflits, déclenché en 1914, répondait à une triple préoccupation des empires britannique et américain :

1° Never allow the formation of a continental European alliance. And for that to prevent the rapprochement of France, Germany and Russia.

2° In this order of idea, it was necessary to stop the development of trade by rail uniting each day more the continent, since the beginning of the “industrial era”.
Indeed, France had built the Trans-Siberian railway line with Russia, which offered to transport goods faster and more cheaply than by sea, from Europe to China and India. Two countries considered as the “preserve” of the British Empire.
At the same time, Germany, an ally of the Ottoman Empire, was building another railway linking Berlin to Basra, thus giving it access to the fabulous Iranian oil deposits.
Oil supplying Her Majesty’s fleet and which, if it fell into German hands, would have directly competed with the two largest oil companies of the beginning of the century: Mr. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and the British magnate’s Royal Dutch Shell Deterding, respectively master of Wall Street and the City of London.

3° Germany was building a merchant fleet capable of exporting goods from its ultra-modern factories to South America and even the United States. Equally intolerable prospect for Wall Street.

The Second World War took up these commercial and geopolitical fundamentals, while admitting other parameters directly concerning the large Wall Street cartels.
Indeed, the extraordinary profits brought to them by the First World War, during which they had been able to export raw materials, war material and supplies which England and France could no longer produce, had enabled them to place the Wall Street stock exchange in the first place of the world economy. A lucrative market to which the victory of 1918 put an end.
We therefore understand all the interest they could have in provoking a second one just as profitable and even, if possible, a little more…

War as Remedy

And it is here that the fundamentals of the “international conspiracy” appear, which we will nevertheless easily understand, as they are logical.
The whole thing can be summed up in five steps:

  • 1° After the German defeat of 1918, the victorious countries obtained as war compensation, at the same time the colonies of the defeated countries, the industrial patents, certain large industries, and as many deposits of raw materials.
  • 2° To manage this manna, these victorious States resold these goods at miserable prices to their biggest trusts. They therefore found themselves not only with a huge mass of new businesses to manage, but also with the responsibility of keeping them running to avoid a recession.
  • 3° The climate of the early 1920s being at world peace, companies throughout the European continent therefore began to produce equipment for civilian use, with the consequence of considerable overproduction leading to fierce competition not only between European countries but also with American companies unable to curb imports from ruined countries where the cost price was much lower.
  • 4° The result was a violent recession culminating in the great stock market and economic crash begun in 1927 in Germany and culminating in the world crisis of 1929.
  • 5° And we understand better why the big global cartels, having of course foreseen from the beginning of the 1920s that this obligation to maintain their oversized companies to meet the needs of the Great War could only lead to this infernal spiral, s logically oriented towards the only market capable of absorbing such a production capacity: A new war.

Indeed, at a time when the joys of the consumer society had not yet reached the people accustomed to a simple and rural way of life, how could a housewife be asked to buy 100 saucepans, when two or three were enough for her? widely.
On the other hand, the war market, involving the destruction of the material produced as it left the factories and the consumption of raw materials in a just-in-time fashion, was the only conceivable outcome in order to avoid mass unemployment, ruin. savings, and even a possible world revolution in order to put an end to this frantic race towards overconsumption.

The control of the cartels on the world

The maneuver took place in two stages.

First, as early as 1917, American cartels began to funnel their huge profits from the European war into the economy of the first empire to collapse: Russia.
Maneuver repeated in 1920, with the unconditional surrender of the Austro-Hungarian and German empires, by investing essentially in all the heavy industries and natural resources of Eastern European countries.

Massive investments imitated this time by the English and French cartels.

Then, in order to create the conditions essential to a new conflict, they worked, from 1922 by certain secret clauses of the Treaty of Rapallo, to secretly rearm the two great losers: Germany and Russia.

Knowing that ruined Russia should have used all its energy to raise its ruins and that Germany, in the same state of disrepair, had moreover been forbidden to rearm, the malevolent intention is established.

This Anglo-Saxon initiative was immediately followed by the major continental European cartels, unconcerned about being left behind in this rearmament race.
So while the Wall Street cartels – supported by those of the City of London in Germany – were rearming future dictatorships, continental Europeans were rearming democracies.

And we begin to understand how all this will degenerate for the greater benefit of each other.

The birth of Europe

Faced with this new distribution of the cards of the world economy, the countries of continental Europe organized themselves in order to avoid a new devastating war.

Driven by the Peoples, European cartels and organizations of veterans and peace-loving activists united in a new project: The creation of the United States of Europe.

Project supported by the League of Nations and the governments of the various nations concerned, with France and Germany in the forefront, which led to a first concrete result on September 30, 1926, with the first version of a European Union bringing together the cartels steel. Initiative soon followed by all the other cartels: nitrogen, coal, electricity, etc.

This first European Union, much “forgotten” by theoreticians of the incomprehensible, had two declared objectives:

  • Give Europe a republican Constitution based on the great principles of the Enlightenment society and humanism.
  • Combat the infiltration of Wall Street into its economy.

So of course, one can wonder why the big European cartels seemed indifferent to this degradation clearly announcing a new conflict. However, it would have been easy for them to denounce the secret rearmament of Germany before the League of Nations and put an end to the escalation.

And the answer is obvious: Because they too were counting on profiting from the promised manna, not only by manufacturing the weapons of the democracies, but by supplying Germany with the raw materials of which its mixed-capital factories were sorely lacking. .

Which they did shamelessly. And we understand better now why the “family secret” was able to prevail for so long…

The ideological pretext

To fuel the desired conflict, and because it is essential to correctly manipulate the Peoples before asking them to be complacently killed to enrich a few “powerful”, the same cartelist interests undertook to first finance the Russian Communist Party by offering to Stalin and his friends the financing and support necessary for them to seize power.

Then they supported by various contracts the economy of the USSR, before acting in the same way in Germany by bringing Hitler to power and by supporting the economy of the Reich until bringing it to a semblance of power, apparently convincing enough to claim to threaten the USSR.

Communism, entirely financed and installed in power by Wall Street, therefore very naturally opposed fascism, supported by the same interests.

It was under these auspices that republican democratic Europe was finally forced to give way to a fascist Europe, while generalized rearming emerged from the shadows to take over the entire space of international relations.

Another great “forgotten” of complacent historians: French military treason, which today can be considered as the “keystone” of this Great Lie of the 20th century.
Indeed, without this essential piece of the puzzle, it was easy to set aside the major economic issues to seem interested only in political issues, therefore in this fable that was: “The struggle of the Powers of Good against those of Evil”.

The Blitzkrieg Theory

Based, as we have seen, on an uninterrupted series of incomprehensible coincidences and decisions, or a series of “miracles”, this theory of illogicality deliberately “forgets” to recall that:

1° Hitler’s army was much inferior in quality and quantity to that aligned by the Allies:

Here are the latest figures unanimously accepted by historians concerning the forces present on May 10, 1940, the day of the German attack in the west:

  • 135 German divisions, against 151 Allied divisions.
  • 7,378 German guns against 14,000 for the allies.
  • 2,439 German tanks against 4,204 Allied tanks.
  • 3,864 German aircraft against 4,900 Allied aircraft

Knowing that the German material was not superior to the allied material, but in general inferior, in particular for the tanks, and that the German army had at the time of attacking the great empires of the west, only for one month gasoline and ammunition.

Knowing on the other hand that the allies had been informed as early as March 10, 1940 by many informants – including five of the generals closest to the Führer – of all the details of the so-called “Manstein” invasion plan definitively adopted on February 17 , and the date and time of the attack as early as April 31.

How can we imagine that the Allied General Staff could have been both destitute of equipment and “surprised” by a revolutionary strategy, as the States version claims (always in the plural)?


It is by carefully keeping these various data in memory that everyone will be able to follow the detailed explanations that we offer you on our YouTube channel.

No doubt they will be enough to give you an “intimate conviction” about this military betrayal and the major issues that motivated it, before our forthcoming books offer you the archives, testimonies and work of the best researchers who have worked on this major subject, often for more than twenty years…

Ici lien vers la page suivante : On vous explique

About the confusion between republican and Anglo-Saxon democracies

About the confusion between republican and Anglo-Saxon democracies

Every fairy tale – like every state lie, and every religion for that matter – rests on a well-defined moral principle. An apparently logical concept, able to satisfy the most curious as well as the most ignorant, since we are asked to “believe” in an infinite number of improbabilities often qualified as miracles, divine fatalities, chances, and other “incomprehensible” decisions…
In two words, a lie able to satisfy the curiosity of the People, must be based on a dramaturgical principle that everyone can all the more easily adopt as it is nebulous.

Now, what are the two fundamental principles? The good and the bad.

The problem is that they have to be defined.

As far as this second world conflict is concerned, we therefore choose to oppose “democracy and dictatorship”, which can be understood, provided however that we do not rule out the fact that the second of these concepts was common to two apparently opposite ideologies: “ communism” and “fascism”.

And if so, what is the meaning of these two words?

As for communism, it is commonly accepted that it would be based on the idea of ​​solidarity: We put everything in common, so that no one is left behind. Either apparently the republican principle of fraternity.
On the contrary, fascism proposes that everyone has a chance in a world that he will have organized to serve his own interests. Or the imperialist logic par excellence of “everyone for himself and may the best win”. This even if, at their beginning, Italian fascism and Nazism were able to adorn themselves with socialist colors. Republican claims of solidarity quickly abandoned to serve only an authoritarian logic based on force.

The second question remains: What is the value commonly attributed to the word “democracy”?

Infinitely delicate question nowadays, because bringing us back to the British Empire, whose astonishing cohesion for centuries results from its ability to adapt to upheavals, since it managed to unite its colonies and dominions around a total absence of political principles.

In fact, unlike republican democracies, England has never clearly expressed the ideal towards which it is tending by drafting a Constitution, contenting itself with claiming that a series of decrees having modified the balance of power between the King, the Parliament and the People from the year 1215 to the present day would be more than enough to express his conception of the world.

Small arrangement with political logic, which was not going to be without consequences…

England, a kingdom with fluctuating morals

It all began in 1649, when the English nobles and bourgeois cut off the head of King Charles I, then restored royalty, thus inventing a kind of very special democracy: The king would be no more than a screen, the military, religious powers , and money effectively taking control of the country.

Thus, in ultimately safeguarding the role of the king, the guiding principle remained that of the Monarchy by divine right: “God is my right”, implying that to be born rich or poor would be a divine will that must be respected, without seek to change the established order.
This made it possible, over the centuries, to forget to write any constitution that would morally bind the political system, if only by clearly defining the principles supposed to be applied.

It is therefore in this hybrid assembly aimed at involving the People in the decisions of a Parliament legitimized by the person of the king, therefore by God, that it was decided to enlarge the circle of the powerful in order to further strengthen the executive power. .
According to this principle, as soon as a person, whatever his origins, contributed in one way or another to the fortune or the fame of the Empire, he found himself ennobled, then integrated into the elite. On a more modest scale, he was given access to a few very closed clubs, or to certain networks such as Freemasonry.

Nowadays, this mode of government is maintained by what the British claim as a “tradition”, a respect for the past and other populist arguments. In reality, a way of their own not to bind themselves to any principle other than the immediate interest, since the Parliament legally retains the power to modify by a simple law the institutions of the kingdom as well as the fundamental rights of the subjects, without being compelled to respect a clearly established constitution.

In other words, what is commonly called today, in a more flowery way, the imperatives of “real politic” which would give him the moral pretext necessary for the construction of an Empire.

An Empire essential to the development of the country since Great Britain owed its prosperity only to its ability to enrich itself at the expense of others. Without this windfall, its populations were reduced to starvation or exodus.

The fact of living on an island without great resources had therefore first pushed the English to invade France during the Hundred Years War, then to build a fleet which would finally give them unlimited access to these riches which they lacked. so much.
It should therefore never be forgotten that England was, and remains, an aggressive monarchy. The fact that it has become over time a parliamentary monarchy and that its sovereign no longer has the power to decide its destiny alone does not change anything in the spirit of its government, since on the eve of the Second World War II the parliamentarians of the two Chambers were still, for the most part, either aristocrats of old stock, or industrialists or financiers ennobled, or distinguished by their rank of fortune.
This even if the Parliament Act, adopted in 1911, significantly reduced the power of the House of Lords to grant legislative power to the House of Commons – whose members each representing a constituency are always elected by universal suffrage – since in reality the Access to politics remained, if not in principle at least in practice, forbidden to the common people, in any case without great resources, because they had to pay heavy charges to be able to stand for elections.

Anglo-Saxon society on both sides of the Atlantic therefore functioned, and still functions, on what is known as “meritocracy”. In other words: Only he who, by his talents whatever they are, can strengthen the system survives. And too bad for the others!

Which leads us to sum up this very particular form of government as the clearly stated desire to maintain the privileges of the “strongest”, those who “have succeeded”.

In a word: A plutocracy.

Religions, democracies, republics

  • Another nuance completely blurred by the media forming single thought: The difference, not to say the total lack of correspondence, between what they commonly call the “Protestant countries”, mixing in a deliberate misinterpretation the Reformed Lutheran Protestant religion or Calvinist, resulting from a contestation of the excesses of the Catholic Church at the time of the Renaissance; and Anglicanism, whose origin dates back to the decision of King Henry VIII of England to separate his country from the Catholic Church and to make the King the supreme head of the Church of England, following the refusal of the Pope to grant him a divorce from his wife Catherine of Aragon, to marry Anne Boleyn.
    In reality, this schism with the Catholic Church allowed him above all to confiscate the property of the Church of Rome – which at that time owned almost a third of the land – and to significantly reduce its political power, without however recognizing for his own the Reformed Protestant Church which he also condemned in no uncertain terms.

In fact, it was above all a question of strengthening his personal power by getting rid of the religious counter-power, a subtle form of dictatorship.

To fully understand the scope of this decision by Henry VIII, it should be remembered that, just as the Senate of Republican Rome relied on the priests to legitimize the advent of the imperial system and the divination of the person of the Emperor, therefore the end of the Republic, the Christian society had brought the same perversion of the system in order to despoil the Peoples of their legitimate rights to democracy.

Indeed, if we are willing to remember that the essential principles of government of human societies were, since the beginning of humanity, based on three powers: that of the King, that of the People and finally the religious power supposed to serve as impartial arbiter, the fact of uniting royalty and religion in the long term by a convergence of interests was not innocent, because the fact of leaving face to face two powers, – on the one hand Royalty and Religion and of the other the People – systematically brings about a confrontation in which the latter is rarely victorious…

However, Henry VIII by instituting a state religion, therefore being entirely subject to it, went even further in his quest for absolute power and undivided domination over his people.

And we note that with the “Lutheran” Protestant reform it is a question, in opposition to this sort of “coup d’etat” of Henry VIII, of a questioning of this deviation which was the alliance of catholic church, in theory only spiritual power, with a material power such as royalty.
Let us not forget that this notion of hereditary royalty “by divine right” did not exist in the original political organization of the peoples of Europe. Prior to this deviation, as in the days of the Roman Republic, the leader was elected.

And no one will be surprised that this reform has seen the light of day in the ancient pagan countries called “barbarians” of all times opposed to imperialist Rome…

Because in history, everything is linked. Non-stop.

Let us therefore retain from its lessons that having only the appearances of reformed Protestantism – since the essentially Catholic idea of ​​”divine right” and predestination is preserved – this Protestantism of circumstance established by Henry VIII – then further developed by Queen Elisabeth 1st which will carefully balance the contributions of the Reformation and the Catholic principles so as not to harm the principles of hereditary monarchy – must be considered as another essential difference between the Anglo-Saxon countries and the truly Protestant reformist countries in majority of Northern Europe , since even if the founders of the movement such as Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli, only partially questioned the idea of ​​divine legitimacy, their successors, after the Thirty Years War, brought the concept of equality of each person with regard to God and between men.

Or a gradual, but unequivocal, questioning of the idea of ​​predestination, therefore of the right of monarchical succession, and the foundation of republican principles.

Then came the 18th century, known as the “Enlightenment”, during which the Kings granted more and more powers to the representatives of the Peoples.

At the end of this profound change, the Declaration of Independence of the United States was drafted in 1776 and then, with the French Revolution of 1789, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Moment in the history of civilizations, when two conceptions of the world began to clash:

– On the one hand, that of Republican Democracy based on a principle of solidarity: “Liberty, equality, fraternity” and on human rights.

Model of thought involving the idea, of Protestant influence but also followed by an important category of Catholics, according to which man is responsible for his neighbor and cannot rely solely on the will of God. That there is no “fatality” or divine punishment, and that his duty is to lift others up to bring them to an equal footing. Principles of solidarity followed in its beginnings by the very young American Republic.
– And on the other the royalist conceptions, according to which God, as an enlightened steward, would have given to each according to his merits: To the King a throne, to the Wretched his office, and to the Powerful fortune. And that there would be nothing to change in this rule of “Each for himself and God for all”.

This essential difference in the very conception of politics and human relations was, in large part, at the origin of the wars of the 20th century because the Anglo-Saxon logic which ended up imposing itself in the United States, based on the Darwinist and eugenicist according to which “only the strongest survives”, but also on the divine legitimacy also granted by extension to the so-called “democratic” governments, could only oppose the notions of solidarity and secularism proposed by the Republics.

Thus, even if one can argue that “Protestant” England was the “cradle of Democracy” because in recent history it was the first to have cut off the head of its sovereign to impose the authority of a Parliament, it never became a Republic in the French sense of the term, since it always abstained from deciding on the essential questions of “Brotherhood” and therefore of solidarity, but also of “Equality” between men and races before the Law, to return very quickly to Catholic conceptions of divine right and hereditary power, but also imperialist conceptions of “white supremacy” under the guise of Christianity and the “duty” to civilize.

Indeed, the only common concept adopted was that of “Freedom” because, as we have seen, this is adaptable to all sauces, notably when it comes to waging war on a country, or to foment a revolution there, in the name of “entrepreneurial freedom”.

Besides, how could England have adopted principles of equality, or abandoned the excuse of a so-called Christian “civilizing mission”, since she entered with Oliver Cromwell, great apostle of this “democracy”? circumstance, in the era of its colonial conquests, therefore of slavery?
A conception of colonialism that the French right did not deny, just as anti-republican and royalist as the British.

And we have in this community of imperial interests the genesis of the future alliance of European right-wing parties, when it comes to getting Hitler to declare war on the USSR. And therefore the reasons why it was absolutely necessary to avoid seeing his weak army destroyed from the Battle of France. But let’s not anticipate.

Let us rather see how the philosophers succeeded in translating this fundamental opposition into the minds of the Peoples, because it will have been well understood that, without a perfectly orchestrated propaganda around a defined ideology, it is difficult to make oneself obey it.

Intellectuals take a stand

As far as the Anglo-Saxon Democracies are concerned, the idea therefore very logically imposed itself according to which the interest of all would be the addition of particular interests.

Thesis based on the writings of the 18th century philosopher and economist Adam Smith arguing that Man, being essentially motivated by the prospect of improving his own lot above all, would ultimately act for the good of society as a whole. , since humans are dependent on each other, each is useful to all.

Which amounts to saying that the colonialist or the slaveholder ends up in any case, at the end of the day, by causing the subject peoples to evolve in the right direction, or that the powerful, even if he keeps his workers in misery, the done for their own good, since it offers them the possibility of working, and therefore of surviving.

Or, there again, the imperialist logic in its most beautiful conception.

A conception contradicted by the Republican Democracy of continental Europe, defended at the same time by Jean Jacques Rousseau, for which the general interest takes precedence over the individual.
This is one of the founding ideas of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which in its article six specifies: “The Law is the expression of the general will. »

Which obviously implies a consensus around a well-defined morality prohibiting going against the general interest, and brings back to its article two: “The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. »

Text obviously complementary to the declaration of independence of the United States: “We hold as self-evident the following truths: all men are created equal; they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Governments are established among men to secure these rights, and their just power emanates from the consent of the governed. »

It is therefore on these principles, affirming that the citizen is at the service of a State, itself the guarantor of the Constitution, that the great republican democratic movement, having enthused the United States and Europe by carrying high the humanist ideas of universal peace, social justice, equal rights and respect for the rights of Peoples – therefore anti-slavery and anti-imperialist – animated by idealists powerfully supported by their public opinion, but also by the great national capital, was founded .
And one will not be surprised that it displeased so much – and still displeases despite appearances – the Stateless Big International Capital much more partisan of the principles: “God is my right”, “Me first” “the strongest is right” and all that we are beginning to know so well, at the start of the 21st century, of Anglo-Saxon morality.

To sum up: The concept of Democracy does not have, for the Anglo-Saxons, the same meaning as that which we give to it in France, and more broadly in our old European societies: An Englishman or an American, will reason according to the Darwinian principle of natural selection and divine will, while in our conception, largely influenced by the republican idea of ​​equality and fraternity, but also in the spirit of the Protestant democracies of the Nordic countries, even monarchical, or even of certain Republics , even with a Catholic majority, it was appropriate, and it is still true today because too many have forgotten it, to help the weakest by educating and raising them. To show solidarity, in order to allow him to be your equal.

All this while respecting the part of the spiritual power as independent of the two others, since concerning only the conscience of the People supposed to have a right to vote freed from any “divine” influence. This principle of secularism, enshrined in the Constitution, therefore replaces the political power of a Church deemed too invested in the safeguarding of monarchical principles.

The principle of “divine right monarchy”, according to which God would order the world according to His will, that the wealth as well as the poverty of the subjects would depend on His unique authority and that there would be no reason to oppose it, disappeared.
Thus the Catholic Church, as a support of the monarchy and of the “divine order”, lost its power in the French Revolution, and General Bonaparte, propagator of this new ideology in Europe, was immediately considered the enemy to be destroyed by the supporters of monarchical principles.

In any case, until he is crowned Emperor by the Pope…”

End of quote The Great Lie of the 20th Century Volume 2 Controversies on some “forgotten” betrayals

Click here to buy the book