Part 5 – Abandoning Political power systems

Ecological environment for a positive money

Ch 5 the Ecological environment to use a Positive Money :

The ecological environment involves everything that has to do with protecting the planet, including: environmental protection laws; rules for sustainable development; changes in energy consumption; and measures for recycling and reprocessing waste.

The transposition of this question into the use of a positive money remains within this framework.

summary of the diagnosis of the external environment of a Full Currency (PESTEL method)

Positive Money is ours

Second Part: Strategic Analysis:

II External diagnosis. 

Opportunities and threats in the Positive Money environment
for a new use in Life Networks.

Chapter 5 the Ecological environment

Ch 1 The POLITICAL environmentCh 2 ECONOMIC environmentCh 3 SOCIOLOGICAL environmentCh 4 TECHNOLOGICAL environment
The Fight Against a Private Central Bank

Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Kennedy,

Maurice Allais warns politicians

Initiatives for a Positive Monney

The Anglo-Saxon Financial Oligarchy’s Threat

Pierre Leroux and the associations

Karl MARX and the American Bankers
Distributive economy

Free Trade/Protectionism

The additional cost of Capital

the debt burden

repayment of public debts

solution to repay debts
The impoverishment of the population

wealth inequality

violence by the rich

discrediting the elites

Solidarity villages Marinaleda, Ungersheim

les SEL Local Exchange Services

Local currencies

Private currencies
the sale of financial securities

the casino economy

the stock markets are rising, the economy is flat

the big bubble machine US

Five ways finance has gone crazy

The blockchain a common good
Ch5 ÉCOLOGICAL environmentCh 6 LEGAL environment
Global warming

energy transition, sustainable development

political ecology

What is political ecology

The Climate Convention
money controls the economy

the central bank alone creates money

off-balance sheet management of investment banks

Money in Medieval Europe

the Swiss Initiative Monnaie Pleine
money owned by commercial banks

Glass-Steagall Act, security solution

Increasing fractional reserves

” The” solution to banking crises.

We know the management of the environment in the Networks of Life and how the first level of human activity is organized: the work essential to life and survival. Threats to life on Earth describe the damage to our health and nature caused by human activity and we also describe the threats presented by the life of our planet in the universe, natural disasters, the cyclical destruction of life and its response through the understanding the mystery of the Apocalypse..

Immediately we understand that the use of a positive money brings the opportunity to finance without debt the ecological transition, energy change, the fight against global warming. Just as the Total Quality approach, which determines the need for financing to improve the production of wealth through the work of all, makes it possible to organize in a participatory way the achievement of the objectives of this ecological policy which has become the center of human activity to ensure the life and survival of our planet.

In France, the nuclear issue is symptomatic of this desire to ignore the use of a full currency without debt. Environmentalists who refuse nuclear power could be forgiven but they should still know how the nuclear sector was financed in our country between 1945 and 1973. But no, ecology is ecology and economics, especially monetary and financial economy, they don’t care, they don’t care…

We will arrive at the heart of the ecological debate and examine this controversial situation through the intervention of high finance which seeks to transform ecology into new sources of juicy profits without necessarily taking into account the interest of the people and the very life of the people. our planet.

The debate on ecology cannot remain purely, only scientific, humanist, theoretical. Like all questions relating to the organization and development of our societies, it is initially, as always, of a political nature. This is a question that concerns the functioning of Authority, Power and Command.

And this question is treated and resolved differently within the framework of a system of power or within the framework of our organizations in networks of Life.

We begin by examining the ecological environment in the neo-liberal system led by the world government of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy and its Puritan sect. This is the main threat to the environmental movement and to the solutions to eliminate the risks capable of destroying Life on our planet. Then we will discuss the opportunities presented by the environmental movement which is already developing in the local context and a more direct and participatory democracy, if possible outside the influence of the neo-liberal system.

As we have just seen in terms of the technological dimension of the external environment, we can begin the analysis with the actions of Goldman Sachs since this investment bank is everywhere and places its leaders in key positions in the global economy. .

1) Financiers and the fight against global warming.

1.1 fuel taxes

The analysis of the situation in this area can begin with the last major social conflict in France which started in November 2018 and which bears the name of the Yellow Vest crisis. The purpose of this spontaneous movement is clearly identified: the most modest populations refuse the new ecological taxes that the government puts in place to finance the ecological transition. In particular, fuel taxes.

When we first met, many in our campfire group were annoyed by the simplistic slogan “Macron resigns,” because they suspected he had been elected to do the “job”: implement the policies set by high finance, particularly Goldman Sachs, and its management of the carbon market, to the letter. The target was well above him and the solution was already between us at that time by abandoning this liberal system of power led by high finance.

It was as if this young woman who was a salaried and commercial employee at Orange, as she spoke out with determination around the campfire, echoed what I had written on, even though I realized that she did not know about this site when she understood that I knew more about it than she did and that she had listened with interest to me.


Why is the price of a barrel so low and the gasoline so expensive at the pump, as the Yellow Vests denounce?

The impact of oil prices on the price of gasoline at the pump is small. In fact, the French essentially pay ecological taxes reverted to the state. But they forgot that when oil prices collapsed in 2016, the price at the pump had fallen quite a bit. In deciding whether to maintain or increase carbon taxes, the government is committing to early decarbonization.,-un-monde-de-brut-a-decouvrir-sur-arte,n5908305.php


1,.2 Goldman Sachs and carbon market speculation.

Global Warming

Fast-forward to today. This June, in Washington, DC, Barack Obama, a young popular politician whose single largest private contributor to his election campaign was a corporate bank named Goldman Sachs – his employees donated some $981,000 to his campaign – holds the White House. Having navigated smoothly through the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman has returned to business as usual, looking for flaws in a new market created by the government, with the help of a new group of bank elders in key government positions.

Hank Paulson and Neel KashKari are gone; in their place are Finance Chief Mark Patterson and CFTC Chief Executive Gary Gensler, both former Goldman employees (Gensler was the firm’s co-CFO). And instead of credit derivatives or CDOs or oil options, carbon credits are the new fashionable game – a burgeoning trillion-dollar market that barely exists, but will exist if the Democratic Party, which received $4,452,585 from the market in the last election, muddles through to create

a new commodity bubble that will rock the earth, disguised as an “environmental plan” called cap-and-trade.[51].

The new carbon-credit market is a virtual replay of the commodity casino that has been so good for Goldman, except that it has a savory new particularity: if the plan goes ahead as expected, the price hike will be imposed by the government. Goldman won’t even have to fix the game. It will be from the start.

Here’s how it works: if the law passes, for coal plants and facilities, natural-gas distributors, and many other industries, there will be limits on the amount of carbon (carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases) that they can produce each year. If a company exceeds its quota, it can buy “allowances” or credits from other companies that have produced less carbon. President Obama estimates that at least $646 billion in carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years. One of his top economic advisers predicts that the real number will be two or even three times higher.

The peculiarity of this plan, which gives it a special attraction for speculators, is that the quota[52] will be continually reduced by the government, which means that carbon credits will become increasingly scarce year after year. This is an entirely new market, where there is a guarantee that the tradable commodity will see its price rise over time. The new market will grow to more than $1 trillion per year in value. For comparison, the combined revenue of all power utilities in the United States is $320 billion per year.

Goldman wants this law. The plan is (1) to enter into paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) to ensure that the bank will have the cost-effective part of that legislation, and (3) to ensure that this part will be a large part. Goldman began pushing for the adoption of cap-and-trade a long time ago, but things didn’t really get off the ground until last year, when the firm spent $3.5 million lobbying on climate issues (one of their lobbyists at the time was Patterson, now the director of the finance cabinet). In 2005, when Hank Paulson was CEO of Goldman, he personally helped draft the bank’s environmental policy, a document that contains surprising elements for a firm that, in all other areas, has been consistently opposed to government regulation.

Paulson’s report argued that “voluntary action alone cannot solve the problem of climate change.” A few years later, the bank’s carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, argued that cap-and-trade alone would not be enough to address the climate problem, and called for public investment in research and development. This is handy considering Goldman’s early investments in wind (it acquired a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy), biodiesel (it invested in a company called Changing World Technologies), and solar (it has a partnership agreement with BP Solar) – exactly the kinds of businesses that will flourish if the government forces energy producers to use cleaner energy. As Paulson said at the time, “We don’t make these investments to lose money.”

Goldman has a 10% stake in the Chicago Carbon Exchange[53], where carbon credits will be traded. In addition, the bank owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based company that sells the type of carbon credits that will be in high demand if the law passes. Nobel laureate Al Gore, who is intimately involved in cap-and-trade programming, co-founded a company called Generation Investment Management with three former Goldman Sachs Asset Management oils, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their domain? Invest in carbon credits. There’s also a $500-million fund, Green Growth Fund, set up by a Goldman alumnus to invest in green technology…the list goes on and on. Goldman is again ahead of the announcements, just waiting for someone to rain in the right place. Will this market be larger than the energy futures market[54]?

“Oh, he’s going to be several heads above him,” says a former member of the House energy committee.[55]

Well, you might say, what does it matter? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won’t we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Perhaps – but cap-and-trade, as Goldman sees it, is just a carbon tax built in such a way that private interests collect the proceeds. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government tax on carbon pollution and forcing dirty energy producers to pay for the pollution they cause, the cap-and-trade will allow a small Wall Street tribe to suck it up like pigs by turning yet another commodity market into a system for collecting taxes privately. This is worse than a bailout: it allows the bank to hoard taxpayer money before it is even raised.

“If it’s going to be a tax, I’d rather see Washington implement it and collect it,” says Michael Masters, the head of hedge fund who has decried speculation in the oil futures market, “but we’re talking about Wall Street determining the tax and Wall Street collecting it. It’s the last thing in the world I want. It’s crazy.”

Cap-and-trade is coming. Or, if not, something similar will happen.

The moral high ground is the same as it was for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped to create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the same bank that behaved irresponsibly for years, overburdening the system with toxic loans and mortal debt, producing nothing but huge bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of practically donated money and government guarantees – while the real victims of this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are those who pay for it.

It is not always easy to accept the reality of what we allow these people to get away with; there is a kind of collective denial that comes when a country goes through what America has gone through lately, when a people loses as much of their prestige and status as we have in recent years. You can’t quite acknowledge that you are no longer a citizen of a vital, prosperous democracy, that you are no longer safe from being robbed in broad daylight; because, like an amputee, you can still feel things that are gone.

But it is. This is the world we live in now. And in this world, some must play by the rules, while others get a note from the Principal exempting them from doing their jobs until the end of time, plus $10 billion in a paper bag to buy their lunch. It is a gangster state, living in a gangster economy where even prices mean nothing: in every dollar you pay you hide from taxes. And maybe we can’t stop it, but at least we need to know where it’s leading.

Matt Taibbi (2009)


An update on the evolution of this carbon market published on September 24, 2018 by NOVETHIC:

1.3 European carbon market: price per ton rises, energy transition accelerates

A new study by Carbon Tracker shows that the EU carbon price could average between €35 and €40 per ton over the next five years. At this value, the Union could achieve emission savings of around 400 million tons of carbon over the period 2019-2023.

Carbon Tracker research shows that the price of carbon on the European market is rising faster than expected. The climate-related financial risks think-tank estimates that the price per ton of carbon will reach €25 by the end of 2018, €10 more than it had estimated last April.

At the European level, the savings would be significant: around 400 million tons of carbon over the period 2019-2023, or 80 million tons per year. A welcome boost to meeting the goals of the Paris climate agreement. And this comes despite the European Commission’s desire to raise its own climate targets in October by increasing the reduction in its greenhouse-gas emissions to 45% by 2030, from the original 40% target.

…/… In fact, the increase in the price per ton is attracting the interest of several hedge funds and investment banks such as Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs that are expanding their carbon trading desk. As Nima Neelakandan, head of Morgan Stanley’s carbon trading business, explains to the business daily, ‘it seems that the European trading system is finally starting to work effectively.’

Beatrice Héraud.

In short, you can see that in Europe, Goldman Sachs’ cap and trade is working as planned by the Bank as early as 2009.

1.4 Investors in wind turbines

Document :

First of all, you should know that the company which installs the wind turbines financially supports, one could say “buys”, the local communities. No problem, it’s you, the reader, who pays with a significant surcharge on your EDF bill. Life is beautiful. This is what I call margoulins. And we are the pigeons.

As for the impostors, they are the environmentalists ready to do anything to impose their ignorance.

Here it is time to explain how wind turbines work. A standard wind turbine develops a power of 1 megawatt (1,000 kilowatts). This is maximum power. By comparison, a nuclear reactor has a standard power of 1 gigawatt (1,000,000 kilowatts). And it is a cruising power, that is to say constant.

For a wind turbine, the power of one megawatt is given in a wind of 80 km/h (beyond that, the machine must be slowed down to avoid destroying it). However, physics teaches us that the electrical power actually produced increases or decreases according to the cube of the wind speed.

Remember that the cube of a number is equal to this number multiplied twice by itself.

Cube of 2 = (2 x 2 x 2) = 8. Cube of 4 = (4 x 4 x 4) = 64. This function varies very quickly.

So, under a wind of 80 km/h, the wind turbine produces its maximum: 1 megawatt.

At 40 km/h, or 2 times less, the wind turbine produces 8 times less, or 0.125 megawatts.

At 20 km/h, or 4 times less, the wind turbine produces 64 times less, or 0.015 megawatts.

This is negligible power, apparently the machine is running, but it provides almost nothing.

However, not only does the wind change at any time, but a wind of 20 km/h is much more frequent, and fortunately, than a wind of 80 km/h. This is the tragedy of wind turbines, their fundamental deception. On an annual average, they do not provide more than 20 to 25% of their nominal power. Derisory.

This figure is known, and yet we continue to impose this chimera on us. Behind it is a lot of money and a few people ready to ruin the country for a few more dollars in their pocket.

source :

Other document on wind turbines, extracts:

The testimony of a farmer.

Because after 20 years, a wind turbine is at the end of its life.

– OK. So I brought in several specialized companies. To dismantle a 200 meter high wind turbine, the minimum cost is 450,000 euros per wind turbine. Responsible for the land owner.

– What if he can’t pay? As it is an industrial wind turbine, the State turns against the owner, then against the municipality.

– I do a quick calculation: the overall project includes 7 wind turbines and my town has 200 inhabitants.

– 450,000 x 7 = 3 million 150,000 debt.

– My head is spinning… I feel dizzy in the face of such debt.

For wind turbines that will only run 25% of the time, not very profitable… So how is it that pension funds are so interested in wind power in France?

That simple ! In France, a law requires that green energy from wind turbines be purchased as a priority at twice the price of other energies (hydraulic power, which is completely green, does not have this privilege!)

So, it’s interesting for (foreign) investors, undoubtedly in full complicity with the government… because… who pays this difference?

document source:

2) Local and national action for the energy transition and sustainable development..

2.1 Control of energy and electricity at the local level.

After the presentation of the Spanish Basque cooperative Mondragon, here is a French cooperative that develops the project of 100% renewable electricity managed by a participatory local democracy.


The Enercoop cooperative

was founded in 2005 to offer a citizens’ alternative when the electricity markets were opened up to competition. Energy, considered by the founding structures of Enercoop as a common good, could not be left solely in the hands of the market and land and financial opportunities, without real concern for local and citizen issues.


As a truly green, local and citizen electricity cooperative, we advocate a model where citizens and communities reclaim ownership of these issues: the choices regarding the management of energy, from its production to its consumption through its control, in a spirit of public utility. That is the civic energy transition that we are committed to. The ENERCOOP charter specifies how the cooperative operates. Enercoop is above all a project for a greener society that puts people back at the center of the economic sphere in a logic of public utility. Our co-operative, decentralized model, with a network of 11 co-operatives, promotes local employment. The remuneration of labor takes precedence over the remuneration of capital since our lucrativeness is limited.

Example: Meet the producers of Enercoop – Hydroelectricity in Coudoustrines:

end of document.


2.2 The National Low Carbon Strategy (NBCS).

There is an urgent need to transform the way we produce and consume in order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and thus meet the commitments made by the government through the National Low Carbon Strategy. Promoting a zero-carbon, environmentally friendly economy is the only way to do this.

Introduced by the Energy Transition Law for Green Growth (LTECV), the National Low-Carbon Strategy (SNBC) is France’s roadmap for tackling climate change. It provides guidance for implementing the transition to a low-carbon, circular and sustainable economy across all sectors of activity. It sets out a path for reducing greenhouse gas emissions until 2050 and sets short- to medium-term targets: carbon budgets. It has two ambitions: to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and to reduce the carbon footprint of French consumption. Policy-makers, at both the national and territorial levels, need to take this into account.


Document: Le Monde, Published on January 21, 2020

This does not mean that French greenhouse gas emissions – estimated at 445 million tons of CO2 equivalent in 2018 – will be zero, but that they will have to be greatly reduced (divided by a factor of 6 or 8) and that residual emissions will be offset by natural carbon sinks (forests, grasslands, etc.) or by certain industrial processes (carbon capture and storage or reuse).

2.3 Transport and building delays

The problem is that the current pace is insufficient to achieve a “global transformation of society” and “detoxify ourselves from fossil fuels,” as Elisabeth Borne, the minister for the ecological and solidarity transition, has called for. To be sure, the region’s emissions have fallen by 19% since 1990 – to 4.2% in 2018 alone – and their per capita level is one of the lowest (6.4 tons per year) among developed countries.

Read the interview: Elisabeth Borne: “We want to correct the inadequacies of the past”

But the decline has not come fast enough. For the SNBC’s first period, set for 2015-2018, France exceeded its carbon budgets – that is, maximum emission ceilings – by 65 million tons of CO2 equivalent, or a surplus of 3.7%. Emissions decreased by only 1% per year on average between 2015 and 2018, half as much as expected, mainly due to delays in transport and construction, the two most emitting sectors.

end of document.

other documentation: Carbon Neutrality in the Building, source ADEME

Sustainable development:

The Greens and power. Geopolitical views on French environmentalists: strategies and representations Sylvie Vieillard-Coffre

2.4 Drôme: farmers and foresters dreamed of it, wolves did it

Document: Wednesday April 26, 2023

The return of the wolf to France, after a little less than a century of absence, occurred in the early 1990s following Italian immigration. The Drôme wolves resulting from this spontaneous recolonization reproduced for the first time in the Vercors at the beginning of the 2000s.

Today, 20 years later, Drôme and the bordering areas of neighboring departments are home to between 20 and 25 packs of wolves, which represents a total of between 150 and 200 individuals. On these figures, our estimates agree with those of hunters.

At the end of their last general assembly in the Vercors on April 15, 2023, Drôme hunters declare that the return of wolves in the department is responsible for the drop in wild boar populations by 30%, deer by 20 to 30% and deer by 30 to 40%. If this decline is plausible, the announcement by hunters of the “eradication” (sic) of mouflon by wolves is a gross lie (1).

Indeed, in the Alps, wild boars, deer and roe deer constitute the food base of wolves and what Drôme hunters present as a “discovery” had already been the subject of multiple publications for decades, in the countries of Europe where the wolf is present.

To the natural predation of Drôme wolves, the department’s hunters forget to add their annual “big game” hunting table which, good year, bad year, is each year about 1000 stags and does, 5000 roe deer and 15,000 wild boars ( 2).

An annual hunting table that Drôme hunters have been steadily increasing for more than 30 years without ever succeeding in reducing the numbers of these three species responsible for more than 90% of the damage to crops and forests. Damage which, on a national level, probably exceeds one million euros each year (3).

Clearly, the hunters finally admit that the Drôme wolves have managed to do in 10 years what they had not managed to achieve for more than 30 years, to the great dismay of the Drôme farmers and foresters who, despite the increase in hunts, six months a year, still saw as many wild boars, deer and roe deer in their crops and forest plots.

Hunters thus confirm a great success of the wolf to their credit and their own failure to reduce the populations of “big game” without the help of wolves.

“Big game” hunting, particularly in the Drôme, generates a particularly lucrative trade (4). It is not surprising that Drôme hunters take a very dim view of the return of the wolf which directly threatens their “turnover”.

They are proposing to the prefect of Drôme to kill 100 (one hundred) wolves per year from next year. Enough to put thousands of additional wild boars, deer and roe deer back into the department’s crops and forests… Not sure that this idea will delight Drôme farmers and foresters.

source :

3) Political ecology, myth with money debts or reality implemented with a positive money?

Since the end of March 2014 and our occasional participation in the Swiss initiative Monnaie Pleine in the Romandie group, we have been surprised and sorry to see that the elected representatives and activists of the environmental parties in Switzerland and much more in France have not wanted to listen to us and discuss our proposals. They have remained locked in their dogmas and ideals where the issue of the Mint has no place.

Participatory local direct democracy, the common goods that are the reference framework of a positive money have had the merit of clarifying somewhat the debate: environmental activists want to conquer power and in the electoral field, use the citizen movement in favor of ecology to fight climate change. To speak in addition of a positive money that the voters most often ignore, is a risk-taking for them useless. For those who are more knowledgeable about environmental issues, the debate about an UBI seemed to be the limit of their attention.

3.1 How can we finance the energy transition, the fight against climate change and sustainable development?

Their answer was invariable: seize power through the electoral system and then use the tax system to finance public spending and green policies.

To tell them that the positive money was used in France after 1945 to rebuild the country is useless because this industrialization and worse, the development of the civil and military nuclear sector, the rise of the consumer society are precisely the targets of their protests. However, this activist behavior is at odds with the results at local level of the environmental projects carried out by the cooperatives on the ground that we have just presented.

This confinement in dogmas and ideals and this willingness to act by using brigades of activists at the orders of leaders rather than Quality Circles or groups of problem solving within the framework of a participatory management and a Total Quality approach, raise a preliminary question, a preliminary question. Isn’t there in this refusal of a positive money and everything that goes with it, a disturbing similarity with the former communist movement also entirely turned towards the conquest of power in the liberal capitalist system of power? The same certainty that only the use of the electoral system and then the fiscal system within a highly centralized power can conquer the power to implement the policies decided by their activists?

Clearly, the same leaders of the Anglo-Saxon high finance who created the communist movement to serve their interests and to serve as a pretext for these wars that enrich them so terribly, do not these same leaders develop this ecological movement and these ecological parties with the same methods of the past to achieve the same result: political squabbles in representative democracies that will not abandon this centralized, capitalist, liberal system of power that is based only on ideals, dogmas, myths and fictions, lies, like all systems of economic, theocratic, military and police power, dictatorships of all kinds?

3.2 The reaction of environmentalists against the Yellow Vests in 2019

Moreover, environmentalists most often ignore the history of communism as that of world wars and the criminal acts of the financiers of Wall Street and the City of London.

Refusing to give in to “ambient conspiracy” and to recognize the real plotters against humanity, the dislike of these environmental activists to reject any participatory local direct democracy, participatory management, Total Quality approach, the National Guard… and the Mint Pleine, these environmental activists were also the first in November 2018 to oppose the Yellow Vests, we have seen, because the refusal of the latter to submit to the new ecological taxes was only gross ignorance and intolerable of the means to implement to fight immediately against global warming.

The yellow vests were only irresponsible, ignorant, incapable of understanding ecology. They had to be silenced as quickly as possible.

Will they learn more about how Goldman Sachs is pricing carbon wealth in 2024? A prerequisite for finally admitting the solution to eliminate these business banks and this Anglo-Saxon high finance: the use once again of a positive money and all that accompanies it in political, economic, social and cultural terms, in short, a new civilization more human.

3.3 The struggle between a communal ecology and green capitalism

This struggle and these fights between an organization based on local actions, communal with cooperatives on the one hand and the policies of governments subject to the interests of high finance and international bankers on the other, this struggle between communal ecology and green capitalism, strangely resemble this 19th century struggle between French Christian socialism and German scientific socialism which allowed the establishment of the communist power system with all its excesses of tyranny and police crimes.

We analyzed this political functioning of the Anglo-Saxon financial system above, in the political environment of a positive money.

The big difference now and in the age of the global Internet village is that the power to inform and educate people is no longer based solely on papers, books, and newspapers whose content is dictated by the leaders who own the printers. They can use the same “classic” methods as we have seen with Goldman Sachs and financial crises, but they cannot or can no longer prevent local social groups from organizing differently and re-establishing participatory local direct democracies with their cooperatives.

Occulting Leroux was possible to arrive at Lenins and then in reaction to Stalins and then again to the Second World War to eliminate Stalin and the Soviet economic success, pretext for this Second World War to last as long as possible and maximize the profits of the Anglo-Saxon high finance.

Here we take up this document presented in chapter 1, the political environment for a positive money:

Another approach to the divergence between Marx and the leaders of the Marxist movement :

“While Marx aimed to make a global critique of political economy, traditional Marxism confined itself to formulating an alternative political economy. Many Marxists’ chief mistake was to remain stuck in a philosophy of progress that owes much more to capitalism than to socialism, and as a result of a kind of religiosity of production. [Hence the belief] in the emancipatory character of productive forces (that is why Soviet communism was never more than state capitalism.” … “as Maxime Ouellet wrote, “emancipating society from capitalism means exiting from the ontology of labor and the value that pushes individuals to a war of all against all and subjects them to the depersonalized domination of self-interested calculation.”

In short, this is the goal of to get out of the ontology of work and the value that drives individuals to a war of all against all. The difference with Marx, on, after the emergence of power systems, is that we describe the development of Networks of Life, participatory local direct democracy in the global village in the age of the Internet.

Political ecology is at the heart of this major turning point

either so that we remain even more submissive in the liberal system of power or, on the contrary, so that we finally abandon this liberal system and reestablish our Networks of Life.

The choice between the continuation of the use of debt money and the myth of credit and general indebtedness or, on the contrary, the use of a positive money is indeed at the heart of ecology if it wants to take on a political dimension and ensure sustainable development, the energy transition, the fight against climate change and the survival of life and its biodiversity on our planet, objectives assured by the Networks of Life, once abandoned the liberal capitalist system.

3.4 What is ecology-politics?

Document: Jean Zin In Ecology & Politics 2010/2

The nature of ecology-politics arises from the fact that it is an emerging movement, emerging in response to real questions, not as a result of some prior doctrine. Arguably, his still-disputed body of doctrine was formed by walking, which explains the historical approach taken in general.

The problem with this approach is that it fails to escape the initial confusion – including the religiosity, romanticism, and voluntarism that ecological-politics has so difficult to get rid of. It has been reduced to a moral aspiration, a pure question of values, a desire for harmony, if not love, for people and animals, instead of an inescapable responsibility that makes it a vital cognitive challenge.

It is not a question of taking into account ecological constraints or personal preferences. The reduction of ecology-politics to the love of nature is both historically unavoidable and practically unsustainable. It must be stated loud and clear that we do not need to be sentimental in order to take ecology-politics seriously, particularly its political dimension, which therefore introduces the division between environmentalists that we absolutely cannot bring together in a single stream that goes from deep ecology to social ecology.

…/… While the nice environmentalists heroically occupy the stage, we see behind the scenes a completely different ecology in “suit tie”, more utopian than that, and rather technophile, that of green capitalism engaged in a new cycle of growth with the development of renewable energies in particular. These differences, which could not be more obvious, at least prove that ecology is not limited to what its various protagonists do, but, in both cases, they show above all the absence of the political dimension in these spiritual or commercial approaches.

It is impossible to overestimate the difference between these different ecologies, since ecology is proven to be complicit with the most brutal liberalism, which has been improperly called “social Darwinism” (Defoe, Malthus, Spencer, etc.) up to the spontaneous neoliberal order. We also know the lengths to which other kinds of “Darwinism,” biologism, hygienism, and so on, whether Nazi racism obsessed with living space or petainism, for which the earth does not lie, have been allowed to lead. A media philosopher even thought he could identify ecology with these far-right tendencies that represent a very minority current as such today, but whose existence cannot be denied, however, imbuing as naturally the most naive ecological discourses, not to mention the catastrophism calling for authoritarian powers and the reign of technocracy [4]On the criticisms of Luc Ferry’s book, The New Order….

Indeed, the defense of life claimed by many environmentalists makes no sense, nor does it even guarantee the survival of the human species, which is not at issue except in the event of a cosmic catastrophe. It is not at this absolute level that the questions arise. We can afford to live in space, so there will at least be small groups that survive in the worst conditions. Defending human life may make sense, as much as it is about human rights, but it is not necessarily ecological. The question of survival is well posed for some (Bangladesh, small islands, poor people in general, etc.), but ecology cannot confine itself to preventing a whole series of disasters, nor can it confine itself to survival as if life were desirable at any cost. Awareness of the risks is indeed what obliges us to become ecologists, but this is not enough to give its content to an ecology-politics.

…/… Our industry’s green regulations are sorely lacking, which is why they must be created. It is not a question of allowing so-called laws of nature to be made, which we have at least very greatly disturbed. On the contrary, we are now responsible for the climate, like it or not. 12

Ecology-politics is defined by an awareness of our environment and our interdependencies, an awareness of our belonging to ecosystems that we must not destroy, an awareness of our ecological footprint and a desire not only to safeguard our living conditions but also to improve the quality of life, all things that are not given and depend on a political debate without having the simplicity of the evidence.

…/… In fact, an ecological u-topia makes no sense when it is necessary to start from local and concrete realities. It is the capitalist system and the consumer society that are utterly utopian. In contrast to the idealism of totalitarian utopias seeking to forge a new one-dimensional man (such as Homo oeconomicus or Homo sovieticus), ecology-politics must, on the contrary, stick to reality and act with caution, taking into account men as they are, in their different dimensions, with all their internal contradictions, diversities and tensions. It is no longer the end of history that is in the spotlight, but its continuation, its sustainability. Likewise, the obligation to achieve results requires account to be taken of effective power relations, even if there is a need to give a certain radical response, which cannot be limited to the most conspicuous malfunctions. The question is not what you want, but what is possible and necessary.

…/… An agreement on the analyzes as well as on the ends would be absolutely inconceivable in the current state, requiring a political process of confrontation of social categories and opinions (“class struggle” in theory, responsible, as we know, for many mistakes, but just as much as “single thought” or the government of experts). 17

Here, we must therefore take a stand, and for us, as for André Gorz, ecology-politics cannot be reduced to a limitation of consumption, but involves moving away from capitalist productivism and liberal laissez-faire, while preserving individual autonomy as well as social solidarity.

…/… This municipal ecology is far from being a project shared by other environmentalists, but it nevertheless gives an idea of a possible alternative and of what the post-crisis situation could be with a new relocated and more environmentally sustainable production system, allowing us to get out of the productivist labor force while being adapted to the digital age, to the new intangible productive forces.

…/… Obviously, there is little agreement to act at the global level only under the pressure of disaster, but this is equally true at the local level when it comes to challenging the acquired situations, clientelism and various feudalism that still largely exist. Democracy is neither natural nor easy, democratization is a constant political struggle, but so is the defense of our freedoms, which only wear themselves out if they are not used: any phenomenon left to itself will go to its demise under the laws of universal entropy. That is why we must always do what we do – resist the topic – and why we are “stewards of the being” as living beings, beings, and citizens of the world.


This document is sufficient for us, it clearly shows the difficulty of ecology to exist politically.

Compared to the maneuvers of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy to develop communism as a pseudo-opposition to its system of liberal capitalist power, our era, which can only be ecological, has the opportunity to begin by developing this “municipal ecology”.

This implies, however, the abandonment of the centralism of political power, the centralism of power of which France republican since 1790, in its constitutions, remains an undisputed champion. And when it comes to green policies, including implementing the treaties that it signed, notably on cutting carbon emissions, as we saw earlier, in 2021, it is being condemned by a court for its inaction and failure to meet the targets that it has set..

Document: Press release by the La France insubs parliamentary group.

This is the first time that the issue of state responsibility for addressing climate change has been brought before a court. And it formally recognizes the existence of ecological harm. The ecological emergency is a recognized reality!

Pointing to the State’s share of responsibility, the court notes that France does not respect the objectives that it has set for itself! This confirms the gap between the stated ambitions and the concrete actions of the government. On the other hand, the State’s claim for compensation for environmental damage is rejected. It will only have to pay a symbolic €1 to the associations in recognition of their efforts to defend the general interest.

end of document.

4) The Climate Convention.

If the French state does not respect its objectives, it is because it was probably busy in recent months with the Climate Convention and its citizens drawn by lot and especially with the lobbies busy emptying the future law of all substance.

Document: extracts

How industrial lobbies sabotaged the reforms that the people wanted from the Climate Convention.

by Barnabé Binctin 8 February 2021

…/… But the tone changed abruptly with the release of the results in June 2020, and the overconfidence faded with the “radicality” of the final recommendations.

Several economic sectors – cars, aircraft, agriculture, advertising, and supermarkets – accustomed to accepting vague green promises, are being pressed by ordinary citizens to change some of their practices. It was inconceivable for many industrial politicians, who would storm legislation to gut it.

The depth of the influence of lobbies

This offensive is detailed in the new report by the Observatory of Multinational Enterprises “Lobbies vs Citizens. Who wants the skin of the climate convention?” So much for the promise of the “filterless”, thrown back at the figure of the most gullible. The story of the Citizens’ Climate Convention is that of a cruel paradox: supposed to give citizens a proper place at the political table, it ends up demonstrating instead the depth of the influence of lobbies.

The low-ebb combat of everything Paris has to offer as pro-industry cabinets and pharmacies

That is an understatement to say that the game is not a level playing field. To make their voices heard, vested interests rest on a powerful machine of influence, mobilized to torpedo citizen proposals. A machine that is all the more effective because it acts on several levels, to better enclose decision-makers in its web. When the industrialists want to defend their interests, they do so in an organized band. In addition to their own “public affairs” teams, they have multiplied their impact through federations or sectoral trade associations: ANIA (the National Association of Food Industries) in the agri-food sector, PFA (the French Automobile Platform) in the automobile sector, and IATA (the International Air Travel Association) in the air sector, all of which are committed to defending their collective interests. To acquire a more “popular” legitimacy, they can ally themselves with so-called consumer associations or create them from scratch, a practice known as “astroturfing”. For example, the notorious 40 million-strong automobile association, funded in part by industrialists , petitioned against the citizens’ convention’s proposed “anti-automobile measures” as “extremist ecological ramblings.”

The landscape would not be complete without think tanks, which offer expert backing. Funded largely by large corporations that also serve on their boards, they can be savvy messengers in the media. Between the Institut Montaigne, suggesting in a poll that the French would consider the convention “useless”, or Fondapol – whose director likened the citizens to “competent people, elected by no one” on a day organized by… the Union française des semenciers, one of the main lobbies of agrochemistry – not forgetting the alarmist notes of Ifrap to denounce the exorbitant cost of citizen proposals [6], liberal think tanks will have played their part in the great offensive launched against the Climate Convention at…/…


Conclusion on this question through the ecological dimension of the external environment of a positive money.

Our reader has understood that the solution that is being put in place is that of Godman Sachs seen above: sharply increase the carbon taxes that go into the pockets of these business banks that are leading this energy transition. And France has to comply since it signed. Green capitalism is actively developing its dominance.

Opportunities for using a positive money:

The development of local cooperatives

to ensure the energy transition and ensure the short-circuit distribution of renewable electricity: hydroelectricity, wind, solar panels, biogas, etc. The financing of investments and the payment of remuneration with a positive money ensure the rapid and important development of these cooperatives throughout the territory of the Confederation of Networks of Life.

Municipal ecology

represents a rapid and powerful transition to the political institutions of the Networks of Life. Setting up a free city, as we have shown, does not mean that the current legal status of the municipality is immediately changed. Since a free city is a network, the municipality and its mayor can administer themselves for a certain time according to the current administrative law and this structure can then be accompanied by the other political and economic, social and cultural institutions of the Networks of Life. As a matter of priority, a municipality in a Free City uses the Total Quality Approach in the operation of its project teams and, where appropriate for some investments and work remuneration, to set up a Mint Full with a Relief Fund and Works Vouchers, so that the development of solidarity between citizens is no longer limited or excluded by the lack of grants or credits in debt money.

To become political, ecology must remain close to the citizens, their local organizations, this implies the use of the political, economic, social, cultural institutions of the Networks of Life, in particular the Total Quality approach to identify the investments to be included in the Plan which allows the evaluation of funding in positive money.

In the Networks of Life, the first level of human activity includes the work necessary for life and survival. Survival is the protection and safety of living species on Earth, respect for Nature. The second level of activity realizes the works that raise the standard of living and are passed on to future generations. The management of common ownership for tangible goods and collective ownership of intangible goods and services ensures sustainable development. The third level of activity organizes the political action which decides on the investments and remuneration of work for the first two levels of human activity.

Who can claim that the Networks of Life are not ecological and that there is one of their essential purposes? Those who oppose the use of a positive money? The new environmentalists Proud’hon, Marx, Lenin of the 21st century who are no longer short of criminal enormities, indefensible blindness and gross lies?


But citizens must discover, get out of the ignorance

imposed on them, and decide to use a positive money to give themselves the means for sustainable development.

Even if this effort must go through the understanding that Marx was not interested in the Mint and was rather a bourgeois reactionary in this field. This, no doubt, attracted the interest of international bankers in hijacking his writings and justifying the Soviet Communist dictatorship and many other wars against “communism” in order to hasten a society without social classes comprising only submissive slaves to serve the exclusive interests of the rich. Would a Marx who defends a Monnaie Pleine or at least the social rights of Pierre Leroux, his French contemporary, have had the same support, success and fame from his mentors masters of Anglo-Saxon high finance. Allow the poet to laugh about it… and not just in New York or any other way in Moscow, or even Beijing.

The main threat is here:

The financial oligarchy and its global government do not support participatory local direct democracies, how they work, methods, cultures, and positive money.

It succeeded in eliminating associative socialism, à la française, to select German scientific socialism before financing the national socialism of the Nazis and the mentally ill, schizophrenic, Hitler.

Likewise, German scientific socialism became the Soviet system in Russia. It succeeded in placing two opposing camps convinced that they had to go to war with each other. In the field of ecology, these manipulations are hardly possible, so we must expect something new, something never seen before.

The threats linked to climate change are well known:

spreading in the sky to “cool” the earth in some countries, manipulation of a local climate to bring down the rains, etc. The human and social consequences are terrible: famine, drought, unorderly migration of populations, civil unrest, terrorism…

These climate weapons are presented in Part 2, the functioning of systems of power.

Not to forget that the culture of the elites of this world government of the richest is largely based on Malthusian theories and therefore on the need to limit the world population by letting or killing billions of human beings with the aid of health disasters.

The policies pursued by leaders of the liberal, neo-liberal system are widely criticized for their disastrous choices in terms of ecological outcomes and short-term profits.

These situations should be opportunities to abandon this neo-liberal system and put back in place a full currency. However, these are indeed threats until these policies are eliminated and their leaders put out of harm’s way.

The financial threat is firmly in place:

after the financial crises since the 1990s, the health crisis from 2019 to now in 2021, the amount of aggregate state debt has never been higher.

The blackmail of “paying down debt before we can finance green policies for climate, energy transition, biodiversity, sustainable development” is already working mute and will certainly become deafening, blocking any green development outside green capitalism.

The domination of peoples by the liberal capitalist system through political ecology is developing, without communist and socialist parties or conservative right parties but with ecological parties financed so that they are active in developing green capitalism.

For green capitalism is and will be legal and communal ecology with participatory local direct democracy will remain prohibited, illegal… just as obviously the use of a positive money.

Continue reading