Cohesion

Oil has made our lives so much easier that we need others less in order to survive. As a result, we have lost our spirit of cohesion. We mostly live centred on ourselves, withdrawn into ourselves or into our family unit. This lack of mutual aid, this felt loneliness, can lead to depression. Oil, which allows us to live so much more comfortably than before, should have made us happy — yet the number of unhappy people remains staggering.

It is time to rediscover our spirit of cohesion.

Let us start by ceasing to tear each other apart. Following what was described in the previous chapter, for example, some may still believe in the European Union, believe that it can still come back to reason. Even though Europe in fact imposes the dictatorship of the big industrial lobbies. Some may still hope to see imposed, through these same dictatorial methods, laws preserving the Earth's resources vital to humanity. Even though we are entitled to wonder which lobbies with sufficient financial means could outdo the industrialists' lobbies.

So yes, of course, the urge can be strong to want to impose by force the laws we believe just, through the dictatorship of authoritarian hierarchies, even resorting to violence to have them applied. Indeed, a good number of people do not have the time, or are too lazy, to think about every subject affecting their life and the lives of others. So they let hierarchies decide in their place. These are what we might call "followers". So why not put a dictatorship in place to govern all those people, we might say. Worse, some will think there are too many incompetent people, not intelligent enough to decide what is good or not for each person and for the population as a whole. When in reality, given time, everyone is capable of it. Hence the existence of hierarchies in place since forever. This is also called infantilisation. Farewell personal responsibility. Infantilisation reigns. But history does not lack examples demonstrating the failure of authoritarian methods. Dictatorships, of the left as of the right, have only generated thousands of deaths and thousands of tortured people who never recover, without justice reigning afterwards or the standard of living becoming acceptable for all. Dictatorships have never solved anything; on the contrary, they have only made situations worse, leaving atrocious scars that never really heal.

The escalation of violence leads only to the abyss.

Moreover, who can claim to be educated enough and informed enough about everything — with sufficient knowledge of the immensity and diversity of the territory they govern — to guarantee that they will always make just and good choices? It is impossible for a human being to have complete knowledge of every subject, or complete knowledge of the diverse particularities of an immense territory they have no time to travel through themselves. As a result, a dictatorship systematically leads, at one moment or another, to bad choices, to unjust decisions. Furthermore, these human beings at the head of great powers remain humans, who can be corrupted. And the industrial lobbies are never far behind, ready to try their luck at buying them. Not to mention that the larger the area and population governed by a hierarchy, the slower and more laborious its modes of operation are to put in place, sometimes taking years before being decided and enacted, making the system totally ineffective. Responsiveness is close to zero.

Finally, when lifestyle changes are endured rather than chosen — as under a dictatorship, more or less harsh depending on the degree of "punishment" — this only breeds revolt inside those who endure them without having first been convinced. To make the law "reign", the rebellious are rebuked, even locked up, and in the worst cases tortured and killed. History does not lack examples of dictatorships set up supposedly for the "common good" that in the end left millions tortured and killed.

The only effective way to change ways of living is education. Exchanging, communicating, discussing, so as to gradually lead the whole population to understand and be convinced of the need to adopt these changes of habits, which now make sense in their eyes. Making each person responsible, letting each person form their own opinion.

Without going as far as real dictatorships, some may want to impose what they believe just through "softer" dictatorships such as the European Union.

But after the observations made in the previous chapter, after the results seen over the last decades of this European Union policy, we can understand that some no longer believe in it. We can understand that in the eyes of some, the urgent thing is to leave the European Union, to escape the grip and dictatorship of the industrial lobbies, in order to save as many lives as possible from famine in the near future.

We have the right to disagree among ourselves about the solutions to implement. We have the right to disagree among ourselves about whether or not to stay in the European Union. On the other hand, it is important to remain in cohesion. We need to stay united to pull through. So even if we disagree among ourselves, let us stay in contact, and communicate with each other calmly and respectfully.

If, despite attempts at communication, certain people only generate hatred around them, then unfortunately there is no other solution: it becomes vital to avoid them and cut off all communication with them. Unless we have shoulders strong enough to stay calm and not be swept up in the escalation of violence these people generate. Few people are strong enough to stay calm and keep communicating with such people. If we feel too fragile, it is a matter of survival to avoid this kind of person.

Finally, it is not only those around us who can become violent and generate hatred. The media can generate hatred through their writing or their reporting. Too many social networks generate hatred through their content. Elected officials and politicians of all stripes can generate hatred through their aggressive and violent behaviour towards their opponents, putting on display their most miserable and deplorable sides, shouting and spitting the worst insults in each other's faces.

Let us learn to recognise human misery when it displays itself in full public view. Let us be adults, and refuse to watch, listen to, or read such behaviour, such words, such acts, which only generate hatred that rubs off on us, and which are largely responsible for the escalation of violence.

Too many media and politicians generate the hatred responsible for the escalation of violence

Many media outlets, social networks, and politicians do not set an example.

These hierarchies in place create nothing but struggles for positions of power, each fighting to keep their little elected seat. We continuously witness public battles of rare verbal violence between political figures of all stripes, incapable of communicating with each other calmly and respectfully to find common agreements. Their only objective is to be elected at the next elections, no matter the collateral damage. A real schoolyard. One cannot say they set a good example.

This violence is relayed and encouraged by the majority of the media, whose broadcast content grows more and more violent in tone.

These incessant public quarrels of politicians and the media only rub off on the population, which reproduces these scenes of violence in the image of those who govern the country; hatred spreads everywhere, going so far as to break friendships and family ties.

Yet it is not worth tearing each other apart over children's battles, where everyone fights to be the boss. And who, once boss, do no better than the others. It really is not worth it.

Let us not be fooled. Let us behave — unlike those who want to govern us — like adults, staying calm, taking a step back. And for that, it is our responsibility not to read or watch content that generates hatred within us. While reading or watching a video, if we feel hatred rising within us, let us have the adult reflex to immediately stop and to no longer consult the media outlet that broadcasts these hate generators.

33% of the information available is produced by only 1% of accounts on social networks, this third containing the most radical statements that generate hatred. This third therefore does not at all represent what a third of the population thinks, but what less than 1% of the population thinks (since part of the population has never created an account on any social network). Extrapolating and deducing that this third of information represents what the majority of the population thinks is a mistake. Worse, modifying one's judgement, values and choices to conform to what we believe the majority thinks, to be "like the majority" out of fear of being rejected, is an even bigger mistake.

Any subject can be raised and explained calmly, without generating hatred. It is up to the media and politicians to adopt this adult behaviour, staying calm, communicating composedly. The media and politicians have the responsibility to set a good example.

Let us learn to sort. Let us focus on the media and politicians who generate hope without generating any hatred.

Staying united to act collectively

We need cohesion. We need to stay united at the base if we want to pull through.

Let us not be taken in by the disastrous example set by election candidates or journalists through their hateful and aggressive behaviour. Let us be more exemplary than they are — we are worth more than they are. When some of our loved ones vote differently from us, let us stay calm and take the time to communicate calmly with them. If only to understand what led them to vote for X or Y.

For indeed, the main problem stems from the fact that we vote for a person, and not for each law. No candidate's programme contains all the points, and only the points, for which a person would wish to vote. As a result, we have no choice but to vote for a programme containing the maximum number of points that seem to us priorities, or for the programme containing the point that is the priority in our eyes. Failing the possibility of voting on each law, we try to vote for the programme that seems least bad to us.

Some therefore vote for the programme containing the point that is most important in their eyes. Regardless of the person representing that programme.

That may be a mistake. This way of voting can be risky. Especially when the person representing that programme clearly displays aggressive and violent behaviour in public and in the media. The candidates who shout the loudest in public are the worst and the most dangerous.

In that case, it is no doubt more reasonable to vote for a candidate's personality, almost regardless of the content of their programme. The essential thing is that the candidate knows how to remain calm and composed, able to step back, showing respect towards people with different opinions, keeping continuously informed, showing an attentive ear and an open mind, taking time to reflect before acting, able to hold a course over the long term.

Nevertheless, let us remain wary. For appearances are not everything. We often find these violent temperaments at the extremes, left as well as right. But also "in the middle". Moreover, some candidates know very well how to hide, behind a calm and composed appearance, their odious or spineless personality — mere puppets turning their coats every other morning for the highest bidder. One need only mention the dictatorial way the covid crisis was managed in many countries. Under pressure from the big pharmaceutical lobbies, even elected officials from the so-called "Centre" imposed vaccination and a vaccine pass, even though these hastily developed vaccines, with no hindsight on long-term effects, were dangerous to health as well as ineffective. These vaccines being ineffective, the vaccinated and holders of vaccine passes resumed their former lives and continued to move around freely and spread covid, killing the most fragile people — many without asking themselves any questions, being totally infantilised: they obeyed "dutifully" without thinking. Most unfortunately had no choice but to undergo vaccination in order to keep the right to practise their profession. While, encouraged by the country's president, some cheerfully denounced and pointed fingers at the unvaccinated — who, for their part, were careful to stay home as much as possible so as not to spread covid. Dictatorships can take many forms and can come from any party across the political spectrum. Let us be wary. Let us remain vigilant. Let us open our eyes.

Besides, it is well known that any candidate's programme is only a smokescreen: it contains only the results of polls carried out beforehand to find out what the majority of the population wants to hear, with the sole aim of being elected. Once elected, the leader then does as they see fit. There is no lack of examples of elected officials acting in opposition to their initial programme.

We are powerless in the face of the fact that every candidate's programme is designed solely to get elected, powerless in the face of the fact that once elected, leaders then act as they please. So really, there is no point in tearing each other apart over this. It really is not worth falling out and hating each other over such a useless electoral system.

Take the example of the rift between those who still believe in Europe and those who no longer do. Some had initially believed in the European Union: they would have wished for the unity of Europe, and even of the world, with the ideal that the same just and moral laws be applied over an immense territory, as wide as possible. Unfortunately, in view of what was described in the previous chapter, these people who had believed in the European Union bitterly observe the deleterious effects of putting too much power in only a few pairs of hands. These people note with dismay that it is free trade and the interests of big industrialists that prevail over the well-being of humanity, massacring the Earth's resources vital for the future. These people are opening their eyes today, and observe that the European Union is in reality a totalitarian system in the image of those past empires that imposed their dictatorship — imposing its laws in the sole interest of a few people at the head of big industries, who could not care less about the future of coming generations, including their own children. In their eyes today, the European Union is a dictatorship that does more harm than good.

These people no longer believe in the European Union today. In view of what was described in the previous chapter, can we blame them for no longer believing in it?

That is how these people come to vote to leave the European Union. Because the urgent thing in their eyes, the priority for saving as many lives as possible in the coming decades, is to relocalise food production, with as little mechanisation as possible. Yet the European Union prevents this relocalisation, prevents it from taking shape, because it promotes free trade and competition, which prevent local farmers from surviving such rivalry. If a country does not have enough farmers and has not organised itself early enough to autonomously produce food that is as unmechanised as possible to feed its population, then the day there is no more oil imported into Europe, there will be famine.

Moreover, the free trade of these products between the four corners of the world continues to release ever more CO2 into the atmosphere, generating ever more storms, floods, fires and droughts, which will further reduce agricultural yields. It is also so much oil squandered and wasted on transport between countries located on opposite sides of the planet — so much less oil, while stocks are running out, that could have been used to reduce the chaos to come: this oil would be more useful for making electric agricultural machines, electric transport vehicles, healthcare equipment, maintaining the railway network... everything that could help save more lives in the coming decades.

Finally, the European Union constantly pushes us towards overconsumption, pushes us to consume ever more — it is one of its priorities — pushing us towards our downfall. It invests, for example, millions in 5G and Artificial Intelligence, thereby encouraging the population to consume ever more bandwidth and to buy ever more phones compatible with 5G or 6G. Every smartphone or computer replacement is that much less oil stock for preparing the future. A smartphone, a computer, 5G, AI will not feed us. Unlike a small tractor running on biogas generated locally from farm waste, for example, which can feed a number of people. Instead, those same millions invested in reorganising local, diversified agriculture across the whole territory, as independent of oil as possible, would save thousands of lives in the future.

Not to mention the heaviness and slowness of this gigantic administrative system, of outsized complexity, incapable of making decisions quickly and being responsive. The longer we wait to relocalise food production, making it as independent of machines as possible, the greater the chaos and disorganisation will be, and the greater the number of deaths in the coming decades. By the time all the countries agree, it will be too late.

Which is better? To give priority to other points in the various candidates' programmes, while continuing to have fewer and fewer local means to feed and house an ever-growing list of people who end up on the street, while continuing the destruction of resources, forests and climate that is slowly killing the human species? Or to relocalise as much as possible the production of food and essential products in a responsible way, so as to be capable of feeding and housing at least a minimum of people — that is, saving more lives in the future? Both options have terrible and damaging consequences, but which of the two has fewer?

On a sinking ship, should we first attend to other matters than plugging the leaks — such as fishing out those who have fallen overboard — or should we tackle repairing the leaks first, to save as many lives as possible? Once a ship has sunk, it saves no one.

It is to save as many lives as possible that these people vote to leave the European Union. Because in their eyes this point takes priority over all others for saving the maximum number of lives. We cannot blame people whose only wish is to save as many lives as possible. Because in their eyes the priority is to repair what we can of the sinking ship we are on, to save as many lives as possible.

We have the right to disagree with them. On the other hand, we cannot hold it against them, given the results of what the European Union has produced over the last decades. Let us not cut ties with our loved ones over voting disagreements. Especially when we know that leaders, once elected, do as they please — a ballot paper has so little impact.

Only here is the thing: each person chooses to vote according to what seems wisest to them — voting either primarily for a point in a programme, or primarily for a personality. And no one can know how another person decided their vote without having asked them first. So let us avoid hasty judgements. The worst reaction is to cut off communication outright, refusing to know. That only generates hatred, and contributes to the escalation of violence.

We may disagree among ourselves about the means and priorities for saving as many lives as possible — in that case we discuss it and exchange calmly with each other, which allows each of us to reflect and evolve on what seems most logical and sensible for saving the most lives. On the other hand, rejecting one another because one line of reasoning or another seems absurd to us only generates an escalation of hatred and violence. When we all wish to save as many lives as possible.

Reacting violently and cutting ties only makes the situation worse. Let us not take part in the escalation of violence by generating hatred.

Let us not take quick shortcuts about people's value systems based solely on their vote. The choice of a ballot in a box is by no means the sole benchmark for classifying people as having an "acceptable" value system or not. Let us be open and attentive, let us agree to communicate calmly and respectfully, if only to check the truth of assumptions made through shortcuts full of ready-made prejudices.

Let us stay calm and attentive, let us accept that others think differently while continuing nonetheless to respect and appreciate them. Who never makes mistakes? Who never changes their mind? Cutting off communication, or generating hatred with an aggressive tone or behaviour, only makes it even harder for anyone to change their mind, entrenching and confirming each person in their positions. Hatred only generates hatred; hating someone only triggers hatred in the other. Conversely, respecting each other means leaving everyone the freedom to change their mind.

Only a person's life habits reveal their value system

Only a person's daily way of life — including what they buy and what they do not buy — reflects that person's value system.

Today money runs the world; what we buy and what we refuse to buy are the only effective votes.

It is ridiculous and pitiful to be proud of our vote for X or Y if we continue to take planes for a few days of tourism and leisure, if we get around in big SUV-type cars and continue to make long car journeys for our holidays or leisure, if we do not check whether the food we buy comes from the other side of the planet or is produced with pesticides, if we eat a lot of meat, if we do not replace our oil or gas boiler with a heat pump even though we have the means, if we continue to buy smartphones, computers, screens, clothes, furniture, appliances we do not really need.

How many behave day to day in total contradiction with their ballot paper?

Worse still, voting to assuage our guilt, and continuing to live immoderately with a clear conscience because we have delegated to others the responsibility of managing the disastrous consequences of our way of life. Clearing one's conscience with a ballot paper without changing anything in one's way of life is like clearing one's conscience by buying carbon credits while continuing to pollute with one's company.

The only way to clear our conscience is to adopt a measured way of life. There is no other. It comes through making an effort on our own way of life — and not by offloading all responsibility onto others, asking others, via a ballot paper, to take care of fixing inequalities by making the standard of living of the whole population on Earth catch up with our immoderate way of life. Besides, it is an aberration to wish for more and more people to pollute and undermine the resources indispensable to the survival of the human species on this planet. If we want to fix inequalities, it is our own immoderate way of life that we must bring back to a moderate one. That is where the real act of courage lies, the real act representative of a person's value system. So before proudly proclaiming our vote and pitifully denouncing other people's votes, let us first set the example ourselves by adopting a measured way of life.

Far more important than the choice of ballot paper to drop into a box, our life habits are decisive; they carry much more weight and impact.

If we had to vote on laws, and not for people:

The list could go on much longer.

If a candidate put all of that in their programme, how many would vote for them today?

Only these votes for or against laws would be truly representative of each person's value system.

The majority of people unfortunately do not have the time, or are too lazy, to look into what is good or not for them, for each person and for the population as a whole. How easy it is then to say, when everything goes wrong, "it's not my fault, it's the State that is incompetent". Admittedly, the State does not help. Admittedly, we have no choice today but to endure the dictatorship of the hierarchies currently in place, on pain of paying fines or ending up in prison. But what are we doing in our daily lives to improve the situation? We are consumers. What we consume, or do not consume, has an enormous impact. Do we take the initiative to consume less?

We observe a daily growing hatred of these big industrialists, solely because they are too rich, fattening themselves on excessive margins — but why then do we continue to buy their products and services? If we hate them because we disapprove of their sometimes inhumane practices towards their employees, what are we waiting for to stop buying their products and turn instead to those of small, more virtuous local businesses? What are we waiting for to stop buying food stuffed with pesticides or from industrial farms? Let us stop buying food produced with pesticides — farmers will then stop buying pesticides and convert their way of producing, and the agrochemical producers will then fall.

What are we waiting for to stop buying a multitude of products we do not really need in supermarkets or online on the big retail sites? What are we waiting for to stop buying non-repairable computers and smartphones that must be replaced after only a few years, turning instead to computers and smartphones whose defective parts can be replaced? What are we waiting for to stop logging in with an account on our browsers, on video sites, on social networks — thereby receiving a torrent of targeted advertising that invades our private lives and pushes us to consume ever more? What are we waiting for to install ad blockers on our browsers, to stop watching television, to switch our phones to "whitelist" mode, to stick "No advertising" labels on our letterboxes? What are we waiting for to stop consuming oil for journeys that concern only leisure? Admittedly, oil is so useful everywhere that it will inevitably be consumed down to the last drop of the stocks existing underground. Nevertheless, by not squandering it on trivialities, there is hope that it will be used more wisely to prepare us to face the future that awaits us.

It is time to look at our own contradictions and sweep in front of our own doors before accusing only those at the head of the world who fail to set a good example. Do we wish to remain infantilised by these hierarchies all our lives?

Admittedly, all these changes of habits represent major undertakings in our lives. Each change of habit takes time to put in place. Nevertheless, have we started to change one of them? Have we set in motion a change of behaviour for at least one of these life habits? That is where real courage lies. And not in the choice of a ballot paper in a box.

At the very least, we can take responsibility for ourselves. Set the example.

Disappointed by hierarchies throughout the ages, we could almost come to this: would the world not be better off without hierarchies in place? Forcing everyone to take responsibility. With only the forces of order needed to defend the population in cases of proven theft or assault. For however much we communicate and spread as much information as possible so that everyone takes responsibility, there will always be a few people everywhere on this planet with harmful and malicious intentions, who let themselves be ruled by hatred and violence. No need for a hierarchy, and its multitude of inspectors paid to check that the imposed laws are properly respected — people who would be more useful in the local production of resources essential for living. It is only by ceasing to buy the products of harmful industrialists that the latter will fall — and not by hoping that a corruptible hierarchy will impose it on them. For the big industrialists have all the money needed to buy the heads of these hierarchies or to pay lobbies to wear them down.

To change these consumption habits, only education is effective — that is, a wide dissemination of information, communicating calmly and respectfully. Until the population's tipping point.