The most efficient way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.

George Orwell

Powerlessness of the Defender of Rights which is inoperative

When Françoise Nicolas, a diplomat employed by the Embassy of France in Benin, suffered a murder attempt whilst at her desk so it seemed obvious that her Administration would take all the measures to protect her at once. However she was confronted with the ‘reasons of state’ for the first time in 2011, her file was rejected in 2012 because it had to be treated under the angle of discrimination whereas she also was blowing the whistle about public funds embezzlement. Such was the law then. At that time, the legal department of the Defender of Rights had explained that discrimination established over twelve years (age or sex) was not long enough. Her file could only have been instructed after a 30-year discrimination period (sic). Thanks to the new scope of activities of the Defender of Rights within the December 2016 law, her case has since been investigated. But it seems that there is a flaw in the law because of a pending criminal complaint (a criminal complaint for murder attempt against persons unknown): the Defender of Rights cannot investigate her Administration until authorized by the Nantes State Prosecutor. But the latter, who has been contacted since March 2017, does not answer. The jurist in charge of the investigation of her file states that he is being deprived of answers towards the situation of the civil servant.

What the specialists qualify as ‘gang stalking’ shows the will to run someone down at the administrative, political, legal or economic levels. For example, some whistleblowers regularly receive letters from different administrations explaining that their files are out of date, that they cannot receive any compensation, that they are ‘guilty’. In spite of the numerous copies of documents sent several times by registered mail, administrations claim that they haven’t received ‘evidence' of the situations. Among others, it is about ‘Pôle Emploi’ (Office for employment), ‘CAF’ (the family allowance office), taxes but also the Defender of Rights. This process embarks the whistleblower on a course that leads to extreme fatigue, frustration and stress. This also allows the authorities to have the whistleblower kept under control because the fear of not being in order with the authorities leads to a constraint to silence. Sometimes, we also are being told that we are extremely lucky because we would have been pushed to suicide in other countries! With such convincing arguments, one is allowed to think that there are good times ahead for the corruption in France and elsewhere.

Fire tests gold, suffering tests brave men.



Seneca

In France, plutocracy has thrived to such an extent that the 2017 presidential campaign marks a milestone. Not for its ideal debates but for the lack of integrity and ethics of those who have enjoyed a level of opacity which allowed them to remain unpunished. In the Latin sense of the word, obscenity means being off the scene, thus invisible, hidden. This obscenity towards the religion of power and money is being found in all the occupations which the whistleblowers have been close to, namely the justice, the companies, the media, the administration and politics. Le Petit Journal, a Canal Plus program, had filmed a certain number of Deputies who were playing Candy Crush on their cell phones during a session at the French Parliament. This could be laughed at if the situation of many French people was not as difficult as it is and if they could possibly have forgotten that we are their employers. They are therefore considered to be responsible for giving us an account of what they are paid for.

How Whistleblowers are being assassinated by elected Representatives

One is talking here about exemplarity and responsibility. How is it possible that not a single elected representative of the large political parties and which have been in power one after the other for the last thirty years, has done anything in concrete terms? Why hasn’t the President of the French Parliament and the President of the Senate (Sénat) concretely acted towards the protection of whistleblowers and thus shown determination to protect our national economic, public health and the interests of each and every one? They should have served as an example and would have let the elected representatives at least in the majority to follow suit. What about our emergency solutions? Credit lines should have been opened to help honest citizens who stood up for the general interest as much as it is possible to open credit lines for weapon and ammunition intermediaries. It would thus be normal to act in favour of the