Here is an Interview with Valerie Bugault. Valarie is an independent researcher, doctor of law, and geopolitical analyst. She is a valued voice in independent French media circles. As we can see below, she puts into perspective all the notorious globalist elements and players we know about, and does it in relation to France’s constitutional republic, which she claims has been completely circumvented by a newly-created, non-elected group of people.
The French State No Longer Exists
Hello to all friends.
Today we have an interview with Ms. Valerie Bugault. How are you doing Ms. Bugault?
Hello, thank you for inviting me. I am doing as well as possible in these extremely troubled times.
Yes, yes, for sure, we’re trying to maintain ourselves. It’s true that we are going through a rather crazy period, and we are going to start. We’re about to start.
It’s a historic period.
Yes, it’s certainly a historic turning point that we are living through, that’s for sure. To begin with, let’s talk a little about the crazy news, the tyrannical regime that is being established in France. How do you analyze this period? You talked about a great Davos reset, can we talk about that a little bit?
VALÉRIE BUGAULT :
There are two things. Firstly, there is the great reset initiated by these economic and financial elites who have taken control of our so-called developed countries, that is to say, the countries that are roughly under NATO, and then there is what is happening in France more precisely. So I will perhaps start with what is happening in France at the moment from the constitutional, legal and institutional point of view.
Obviously, what is happening in France is part of the broader framework of what is happening at the international level with respect to the objectives of Davos and with respect to a geopolitical war between the maritime empire and the continental empire. There are these 3, how shall I say, 3 objectives of analysis which are a little different but which converge on many things.
Laws Voted on for the Health Crisis Are Outside the French Constitution and Therefore Unconstitutional
So for what is happening in France, it turns out that since March 16, 2020, that is to say since the date on which Emmanuel Macron intervened in the strange skylights to say that we are at war, a whole bunch of things has happened at the institutional level in our country.
The first thing that happened is that this kind of statement coming from a sitting president of the republic cannot be trivial. The first thing to mention about this declaration is that it is certainly a declaration of war, but it is an atypical declaration of war because it does not mention any military enemy. Now war, in general, is of a military type. So we have a declaration of war and no enemy that is precisely mentioned, or at least designated.
Following this declaration of war, appears, voted in an emergency with the conditions of emergency, the first law of the health emergency. This law generates… then this law is already voted completely outside of any constitutional reference, that is to say, that no element, no article of the constitution officially allows them to create this kind of law, therefore it is outside the constitutional framework, therefore it is unconstitutional and therefore unconstitutional. This law generates in itself the prohibition, or at least the impossibility of the normal functioning of the institutions since the parliament is no longer able to meet in a satisfactory way under normal conditions. Thus, in the constitutional framework, Article 16 can be invoked, but it is invoked when the institutions are no longer able to meet in a normal way. In this case, the institutions were able to meet in a normal way but have not been able to do so since the voting in of the law. So this is really, how shall I say, a historical curiosity in our institutions.
The New French Scientific Committee is Setting Policy in All Fields and is Done in Conjunction with Outside Forces Such as Fauci – Is This Collusion with a Foreign State?
Secondly, following this declaration of war, we have the creation of a scientific committee directed by Mr. Delfraissy, in which Professor Raoult (pictured) was also a member, and from which he withdrew quite quickly, explaining that it was not a serious scientific committee but a committee of Mr. Delfraissy’s friends.
In the following events, we learn that Mr. Delfraissy in question is in close contact via the Internet with a certain Mr. Fauci, who is the head of the American CDC. So this contact is not only friendly but has an obvious political connotation insofar as this council, this French scientific committee has de facto a political role in our institutions.
This scientific committee was finally created under the impulse of the Ministry of Health alone and proposed, made the following proposal: a health defense council should be created. So this scientific committee, whose legal and institutional basis is extremely debatable because it could, I am not saying that it was done, it was not done, but it could possibly analyze the interactions between Mr. Delfraissy and Mr. Fauci as collusion of interests with a foreign country, it could. It has not been done. But in the end, this angle of analysis could be valid.
So this scientific committee, whose composition is extremely debatable and whose legal basis is extremely narrow since it was created by the Ministry of Health alone, takes the initiative of proposing a health defense committee, a health defense council that de facto takes in hand the policy, that is to say, the French strategic decisions in all fields. This committee, this health defense council, meets on Tuesday morning if I understood correctly, and the Council of Ministers of the following day, that is to say, Wednesday, ratifies the decisions of the health defense council of the previous day.
French Institutions No Longer Exist Either In Domestic Law or International Law, So the French State No Longer Exists
So we are both de facto and de jure in a suspension of our institutions, the French institutions, both from the point of view of domestic law and from the point of view of international law, no longer exist. They are suspended, they are no longer valid in the sense that they no longer function. So this means two things. It means that there should be … it should already be noted, everyone should understand that.
The French institutions, so the French state no longer exists, okay. At the legal level, it is in a state of legal vacuum because nothing replaces it officially, we have not even recorded its official disappearance but unofficially, legally it does not exist anymore. So there is a fundamental problem on this, on the notion of the state.
On the other hand, there is still a team in power that makes decisions, that imposes them and that imposes them by coercion, in particular when a law is voted, the whole state apparatus is put at the service of the application of this law, ok. So this means that the regalian (ER: sovereign) functions of the state have been diverted, that is to say, that the state that no longer exists at the legal level has been … we are in the absolutely exclusive framework of abuse of international public law where a state no longer exists but the regalian functions have been diverted to the benefit of an authority that is in charge and of which we don’t know exactly, we haven’t exactly identified who was behind it. Nevertheless, we know that when we are in a state of war, we are under war propaganda. And there, the propaganda of war is not Franco-French. It applies to all the European states, all the NATO countries in a rather broad way, so that means that we can logically deduce that the authorities that took control of France are not national authorities. Do you understand?
So at the international level, from the moment that the state has disappeared, the old state, the one that signed the international conventions, signed the convention of all the treaties of the European Union, for example, the one that signed the adhesion to NATO, all the other treaties, Schengen, all types of treaties, this state no longer exists, so are the international treaties signed by this state still valid from the point of view of international law? the question must at least be asked.
If the Official State No Longer Exists, Decisions Taken by that State Power Are No Longer Legitimate
Secondly, in domestic law, the fact that the official state, in which people believe they live, no longer exists, removes all political legitimacy from the decisions taken by that state, which de facto no longer exists.
So that’s the observation. I am not making any value judgment. I am making a legal diagnosis, okay? The French must know this diagnosis because all the French people who work in the public services, at least what is left of them, and in particular in the regalian functions are de facto diverted from their original mission, are diverted from the function for which they were created and which they think they fulfill.
So it puts in fact all state officials and it puts beyond the only officials all French people, facing an individual responsibility and no longer collective, since the collective no longer exists, to know to what extent it is good to obey orders while the entity that gives them is illegitimate and diverted, that the initial functions they must fulfill have been diverted.
Besides, that’s what you did a little bit with your video calling on the forces of law and order.
Exactly. This appeal has often been misrepresented. The truth is that I didn’t make a call at all for law enforcement to rise up. I made a call for the awareness that the regalian functions of the state, but beyond the only forces of order, it concerns everyone because it also concerns the doctors, it concerns, in reality, all the French, must be conscious that the state in which we think we live does not exist any more legally speaking.
This is exactly the objective that I wanted to insist on in this appeal, that is to say, to make all the French people, and in particular those who fulfill regal functions, aware of the fact that their function has been diverted from its initial function, that the state no longer exists and that we are at the service of identities that have not been named. Even if we can globally understand where they come from, they come from the WHO, they come from Davos, they come from all that but they have not been officially recorded as coming from these circles, okay. So this is really very important to understand and this is the substance of the appeal that I made and this is also what I wrote in a recent article that was published on different sites, in particular my own, and which has been taken up and will be taken up again by other sites.
So this is the legal, constitutional, institutional state of France. It’s written L’AFrance, so it’s a private A, France no longer exists. Does that answer your question?
Yes, we can see that there are many French people who are getting tougher. We see the demonstrations growing, I see in my audience a lot of mothers who are worried about their children because vaccines will probably become mandatory for very young children, six years old for sure. You also tweeted not long ago that if you saw in a demonstration that people were trying to storm a public building, you should arrest them because you thought it was a false flag attack. Wouldn’t these people also include people who are a bit sincere and who are also at their wits’ end?
So what I tweeted is the continuation of what I just explained to you, because from the moment you acted the disappearance of the previous state, we cannot stay very long in this situation of a legal vacuum, so we will have to act the reality of a new state. And obviously, those who are in control, who was already unofficially holding the old state but who want to move to an official control which is called the New World Order, are going to institute a new structure, agreed, which will be integrated with this overall project of new world order, that is to say of world government. And this project of world government is eminently dictatorial in nature.
You just have to read what Klaus Schwab (pictured) explains, you just have to read what all these people who are at the head of big multinationals and of, how shall I put it, committees, or think tanks or of the Davos type, of the Club of Rome type, etc, have been explaining for years. So all this is official, there is no ambiguity about their projects, there is no ambiguity about the finality of their project and there is no ambiguity about the transformation of our old state into a new dictatorship.
All these laws are crazier and crazier because we are no longer in a state of law insofar as the constitutional framework is no longer respected, where the laws are voted in conditions of stupefying urgency, where they flout all the public liberties, the most essential fundamental liberties and rights on which our civilization is founded, okay.
From that moment on, it is not surprising that people get angry, that they take to the streets, that they try to claim a minimum of freedom of the public political spaces because, in reality, these demonstrations are political demonstrations, okay. They are not simple sectorial demands, they are demonstrations that say in the background: we have the right to decide our political future. You know that at the UN, one of the great principles, well that is acted by the UN, is the freedom, the right of the people to decide for themselves, okay.
So in reality all these demonstrations are only the physical representation of the right of peoples to self-determination, while they have understood, or have the intimate conviction or intuition, depending on the case, that in reality they no longer have political power. The political power has been stolen and that they no longer have a say, that they are finally only objects, victims.
Why Public Protest Needs to be Non-Violent
So these demonstrations can obviously include people who are fed up, but the people who are in power, of course, in order to establish a new regime, need a certain legitimacy vis-à-vis the international community. And violent outbursts can be the saving grace for them insofar as it will allow them to impose a military or militaristic or in any case authoritarian, very authoritarian and coercive type of regime, under the pretext that public order is no longer respected.
This is the reason why I tweeted this and why I say: there is one thing, the fact that populations are no longer able to ensure politics at home, are no longer in control of politics in their country which no longer exists de facto, at least in institutional terms, and the excesses that will be used against these populations to establish a dictatorial order by the people who are already in power.
We Cannot See Who Is Really In Charge
It’s a bit like when Jacques Attali (pictured below with a younger Macron) tells us that we need a revolution before 2022. (ER: Attali, an associate of the Rothschilds and known Marxist, has been pronouncing on the grim future trends predicted for humanity by the globalists for a long time; he has enjoyed a position close to the seat of political power in France for decades as a ‘government advisor,’ and is thoroughly disliked by the ordinary French who know about him. He has been Macron’s mentor.)
Jacques Attali is a hero, that is to say, that he … hero in the literal sense of the word it is written h-e-r-a-u-t, that is to say, the one who carries the voice, the message, right? So he has carried the message, this globalism of this world government for a very long time, but he is not, in my opinion, among the decision-makers. He is a messenger. We must not confuse the messenger and the decision-maker. Obviously, the two are linked, we agree because if there were no decision-maker, there would be no messenger. And then there’s personal will and so on, there’s a whole bunch of things that come into play but I would say that focusing all the attention on Jacques Attali is as silly as focusing all the attention on Emmanuel Macron because those people …
I’m not denouncing individuals, I’m denouncing a system that is effectively implemented by individuals but in perfect anonymity, that is to say, that it is difficult to identify very clearly who is in charge.
Of course. You are talking about the messages.
How? I’m listening to you.
No, no I was just saying that it wasn’t to name him really, it was the message. We see that in fact that of the revolt, they can also make a profit from it. That’s what you say.
Of course, and it is a very easy way for them to turn against the people their just political claims since their political claims are formalized in international law under the term “the right of peoples to self-determination” and that the public disorder will justify the establishment of an authoritarian regime in which the right of peoples to self-determination is put on hold. So beware! I say precisely beware. I am not calling for an uprising, on the contrary! People must take their responsibilities, but these are responsibilities that are of an individual, personal nature and I would almost say that they are a matter for the conscience of each person. That is all.
The 2030 Plan Has Been Accelerated to 2022
So there, we see that the big reset is a global plan. In our country, there are many who talk about changing countries, all that, but it is global. According to you, which countries are resisting the best, according to what we can see.
So, I will give you my analysis. My analysis can be challenged and perhaps disputed. I don’t claim to be a rocket scientist. However, my analysis is the following: the New World Order projects are very old and are implemented over very long periods of time, in particular, we were talking about the 2030 agenda. In this 2030 agenda, we notice an astonishing thing: it has been reduced to the 2022-2021 agenda, so everything has accelerated considerably. The question we must ask ourselves is why, why have these people who are in full control of everything suddenly accelerated their project, taking the risk of alienating the populations who were relatively docile until now?
China Especially, and Russia, Are Not Going Along
The answer I give to this question is a geopolitical one. These people who are at the origin of the new world order had the intention to include in their projects all the countries, all the continents of the world. But it turns out that China and to some extent Russia, but especially China, has decided to take its traditional imperial destiny in hand. That is to say, no longer to play by the rules of the game that are imposed by what they identify as the West. So we have in the background a war of civilizational nature between a maritime, commercial empire, which was manifested by the British Empire that was transferred to the American Empire, which today is in trouble on the American territory itself, that is to say, contested from within and contested from outside because a whole geographical area escapes from it, that is to say, China.
China has decided to play with the rules of the game of the enemy and then to make a judo move, that is to say, to make martial arts, to turn the strength of the opponent against him. So they have emancipated themselves from the rules imposed by the global empire of the commercial and maritime type. So there is in the background a civilizational war, I repeat, between on the one hand a conception of maritime domination and a conception of domination at the moment which seems less virulent but of domination of terrestrial nature, that is to say, on the one hand, the commercial maritime ways are totally controlled and are under the hegemony of certain entities which are few in number, and on the other hand, well, the terrestrial commercial ways are developed and are not yet completely developed. The fact of being in the process of development poses a major strategic problem to the Empire of the seas, which had ensured in any case sat its domination on the total control of the maritime trade routes so this is the reason why I estimate that the Order followed by this stateless oligarchy of financial and commercial nature accelerated its processes of implementation because they were challenged at the same time from the interior and the exterior. So they got into trouble. That’s why they want to tighten their grip and tighten their grip on whom? On the weaker elements.
They can also rebel, and in particular, I’m thinking of the countries in Europe that are now under the European Union.
Planned Destruction of Our Economies – Indebting Them to the Hilt
We talk a little bit about the banks. There are many who predict a big bank failure, a bit like in Lebanon, or even worse. What do you think? Do you think that a system like that can last much longer?
No, of course not. In fact, it’s not a question of knowing if it can hold or not, it’s a question of knowing how far those who hold it want to take it, that’s the subject. We know very well that these people want to destroy it, because that is the whole point of the Great Reset, the Great Reset, well explained in all its forms by Klaus Schwab who heads the Davos Club.
This Great Reset eminently includes a banking and monetary component, so it is a matter of resetting the currency and to reset the currency there is only one possible way, which is to reset the economies, hence the explanation of the controlled demolition of our economies that we are witnessing through this health crisis. Obviously, by destroying the economies, we allow a monetary reset, and this reset will be done by making the sum between the assets on one side, which are getting smaller and smaller since you know that our government, which has served as the government of France for many decades, has undertaken to liquidate the French patrimony, therefore the assets on one side and the debts on the other. You know that once again, this health crisis has allowed an extraordinary surge in the level of debt. When you take the assets minus the debts, you will understand what the French have left, not to mention the fact that some countries will certainly want to be paid war reparations. I am thinking in particular of Syria and its allies, who will want to be paid war reparations in relation to the “states” because they are more political states, as I explained, that have participated in the financing or training of the mercenaries who attacked Syria and other states like that. The question of war damages will arise. In your opinion, when we are in a negotiation, is it the weak states that can claim not to pay war damages? No! It is the weak states that will be responsible for all these war reparations and as far as Europe and the West are concerned, for its responsibility in terms of financing and training, the weak states are France, Italy, you see, and the United States.
Italy, you see, and especially France because we have a minister who claimed officially, we had a former foreign minister who publicly, internationally claimed that al-Nusra and all its mercenaries were doing a good job. Al Qaeda and al Nusra were doing a good job. At the international level, it is an act, it is a political act, it is not like someone who says something stupid between two eyes with friends. It has no political impact, but insofar as it comes from a foreign minister who speaks publicly, So I suppose that France will be in the front row to pay war reparations to a country like Syria, so we already have a phenomenal internal debt which has been enormously aggravated by this health crisis and which will be aggravated by financial penalties at the international level. So I let you guess what will happen for each French person. The indebtedness, the suppression of all public services, the suppression of the state, it is an observation, it is objective. It is dizzying. The consequences that can result from all this are dizzying, both in individual and collective terms. It is clear, therefore, that the future of France and of the French people are quite worrying and we are in an emergency, not only of health but also political and even existential, which in my opinion has not existed in history, at least not in the history of the last 200 years, so we are in a historical period and the essential problem for me lies in the fact that the French people, all professions included, are not aware of this process and therefore they defend themselves relatively badly against an enemy that they identify relatively badly. My job is to clarify the debate. That’s why I took the owl Athena as a symbol on my site, the owl sees in the dark and it’s the only animal that, in the darkness, is able to detect the truth and that’s what my work is about.
All right. For those who appreciate your work and then even for those who will watch this video, what advice would you give to those watching to best deal with this crazy world?
So I’m pretty uncomfortable giving advice because the advisors are not the funders, not the ones who pay.
We Do Have a Golden Opportunity In Front of Us – Why We Must Not Lose
In this situation of total chaos and breakdown of the rule of law, not only internal but also institutional, it is difficult to give advice. I make proposals that are structured, that are thought out, that are based on very serious historical, institutional and political foundations of institutional reforms that the French people could decide to put in place. But I am not alone in being the “French”, that is to say, that if the people do not want, it will not be done, but it is necessary to know that the leaders that we have in front of us, they already have projects so if you do not implement. We have an opening, we have an opening: a rare moment in history. We are at a serious moment in history where we have an opening. We can take advantage of the fact that the enemy is wiping out the past to impose a new system that is favorable to the people that can again be called political, where we don’t do that and they impose on us the future that they have fomented for us and that is a future of dictatorship and suppression of free will, that is to say, that in reality there will be more human. We will all be reduced to the state of zombies, we will no longer have the capacity to make decisions, the decision-making capacities will be entirely in their hands, that is to say, that they will no longer give us the means to survive if we do not move in such and such a direction if we do not make such and such a decision, so the future, in reality, is much more serious than a political future, it is the future of humanity. Will humans continue to have free will or is it over, the stakes are those, without counting the stakes of depopulation that I have already spoken about at length elsewhere, and that they themselves do not hesitate to address. You just have to go back to Bill Gates‘ speeches for decades and decades. It is enough to read the works of the Club of Rome, it is also about the Georgia Guidestones (pictured below) since it is written there in black and white. And then also to read the works of Klaus Schwab to understand that one of the stakes for them of integral control of the populations happens by a rather drastic reduction of the world’s population, therefore to the reduction of the population goes with the integral role, therefore what they planned for us it was that. Me, I’m proposing another way, but it does not depend on me to implement it.
It’s strange that it’s always those who talk about world depopulation who want to save our lives. It’s true that it’s strange.
Yes, Bill Gates is obsessed by the world’s overpopulation and depopulation and indeed he claims to want …. so it is totally incoherent. If the French would listen for two minutes, they would immediately understand that there is an incoherence in the public discourse of these people. Either they are for saving people, or they are for depopulating. They can’t be in both camps at the same time, that’s obvious.
Before we finish, if you have three reading tips to help the French understand a little better what’s at stake, we’d love to hear them.
My reading advice is to preach for my chapel, that is to say, that I advise very seriously to read “the hidden reasons of the New World Order”, a book that I published a short time ago.
“Demain, dès l’aube, le renouveau” is also a book that I published and which explains the geopolitical aspect of the current issues but from a legal point of view. And then, for the rest, there are so many interesting books that I can’t make recommendations because in reality on all the continents there are books that are both alert and fascinating, and there are so many that I can’t name them in fact, there are too many. So it goes through Antony Sutton, Annie Lacroix-Riz, the authors that you mentioned earlier, but you always have to consider things in a global way, and indeed reading takes time, but it allows you to form a personal idea. For that, we need to have time in front of us and today it is true that normally the small difficulty is that we don’t have much time because the clock is ticking and everyone is responding to his agenda on his side, that the people who are at the helm have an agenda and follow this agenda and are relatively in a hurry to set in motion. I don’t know if I answered your question.
Let’s be a little bit their pebble in their shoes and then there you go.
This requires awareness, an individual personalization of the stakes, which are both individual and collective stakes, and we can’t go faster than the music, all the French people have to become aware of this. Nothing can be done if the stakes and the forces at work are not clearly identified.
Anyway, thank you for accepting this interview.
I thank you.
I should thank you for inviting me.
Thank you and we’ll talk soon.
Disclaimer: ShockingBritain.com and by default Movieversalfilm.com Ltd websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers/viewers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.