Tous les blogs | Alerter le modérateur| Envoyer à un ami | Créer un Blog


Cry Freedom (Cri de liberté)

- Pas de nouveau billet avant le 15 mars -


Un petit livre à n'est pas rater pour comprendre le sujèt: L'esprit et la pensée de Krishnamurti, pour nous les soi-disant intelectuelles!!!! ;-)







Lire la suite


A few questions to deepen the political-juridical economic debate.


Is the (economic) survival of the fittest constitutional?

It may be difficult to answer this just like that.

The negative side effects of ‘competition’ are not as tangible in a world where relatively few people live. Imagine a world with half a billion people and you can imagine that there is a place under the sun for everyone. In a world becoming ever more crowded, the side effects of ‘mutual competition’ will be ever more apparent.
It might be important to ask several questions:

For whom is ‘mutual competition’ efficient?

For those who already have a head start, the government, the losers, the winners, or the economy in general?

What happens to communication between the government and the people when ‘mutual competition’, which leads to ‘profit and growth’, is the most important social principle?

What does this do to the self-regulating ability of individuals in their interrelations within a society?

Do not people (and companies) become ever more dependent on the government as a result?

What does ‘mutual competition’ do to participation within a society, the independence of each individual and tolerance towards others?

How (economically) efficient is ‘mutual competition’, when you take profit and growth as a starting point instead of people and democratisation?

How democratic is our society if ‘winners’ have more rights than ‘losers’?

How much credibility does the government and the constitutional state have if winning is a more important social (economic) principle than coexistence?

What promotes an individual’s independence in society?

Do we compete against each other or do we create the conditions necessary for individuals to face society’s challenges and share them by participating and learning to co-operate?

Where does competition end and do crime, terrorism and war start, and what roles do politics, the legal system and the individual play in this?

I hope these questions and points of view are interesting for you, as a reader and, more importantly, as a fellow human being.

Best regards,
Peter Hoopman
Roquetaillade – Aveyron         


La mascarade technocrate continu.......

La France veut mettre en place la taxe Tobin/financière, même si l'idée peut être sympatique au début, ça va rien changer au fond.

En bref cette solution technique dans une monde virtuelle/technocrate, c'est pour se donner l'idée aux gens qu'il fond des choses. Mais en bref c'est une grande mascarade bullocrate. Pour mettre le brouillard à eux même et pire à nous! Mais ils ne sont pas conscient de tout celà.........

Alors ne soyé pas trop sévère vers eux/nous. :-) ;-)

 A lire aussi:

Chers terroristes informatiques


Une question qui "tue"


Quelques questions pour.......... 


Pourquoi cette scene?


Si j'ai bien compris François Hollande, le PS, veut aussi cette taxe financière. Il n'a rien compris non plus, ni de Marx ni d'Adam Smith et surtout l'intégralité des deux. Mais au moins le PS et Sarko sont d'accord sur quelque chose. ;-)

Malheureusement François Bayrou reste aussi aux côtés des tehnocrates, même si il est façon parler mille fois plus nuancé que Sarko et Hollande.

photo pris de nouvel obs, mais je ne suis pas certain


La seule économie au fond de la vie..



.... c'est l'évolution de notre propre conscience.




bonnes fêtes


The chronic bureaucratic corruption

 La version français se touve ici.

Ministry of General Affairs
Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende
PO Box 20001

The Netherlands

                                                                       9 June 2006

Copy: to the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, the Tax and Customs Administration in Winterswijk and the European Court


ReRefusal to collaborate further on the fundamental injustice within the (current) Dutch and European constitutional state, the chronic bureaucratic corruption.

- under believers -

Dear Mr Balkenende,

Thank you for your response in your letter of 22 May, which I greatly appreciate. It would seem that my letter was not very clear, which is perhaps somewhat logical. In my letter of 2 May, I question something that we have considered logical, just and scientific for 5,000 years. Something that has conditioned and pre-programmed individuals and our society as a whole for over 5,000 years will probably not be immediately clear. Although I am no lawyer, I did try to indicate in my letter that the current politico-economic system is unjust and contrary to the democratisation of society. The inseparable politico-economic ingredients competition, profit and interest have created a government that holds society and itself captive between debt and reward. This keeps society (including the government) small, dependent and adrift. It has resulted in us living in two economic worlds, one with an actual exchange of goods and services and the other a bureaucratic reflection of the goods and services traffic. This second stream is in fact the accounting side of the economy. In a healthy and open society, these two streams (economies) run completely synchronously, forming the perfect reflection of each other. This is not the case in the current politico-economic system, in which they are two separate politico-economic streams. Of course, there is a partial overlap (2%) between the goods and services economy on the one hand and the accounting ‘economy’ on the other, but over the course of time this has got completely out of hand, meaning that we’re living in a global financial casino where the largest part of accounting economy activities no longer have any roots in society, except in the belief that money in itself is worth money. Or in other words, accounting has acquired value in itself and today represents the most important‘politico-economic’ power in itself, at the expense of…….! The 5,000-year-old source that resulted in accounting acquiring value in itself and it also becoming a politico-economic power factor was uncovered by historians in Mesopotamia, the current Iraq. Today, we know it as a ceaseless number of derivatives, which are variations on that same accounting theme: interest on money.

In this letter, I will try to use a more legal approach to explain why I no longer charge (de Hutte Holding BV) and pay (EURL Petit Château Roquetaillade – Aveyron) any interest and, therefore, no longer wish to pay any more taxes on the income deriving from interest of de Hutte Holding BV. In short, this means that I refuse to support a system/structure that more or less completely undermines democratisation and justice within our society. In pure monetary terms, this undermining of the constitutional state, democracy and straightforward economic communication represents 98% of the whole. In plain language, this undermining means: a totally out of control bureaucratic fantasy at the expense of society.

From this point of view, the current politico-economic way of thinking/doing business more or less completely undermines article one of the constitution.

Article 1
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.

If ‘mutual competition’ really is so good for society, then I think it would be better to immediately scrap article one from our constitution. Encouraging and promoting mutual competition is nothing more than the final institutionalisation of the ‘law of the jungle’, which has automatically led to economic discrimination. For our democracy, this means that ‘winners’ have more rights than ‘losers’. Is that what we understand by democracy? In that case, there’s nothing that we need to change today, seeing as ‘this will sort itself out’ and a winner will always emerge. The government runs a relatively small risk in such a situation, as there is always a winner who then hands over a part of the profit, with which the losers can be partially compensated. Naturally, there can’t be any full compensation because then the profit stream would dry up all too quickly. Politically, legally and practically speaking, the government has manoeuvred itself into an impossible position. Whether it is willing to recognise it or not, the government is a stakeholder in this situation, because it is dependent on the financial ‘winners’. By opting for mutual competition in society, the government has pushed aside its indispensable impartiality, thereby in fact losing all moral ground for faithfully and justly steering society.

Lire la suite


The difference between legal system and constitutional state.

 La version Français

                                                                       Supreme Court of the Netherlands

PO Box 20303
2500 EH The Hague


13 September 2006


Copy to: Prime Minister Balkenende, Winterswijk Tax and Customs Administration and www.solution-simple.com

Re:The difference between legal system and constitutional state, and a concrete question to you

Dear Ms XXXXX,

Thank you for your explanation in your letter of 17 August 2006, in which you clarify that our legal system has to abide by the rules set down in the law. This seems very logical and right to me. You also state that an investigation is possible, provided that this is brought before the Supreme Court in the manner stipulated by law. This also seems logical in order to give the legal system a framework in which justice can be administered carefully and fairly. Nonetheless, I want to make a comment here. Your observation is entirely true if the legal system is in line with the way the constitutional state operates; that is, the legal system (theoretically speaking) operates completely synchronously with the constitutional state itself. That this is not the case today, either practically or theoretically speaking, is clearly evident from our politico-economic system in which the economic right of the strongest is institutionalised/protected, and which, therefore, disregards the most fundamental democratic principles which should be the basis of a well-functioning legal system.

But how can a constitutional state serve (the general mutually binding interests), if mutual competition is a key ‘common’ principle? The institutionalised representatives of the constitutional state, i.e. the judiciary, government and parliament, guarantee their own indispensability by creating conditions whereby society only becomes more dependent on these institutions.

The very nature of competition constantly requires the administration of justice, an arbitrator who intervenes and administers justice. From a marketing perspective, this is a winning recipe; having people compete because they will continuously have to knock on the door of those various bodies seeking justice, or sooner or later, they will hang their head in despair at this constant and chronic recurring injustice. 

A case of the goose that lays the golden eggs for the people working within this system. But what happens to the people who find themselves outside the system? Competition forces us to protect ourselves properly, which takes up a lot of our time and energy. There’s nothing really wrong with that, but shouldn’t the constitutional state (the government, the house of representatives, the judiciary, the business community and citizens) at least take a look at whether this is efficient and in the interests of an open society, one that is as free as possible? And the most important question in all of this is whether it’s fair on all those participating in society. Sooner or later, we have to ask ourselves if honest competition is actually at all possible. How and where do you set believable limits on what is possible, permitted and still just? A society where competition is a key principle logically creates the right of the strongest. Those who ‘earn’ the most can recruit the best staff, pay the best lawyers, etc., but does it actually create people who take their own responsibility within and for society as a whole? Fortunately, there are of course plenty of people like this, but unfortunately, they are more the exception than the rule within a competitive society. With competition, the first priority is having your own affairs in order. The consequences for society as a whole in the short and long run are secondary and, in day-to-day practice, they are often a loss-making priority. This brings me to the important conclusion that competition creates dependence instead of healthy independence and fair play in society as a whole: the constitutional state. By taking competition as a starting point, the legal system has created (unintentionally, I assume) an indisputably huge market share,on which practically all of society has become dependent. When viewed from the perspective of psychological laws that create mutual competition, this is completely understandable. But is this just and efficient from an economic point of view? Does this create the right principles for a free and open society and for individuals who stand on their own two feet?

Collaboration, on the other hand, places the responsibility on society, on the independently operating individual. Institutions intervene when the conditions for collaboration are undermined by the individual or groups of participants. This requires an entirely different attitude from parents, government, parliament and the judiciary. Democracy will then come to rest where it naturally belongs: in society itself, with the individual, instead of with the institutions that unconsciously try to protect their own market at the expense of democracy and the constitutional state. Because in a competitive society we can only protect our own achievements against our competitive fellow man. Over the years, this has resulted in institutions, governments, business and individuals only safeguarding their own system, achievements and mechanism, which, of course, has happened at the expense of the general interest: the constitutional state. In a competitive society, people always point the finger at others; nobody is responsible anymore for individual actions or joint ones. For instance, in your first letter of 12 July 2006 you suggest that I should vent my opinions in the political arena; a political world that is internally divided right down to its core and, because of its individual political fight for survival, has long since lost sight of social interests. This is all logical when you consider mutual competition, but it’s disastrous for the constitutional state striving for unity

Lire la suite


Tous au Larzac, la lutte contre sarkollande dans nous même. ;-)

La fossée entre politque et peuple est enorme aujourd'hui. Il y a presque quarante ans la lutte de Larzac est commencé.

Peut être aujourd'hui on doit se demander c'est quoi l'origine de la fossée entre le monde politque et le peuple?

Les différents moyens de (sur)vie?

Lire la suite


Appel pour un audit citoyen de la dette publique




Signez l’appel pour un audit citoyen de la dette publique !

Écoles, hôpitaux, hébergement d’urgence, retraites, chômage, culture, environnement… nous vivons tous au quotidien l’austérité budgétaire et le pire est à venir. « Nous vivons au-dessus de nos moyens », telle est la rengaine que l’on nous ressasse dans les grands médias. « On n’a pas le choix, il faut rassurer les marchés financiers ».

Nous refusons ces discours culpabilisateurs. Nous ne voulons pas assister en spectateurs à la remise en cause de tout ce qui rendait encore vivables nos sociétés, en France et en Europe.

NB1 : Un email de confirmation vous sera envoyé une fois que vous aurez cliqué sur le bouton de signature. Prenez garde à ce qu’il ne soit pas bloqué par votre filtre à spam.
NB2 : La «politique de confidentialité» est celle d’une pétition classique : seuls vos nom, ville, pays et commentaires sont considérés comme des informations publiques.


Chansons de guerre

Avec les elections pour le moment "sans intérêt" à venir:

Change le mot "guerre" par "concurrence" et demande vous est ce que nous sommes si différents?

Hitler, le chef des conspirateurs nazis jugés maintenant devant vous, disait paraît-il, en parlant de leurs projets guerriers : « Je donnerai une raison de propagande pour commencer la guerre, peu importe qu’elle soit vraie ou fausse. On ne demandera pas au vainqueur s’il disait alors vrai ou pas. Pour commencer et faire la guerre, ce n’est pas le droit qui compte, c’est la victoire. Le droit est du côté du plus fort. »

                                    Un des plaignants lors du procès de Nuremberg


 A lire aussi Stratégie du choc

Quelques questions pour approfondir le débat poltico-juridico- économique.


Come you masters of war
You that build the big guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain.

You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion'
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins.

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do.

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.



Lire la suite


Application before the European Court of Human Rights (7 -end-)


Part One

Part two

Part three 

Part four

Part five

Part six


16. Décision interne définitive (date et nature de la décision, organe – judiciaire ou autre – l’ayant rendue)

Final decision (date, court or authority and nature of decision)

Definitieve beslissing (datum, rechterlijke of andere autoriteit en de aard van de beslissing)


17 September 2010, The Supreme Court has settled the appeal pursuant to article 81 RO (legal grounds).

Article 81

If the Supreme Court decides that a complaint raised cannot lead to cassation and does not demand that questions of law be answered in the interests of the unity or development of the law, the Court may, when stating the grounds for its decision, confine itself to this ruling.



17. Autres décisions (énumérées dans l’ordre chronologique en indiquant, pour chaque décision, sa date, sa nature et l’organe – judiciaire ou autre – l’ayant r endue)

Other decisions (list in chronological order, given date, court or authority and nature of decision for each of them)

Andere beslissingen (geef weer in chronologische volgorde en vermeld bij iedere beslissing de datum, de rechterlijke of andere autoriteit en de aard van de beslissing)


26 March 2007, Tax and Customs Administration. 

Initial rejection of objection to provisional corporation tax assessment.


31 May 2007, Tax and Customs Administration.  

Final rejection of the objection.


10 April 2008, Ruling of the Arnhem District Court, tax section.

Interest forms part of profit and is therefore taxable.



28-7-2009, Ruling of the Arnhem Court of Appeal, tax section.

The Court expressly takes no position on whether a ban charging interest would be desirable According to the law, interest goes with profit. The Court further refers to the fact that in some rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, interest is also charged, for example: 16 April 2002, S.A. Dangeville v France, Application no: 36677/97.



18. Dispos(i)ez-vous d’un recours que vous n’avez pas exercé ? Si oui, lequel et pour quel motif n’a-t-il pas été exercé ?

Is there or was there any other appeal or other remedy available to you which you did not use? If so, explain why you did not use it.

Staat of stond enig andere beroepsmogelijkheid of ander rechtsmiddel open voor u dat u niet heeft aangewend? Indien dit het geval is, welk beroep/rechtsmiddel is/was dit en om welke reden(en) heeft u dit niet aangewend?


After the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the only possibility for the undersigned to continue was to bring the case before the European Court of Human Rights.











The undersigned is attempting to have a fundamental and recurrent injustice tested at law, so that the general good becomes more clearly visible again and a reconciliation between the individual and society can be effected.


Over the course of time, a bug has infected the politico-economic software. Though initially fairly harmless, today, this bug is the cause of much injustice and uncertainty. It is the object of this application to make this bug visible so that as a society and the individuals within it, we are given the opportunity to make our mutual economic communication clearer and more sincere again.










20. Avez-vous soumis à une autre instance internationale d’enquête ou de règlement les griefs énoncés dans la présente requête ? Si oui, fournir des indications détaillées à ce sujet.

Have you submitted the above complaints to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement? If so, give full details.

Heeft u de bovenstaande klacht(en) aan enig andere internationale geschillenbeslechtings- of onderzoeksinstantie voorgelegd? Zo ja, geef volledige en gedetailleerde informatie hier omtrent.


No, the complaint has not been submitted elsewhere.










A) 26 March 2007, Tax and Customs Administration. P. 18


Initial rejection of objection concerning provisional corporation tax assessment.



B) 31 May 2007, Tax and Customs Administration. P. 20


Final rejection of the objection.



C) 17 April 2008, Ruling of the Arnhem District Court, tax section. P. 23


Interest forms part of profit and is therefore taxable.


D) 28-7-2009, Ruling of the Arnhem Court of Appeal, tax section. P. 27


The Court expressly takes no position on whether a ban on charging interest would be desirable According to the law, interest goes with profit. The Court further refers to the fact that in some rulings of the European Court of Human Rights interest is also charged, for example: 16 April 2002,

S.A. Dangeville v France, Application no: 36677/97.


E) 17 September 2010, Supreme Court P. 31

Settled the appeal pursuant to article 81 RO (legal grounds).

Article 81

If the Supreme Court decides that a complaint raised cannot lead to cassation and does not demand that questions of law be answered in the interests of the unity or development of the law, the Court may, when stating the grounds for its decision, confine itself to this ruling


















22. Je déclare en toute conscience et loyauté que les renseignements figurant sur le présent formulaire de requête sont exacts.

I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information I have given in the present application form is correct.

Hierbij verklaar ik, naar alle eer en geweten, dat de door mij in dit verzoekschrift gegeven informatie correct is.

















Signature du/de la requérant(e)

Signature of the applicant

Handtekening van de verzoek(ster)