Humanity, Climate, Evolution and the Contradictions of Our Civilization

 

Today, I reflected on a television report in France stating that temperatures observed in May 2026 were comparable to those already recorded in 1922. This simple comparison led me to think beyond climate itself and to question humanity, our place in the Universe, and the contradictions of our civilisation.

If similar temperatures already existed more than one hundred years ago, then perhaps climate evolution cannot be reduced to a single explanation.

The Earth evolves.

The solar system evolves.

Stars are born, live and disappear.

Galaxies collide and transform.

The Universe itself is in motion.

And perhaps, beyond the Universe we know, there may exist realities and universes that humanity still understands very little about.

We humans often behave as if we fully understand existence, yet our knowledge remains limited. We are still discovering our oceans, our planet, our atmosphere, and the cosmos itself.

Scientists from past centuries already recognised that Earth is dynamic and constantly changing.

Milutin Milanković demonstrated how planetary movements influence long climate cycles.

Charles Lyell described Earth as evolving through immense natural timescales.

Alexander von Humboldt viewed nature as an interconnected living system.

Long before modern industry, Earth experienced climatic changes, warming periods, cooling periods and environmental transformations.

This does not remove human responsibility. Humanity affects nature. Industrialisation, pollution, deforestation and overexploitation have consequences.

But perhaps humanity is not the only factor in planetary evolution.

Natural mechanisms, oceans, solar activity, geological cycles and forces that we still do not entirely understand may also participate in these transformations.

Yet climate is only one part of a much larger reflection.

Humans call themselves rational animals.

But are we truly rational?

We have transformed oil into energy, fuel, plastics, medicine, transport and technologies that allow billions of people to live longer and more comfortably.

We have created science.

We have explored space.

We have cured diseases.

We have built civilisations.

And yet, despite all this intelligence, humanity still chooses war.

We continue to fight over land.

Over borders.

Over ideologies.

Over power.

History is filled with these tragedies:

The Napoleonic Wars.

The First World War.

The Second World War.

The Cold War.

And even today, conflicts continue in different parts of the world.

After centuries of suffering, humanity still struggles to learn the same lesson.

Power does not create wisdom.

Dominance does not create civilisation.

War does not create humanity.

If one believes in God, one may call this force “the Creator”.

If not, one may simply speak of nature, existence, or the Universe.

But the question remains the same:

Why has humanity been given intelligence, creativity and the ability to cooperate if we continue to choose destruction?

Perhaps the greatest environmental crisis is not climate.

Perhaps it is human behaviour.

Not because humans are evil, but because our civilisation often values domination more than harmony.

We possess extraordinary intelligence, yet we still behave as if strength were greater than wisdom.

The Earth evolves.

The Universe evolves.

Life evolves.

The question is whether human consciousness evolves at the same pace.

Because if we continue fighting for land, power and superiority, then our greatest enemy may never have been nature.

It may be ourselves.

SAISI

Sexual Violence, Power and Silence: A Post-COVID Global Reckoning

 

For decades, societies across the world lived with a paradox: sexual violence, domestic abuse and psychological coercion were widespread, yet structurally silenced.

Fear, shame, family pressure, social reputation and institutional delay ensured that most cases never reached public visibility. This silence affected women, children, and men alike, although women remained disproportionately exposed to sexual and domestic violence due to persistent structural inequalities.

Long before 2019, abuse of power and sexual coercion were already deeply embedded issues across all continents. What changed in the last decade was not only the reality of violence — but its visibility.

COVID-19: The accelerator of hidden violence

COVID-19 was identified in China in late 2019. The World Health Organization declared an international emergency on 30 January 2020 and a global pandemic on 11 March 2020.

Lockdowns created unprecedented conditions:

• forced cohabitation
• social isolation
• unemployment and financial stress
• increased alcohol consumption
• psychological distress
• reduced access to external support systems

Across multiple countries, researchers and NGOs reported increases in domestic violence indicators during lockdown periods, even if reporting mechanisms varied significantly between regions.

The result was widely described by observers as a “silent escalation” of domestic abuse.

Gendered visibility and hidden victims

Public discourse after COVID-19 overwhelmingly focused on violence against women — and rightly so, given the scale of reported cases globally. However, this visibility also exposed a second layer: under-recognised male victims and child victims, often less likely to report abuse due to stigma and social expectations.

At the same time, legal systems across Europe, North America and Australia recorded increased reporting rates, while many parts of Africa and South Asia continued to face structural barriers such as under-reporting, limited institutional access and strong cultural stigma around disclosure.

Global data consistently shows that violence against women remains a major worldwide issue, with significant proportions of women experiencing physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, while most cases remain unreported.

#MeToo and the transformation of testimony

The #MeToo movement, which gained global momentum from 2017 onwards, marked a turning point in how societies interpret consent, harassment and abuse of power.

Women who had remained silent for years began to speak publicly. Courts, media and institutions were forced to re-examine long-standing cultural norms.

However, this shift also generated tension:

• concerns about due process
• debates on presumption of innocence
• fear of reputational damage from public accusations
• growing anxiety among some men regarding social interaction boundaries

This created a complex social landscape where empowerment and fear coexisted.

High-profile cases and public attention

Several high-profile cases have shaped global perception of sexual abuse and power dynamics.

Jeffrey Epstein (United States / international case)

The case of Jeffrey Epstein became one of the most symbolic scandals involving allegations of sexual exploitation, trafficking and abuse of minors within networks linked to wealth and influence.

Epstein was arrested in 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking of minors. He died in custody the same year, officially ruled a suicide. His case remains central to global discussions about elite networks, accountability and institutional failure.

Dominique Pelicot (France)

In France, the case involving Dominique Pelicot and Gisèle Pelicot shocked public opinion.

According to court proceedings reported in France, Dominique Pelicot was accused of drugging his wife over several years and facilitating sexual assaults by other men while she was unconscious. The case, uncovered in 2020 and later tried in Avignon in 2024, became one of the most widely discussed cases of chemical submission and systemic sexual abuse in Europe.

Dozens of co-accused men were also brought before the courts, highlighting questions about consent, responsibility and group behaviour.

Gérard Depardieu (France)

French actor Gérard Depardieu has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault in different legal complaints and investigations. He denies wrongdoing, and proceedings have varied in status, reflecting the complexity and ongoing nature of legal processes.

Patrick Bruel (France)

Singer and actor Patrick Bruel has also been named in public allegations and investigations related to inappropriate behaviour. He has denied wrongdoing in cases reported by the media.

These cases illustrate a broader societal shift: public figures are increasingly subject to scrutiny, and allegations alone can carry major social consequences even before judicial conclusions.

False accusations, justice and public debate

One of the most sensitive and polarising aspects of the post-MeToo era is the question of false allegations.

Legal studies generally indicate that false reporting exists but represents a minority of cases in most jurisdictions, while under-reporting of sexual violence remains a far larger documented issue.

However, professionals working in courts and law enforcement occasionally encounter cases where accusations are not substantiated or lead to acquittal. These cases, although statistically limited, can have significant personal and social consequences.

The challenge for modern justice systems is therefore not ideological, but structural:

to ensure protection for victims while preserving the presumption of innocence and evidentiary rigor.

A society in transition

Post-COVID society is marked by contradictory dynamics:

• greater visibility of sexual and domestic violence
• stronger institutional responses in some regions
• increased public awareness of consent and coercion
• but also growing social anxiety, mistrust and emotional fragmentation

Art, cinema, literature and journalism have increasingly explored themes such as trauma, coercive control, invisible violence, loneliness, psychological abuse and systemic power imbalance.

Conclusion

The modern world is no longer silent about sexual violence.

But it is still deeply divided in how it understands it.

Between exposure and accusation, between protection and doubt, between justice and perception — society is still negotiating the boundaries of truth, power and responsibility.

What remains constant is this:

violence did not begin with awareness, but awareness is now changing how violence is seen, spoken about, and judged.

SAISI

Marriage Among Siblings and Close Relatives: Biblical Faith and Historical Reality

 

Throughout history, marriage between close relatives, including siblings and half-siblings, has been a complex and controversial subject. To fully understand this phenomenon, it is necessary to consider both biblical faith and historical reality.

Biblical Faith Perspective

In the Bible, early human societies, according to traditional interpretations, were limited to small family groups. Figures such as Adam and Eve, and their descendants, are described as having established the initial human population. Within this context, marriages among close relatives were a practical necessity for the survival of humanity. The early laws regarding consanguinity—relationships by blood—appeared later, particularly in the Mosaic Law, which prohibited marriages between certain close relatives to uphold religious commandments and moral order.

Historical Reality

Historically, before the formalization of religious laws, marriage among close relatives was not uncommon, especially in noble or royal families. Such unions were often motivated by social, political, or economic reasons: to preserve wealth, consolidate power, or maintain bloodlines. Ancient civilizations did not have the same understanding of genetics or hereditary diseases, so the focus was primarily on strategic alliances rather than health concerns.

📜 Relations Between Siblings and Half-Siblings — Biblical and Historical Context

		Period / Figure Source Situation How It Was Seen / Consequence Adam, Eve and their children Genesis 4–5 Children had to marry sisters/nieces (implied). Necessity to populate humanity. Abraham and Sarah Genesis 20:12 Marriage between half-siblings. Accepted before the Law. Lot and his daughters Genesis 19:30–38 Daughters intoxicated Lot to conceive. Implicitly condemned; Moabites and Ammonites born. Amnon and Tamar (David’s children) 2 Samuel 13 Amnon forced his half-sister Tamar. Scandal and tragedy in royal house. Mosaic Law Leviticus 18; 20 Prohibition of relations between close relatives. From then on, completely forbidden in Israel. Ancient Egypt (Pharaohs) History Royal sibling marriages (e.g., Cleopatra VII married two brothers). Normal practice to preserve “divine purity” of the bloodline. Mesopotamia (Sumerian/Babylonian kings) History Records of consanguineous unions among rulers. Seen as consolidating power and inheritance. Ancient Greece (mythology & some royals) Mythology/History Gods and kings with incestuous unions (e.g., Zeus with Hera, his sister). Accepted in myth, socially taboo. Ancient Rome (imperial families) History Some noble/imperial families with consanguineous marriages. Rare, but tolerated in circles of power.

👉 Clear takeaway:

• In the Bible → initially tolerated, later prohibited under Mosaic Law.
• In History → practiced especially among royal/noble families for political or dynastic reasons, even when socially questionable.

 Modern Understanding and Law

Today, laws prohibiting marriage between siblings, half-siblings, or other close relatives serve two main purposes. First, from a health perspective, these laws aim to prevent genetic diseases that are more likely to occur when individuals with closely related DNA have children. Second, they reflect ethical and religious principles derived from biblical teachings and societal norms. The prohibition aligns both with modern scientific understanding and with historical faith-based moral codes.

Conclusion

Marriage among siblings and close relatives is a subject that bridges faith, history, and science. In the biblical context, it was initially a practical necessity, later restricted by laws to align with divine command and societal ethics. Historically, such marriages occurred for strategic purposes, but today, they are prohibited mainly to prevent health risks and to respect religious and moral traditions. By considering both biblical faith and real historical practices, we gain a fuller understanding of why these prohibitions exist and how they have evolved over time.

SAISI

Trump, Putin, Netanyahu: The Illusion of Power and the Reality of War

 

Donald Trump has long claimed that he could end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours” if he were back in power. He presents himself as a man who can dictate peace by sheer force of will. Yet the reality today proves otherwise: he does not hold the influence he imagines, neither over Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine nor over Benjamin Netanyahu’s brutal campaign in Gaza.

Putin the Dictator

Vladimir Putin has shown, time and again, that he is a dictator who sustains his power through repression at home and destruction abroad. The war in Ukraine, which began with his full-scale invasion in February 2022, has left tens of thousands dead and millions displaced. Despite global sanctions and international condemnation, Putin continues his campaign, revealing that no outside figure—Trump included—can simply “order” him to stop.

Netanyahu: The Other Face of the Same Brutality

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving Prime Minister, has taken a similar path of destructive obstinacy. His government’s relentless bombardment of Gaza after October 7, 2023, has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, the majority women and children. Entire neighborhoods have been flattened. The international community watches in horror, but does nothing effective. The brutality inflicted on Palestinians today echoes the darkest chapters of history, with Netanyahu’s policies resembling—shockingly—the persecution his own people once suffered under Hitler. This is not “self-defense”; it is systematic annihilation.

The Myth of Power in Washington

Trump pretends he could stop these massacres overnight. But what has he done? He speaks, he boasts, yet the wars rage on. The United States, despite being a superpower, has proven unable to halt the bloodshed. The same goes for Europe, the United Nations, and other global organizations. They issue statements, they send aid, they impose sanctions—but none of it stops the killing. The truth is simple: these leaders—Putin and Netanyahu—act with impunity, and Trump’s words mean nothing against their actions.

Money: Created for Society, Misused for Control

Money was not created to enslave humanity. At its origin, it was meant as a tool to better organize society, to simplify exchange, to serve communities. But today it has become a mechanism of domination. Humanity now treats money not as a means, but as the measure of human worth. This is a tragic distortion. Life is not built on money—it is built on solidarity, compassion, dignity, and love for one another. When money replaces these values, society loses its soul.

The Real Power Lies With the People

Putin and Netanyahu are condemned not only by history, but by humanity itself, for the massacres they orchestrate. Yet the responsibility does not end with them. Ordinary people, across nations, continue to tolerate this reality. There is enough money, enough resources in the world to end misery and rebuild societies. But wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, while billions suffer. People know this, but they remain silent. They complain, but they do not act.

A Call to Wake Up

The wars in Ukraine and Gaza expose a painful truth: the so-called powerful are nothing without the passivity of the people. Trump cannot stop them. Washington cannot stop them. The United Nations cannot stop them. Only a collective awakening, a refusal to accept war, occupation, and exploitation, can end this cycle.

Money exists in abundance; what is missing is courage, justice, and solidarity. Humanity must reclaim its true wealth: not currency, but the capacity to share, to care, and to love.

Until the people take ownership of their future, misery will remain the norm, and the illusion of power will continue to shield dictators and warmongers from accountability.

SAISI

---

Manifesto for Humanity

War is not power, it is destruction.

Money is not life, it is only a tool.

Real power belongs to the people who awaken.

Putin, Netanyahu, and all who rule through fear have already lost legitimacy.

Trump cannot end wars in 24 hours, because no one owns human dignity.

Our mission is simple and urgent:

End misery, stop wars, and return the planet to the people.

Life is not measured in euros or dollars, but in sharing, in love, and in justice.

The time for waiting is over.

The future begins the moment humanity awakens.

SAISI NEWS - ME

Circular on gender identity in schools: “There will be a before and an after”

 

The Woke movement, if it is not yet as severe in France as in the United States and Canada, has nevertheless made a significant breakthrough in France: children and adolescents are already discussing in schoolyards and on social networks. to know if they are "boy" or "girl" and are very sensitive to the current phenomenon of guilt, which requires them not to claim to be "boy" or "girl" under penalty of being banned as "homophobic" . Adults who oppose the Woke program are, for their part, called "fascists" and "racists". A new cultural norm is therefore being imposed...aimed at destroying the archetypes on which our civilization is based.

On the legitimate pretext of preventing the stigmatization and persecution of "transgender people", it is a real brainwashing to which children and adolescents are now subjected via social networks.

Dr. Nicole Delépine traces here the progression of this ideology in France

Unfortunately, as in the USA, only the reactionary right in France explains and fights this insidious program, resulting from lobbying which invokes the need for respect and tolerance to impose its views: who could be "against" respect and tolerance? ? This is how this program is progressing, while as the association SOS Education explains very well below, it is above all a source of immense suffering for children disoriented by what is put in their heads.

The fact that this program is mainly supported in Anglo-Saxon countries by the radical left and opposed by the conservatives or the extreme right prevents the French left from reacting. However, there is urgency. Because many parents currently have no idea what is going on, or are at a loss and do not know how to react to what their children are telling them.

If it does not want to permanently lose all credibility, the French left must pull itself together and solve its own problems of identity (which makes it so permeable to Woke theories). Indeed, it has reached the point where if the right proclaimed that 2+2=4, it would not dare agree with it, thus paving the way wide open for the world described by Orwell. If the "left" identity consists only in taking the opposite view of what the right defends, then it is no longer distinguishable from the macronist far-center whose Woke ideology is the creed.

This Radio Quebec program therefore benefits from being seen by parents and grandparents, in order to visualize for themselves this short overview of what is happening in the United States and Canada, and to realize that this is the prelude to what will come to us. In order to also grasp the broader agenda that stands behind it, namely the banning of heterosexuality in order to put an end to natural sexual reproduction and impose the technological reproduction of human beings. That is to say the transhumanist program.

Not only that, but simultaneously promoting the normalization of child abuse, teaching children that it is not wrong or criminal for an adult to want to have sex with a five-year-old.

This dystopia is such that it arouses reactions in the homosexual and LGBTQ communities themselves...: if the members of these communities have fought to have their rights recognized, they do not all intend to be instrumentalized to justify this estruction of fundamental landmarks.

A very interesting interview with Pauline Quillon on her book "Enquête sur la dysphorie de genre" (57mn) allows us to go in depth into the subject:

On September 29, 2021, the Ministry of National Education produced a circular intended to define the conduct to be adopted by teachers and other staff when dealing with “transgender students” or “gender questioning”. “Transidentity is a fact that concerns the school institution”, we read; the announced objective is to accommodate these pupils as well as possible by accepting the change towards the "felt" gender, possibly by hiding the pupils' claims from their parents, and if necessary by giving access to different toilets or by changing the first names of the pupils. children on school cards. The association SOS Education, at the origin of a documented note on the alarming and dangerous nature of pediatric transitions in full swing, sees in this circular the institutionalization of the so-called "transaffirmative" ideology in the school, and has launched a petition that brings together more than 13,000 signatories. Interview with the general delegate of the association Sophie Audugé.

Talker. What do you see in Jean-Michel Blanquer's circular on "gender identity in schools"?

Sophie Audégé. The first thing that is disputed is that transidentity is a fact: in reality, it is an ideology, not a fact. The stated idea of ​​the circular is that we should not stigmatize children who ask themselves questions about their gender. But it is in the very nature of the school not to stigmatize children, we did not need to make an 11-page circular for such a simple objective. In reality, this circular is not a circular but a manifesto which takes up the entire argumentative corpus of what is called transaffirmative ideology. It is not just about recognizing the rights of transgender people, but above all about taking up the cause of the principle of gender self-determination felt for each person – whatever their age. The felt gender is envisioned as something that would be a deep, almost transcendent and therefore non-debatable feeling, where biology has no place, nor the emotional state or the period of life of the person who expresses it; exit also the identity upheavals of adolescence, personal situations, intra-family relations... And it is in this respect that transidentity is not a fact, but an ideology disseminated by activists who seek to convert a maximum of people. It is not a biological fact, not a scientific fact, and as such she does not have to go to school.

Moreover, in France, this ideology has not been the subject of public debate. In other countries, as is the case in Canada for example, Justin Trudeau and his ministers tell you that transidentity is the new world, it is the new social norm that we want to apply. They clearly tell parents who don't agree with transidentity that they are the problem, that if they don't accept it, they will be responsible for their child's suffering, and they tell them: "it's better having a transgender son than a dead daughter”, the choice is yours… If you are a parent in Canada, you know that it is like that in school and in the law. But in France, at no time did the power in place say that transidentity could be a new social norm and that it should be recognized as a social fact at school. In reality, this ideology has infiltrated in a totally insidious way. When you entrust your children to the school of the Republic, you expect it to guarantee the protection of your children, in a framework dedicated to teaching and the transmission of knowledge. Not to send such messages to your children.

How did we come to institutionalize this ideology?

The circular effectively institutionalizes a movement that had already entered the school for a long time. To be completely honest, we should all have intervened long before, because all the transaffirmative semantics were already in place, already relayed by a certain number of interventions made to children by various LGBTQ+ associations or Family Planning. They disseminate the whole transaffirmative term to the children, they distribute questionnaires in the classes asking the students if they feel like a girl or a boy, binary or non-binary... they are told: if your parents "gender you" or "you misgender", it is an act of violence that you can denounce. These remarks already existed, we knew it, but for some reason that cannot be explained, the entire educational community considered that it was not serious enough to oppose it with firmness. No one, no doubt, had envisaged that the Minister of National Education would take up the cause of this transaffirmative ideology.

The circular refers to several associations of this movement, in particular the association Le MAG Jeunes LGBT. However, this association is part of the European federation of transaffirmative associations IGLYO, which produced a report in November 2019 which details a lobbying protocol to infiltrate public policies and pass the affirmation of the gender felt in the law, with a will displayed to reach young people. It is still unlikely that the Minister of Education would relay the arguments of such an association in his circular. This association is approved by the National Education, it receives subsidies to go to schools to serve the good word... It also has a partnership with a cosmetics brand acclaimed by young people, and not the least, Sephora, which has a communication campaign for the launch of a palette of eyeshadows specifically intended for transgender people with a very popular influencer on social networks. Is there no conflict of interest? All of this raises fundamental questions that no longer have anything to do with the cause of respect for the rights of homosexuals and transsexuals, and even less with school. What is at stake here is a modification of the social norm and a huge business! This has infiltrated the school through associations, and Jean-Michel Blanquer has just institutionalized this new norm at school. There will be a before and an after.

Let's approach things a bit concretely: what are the consequences of gender transition among young people? What are the three stages of this transition that you describe in your report, and where are we in France, legally, vis-à-vis all these steps?

Indeed, this is the second point of our opposition: the first thing is that ideology should not enter the school, and the second thing is that it is contrary to the higher interest of the child. Our approach at SOS Education was to document ourselves very seriously in order to assess the issue and the risks from the point of view of the best interests of the child. Transactivists do not hesitate to blackmail suicide as we have seen with the example of Canada. Obviously this is a very serious matter that requires our full vigilance. We documented ourselves to disentangle the true from the false and have the most objective opinion possible.

What allows us to have this objective opinion is that a number of countries – unfortunately for them and fortunately for France – have been engaged in pediatric transition processes for ten years already. The first to initiate such a process were the Netherlands, with a fairly specific protocol, which started from a fairly significant exploratory child psychiatric support. This protocol made it possible to support the children concerned over the long term: the challenge was to evacuate any other origin of the malaise that would not have been linked to the incongruence between their felt gender and their birth sex.

SE

SAISI