The government, the exterminating agent of people and nations, must end it? We've had enough!

Google translation from French to English:

The government, the exterminating agent of people and nations, must end it? We've had enough!

Share widely, first, and then communicate with everyone to act quickly! Time is running out!

Decree 0000000 the government, exterminating agent of people and nations, Friday, April 17, 2026

The Imperial Family and the City of Dessalines speak out 7 - 8 - y = © All rights reserved

q = an, u = ou =, w = r, r = ê, c = in, h = ch, e = é, ¼ = on, ñ

 

The original link if needed:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/le-gouvernement-agent-exterminateur-des-gens-et-en-ijfxe

Visit the following sites:

 

LinkedIn: HRH Prínce Tiécoura Jean Dessalines D'Orléans;

Blogger: Forum-Impératrice Claire Heureuse Dessalines, la Ville de Dessalines, capitale d’AYITI;

X: @ForumEmpereurje

For all works, consult the Akadémie X website:

https://www.akademiex.com/product-page/tome-6-l-administration-impériale-rétablie-au-pays-ancestral-ayiti

Administration impérial rétabli

Slavery is the crime against Busa, or against the Black man and woman, Earthling, Earthling.

AYIBOBO!

Lekba

The one and only problem on Earth manifests itself in the form of GOVERNMENT, as it presents itself to us. It is the problem because it manages to convince an astonishing number of people that it is the solution to their lives. Need I put it any other way? Evil, the greatest of all, publicly presents itself as the remedy, the only remedy. This is not by mistake but by 

strategy. As a child, I sometimes went to the market with my mother; she was a hardware store owner. Or rather, I used to go to the market, which was, and still is, two blocks from our house. I sometimes witnessed a disturbing event, the same thing, but with different faces: a person running through the crowd, shouting, “Hey, thief! Grab him!” All eyes would spontaneously turn, as usual, forward, in the direction the voice was going, to spot the offender. I don't know if this still happens today. The funny thing is, whoever shouts while running away is the thief. In the end, everyone would say, "He's the thief, or she's the thief." No one knew for sure, but they suspected it. They gave them the benefit of the doubt. There's more. Most of the people there are shopkeepers. It's difficult, even impossible, to try and apprehend the fleeing person in an open-air market packed with people. Who will take care of the business during that time? The risk is too great. If this were done, it would be just another tactic for the thieves to line their own pockets. We're seeing the same scenario with the government and its accomplices. The destabilizer is obviously them, but they shift the blame onto others. Their role, they say, is to repair, save, and so on. He needs to speak loudly, and indeed he does, constantly. Statesmen and women in government are veritable criminals, except, if any exist, those who are in those positions in reaction to this unimaginable swindle. No government is less evil than another because it is against ofowu, which is Divine and which concentrates within itself all that is in accordance with Self, the Divine, which is what we are.

Yet he is very popular. This may be surprising if one doesn't know the reasons. Of course, the idea of ??government appeals to a multitude of people. It also repels almost as many people on another level. The explanation must be sought elsewhere, in what opposes it to Ofowu. A single element encompasses both contrary and antithetical attitudes. This is hommality, the principle of man. Hommality entered the world through a misinterpretation of reality. The reading in question presents hierarchy in a hierarchical form, with one element placed above the others, which must submit to its orders. This contrasts with the ancestral form of ofowu, which teaches the interdependence of all elements, each independent of the others within its own sphere in order to manage its dependencies—the point of the Unity of reality. It is a kind of immanence within transcendence. In the human world, the world of men, hierarchy is not a given; it must be brought about. Government is central to the effectiveness of hierarchy. Simply stating this is not enough; it must also be brought about through praxis, of course, we learn. This is what the word "government" is linked to. This explains why, in society, whether religious or secular, and even through the concept of gods, hierarchy is at the heart of thought and action.

The Discomfort

Societies, here we are at the very beginning, are founded on a simple idea: the naturalness of the ruler/ruled. By this, we mean that some people are born to dominate, and others, consequently, come into life to be dominated, that is, to allow themselves to be governed by someone other than themselves. This is the official teaching everywhere among humankind. The task of those predetermined to govern consists of applying the principal/subordinate structure in practice. This task is called "slavery," or at best, enslavement. We speak of enslavement because the discourse is false and a trap, and because we have decided on the nature of people, a binary nature: one group is made to dominate others by nature. In other words, by nature one is master just as by nature one is "slave." Forming a society amounts to realizing "slavery," that is, organizing people according to their nature, in other words, making the natural structure of domination, principal/subordinate, effective. This practice is called, according to its proponents, “slavery.” Working for someone other than oneself is not “slavery.” However, it only occurs within “slavery,” or more precisely, “enslavement.” What leads to “slavery” is the encounter between “master” and “slave,” two natural entities, according to its proponents, who are opposed to one another but also complementary. Religious figures and intellectuals are among those who subscribe to this view.

You, who are reading this text, can stop here and continue later. If you feel ready to go further, then let’s do so!

The Entrance of Thomas Hobbes

Things change but do not disappear. They become more entrenched as the years go by. Let's go to the seventeenth century! Enter the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, translator of Aristotle's philosophical thought, the thinker of "slavery"! Under the pretext that man is the most important being in nature, Hobbes transfers the Aristotelian right of nature to man. Thus was born the concept of the natural right of man. Thomas Hobbes innovates in that there is no natural "master" nor natural "slave," as the Greek philosopher Aristotle teaches. All men enjoy the same rights. There is more. The definition of man is reduced to the individual. "All men have a right to all things, including the bodies of other men," the philosopher affirms. What should we understand from this? Each person is naturally, especially discursively, in a position of dominance and subordination, that is, dominant/dominated—a misinterpretation, but let's continue. One thing is certain: there is no clear division among human beings, no "master" group and no "slave," as is the case with Aristotle. Unlike Aristotle, the concept of "human beings" is limited to all white people, not just Greeks.

Let us remember this: the binary idea is not defeated; the separation remains: 1) the individual against all other individuals; 2) the naturalness of this; 3) the European question, therefore skin color; 4) the necessity of placing all individuals and others under the domination of humankind, in this case, the individual. This is the requirement of natural human rights. We thus enter the realm of modern political science.

Organization and Domination

To understand the implications of the thoughts we have just seen, we must consider the idea of ??the necessity of organizing. The organization is to execute the content of the law, in other words, to establish a structure of domination. Read the sentence again! Now let's recall the content: "Right over all things, including the bodies of others." Domination is seen in both morality and politics. Regarding the latter, Aristotle states: "Politics is the organization of slavery," that is, making the domination of some by or over others effective; it amounts to the same thing. We can put it another way: politics, from its primary meaning, is a structure of domination. Such a structure is one of power. Religious morality proclaims that "power comes from the gods." Another example, in the English monarchy, is that it is said: "X or Y is king or queen by the grace of God." Here we are dealing with the natural.

Thomas Hobbes does not distance himself from the idea of ??organization and domination in politics. Hobbes's political philosophy rests on the natural and the artificial. Morality, whose definition is this What must be done and what must not be done constitutes the execution of natural order. This will serve as the basis for politics. Politics, which morality calls for due to a lack of sufficient obligation, follows the same trajectory. Yet there is a huge difference in Hobbes: power comes from men because there is no power that is not political. 

How does the English philosopher explain the nature of political power? First, through the renunciation of some of one's rights, more precisely, the natural right to self-government, in favor of someone else; second, through democracy, which is nothing other than the choice of one's representative through voting. There is an implacable logic at play. If you cannot govern yourself, you need someone else, the poor soul, to do it for you. Hence the expression "popular power" versus "divine power." Political power is invented. In Hobbes's world, both exist: divine power, that of royalty, which relates to the State, the institution, and democratic or popular power, exercised through voting, through parliament.

Power is dominant; it tells you everything you must do. In short, it replaces you; you are subject to it. Here we find ourselves in the same position as Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, in terms of the structure of domination. Let us refrain from boasting when we live in society because we are a false being, an abnormal being. We do not symbolize another, no, no, no, we carry another within ourselves. I say it right now, it is not glorious. Let us continue!

The State or Power

In both the pre-Hobbian and post-Hobbian eras, the State or power is the commander, the master, the institution that directs people. During the first era, the government imposes itself and justifies itself. To put it another way, the government has no outside; it is, as they say, a subject verb, whose action does not pass over anything, for example, "I run." Whereas, in the second era, it exists through the renunciation of the right to govern itself. It cannot exist without this action. The status of individuals in a state governed by the rule of law is and remains the same: who they are is irrelevant in decision-making. This falls to the State, or the power structure, the force established by democracy, which is the renunciation of self and the choice of one's representative. The government functions, and can only function, in this way. Let us keep this previous proposition firmly in mind to understand the government and oneself under its power or action. Power is the Supreme Reason; it thinks and dictates, while the people, called the populace, listen and execute. Their reason, which was initially the means by which they thought and acted, is reduced to the status of executor of the master's decisions, in this case, the State. Formerly, their bodies served as a source of justification and direction. In society or in political situations, it is the power and the interest of the social body that matter. Their bodies are taken over by power for the benefit of that power, since power is not, and cannot be, in and of itself. We are far from divine power. Others are indispensable to it. But this body is not conceived in and of itself, but as a version of thought, thus stripped of its concreteness, especially its sensitivity. This is how it unites with the social body, or the body of citizenship, which is the interest of power. In short, the original body of the “individual,” now a citizen, is reinvented for the benefit of the beneficiary of this renunciation: the State or society. By this, we mean that the individual body is overlaid by the artificial universal body, which is citizenship, the body-interest of power. It must be added to the understanding of the political game that no citizen, male or female, exists in their pre-existing or natural body. Can we be proud of this? That would be madness.

A summary

Let's summarize! Here we are working on the point of renunciation and submission, which takes shape through the act of appropriating what is dictated from the outside in order to continue existing in two forms: as a being, that is, as the primary or natural being, and as a citizen, that is, as part of a human group at the behest of someone other than oneself. It is not difficult to grasp the part of the game where one has the advantage of the other, one's adversary. Let us turn to Thomas Hobbes, the English political philosopher and father of modern politics! Hobbes tells us that politics is formed by two forces, one natural, the other artificial. The natural force is the anthropology of natural law, that is, the "individual," possessing only three rights: vital impulse, freedom or the capacities of reason, and total possession. The third right is not within the "individual" but is its foundation. “The individual” is the reason for everything outside of him. The outside is the means. In short, the rights of “the individual” are unlimited. He is man, and natural! Man, as he is defined, is without rival. This is a consideration at the first level. The artificial form of politics appears through the multitude, formless, certainly, of “individuals,” rivals at the second level. The problem this causes must be solved. Therein lies the principle of politics. The solution lies within the problem itself, since it consists of removing the obstacle by thwarting all other “individuals” by depriving them of some of their natural rights, hence the partial renunciation of those rights. The natural “individual” in the singular remains and is the structure of society. The others efface themselves by opening themselves to it, by allowing it to take root within them. We are faced with the artificial element because there is self-intervention upon self. The natural “individual” becomes the representative of those who have sacrificed themselves for its benefit. This is the structure of politics: naturalness and artificiality. The latter is not a natural element; it is the empty ground that nature has before it. Thus, nature, this constant element, can act as it pleases, without hindrance. This is what we saw earlier, namely that citizens exist only in power, which signifies the natural element that dominates everything.

When you relinquish your rights, even partially, and democratically—that is, through voting—you choose your representative, you're finished. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes gives us an idea of ??the creation of power: “In it,” says Hobbes, “lies the essence of the State, which is (to define it) a single person whose actions are authored, by mutual agreements made among themselves, by each of the members of a great multitude, so that this person may use the strength and resources of all as he sees fit for their peace and common defense.” It follows from this formula that power is the only one in charge. What must also be clearly understood here is that this relinquishment leads to “a single person” because this person is the only one acting and does things according to what he judges to be advantageous for all. I believe that for a well-balanced individual, this is frightening. Let's continue! The multitude has disappeared; there is more. The self itself, as we saw above, no longer exists. Each individual is contained within the representative person, since it is this person who decides, according to their own perspective, what is good for everyone.

Hobbes is not alone in conceiving politics in this way. He incorporates into his calculations what was done before him, both intellectually and practically. After him, it remains the same. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, maintains that the leader is outside the state: He, “(not being a member, but its author or preserver) alone has the right to coerce, without himself being subject to a right of coercion.” We can ask ourselves why: “Every true republic is, and can be nothing other than, a representative system.” The idea of ??representation implies that of a master. “For man is an animal who, from the moment he lives among other individuals of his species, needs a master,” asserts Kant, the German philosopher. The leader is a representative. It is in this capacity that he acts and can act. He acts in your place, for you. He knows what is good for you. It is no longer you who acts for yourself, but the representative. We find ourselves faced with the same idea, namely that citizenship is not the product of itself, but of the will of someone other than oneself, called the representative. What is political society? According to Immanuel Kant, it is no longer being oneself, as before. What must be remembered in all this is that the "primary self" is absent in any religious or political organization. This, so far, operates on the intellectual plane.

Obligation in Political Organization

One might say, "If it doesn't suit me, I simply won't submit." If the system is conceived in this way, it simply isn't a system at all. We don't chase after appearances, but rather something real. There is no constructed system without constraint. This constraint can be internal or external. The fact that the effect of one is not the same as that of the other is undeniable: constraint serves as the framework for everything. In the situation we are considering, everything unfolds at the level of thought. Internal constraint, in foro interno, may, in some cases, prove ineffective. Hobbes himself acknowledges this. Consequently, he opts for external constraint, the penalty, in the event of disobedience to the sovereign's voice—that is, the one who holds power. According to the English philosopher, you are obligated even if the sovereign asks you to kill your father. You can disobey, he says, because he is your father, but that doesn't stop the sovereign from punishing you, even killing you, because he has the power of life and death over you. In fact, he has all the rights. This question of politics or power is no small matter. There is nothing to oppose it. That nothing is citizenship, you, your very essence. The German philosopher Kant goes in the same direction: “a common submission to an external constraint.” This is, as Thomas Hobbes so aptly put it, the arm of the sovereign, power. The structure of society is very clear: “Every state presupposes the relationship of a superior (the legislator) to an inferior (the one who obeys, that is, the people),” Kant maintains. The sovereign, the leader, or the legislator, benefits, in his function, from unwavering protection. All citizens are bound by the laws, “even though, according to Immanuel Kant, one would suppose that the people were now in such a state of mind that, if consulted, they would likely refuse to comply.” This clearly means that the people cannot oppose the sovereign. The sovereign commands, and the people submit. It must also be deduced that the peopleOare solely in the sovereign. They are therefore no longer independent. Whether the law suits them or not, they must submit to it. It is no longer them, but the law, the sovereign, or the power, that matters. This is an unconditional submission. There must be “no legitimate opposition from the people against the legislative head of state,” Kant continues. “The reason why the people have a duty to endure the abuse of supreme power deemed intolerable is that their opposition to the supreme legislature is itself illegitimate.” The people are the people, without any special rights before the government, which explains the “illegitimate opposition to the legislature.” The white supremacists aren't joking when they talk about politics. They are “true cannibals,” says Jean-Jacques Dessalines. A “true cannibal” means someone who lives off the lives of others. They devour them to be what they want to be, that is, the dominant one. Jean-Jacques Dessalines is a powerful figure. This is the place where people are devoured from head to toe. For further clarification, consult the following work:

THE RAZOR PRINCE II

Because of the onslaught of white supremacy, this unrelative stupidity, on earth, particularly against my people, I feel compelled to come to the aid of all the victims by giving them a clear and unambiguous definition of the evil they are fighting against so that they may react promptly and effectively. Consequently, Canada is furious with me. Let us keep a close eye on this country.

HIS MAJESTY PRINCE WEBER TIÉCOURA

DESSALINES OF ORLEANS CHARLES JEAN BAPTISTE

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE ANTI-BLACK II

OR

THE GREATEST AND UNSPEAKABLE PIH? ON EARTH: WHITENESS

Collection:

In the Name of Princess Atala Dessalines of Orléans

Fleur des Champs

Volume VII

LOF Editions

(LEKBA/OGU/FWEDA) 2021

In society, there is only the State, the government, in short, power.

In fact, based on everything we have seen so far, in society, whether religious or political, there is only power, the government, or the State. The people are nothing; they are in the sovereign, like a pregnant woman. This is why, and this is of Dessalinian importance, the State, in the white man's sense of the word, is everything.

Everyone feels utterly worthless before the government. This must never be forgotten. Note well that the leader, who is the master, can do anything. You are but an ant before him or under his boots.

Reality and Discourse

It might be said that all this is intellectual rhetoric, but that reality is quite different. No! It doesn't remain at the level of discourse. Let's see! First of all, discourse stems from reality; secondly, reality doesn't appear out of thin air, it depends on discourse. Let's ask ourselves the question: is there, this time, a disconnect between reality and discourse? The answer is certainly no. We are in a context where political discourse, although fundamentally the same, is formulated differently. For more than five hundred years, law has been at the forefront. It began in the seventeenth century with Thomas Hobbes. And what do politicians say about it? “(...) The government,” we read in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, “is instituted to guarantee to man the enjoyment of his natural and imprescriptible rights”; then the American Declaration of Independence rests on the same natural rights that constitute man: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Governments are established among men to guarantee these rights.” Thus, the anthropology of natural rights, initiated by Thomas Hobbes, the seventeenth-century English philosopher, forms the basis of modern politics. That is the first point. The second—is what is said about the treatment of “individuals” who have become citizens absent from or unfamiliar with reality? The broad outlines, of course, play out in exactly the same way. Everyone can attest to this. What is presented is a snapshot of reality in all countries, particularly those that pride themselves on being democratic. Is intellect reliable? That is the crucial question. To understand modern politics, which retains its original meaning, we must delve deeper into the two preceding quotations.

The Reasons for the Operation's Success Despite Everything

However, the idea of ??being or becoming what one so desperately dreams of by defeating others doesn't seem to bother a multitude of citizens. On the contrary, it seems they desperately want it. This observation is entirely true. There are several reasons for this. Let's quickly name a few! The very first is force. The regime thrives on external coercion. The sovereign is always ready to mistreat the transgressor. He proves ruthless towards those who do not respect his will, which, in this type of system, is called the law. The fear of reprisals leads the fearful to submit and even adopt the air of defenders of the system and even dedicate songs of praise to it. Violence—which extends to the power of life and death over citizens, for example, sending people to war against their will, the death penalty, summary executions by the police, “arrests” under false pretenses (which are essentially terrorist kidnappings) only to be imprisoned and then slowly murdered, etc., all done with a clear conscience—is the primary element in politics as a means of rapid subjugation. Another widely used method is to invert people's very being. This process involves implanting new passions through new objects and new ideas. As a result, they desire what is valued in their social circle. Another method is flattery based on their social class compared to others. They are all rich, even when one is often penniless, and everyone else is poor, even with overflowing bank accounts. If you are not like them, you suffer all the world's misfortunes. They're like an inner tube, constantly being pumped full of air. They're kept busy; competitions are organized endlessly, to occupy their minds. The act of living is reduced to almost nothing, the better to subdue them. They try to drown their attention. They don't like foreigners, men and women, who, like me, bring up filth, their filth. They arrange things so they can die subtly. I recommend you read my book:

“THE RAZOR PRINCE III

HRH Prince Weber Tiécoura Dessalines D’Orléans Charles Jean Baptiste

HRH His Majesty Prince Weber Tiécoura Dessalines D’Orléans Charles Jean Baptiste

THE RAZOR PRINCE III

THE SKELETAL MAN OF THE ARTIFICIAL ORDER OF LAW

OR

INVOLUNTARY ENSLAVEMENT BY TRAP

Collection:

In the Name of Princess Atala Dessalines D’Orléans

Fleur des Champs

Volume VIII

LOF Editions

LEKBA/OGU/FWEDA 2020

Submission at its Highest Point

The subject of the book concerns the re-creation of man and the techniques used to achieve it. The creation of man, which is the act of bringing about the thinking being, which we call man, into reality, It begins with society, religious or political, through the means described above. From everything we have seen so far, what one is, the place of being, represents the obstacle to overcome. One resorts to the opposite of being. The encounter is difficult, very difficult, in the first part. It calms down on the second level. This level is composed of tasks. Difficulty is not eliminated; it is part of the building materials, especially a portion of the tasks. What provides a temporary respite is the position one is assigned, for example, director, head of the family, parent, eldest child, schoolteacher, nun, priest, business leader, police chief, judge, secretary, security guard, journalist, forewoman, team leader, etc., etc., etc. These positions are privileges even in suffering, and they are traits of being. the place even in a situation of being upside down. So, a little snack! What is the consequence?

The million-dollar question is, why is this so important that it slightly weakens the heavy weight of domination? It tempers its discomfort. The answer leads to another question: why does this minimal thing have any value in the face of a monumental situation? It is only in a situation of enslavement that this is possible; in other words, these positions only exist in a situation of “enslavement,” their condition. Outside of enslavement, there is nothing, only disappointments. They now have the possibility of taking it out on someone else. They can, in all good conscience, abuse people who have done nothing wrong. Where there is no possibility for them to act, they endure the blows, like journalists do. They thus find themselves trapped. in an undesirable situation.They are unwittingly participating in the construction of a much-desired edifice that is not, and cannot be, theirs. They have no control over it; they cannot even hope for it. Worse still, they have no way to back out. According to Hobbes, this withdrawal is irreversible. They are forever united with the sovereign, the body of death: “This is a real unity of all in one and the same person, made by agreement of each with each, in such a way that it is as if each individual had to say to every individual: I authorize this man or this assembly of men, and I relinquish to him my right to govern myself, on the condition that you relinquish your right to him and authorize all his actions in the same way. This done, the multitude, thus united in one person, is called a State, in Latin CIVITAS. (...) In him resides the essence of the State, which is (to define it) a single person whose acts are authored, as a result of mutual agreements made among themselves, by each of the members of a great multitude, so that he who is this person may use the strength and resources of all as he deems appropriate for their peace and their common defense.” The last sentence expresses without ambiguity the state of the situation called political. It is no longer oneself in society, but someone other than oneself. All of this is very interesting. The “individuals” become one with the natural “individual.” It was necessary for another to exist and remain themselves so that, after the renunciation, thought and action could be possible and politics could function. When we add the “natural individual” and the “individuals” stripped of the right to govern themselves—an empty entity because the path is clear—we obtain a body, a single one, the natural body, the only one that counts, the only one that truly exists, because it makes decisions concerning others. Let us understand the essence of politics clearly! Enslavement is sealed.

Jean-Jacques Dessalines' Reaction

Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the son raised by Agbawaya Toya, immediately grasped the situation and reacted swiftly: “And what a dishonorable absurdity,” he said, “to conquer only to become slaves. Slaves!... Let us leave that epithet to the French; they conquered only to cease being free.” The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1793 states: “Every man may engage his services and his time, but he cannot sell himself or be sold. His person is not alienable property. The law does not recognize domestic service. There can only be a commitment of care and recognition between the man who works and the one who employs him.” According to what is expressed, one moves from “domestic service” to wage labor. “Domestic service” is equivalent to slavery. In this system, one works and is housed and clothed. Now we get a salary and we manage the rest. The trap behind it all, the structure, remains. It's the same people working for the same people, a relationship of full pockets versus empty pockets. The system is designed so that the same people stay in their place. Jean-Jacques Dessalines immediately identified the dirty trick. That's why he argues that the French are slaves because they conquered only to remain what they were. In other words, nothing has changed. However, we have broken the rope. In the Haitian imperial system envisioned by Jean-Jacques Dessalines, he maintains: 

“If any considerations justify in my eyes the august title that your confidence bestows upon me, it is undoubtedly my zeal in safeguarding the empire, and my will to consolidate our enterprise, an enterprise that will give the nations least amenable to liberty not the opinion of us as a mass of slaves, but that of men who value their independence above all else, to the detriment of the consideration that powers never grant to peoples who, like you, are partisans of their own liberty, who have not needed to beg for foreign aid to shatter the idol to which we sacrifice.” “There is more. They are not owners, one of the traits of “slavery,” as defined by white supremacy itself. They are condemned to work for others. Whereas in the Empire of AYITI, no one works for anyone. Goods and resources belong to the people, Jean-Jacques Dessalines: “means that they be shared among the people.” This point of doctrine is monumental. What it conceals is that the overall management of the Eternal Empire of AYITI rests on the shoulders of the population. By producing themselves, they govern themselves, in the sense that they shape the Empire of AYITI. Jacques I affirms that the interests of the People, that is to say, the requirements of the mode of operation of the members of the Empire of AYITI, are his own. Dessalines places his own greatness on this. To fully understand all this, one must examine the influence of businesspeople, the super-rich, on the economy and how power positions itself in relation to it. The economy manages the slave-state. Korbi, the mode of production of the Empire of Haiti, far surpasses, in terms of familial implications, the Substance of the Eternal Empire of Haiti. His Majesty Jacques I is undeniably a benevolent Superpower. There is no dependence of citizens on one another. They produce collaboratively under the watchful eye of His Majesty Jacques I. The entire game of self-government, by oneself and for oneself, is rooted here: widespread participation and collaboration in the affairs of the Eternal Empire of Haiti. This is a requirement of overall management. Jean-Jacques Dessalines is infallible when he addresses these issues. This is the face of the world that stands before YOU, before US!

o return to the French, in such conditions, their own, the victors of the French Revolution descended into slavery. This is the case for all organizations called states, governments, or slave-owning states throughout the world! They are forces that oppress. We cannot disagree with Thomas Hobbes when he says that there is no tyranny. All powers are the same; we speak of them in negative terms when we dislike them. We would readily add the word dictatorship to Hobbes's words. Power is inherently oppressive. However, when Jean-Jacques Dessalines speaks of despotism and tyranny, he is referring to the system of slavery, the system we have just discussed.

One State Against All Others

Rights are the object of social organization, politicians maintain. It goes without saying that the natural relations of rights, conflictual relations, are necessarily maintained in politics and determine the future. There is another point in the discourse that they conceal: the fact that the confrontation of the Hobbesian state of nature, which Kant called “wild liberty,” takes place at the level of states and must be resolved in the same way, through conquest or domination, which is the reduction of all states into one. Hobbes, first of all, says that every state has a right over every other state and that, consequently, it can conquer it because what prevailed in the state of nature of “individuals” reigns between states. Immanuel Kant, later, advises the nations of Europe, because they are composed of white people and white people are the only men, due to their resemblance to gods, to unite to form a federation against the other nations. It follows that slavery is therefore not solely intranational, as we saw above, but also extranational. According to this way of conceiving life on earth, it is and remains the only way for humankind to live. Both sides seek to absorb those opposite them in order to conform to the concept of humanity, the being of thought, the empty being. This is their conception of themselves and the structure of their way of life.

Every system of slavery implies conquest, and every conquest requires the belittling and slander of the other in order to justify its actions. There are no easy paths in politics. One must present oneself and one's organization as the best. In other words, “we are on the right path; we receive the best possible treatment; we lack nothing; we are free; our leaders are the best; etc., etc., etc.” In fact, they claim to be everything they are not, in other words, a situation contrary to social reality. This is their self-awareness, dictated by the social system that absorbs them, since they are part of the sovereign's body. They speak of themselves without being seen or even being seen. They applaud their state of being, they who commit suicide in a way unseen elsewhere. We recognize here the tactic of “Oh thieves, oh thieves, from the days of the great public market in Dessalines,” who shout while fleeing: “Oh thief! Oh thief! Oh thief!” The social mor speaks within them, an evil force that forms within them through the presence of the other and takes control of their lives. The death knell dwells within every victim of the rule of law as a token of their belonging to something other than themselves. In other words, these people who speak are not themselves but the system.

Supported, the political body, the murderer, has the wind in its sails. It bares its fangs and unsheathes its claws. It invades other peoples, especially where it is unlikely to be defeated. Often, it miscalculates. However, where it prevails, the murderer always resorts to the method of the Florentine, Niccolò Machiavelli, namely, integrating the newly conquered not into its own bosom but into its own customs by leading them to abandon their traditions so that they no longer recognize themselves but rather the enslaver. It is the same process as at the beginning, but on a smaller scale. Thus, it is not the invader, nor is it itself a turmoil amidst the victor. He is made “the slave of slaves,” a process dear to the Bible. The slave-owning state subsidizes the spread of its own religion, right and left, to extirpate a sufficient number of people from their state, along with their way of being, for the benefit of its own. This is done through the invasion of their capabilities. It proceeds in the same way with education. From this population, which is, in essence, its own by transgression, it chooses, through underhanded means, the leaders of their respective societies. When they reach the pinnacle of power, under the banner of brothers or sisters—but false brothers, false sisters, since they are bound in thought to the slave-owning state—they graft, in the shadows, the state they have risen to onto the slave-owning state, making it the owner of the people and all goods and resources. They profit from this; it greases their palms. If one of these “leaders” reveals, over the years, a hint of nationalism, the slave-owning state resorts to the tactic of “Thief! Thief! Thief!” to denigrate him and thus portray himself as someone who has the interests of the people at heart. Often he directly attacks the people by heaping all their ills upon them with the sole aim of devaluing, in his eyes, the leader, the rebellious figurehead, in order to ultimately invade them in the name of the so-called interest of the people and place them directly under his control. When it seeks to completely eliminate, for weighty, extremely weighty ideological reasons, what we call in our own vocabulary "eliminrgyo," it starves, impoverishes, strips bare, and places foot soldiers everywhere to monitor and savagely murder without any reason, as is currently happening on the Imperial Territory of AYITI. This is certainly a planned genocide, ultimately to organize a massive invasion by soldiers from elsewhere, under the orders of the United Nations, using enslaver-owners, genocidal men, and true cannibals, the murderers of Black men and women, particularly Haitian men and women—as if this were possible. The Eternal Empire of AYITI is not a member of the organization, will never be a member of any international organization, and openly, firmly, vehemently, and irreversibly opposes any connection with white bodies, those bacteria that devour... Black men and women—thus, he believes, making arrests impossible, both nationally and internationally, by the State for crimes against humanity, crimes against humanity, and genocide. He must know that, among Earthlings, this task falls to the Great Ancestral Black Population of planet Earth, to counter any attempts at corruption on his part, the slave owner, since it only takes one Black man or woman from any community, even a non-Black person or a non-Black person with Black men and women, to initiate the process of legal proceedings. In conclusion, the techniques that the slave owner can employ to seize control of the State are legion. He has already resorted to several kinds of economic means to achieve this end.

What you need to know, and above all understand, is that there are no peoples, only states or governments, to use the vocabulary of slave owners. These governments or states are the peoples of the planet, again according to the ideology of slave owners, and these peoples are those of white supremacy. Due to ideological decay and a dead end, a system in trouble, we have entered an era of generalized confrontation because they all want to seize everything, without exception. There don't seem to be many governments or states left. The supporting class, on both sides, is working to prevent the downfall of their master.

This is where the moment of surprise comes in because things are not what they want them to be. Don't they say you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch? It is also said that the dirty trick one plans to play on one's mother-in-law ends up on one's mother.

Dessalines, the response to science and the practice of politics

Let us pause for a moment to highlight the ancestral stance against this way of conceiving life on Earth! Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the Greatest, having acquired the science of men, the void, was the first, after having learned about the thinking that guides these people, to declare that they were, in themselves, even if this knowledge is artificial, slave owners and that we could not allow them to live alongside us: “(...) there are French people on our island,” he maintains, “and you believe yourselves free and independent of this republic.” Jean-Jacques Dessalines thus highlights the learned trait of slave owners and, consequently, they are unchangeable and beyond the pale. The French declaration vindicates him, for it clearly states that they are and remain slave owners: “(...) 'They only know how to do one thing,' according to Jean-Jacques Dessalines: 'they are not our brothers, they never will be, and if they find refuge among us, they will still be the instigators of our troubles and divisions.' In other words, they will always do what they know how to do. That is their nature. This is why Dessalines Le Plus Que Grand invites us all to stay away from them unconditionally: “We dared to be free, let us dare to be free by ourselves and for ourselves “; “Let’s follow in other footsteps,” he says. Further on he is even more laconic: “Let us swear to the entire universe, to posterity, to ourselves, to renounce France forever, and to die rather than live under its domination, to fight to the last sigh for the independence of our country!” It is a continuing battle that he expresses in these terms. Being in yourself, by yourself, for yourself, is the Dessalinian mbwa. This mbwa begins with the singular munal, it stops in the Eternal Empire of AYITI and reaches the culmination in the Effective or Sensible Munal Order, i.e. the Empire of AYITI for all. It follows that the separation between men and Us is completely essential. It is not done in favor of another but only of ourselves, Our Gwqmunity, and it is not for a time but forever. Whiteness, a parasite, which only depends on others to be, takes the blow of its presence, the full and complete expulsion by Jean Jacques Dessalines, and this forever. We are entirely in ourselves and to ourselves. We have nothing to do with men. Man is forever defeated. Our Victory is not limited to ourselves, it is global, or global.

National space and municipal space

Every country is the country of those who establish it. The country, as

that institution, certainly cannot be separated from people, it is the institution of people in a form of a whole. The institution is not in itself, only the people are. The institution is with the people, the two are inseparable. They form a mass. People are matter while the institution, in its form, is conceptual or linguistic. Its only material is people. In short, the institution is only people’s idea of ??themselves. Therefore she cannot separate herself from them. So the country, in the beginning, is a way of seeing oneself through people. The fruit of an agreement, which is always the product of language and which is necessarily without being in itself, cannot logically be a means of absorbing those who are the teacher. We will never stop saying it, it is not independent of them, therefore opposite them. It has etrality only in their own. He is with them, at best, because they are. It is in everyone indiscriminately. This is why he is them and them alone. He therefore cannot cannot be poured into another body nor can it be represented. It is the effective means of each person’s body.

The country, as a product of people, is a living being. The administration, in such a context, is the center of operation of people or teachers. The administration has no life separate or different from the institution. It is the institution, that is to say the people. It would be absurd to make it an authority in the sense of a separate instance or entity which dictates to people their conduct, a Superreason. Such production is simply impossible. This would be delirious, under the influence of a very high fever, in the case, of course, of a normal being. The institution being massive, the administration is the set of tasks that fall to people to maintain the agreement and benefit from it all according to their needs. Tasks are distributed to all corners of the institution. There is no task scale. They are what they are. They are carried out as the breath of the institution. We need places to meet and work, wherever necessary. The logic of tasks dictates that they are grouped according to their point of unity, i.e. the objective, for speed and better efficiency. This can also determine the location but not in a rigid way. The tasks define the work of each person, the competence of the person responsible for them and the maintenance and achievement of the objective. Constantly evaluating tasks, the number of tasks, and the results of the tasks, all relative to the overall goal, is also a task. This is what we should call the administration of the country! Nowhere is there room for the leader as understood among men, the slave-state.

To conclude, each person’s body is in themselves, theirs and for themselves. Designations, such as citizen, because people are inside

of an institution, are not modifiers of the essence of people as long as they refer to previous language content. Therefore they cannot be passed like a ping-pong ball to another country.

The country and territory

If all this happens as explained above, that is to say that the institution or people are absorbed by another “individual” to become one with him, as is the case with Thomas Hobbes and Emmanuel Kant, there is a transgression of the Ofowu, which is in conformity with the Will of Our God, Good God, and the state of things changes into slavery, which is unknown to the Divinity of our system and whose attempts are therefore forever abolished by the Invincible General and Eternal Emperor Jean Jacques Dessalines, raised by Agbabaya Toya. Therefore, we proclaim this a crime against Busa and, a crime against humanity, to allow the apprehension of the criminal(s), in case they are outside our territory and under the legislation of another jurisdiction.

The situation requires the following:

a) - The mode of nation which arises from the fusion of people or “individuals” into a unit, which is an absorption - no one is any longer their own -, because it is external to them, and which makes it the direct principle of life, their life, through representation, loss of control over their own body, namely their confirmed death - which is a new creation -, is forever abolished. The reason is obvious: our land is reserved for real beings, ofowu, certainly; in addition there is only being in oneself, according to one's own Divine Thought, by oneself, in its effective actualization, and for oneself, firstly in its immediate finality, one's own, and secondarily the Finality of Our God, Good God, through Manifestation of His Presence through Continual Movement; the so-called beings of this nation are only in the thought or will of someone other than oneself, in theory as in practice; this kind of nation is an intra-slavery, that is to say attempts to turn an idea into a thing. It is supported by the government and the members absorbed, it is therefore a disorder in the La. The disorder has no limit, its objective is to seize other countries to make them extra-slavery. All nations of this kind are at the origin of disorder and, consequently, misfortunes of all kinds on earth. For achieve their goal, they reduce the countries to government in order to be able to seize them and through them the peoples, therefore the people. We must follow the recommendation of the Invincible General and Eternal Emperor Jean Jacques Dessalines according to which all commerce, of whatever nature, with they are prohibited. If they persist in their true cannibalistic impulse, their prosecution before a competent court for crimes against Busa and crimes against humanity is required. We must be ruthless towards them. The order of people must be vigilant, their safety and stability on planet earth are at stake.

b) - A country, whatever it may be, cannot be under the authority of any other, whatever its nature, economic, religious, political, ideological, legal, contractual, etc. If this happens, it is slavery and follow the consequences.

c) - Any leader who favors any external authority falls within the scope of the law and commits the crime against Busa, the minimum punishment for which is now life imprisonment.

d) - any person who agrees to serve as a means to facilitate authority external is, even before any trial, guilty of crime against Busa.

e) - No territory in which the system of slavery was practiced can accommodate the original authority of the slavers of the same system. The consequences of crimes against Busa and crimes against humanity automatically apply to the slave-state and the leader, then the person serving as facilitator.

f) - No country can be the leader of another located outside its territory, its genetic or epidermal group, its cultural group, its continent, etc., without being automatically guilty of the crime against Busa and crimes against humanity.

g) - No person, religious, atheist, politician or other can speak of the territory of other countries as their property or their zone of influence etc. This is a crime against Busa and a crime against humanity. She must expect the consequences because these crimes are imprescriptible, in the sense that they are not limited in time.

h) - No law has extra territorial value and no violation of the law in one country concerns the jurisdiction of another country. Any behavior in this direction is a crime against Busa and a crime against humanity, if the offenders are from outside. In this case, they must be entrusted to a local court.

i) - No agreement between the authorities of two countries can authorize one or the other to exercise political, judicial or other authority in the territory of

the other. Such an agreement has no legal value for either party. The signatories are guilty of crimes against Busa and crimes against humanity at the same time. No judgment is therefore necessary, the penalty applies.

j) - The authority of no country can appoint that of any other or even interfere in the process of appointing the authority of another country. The nomination is immediately null and void and those involved are committing the crime against Busa and the crime against humanity. Prosecution in court always follows in these cases.

k) - Any international body or international organization, the name does not matter, at best, does not matter, which, by any means, dares to think of reducing the field of authority of a country, whatever the pretext, or even orders its invasion by other countries, and even imposes sanctions, of whatever nature, is, by the nations which support the aggression by their vote, directly guilty of crime against Busa and crime against humanity. Neither no institution or person is above the Unity.

l) - The slander and the technique of “Oh thief! .... at the large public market of Dessalines” applied to the government and to the so-called civilian population in the political world with a view to annihilating them for the benefit of the slave-state, are a call for crime against Busa, crime against humanity, genocide and others, and also direct participation in preparing the way for those who will accomplish the task. Without this participation the move is almost impossible. He needs necessary support. This is what the following category of assassins brings: journalists, specialists in war, therefore destruction, opponents of power who align themselves with destructive sanctions and bombs, politicians, writers, etc., all those, without their constant and lying testimonies to certainly go to the act of destruction. These people are from the slave-state, they are in indestructible and irreversible unity with it. All and all of them form the same person. They all fall under the influence of the law and vindictiveness.

m) - No member of one country is allowed to denigrate a member of another

country because it is a member of it. These negative words fall within the framework of genocide. The delinquent member is guilty of genocide, like any person proclaimed guilty of an obvious violation before being judged, he will go before the court for confirmation. She will suffer the consequences of her action(s).

n) - Commerce, like all relationships between two countries, is subject to respect by reciprocal members; any disrespectful behavior of a member of a country towards another automatically breaks the link. A joint committee, made up of people from both countries, will be set up to determine the terms of the break. It is not a bad thing to live only with people you judge like you if these are also their demands.

o) - It only takes one member, just one, who is of the opposite opinion against any project likely to modify the nature and structure of his country to cancel it, this project, because democracy, which is a corrosive substance - we saw it above -, has no place in a country established by each, in each, for each and each and administered exclusively by each. The self is stable and irreversible. The country, fruit of itself, IS and FOREVER.

p) - The environment of any country is necessary and indispensable, so it must be determined. The first part of the environment is the territory. It is an integral part of being. It is the same with the second part, which is water. There is water on the territory and water around the territory. There must be a lot of it. The body determines the necessity as well as the indispensability of a thing. As soon as it is part of it, it is because the thing is necessary and essential.

q) - It happens that one territory shares the same watercourse with another. This is not neither the source nor the country that gives right but the body, the being that we are. The country also does not determine the length of the watercourse which is to the other but the territory. Water is one of the elements of La, it is not subject to the will or whim of people. It flows where needed to serve the elements that need it. It is therefore outside our appreciation, whatever that may be. It serves its space. It participates, first and foremost, in everything that the body, and the body alone, not just ours, needs. This is its primary reason. This cannot be transgressed.

r) - Since the waters of the territory are not only land, they involve sea waters. Sea waters are necessary and essential to be so, therefore the country cannot not have access to them. On the contrary, which results from very poor design, we must find a way to compensate. This is mandatory. The layout of the territory must be rethought while avoiding any imposition. The point of reference is Unity, not the will of man.

s) - the part of the territory which involves the sea, for a question of protection, extends as far as the eye can see, not slightly, from the land part, that on all sides, unless the land part of the nearest country is too near. In fact distance concerns both. We will have found a way to balance things for everyone's safety because nothing should interfere with anything.

t) - A country is like an intimacy. Because of this the territorial space is not,

and cannot be, under the eye of another. Everything that is done there is only accessible to the people of the country, those who live there. No view from above, no view from below, no view from the sides, in any way! This is the mbwa of the unit.

u) - No country may interfere, in any form whatsoever, in the internal affairs of another. Since there are slave states, it is natural to expect that the mbwa will be violated. If its means allow it, the country must be ready to repel the threat from home. The defense of a country and the means it deems necessary, and even essential, depend solely and exclusively from him, from the country. Other countries, as well as all kinds of organizations, have nothing, relatively nothing, to do with it. No country depends on another. The human order, which is not really one, does not replace the Munal Order, which is ofowu. A country is like a singular municipal, because it is the fruit and the pure expression of it, it has no order to receive from another. In the context of the earth, respect for any country by all others is a municipal question. The country has the same weight, the same value, as a singular municipal, which is in itself, by itself and for itself. Any interference is an asserted desire for slavery, disorder, and it falls mercilessly under the influence of the crime against Busa and the crime against humanity, not without their consequences to the fullest extent of the law.

v) - Any intervention by one country in another, in whatever form and for whatever reason, is an attempt to conquer the other and also a planned genocide. There is no disagreement between two countries that could lead to armed confrontation, especially when the two are physically very far from each other. Weapons are invented for the sole purpose of enslaving others. In the absence of this project, weapons are useless. Their possession frightens the slave states who find themselves limited in their lethal momentum. We don't care about that. Any invasion calls for the law on crimes against Busa and that on crimes against humanity.

w) - All members obligatorily commit themselves, according to their abilities, to the defense of the country. This goes beyond self-defense because the country is itself of the Self

Munal. If the nature of the commitment, by its power and, consequently, its benefit, which is protection, in the country, places any threat from outside on a member, he runs the risk of being assassinated, by any means, in particular poisoning, kidnapping, sometimes in the form of “arrest”, use of weapons of all kinds, whether knife, drone, rifle,

bomb, etc., and he is actually assassinated, this act is, firstly, a terrorist assassination, and, secondly, a planned genocide, then for the benefit of slavery. The murderer, whatever his function in the slave-state, is under the appropriate law and will be judged for the crime(s) committed in order to receive his penalties. The murder of a singular munal, whatever the function of the murderer, is a crime and, like any crime, it must be punished and will be punished, whatever the circumstances. Any group of people targeted in a country and actually murdered is a terrorist act, the reasons here are zero, and a genocide. The context of the assassination will tell us if it is a case of slavery in order to be able to state the exact nature of the crime with a view to the

consequences.

x) - There is no “arrest” of a head of state by the head of another state but rather kidnapping, a Siamese terrorist act, and a desire for slavery. The law imposes itself in all its force.

y) - Any takeover of goods and resources of a country by another or its leader for the benefit of the country is an act of slavery. The law prevails and the head of state in question is under arrest for his sentences.

z) - Is ordered and now constituted the special tribunal for the slave-states, in particular crimes against Busa, genocides, terrorist and Siamese terrorist acts, crimes against humanity.

Otherwise, it would be approved of human disorder to consider rapes, attacks of all kinds, insults, freely expressed desires for suppression, murders of all kinds, plots, thefts,

genocides, etc., as normal acts for a category of people. All municipal life counts and is the measure of things.

aa) - Depriving a country of access to water which passes through its territory and which, therefore, is part of it under the pretext that its source is from home is downright a genocidal act. The law applies in all its rigor.

bb) - International waters belong to no one but to everyone.

They are not close to the land part of the territory and they are not subject to any jurisdiction. They are unconditionally accessible to any country and at any time. Any country that tends to appropriate them falls under the crime against Busa and the crime against humanity.

cc) -No part of the territorial waters of a country can be integrated into international waters. In the event that this part can, for one reason or another, be useful for something, it must be discussed with the country concerned, not governance, and, without modifying the territory, accept its conditions, which are revocable without any disagreement.

dd) - State slavery, made of domination in everything and everywhere, is the source of all evils while the Order of peoples is the solution to all evils.

ee) - Everything stated here is based on Divine Decree and is therefore immortal.

ff) - etc, etc; etc.

The Decree is in force on Thursday 07 05 2026.

For the Imperial House of Dessalines, the Empire of Ayti, Eternal Empire of Tóya-Dessalines, Empire of the Gwqmuniality, that the enemy and his gang, present on Our Imperial Territory, wrongly believed to have swallowed up forever:

HRH His Majesty Prince Weber Tiécoura Dessalines D'Orléans Charles Jean Baptiste, 7th of the Generation of the Imperial Couple, Marie Claire Heureuse Félicité Bonheur and Jean-Jacques Dessalines, 3rd of the line of Emperors of AYITI, and Guarantor of the wnity of the lakort, the order of the Nous, and the Empire Tóya-Dessalines, Specialist and professor of political science, theorist of politics, particularly of whiteness, and theorist of munality, i.e. VudUn Existentialism. 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/government-exterminating-agent-people-nations-must-xs7se