The movement of the Yellow Vests, as soon as it was lifted, was condemned to shut down. There it goes. It seemed that I would get nothing. Because he rebelled against a simple tribute? Or because it didn't pose a serious redistribution of rewards and riches? Now the discourse is more showy, more plural, together with other cries. However, it is disregarded as other alternative movements. However, I think it has the same way of reviving multiple revolutions.

The 1979 revolution was triggered by the unjust fiscal policy of the monarchy, in which most people were forced to pay an extraordinary tribute, without the nobility paying taxes, without taking into account the need of the people to pay the public debt at the time, the bourgeois debt for the benefit of the monarchy.

That same year there was the Liege revolution for the beer tax and for the same reasons. There, too, nobility and the bourgeoisie monopolized their profits to the detriment of society.

The first Russian revolution of 1905 was due to the irritating distribution of taxes. There too, the excuse for tax increases was the payment of public debt. The working class claimed that the payment of that debt simply had to be paralyzed, denouncing its absurdity.

In 1989, the poll-tax, founded by Margaret Thatcher, lifted the population and the mobilizations led to the decline of Thatcher.

The movement of the Yellow Vests only expresses its repugnance, its discomfort for social injustice, imposition, misery and ecological unconsciousness, and uninhabitability. The peculiarity is that, as in the revolutions mentioned above, a collective dynamic has been created, touring manifestations and filling spaces for complaint. In the movement of vests, through social media, people who have never had contact have come together and come together on weekends in roundabouts. Many acknowledge that they never attended a demonstration. Where were they? Probably at home, everyone living their own misery, perhaps wanting to keep it, dignified. And he suddenly realizes that it's not just, that he's part of a group, that he has in common with many people his sufferings.

To disregard what you want from these vests, from the ZADists, from the retirees, it would be (each in turn) to learn little from history, not to draw conclusions from experiences, to see what we like more than real life. The initiatives are going to make us good, bad, consistent, delusional, of nothing, no matter, because they can no longer stop. If they're alone, people have come to project themselves as a collective. Stay that way or otherwise.

In Bizkaia, however, it is strange that political movements and alternatives should not be built to federate on a programme, on concrete proposals, on those mobilizations and debates that are taking place for weeks. But in the ways in which the liquid society works, how can they be carried out? In his difficult organization, he can reflect on the M15 movement in Madrid (which was also described as a board of mushrooms for weeks and inertia).

And from there, last Saturday, the Sentinelle device was opened, if possible, to settle the matter. In the events of 1968, Charles de Gaulle did not send the army against the Protestants. Does it matter so much that banks are burned and that thousands of people die directly or indirectly from misery? The electoral campaign of the Royal House is being funded by the citizens.