Mister Mondialisation has become one of the few completely independent media able to boast of a total freedom of expression. Its creation is the result of a desire to break out of preformatted boxes in order to encourage citizens to reflect on global issues. Resolutely humanist, fervent defender of human rights and the preservation of the planet, the media apartisan invites to the daily reflection around another way of apprehending the contemporary society while reconciling its need of productivity as well as its environmental and social stakes. Interview
Feat-y: Why did you develop the website Mr Mondialisation and why this name that you use as a pseudonym?
Mr Mondialisation: When I started, the ecological question was practically absent from the public debate. Ecologists were publicly decried in the media and the denial of the ecological issue was the norm. It was normal to invite climate sceptics on TV shows. Today, in the face of overwhelming scientific reality, this is fortunately no longer feasible. In 15 years, many things have changed, others less so… If everyone agrees that the planet is suffering, the transition is often limited to speeches decorated with green and empty promises from companies. Of course, economic growth is incompatible with the ecological transition by nature. As a result, we keep consuming more and more resources and energy despite the declared “efforts”.
The alternative media “Mr. Mondialisation ” is not the result of a classical project. I was still a student when I personally launched an anonymous blog about globalization and its deleterious effects on our planet. Following the success of my video “You are the Evolution” which had made more than 2 million views in 2012, I decided to make it a life project, to give up my job to work on it full time. The hobby turned into a job. Today, a team of about ten people gravitates around the project and we publish 5 to 7 contents per day on our favorite themes: ecology, human rights, limits to growth and globalization.
Feat-y: During the summer, you posted a message indicating that you had to face threats of prosecution following some of your articles.
lawsuits following some of your articles. Is this a recurring thing since the beginning of Mr. Globalization or has it been
Mr. Globalization or is it since a more recent period?
Mr Mondialisation: When I started, the ecological question was practically absent from the public debate. Ecologists were publicly decried in the media and the denial of the ecological issue was the norm. It was normal to invite climate sceptics on TV shows. Today, in the face of overwhelming scientific reality, this is fortunately no longer feasible. In 15 years, many things have changed, others less so… If everyone agrees that the planet is suffering, the transition is often limited to speeches decorated with green and empty promises from companies. Of course, economic growth is incompatible with the ecological transition by nature. As a result, we keep consuming more and more resources and energy despite the declared “efforts”.
The more numerous our readers are, the more power we have to influence society and companies. Today, some of our publications are viral and generate tens of thousands of reactions on social networks. In particular, the subject of “Chinese” dropshipping has attracted our attention in recent months, as many people are victims of these commercial manipulations. Since then, we have observed an explosion of reports with the aim of censoring information, as well as messages of intimidation and threats of prosecution. We do not give in to these threats. On the contrary, they strengthen our convictions.
Feat-y: Mr. Mondialisation has been around for over 10 years. How do you look back on time that has passed since you started, especially through the ecological theme, which is dear to you?
Mr Mondialisation: When I started, the ecological question was practically absent from the public debate. Ecologists were publicly decried in the media and the denial of the ecological issue was the norm. It was normal to invite climate sceptics on TV shows. Today, in the face of overwhelming scientific reality, this is fortunately no longer feasible. In 15 years, many things have changed, others less so… If everyone agrees that the planet is suffering, the transition is often limited to speeches decorated with green and empty promises from companies. Of course, economic growth is incompatible with the ecological transition by nature. As a result, we keep consuming more and more resources and energy despite the declared “efforts”.
Feat-y: Do the megafires observed since the beginning of the summer in the United States, Canada, Greece, Turkey or Algeria give more
Turkey or Algeria give more weight to the latest IPCC report on climate change in your opinion?
climate change in your opinion?
Mr Mondialisation: When I started, the ecological question was practically absent from the public debate. Ecologists were publicly decried in the media and the denial of the ecological issue was the norm. It was normal to invite climate sceptics on TV shows. Today, in the face of overwhelming scientific reality, this is fortunately no longer feasible. In 15 years, many things have changed, others less so… If everyone agrees that the planet is suffering, the transition is often limited to speeches decorated with green and empty promises from companies. Of course, economic growth is incompatible with the ecological transition by nature. As a result, we keep consuming more and more resources and energy despite the declared “efforts”.
The big fires like the floods make the crisis very palpable for humanity. The world is going up in smoke. However, the denialists have a well-honed discourse to minimize the urgency. They repeat over and over that these fires are of criminal origin… Except that this is not the root of the problem. The fires are necessarily of human origin, whether criminal or accidental, it is the unusual drought and the hot and dry climate that make simple localized fires take on catastrophic proportions. It seems, however, that no matter what happens, a part of the population will continue to deny the reality until the end. However, what we are experiencing today is only a small glimpse of what is to come if we do not react.
Feat-y: Can we say that climate change is a marker of the will to self-destruct of human
civilization, according to you?
Mr Mondialisation: When I started, the ecological question was practically absent from the public debate. Ecologists were publicly decried in the media and the denial of the ecological issue was the norm. It was normal to invite climate sceptics on TV shows. Today, in the face of overwhelming scientific reality, this is fortunately no longer feasible. In 15 years, many things have changed, others less so… If everyone agrees that the planet is suffering, the transition is often limited to speeches decorated with green and empty promises from companies. Of course, economic growth is incompatible with the ecological transition by nature. As a result, we keep consuming more and more resources and energy despite the declared “efforts”.
I do not believe that there is any will to self-destruct. We all have, individually, the will to live with dignity, according to our values. But our wishes, our will, is expressed within the framework of a certain system, of a model of society. And the institutions of our globalized system push us to self-destruction. Therefore, we have to confront them and change them.
Feat-y: For many years now, you have been questioning the sacredness of economic growth and opting for a
and opt for a decreasing position. Does this mean that the “green” growth, vaunted by some economists, is a chimera?
by some economists, is a chimera of thought?
Mr Mondialisation: When I started, the ecological question was practically absent from the public debate. Ecologists were publicly decried in the media and the denial of the ecological issue was the norm. It was normal to invite climate sceptics on TV shows. Today, in the face of overwhelming scientific reality, this is fortunately no longer feasible. In 15 years, many things have changed, others less so… If everyone agrees that the planet is suffering, the transition is often limited to speeches decorated with green and empty promises from companies. Of course, economic growth is incompatible with the ecological transition by nature. As a result, we keep consuming more and more resources and energy despite the declared “efforts”.
Believing in green growth is like believing in good cancer. We cannot multiply our productions indefinitely without generating effects around us. Believing it is an ideology. And this ideology common to our time will destroy us. All organisms have a period of growth to reach a certain balance. Just as trees do not grow to the sky, humanity should not believe in its unlimited growth. Of course, we should produce in the most sustainable way possible, everyone will agree, but the balance of our efforts is negative if at the same time the total GDP keeps increasing. This is the rebound effect. Producing “better” does not have a positive effect if we also produce “more”.
Feat-y: Although it is gaining ground, the idea of degrowth is still frowned upon by many economists, including
including anti-liberal economists and critics of capitalism, arguing that it means a decrease in
of income and consumption, especially for the working classes. How to convince people of
the relevance of degrowth in the face of such criticism?
Mr Mondialisation: Degrowth is misperceived for two main reasons. Semantic on one side: the idea of slowing down is not easily assimilated by the mind. The connotation is negative. Secondly, the idea of slowing down the productive machine is radically contradictory with the current model. It is like telling a very religious person that his god does not exist. Degrowth is really the idea that there is a limit to growth and that organisms tend to balance rather than to rush forward endlessly. Humanity has a duty to find its balance. This is not a terrifying prospect: balance means peace, but also reason, sharing and the notion of limits. But, like spoiled children, we don’t like limits…
Feat-y: How do you analyze the management of the health crisis, in France and elsewhere in the world,
since 2020? Moreover, does this Coronavirus crisis illustrate a link with a mode of production
capitalist mode of production that uses a lot of energy and makes the environment sick?
Mr Mondialisation: We could comment at length on the management of this crisis, but what interests us here is to understand the context of the spread of a disease of animal origin throughout the world. As with most problems, the political world is focused on “curing” the visible effects in a hurry. We have a duty to think of the world as a system in order to prevent a similar situation from happening again. The breeding farms play a great role in the propagation of viruses. Our relationship with the animal world must be questioned. We have studied the question at length in a file available on our site
(HTTPS://MRMONDIALISATION.ORG/LORIGINE-AAORIGINE-ANIMALE-DES-PANDEMIES-IL-EST-URGENT-DE-CHANGER-NOTRE-MODELENIMALE-DES-PANDEMIES/). Scientists tell us, for example, that wildlife currently harbors 1.7 million as-yet-unknown viruses, half of which could infect humans. We cannot continue to ignore this reality.
Feat-y: What alternatives should be developed, or at least discussed by public decision-makers, in terms of
public decision-makers, in terms of health policy and in relation to a balance to be found in relation to the
the environment, in your opinion?
Mr Mondialisation: You are asking us for a political program. It should be thousands of pages long… This is the work we have been doing by communicating every day for 10 years. There are so many alternatives to be developed urgently. There are thousands of them. This notion of balance to be found should become fundamental in decision-making. We are far from it because our institutions are old and unsuited to the modern world. Our democracy must evolve urgently to adapt to the Anthropocene. We really think that without a new framework, a new constitution, a strong and constructed common ideal, the alternatives will not be enough to change our productivist model. We are therefore approaching a form of institutional revolution. Either it will be done naturally, under the impulse of citizens, or by force of things, in anger and violence. Let’s be reasonable, let’s change our model while we can, for a serene future!
To support Mr. Mondialisation:
