Demande Pour Devenir Associe: Fill & Download for Free

La formule en 7 points pour la liberté financièreVoici une formule en sept points que vous pouvez utiliser pour vous aider à accumuler de la richesse, à devenir plus heureux et à atteindre la liberté financière dans les années à venir.1. Commencez à penser positivement à l'argentUne partie de la richesse consiste à penser positivement à l'argent.Penser négativement à l’argent est un obstacle émotionnel que vous devez éliminer pour atteindre la liberté financière.Vous devez éliminer les pensées selon avoir plus d'argent mène au mal ou que l'argent ne peut pas vous acheter le bonheur.Lorsque vous commencez à penser positivement à l'argent, vous attirerez des opportunités et vous rendez-vous plus de portes que vous n'auriez jamais cru possible.2. Réécrivez vos principaux objectifs en matière de liberté financièreFixez-vous des objectifs financiers.Réécrivez et révisez vos objectifs sur papier chaque jour et réfléchissez à la manière dont vous pourriez les atteindre. Cela vous prend entre cinq et dix minutes.Le simple fait d'écrire et de réécrire vos objectifs, et d'y penser chaque matin avant de commencer, augmentera vos chances de les atteindre.3. Planifiez chaque jour à l'avancePlanifiez chaque jour à l'avance. Le meilleur moment pour le faire est la veille.Le simple fait de planifier chaque jour, chaque semaine et chaque mois à l'avance vous rendra beaucoup plus net et plus précis dans tout ce que vous faites.Vous vous retrouverez avec une meilleure concentration et un plus grand sentiment de maîtrise de soi et de pouvoir personnel lorsque vous utilisez à partir d'une liste.Lorsque vous planifiez chaque jour à l’avance, vous serez également mieux en mesure de contrôler et de suivre vos habitudes de dépenses.Planifiez combien vous devez dépenser pour la semaine, le mois, l'année et décidez où vous pourrez épargner.4. Le principe de concentrationConcentrez-vous résolument, chaque heure de chaque jour, sur l'utilisation de la plus précieuse de votre temps.Le principe de concentration est absolument essentiel pour parvenir à la liberté financière.Pratiquement tout ce que vous faites en termes de fixation d'objectifs et de planification financière vise à vous permettre de déterminer une ou deux choses sur vous souhaitez vous concentrer plus que toute autre chose.Votre capacité à développer l'habitude de vous concentrer et assurer le succès de vos finances personnelles que n'importe quelle autre compétence ou habitude que vous pourriez acquérir.Les choses sur vous concentrez le plus et que vous passez le plus de temps à faire doivent être en adéquation directe avec vos objectifs financiers.Passez votre temps à vous concentrer sur ce qui vous rapportera le plus d'argent.5. Investissez en vous-mêmeÉcoutez des programmes audio dans votre voiture. La personne moyenne passe de 500 à 1 000 heures par an au volant.En transformant votre voiture en université sur roues, vous pouvez devenir l'une des personnes les plus efficaces et les plus qualifiées de votre profession.Achetez des cours sur la gestion de l'argent, lisez des livres sur les finances personnelles et trouvez des articles en ligne sur l'argent.Très bientôt, vous aurez tellement de connaissances dans le domaine de l'argent que les gens viendront vous demander conseil.6. Posez-vous ces questions magiquesPosez-vous les deux «Questions magiques» après chaque réunion et chaque événement important dans votre vie.La première question est, «Qu'est-ce que j'ai bien fait?» Et la deuxième question est, «Que ferais-je différemment la prochaine fois?»En examinant vos performances immédiatement après chaque réunion, appel de vente et présentation, vous deviendrez de mieux en mieux, plus rapidement que vous ne pouvez l'imaginer.Les réponses à ces deux questions sont positives.En examinant ce que vous avez bien fait et ce que vous feriez différemment la prochaine fois, vous programmez dans votre esprit une prédisposition à être encore meilleur la prochaine fois.Si vous prenez quelques minutes et écrivez tout ce que vous avez bien fait et tout ce que vous feriez différemment immédiatement après un appel ou une présentation, vous pouvez doubler et tripler la vitesse à laquelle vous apprenez et grandissez et vous améliorez dans votre travail.L'amélioration de vous-même et de votre qualité de travail améliorée en fait l'argent que vous gagnez.7. Soyez généreux envers les autresLe dernier point est de traiter chacun que vous rencontrez comme un client d'un million de dollars.Traitez chaque personne, à la maison et au travail, comme si elle était la personne la plus importante au monde.Puisque tout le monde croit qu'il ou elle est la personne la plus importante au monde, lorsque vous les traitez comme s'ils l'étaient, ils apprécient votre reconnaissance et votre reconnaissance plus que vous ne pouvez l'imaginer.Il est prouvé qu'être une personne plus généreuse vous aidera à attirer plus de richesse et à devenir une personne plus heureuse.Nous avons souvent entendu dire: "l'argent n'achète pas le bonheur ».Mais la vérité est que:L'argent est essentiel au bonheur.La prospérité matérielle prédit la satisfaction de la vie,Et plus nous atteindrons notre statut économique, plus nous nous sentons satisfaits de notre vie.Non seulement nos mesures du bonheur augmentent à mesure que nos revenus augmentent, mais notre sentiment de bien-être et de satisfaction dans la vie augmente également.Ainsi, en essayant de vous concentrer sur des objectifs financiers qui vous motivent, tout en intégrant un état d'esprit positif envers l'argent, envers vous-même et la vie en général, vous contribuerez à augmenter la richesse et le bonheur.Et quand vous y arrivez - les preuves que nous avons clairement qu'être généreux avec notre argent nous rend plus heureux - et plus richesses!Comment économiser de l'argent et atteindre la liberté financièreSaviez-vous que le facteur décisif dans la réalisation de la liberté financière est le développement d'habitudes spécifiques?Et bien ça l'est.En fait, la plupart des millionnaires autodidactes ont déjà appris ces habitudes et, grâce à la pratique et à la répétition, ont atteint la liberté financière.C'est une super nouvelle!Pourquoi?Parce que vous pouvez apprendre à économiser de l'argent et à penser comme des millionnaires autodidactes pour devenir vous-même financièrement indépendant.C'est vraiment le secret pour devenir millionnaireHabitudes des millionnaires autodidactesLes millionnaires autodidactes sont frugauxL'habitude la plus facilement identifiable des millionnaires autodidactes est peut-être l'habitude de la frugalité.Les gens riches font attention à chaque centime et à chaque dollar.Ils savent comment économiser de l'argent etallouent soigneusement leurs fonds. Ils n'achètent jamais de neuf comme peuvent acheter d'occasion.Ils n'achètent jamais s'ils peuvent louer, et ils ne louent jamais s'ils peuvent louer.Ils ne louent ni ne louent jamais peuvent emprunter.Rapport gratuit de création de richesse: Le chemin de la richessePar exemple, la plupart des millionnaires autodidactes n'achètent pas de voitures neuves.Ils économisent de l'argent et attendent qu'une voiture de bonne qualité ait environ deux ans et avant de l'acheter.Même dans ce cas, ils font vérifier la voiture par un mécanicien réputé.Une fois convaincus qu'il s'agit d'un excellent achat, en bon état, ils achètent la voiture et la conduisent pendant cinq ou dix ans avant de remplacer.Les millionnaires autodidactes savent comment économiser de l'argentLes millionnaires autodidactes développent l'habitude de l'épargne et de réguliers réguliers dès leur plus jeune âge.Voici l'affaire, cependant:Les êtres humains sont des créatures d'habitude.Nous nous adaptons très rapidement à presque toutes les conditions ou circonstances extérieures.Si vous économisez 10% sur le haut de votre chèque de paie et que vous disciplinez pour vivre avec les 90% restants, vous allez bientôt ajuster votre style de vie à la baisse que vous soyez tout à fait à l'aise avec le moindre montant .En un rien de temps, vivre à ce niveau devient une habitude et vous arrêtez d'y penser.Beaucoup de gens sont profondément endettés et l'idée d'économiser 10% de revenu, sur le dessus de chaque chèque de paie, est trop difficile pour eux même à envisager.Conseils pour économiser de l'argentDans ce cas, qui est assez courant, je recommande un processus graduel d'apprentissage pour économiser de l'argent où vous commencez par économiser 1% de vos revenus et vivre sur les 99% restants.Par exemple, si vous gagnez 2 000 $ par mois, décidez aujourd'hui d'économiser 20 $ par mois ou 0,67 $ par jour.Vous pouvez alors vivre avec les 1 980 $ restants. Économisez de l'argent à long terme en vous adressant à la banque et en ouvrant un compte distinct, votre "la liberté financière"Compte.L'argent qui entre dans ce compte ne circule que dans un seul sens. vers l'intérieur.Une fois que vous avez placé de l'argent dans ce compte d'épargne / d'investissement, vous ne le retirez jamais ni ne le dépensez pour quelque raison que ce soit.Il n'a qu'un seul objectif:Pour vous permettre d'atteindre la liberté financière le plus rapidement possible.Une fois que vous serez à l'aise de vivre avec 99% de votre revenu, augmentez votre taux d'épargne mensuel à 2% sur le dessus.En un an, vous vous retrouverez à vivre confortablement avec 10% de votre revenu actuel.Continuez ce processus jusqu'à ce que vous économisiez 15%, puis 20% de votre revenu, sur le dessus.Vous ne remarquerez même pas la différence de niveau de vie car ce sera si graduel.Mais la différence dans votre vie financière sera absolument extraordinaire.Utiliser la loi de l'attraction pour la liberté financièreLorsque vous commencez à économiser de l'argent et que vous vous sentez positif et heureux de votre compte en croissance, ces émotions positives imprègnent cet argent d'une forme d'énergie qui commence à attirer plus d'argent dans votre vie et dans ce compte.De vieux amis vous rembourseront des dettes que vous aviez oubliées il y a longtemps.Vous avez la possibilité de gagner des sommes supplémentaires qui ne vous étaient pas des lieux à l'esprit.Vous vendrez des choses que vous aviez depuis longtemps et que vous pensiez n'avoir aucune valeur.Et au fur et à mesure que vous ajoutez ces montants à votre compte, votre compte développera une énergie encore plus positive et attirera des sommes encore plus importantes.C'est une découverte extraordinaire…J'avais entendu parler de ce concept pendant de nombreuses années, mais j'étais toujours fauché et je ne pouvais rien y faire.Puis, environ deux ans après mon mariage et la création de ma propre entreprise, je n'ai plus d'argent.J'avais pu acheter une maison avec ma vie d'épargne, mais maintenant je devais vendre la maison pour obtenir de l'argent, puis déménager dans une maison louée.À ce stade, ma femme Barbara a exigé que je lui remette 10 000 $ provenant du produit de la vente de la maison.Après quelques disputes, j'ai cédé. Elle a pris l'argent et l'a déposé dans un autre compte bancaire auquel je n'avais pas accès.Peu importe le nombre de problèmes financiers que nous avons eu dans les mois à venir, elle a même refusé d'envisager la possibilité de dépenser cet argent.C'était une couverture de sécurité. La chose la plus remarquable s'est produite.À partir de ce jour, nous n'avons plus jamais été fauchés. Même si c'était au milieu d'une récession et que les entreprises ont faillite tout autour de nous, nous n'avons plus jamais été à court d'argent.Chaque semaine, chaque mois, des affaires arrivaient, les factures étaient payées, des opportunités s'ouvraient et des possibilités passionnantes semblaient être attirées dans nos vies.En quelques années, nous avons pu quitter la maison louée et acheter une belle maison neuve dans un quartier charmant.Deux ans plus tard, nous avons pu acheter une maison qui coûtait cinq fois plus cher sur un magnifique terrain de golf, surplombant deux lacs avec l'océan au loin.Économisez de l'argent et adorez-leIl y a une habitude particulièrement spéciale que les millionnaires autodidactes et les personnes financièrement prospères apprennent ou développent au fil du temps.C'est l'habitude de répondre d'une manière particulière à l'argent entrant.Lorsque nous grandissons, nous sommes encouragés à économiser de l'argent sur nos allocations.Cependant, en tant qu'enfants, nous considérons l'argent comme un outil pour acheter des bonbons, des jouets et d'autres choses qui nous rendent contenu.En conséquence, nous commençons naturellement à considérer l'épargne comme un Châtiment, quelque chose qui nous fait mal et nous prive des bonbons, des jouets et des choses agréables que nous désirons.À un âge précoce, la plupart des gens commencent à associer l'épargne à la douleur, au sacrifice, à la perte de plaisir, de satisfaction et de bonheur.En tant qu'adultes, cette habitude négative se manifeste dans notre désir de dépenser de l'argent dès que nous le faisons.De nombreuses personnes à la fin de leur adolescence et dans la vingtaine intéressent chaque chèque de paie comme une occasion de sortir et de dépenser autant d'argent que possible.C'est pourquoi il est généralement connu dans la restauration qu'ils seront les plus complets au milieu et à la fin du mois, les jours de paie.Les gens commencent très tôt à s'associer dépenses avec bonheur et économie avec douleur.Puisque la motivation humaine de base est de passer de la douleur au plaisir, de l'inconfort au confort et de l'insatisfaction à la satisfaction, la plupart des gens prennent l'habitude d'associer les dépenses au plaisir et l'épargne avec le malheur.Recâblez votre réflexion et gagnez en liberté financièreVotre travail consiste à inverser le câblage de cette habitude.Il s'agit de détacher les fils d'un ensemble d'attitudes et de les rattacher avec un ensemble d'attitudes différent.Votre travail consiste à commencer à penser en termes de plaisir chaque fois que vous pensez à l'épargne et à l'accumulation, et douleur chaque fois que vous pensez dépenser et vous débarrasser de votre argent.Les principaux obstacles à la liberté financière et comment les surmonterIl existe de nombreux obstacles mentaux majeurs qui empêchent la réussite financière.La raison la plus courante est que certaines personnes croient, pour une raison quelconque, qu'elles ne méritent pas d'être riches.Maintenant, je sais que certains d'entre vous se demandent peut-être pourquoi?Certaines personnes, dont moi-même, ont été élevées avec un rythme constant de critiques destructrices.Cela les a amenés à conclure, à un niveau inconscient, qu'ils ne méritent pas de réussir et d'être heureux.Bien sûr, ce n'est pas vrai.Pourtant, cette façon de penser négative peut conduire à des habitudes financières destructrices.Ces habitudes peuvent être difficiles à briser.Changez votre attitude envers l'argentLes expériences négatives dans l'enfance, qui sont trop courantes, peuvent avoir des effets terribles.Par exemple, lorsque les gens réussissent réellement grâce à un travail acharné, ils se sentent coupables.Ces sentiments de culpabilité les amènent ensuite à faire des choses pour se débarrasser de l'argent, pour le jeter.Ils le dépensent ou l'investissent bêtement.Ils le prêtent, le perdent ou le donner.Ils se livrent à l'auto-sabotage.Cela peut prendre la forme de suralimentation, de consommation excessive d'alcool, de consommation de drogues, d'infidélité conjugale et de changements de personnalité souvent dramatiques.Pour changer vos résultats avec de l'argent, vous devez changer votre attitude à son égard.Vous devez faire une habitude de voir l'argent comme quelque chose de positif.Le fait est que l'argent ressemble beaucoup à un amoureux. Il doit être courtisé et cajolé, flatté et traité avec soin et attention.Il gravite autour des personnes qui le respectent, l'apprécient et sont capables de faire des choses valables avec lui.Il coule entre les doigts et fuit les gens qui ne comprennent pas ou qui n'en prend pas soin.Considérez-vous comme méritant de l'argentParfois, les gens disent qu'ils ne sont pas très bons avec l'argent.Mais être bon avec l'argent est une compétence que tout le monde peut apprendre par la pratique.Habituellement, dire qu'on n'est pas très bon avec l'argent n'est qu'une excuse ou une rationalisation.Le fait est que la personne ne réussit pas très bien ou n'est pas disciplinée avec de l'argent.La personne n'a pas appris à acquérir ni à s'y accrocher.Le point de départ pour accumuler de l'argent est pour vous croyez en vous.Vous avez une capacité illimitée pour obtenir tout l'argent dont vous aurez besoin.Considérez-vous comme un succès financier en attendant qu’un endroit se produise. Et considérez-vous comme méritant tout ce que vous pouvez acquérir.L'argent est essentiel à notre vieL'argent c'est bien. L'argent vous donne des choix et vous permet de vivre votre vie comme vous le souhaitez.L'argent vous ouvre des portes qui ont été fermées en son absence.Mais comme tout, une obsession peut être bénédiction.Si une personne devient tellement préoccupée par l'argent, elle peut perdre de vue le fait que l'argent n'est qu'un outil.Si l'argent devient quelque chose utilisé pour acquérir le bonheur, alors il devient une choisi nuisible.L'argent est essentiel à nos vies en société. Il est également neutre. Ce n'est ni bon ni mauvais.Ce n'est que la manière dont il est acquis et les usages auxquels il est fait qui détermine s'il est utile ou bénédiction.Passer à l'action!Voici deux choses que vous pouvez faire immédiatement pour mettre toutes ces idées en action:Premièrement, reconnaissez et éprouvez que pratiquement tous ceux qui ont de l'argent aujourd'hui à un moment donné ont été fauchés et probablement fauchés pendant longtemps.Ensuite, ils ont appris à accumuler de l'argent et ils sont désormais financièrement indépendants.Quoi qu’ils aient fait, vous pouvez probablement le faire aussi.Deux éléments, devenez un étudiant de l'argent à partir de ce jour.si cette réponse vous a plu, vous pouvez mettre un vote positif pour partager ce savoir! 🙏Et pour moi soutenir et se joindre à moi, aller faire un tour sur mon profil et suivez-moi dans mon aventure! 🐦ma réponse à été un peu long :)si vous voulez aller plus loin, je vous invite à cliquer sur ce lien (si vous cliquez, vous voyez quelque chose d'extraordinaire)@ ElonMusk20 @ ElonMusk20Étudiez-le, apprenez-en davantage et appliquez les leçons que vous découvrez à votre propre vie financière jusqu'à ce que vous commenciez à attirer de plus en plus d'argent dans votre direction.

The independence movement is not monolithic in Québec, there are many factions of various ideological orientations.Those who hate strongly Québec solidaire are the type we may call Caribous (term coined by François Legault a few elections ago), they are in a hurry. They think independence is an emergency and that it has to be done right now, and so they are in a hurry. So to them, this one issue has to be the only one and all ought to be subordinated to that. A lot of péquistes would fall into that category. To them, independence is an end and an inherent good.Québec solidaire is a big tent party of the left, that’s its raison d’être. QS was born from the merging of two parties, l’Union des forces progressistes (UFP) led by Amir Khadir and Option citoyenne (OC) led by Françoise David. The UFP was born independentist I think but refused to subordinate the issue of social justice to the issue of independence. The OC was not born with a position regarding indepence and it was later they adopted it into their platform, and for them independence was a mean towards the end of social justice but not an end. Québec solidaire was born with the Manifeste des solidaires, to oppose Lucien Bouchard’s Manifeste des lucides. This is how solidaires and lucides became words associated to the left and the right in Quebecer politics.Françoise David of OC was especially suspicious : she was once part of the marxist group En lutte !. They were old confused marxists that did told to their members to vote against independence because “Canadian workers ought to be united” (while entirely disregarding the unbalance of power between them), and so Françoise David did vote against independence in 1980. Fortunately now our communists are much less stupid. Now Françoise David repents about this but this, but it gives detractors a good reason to hate her. Detractors say she’s moralistic and nickname her « Mère Thérèsa David » (a term coined by the now deceased Pierre Falardeau). Amir Khadir, once he was a co-spokeperson of QS, would attenuate his speech when he would speak to Anglos and once he said “independence if necessary, but not necessarily”, and this is how he was deemed a traitor ever since. You hear this quote all the fuckin’ time when Caribous do their usual ragestorm.The way QS wants to do independence is trough a Constituant Assembly. So of course critics point out that in a Constituant Assembly, people could also chose to not include independence on this Constitution. QS kind of assumes that if they ever got into power, it would be because people agreed with their program, and independence is one of the points on it.To give you an example, there was in the last 2018 elections a debate between Jean-François Lisée of the PQ and Sol Zanetti of QS about this specific issue :Jean-François Lisée (PQ) : « C'est sûr que les partis fédéralistes, Power Corporation et le Parti libéral du Canada vont faire en sorte qu'il y ait beaucoup de fédéralistes dans ta constituante. Ils vont la faire déraper. [...] Selon toi, tous les fédéralistes [qui] vont participer à ta constituante vont [par] la pensée magique de Québec solidaire devenir souverainiste ? »Sol Zanetti (QS) : « Quoi qu'on fasse, M. Lisée, les gens qui s'opposent [à l’indépendance du Québec] vont essayer d'intervenir de toutes les façons. Je pense qu'il faut avancer avec confiance, mettre les mesures en place et nous y arriverons. Il faut qu'on déclenche un débat de société sur notre liberté collective. »Débat mordant entre Lisée et Zanetti sur la souveraineté | Hugo Pilon-Larose | Élections Québec 2018So Lisée said that the evil federalist forces would stuff the Constituant Assemblies with federalists and make it go all wrong. Zanetti simply answered that federalists will anyway try to do dirty tricks no matter what one does.Notice the attitude of Lisée here : he addresses Zanetti with tu, implying a sort of subordination, that he’s entitled to treat QS as a little insignificant brother, and Zanetti called Lisée mister and said vous. This is a typical péquiste attitude : they think of themselves as the “vaisseau amiral” (flagship) of independence and treat with contempt anyone that is not them. What is pretty ironic is that in the previous election in 2018, they got roughly the same proportion of vote than QS (17 % / 16 %) so now perhaps they will have to think hard about how they should treat other independentists.Since QS is a big tent of the left, some of their members are somewhat indifferent or opposed to independence, and again this is extremely suspicious to Caribous. QS is always accused to be a sort of New Democratic Party in disguise. Caribous say that the only reason why independence is present on QS’ program is for electoralist purposes, not because they care.However QS does not have that much of an interest to do it. If QS wanted to be electoralist, it would get a lot of votes from anglos/allos/immigrants if it ditched independence and it never did that, it keeps speaking about this in every election and they even annexed the very fervent independentist party Option nationale (ON) that was even more radical than the PQ (their doctrine was “faire son LIT : Lois, Impôts, Traités”). Even the Caribous saluted the good campaign of QS regarding independence in 2018. Considering the kind of electorates QS cares about, QS would have had a lot of reasons to ditch independence and it never did.So recently, QS opposed the government of the CAQ (who are nationalists but not independentists) when it said it wanted to reduce the numbers of immigrants Québec would accept. The co-spokeperson of QS said :« On est rarement d'accord avec Justin Trudeau, mais de garder un nombre de réfugiés qui nous permet de jouer notre rôle de solidarité envers les plus mal pris de notre planète, c'est une bonne chose. […] Il faut bien le faire, il faut le faire en vertu de certaines règles, il ne faut pas le faire n'importe comment, mais fermer les portes à des gens qui veulent améliorer leur vie et qui sont en détresse, ce n'est pas une solution »“We rarely agree with Justin Trudeau, but to keep a number of refugees that allows us to fulfill our role of solidarity towards the most destitute people of our planet, it’s a good thing. […] It must be done, it must be done in virtue of certain rules, it must not be done in haphazardly, but closing the doors to people that want to improve their life and that are in distress, it is not the solution.”Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, masculine co-spokeperson of QSSo this is what he actually said. Note that Québec does not select refugees, its Ottawa that does that.But as usual the media titled things in a very misleading way, which happens all the time when it’s about Québec solidaire. This is the headlines that appeared on Facebook today :“Immigration : QS wants Ottawa to say “no” to the CAQ.” This was the title yesterday at 3:07 PM. It seems the title was changed at 6:29 PM and the new title is less misleading (but still a little misleading).Immigration: QS se range du côté d'Ottawa | CAROLINE PLANTE | PolitiqueSo I guess all these peoples did not actually pay attention to what they really said and just read the headlines.Therefore Québec solidaire was accused of wanting to involve a foreign government in our domestic affairs, which they never did. They merely said that they agreed with the principles underlying the policy of Justin Trudeau regarding the issue of refugees, they did not ask Justin to intervene in our domestic affairs. Again, Québec does not select refugees, so in order to do so the CAQ would need to disobey Ottawa… which could be interesting… but they would need some courage to do that…And therefore many said it was a treason from QS !!!Ils nous ont bien eu les gens de Québec solidaire non?Qu’Ottawa se mêle de ses oignons!Immigration et Santé : Nadeau-Dubois dans les traces des Trudeau père et filsSo blame the media that deform all the time the speech of people to anger people to click on their news and blame the imbeciles that only read headlines without actually reading articles.So is QS asking a foreign government to constraint the government of Québec ? Nope. It’s fake news.There, some confirmation it was fake news :« Toute cette histoire débute par un titre tendancieux de La Presse : «Immigration : QS veut qu’Ottawa dise “non” à la CAQ». Dans la même journée, ce titre a été changé pour «QS demande à Ottawa de remettre le Québec à sa place». Pour aboutir finalement à : «Immigration : QS se range du côté d’Ottawa».Pourtant nulle part dans l’article, nous ne retrouvons une citation de Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois (GND) qui dit cela. »Immigration: au-delà des chicanes de clocher entre indépendantistes

I am descendent of the so-called French in the war called “French and Indian War” so perhaps I could provide some hindsight. Most (not all) Native Americans sided with us because the French were much less of a menace to them. The French completely were dependent on the indigenous peoples to defend their colonies, and so they did enormous efforts to keep good relations with the indigenous peoples. The diplomatic presents for example were a huge part of New France’s budget. If there is anything to learn from New France, it’s that colonization is far more complex than a mere good vs bad story. New France is always in the grey area.However, some nations that did not side with us :The Iroquois Confederacy, that was neutral after 1700-1701 due to the treaties we did with them, the Montréal Treaty of 1700 and the Great Peace of Montréal in 1701. The only allies the English had could not even take the risk into breaking its neutrality, so the English could not really use them for their wars !The siouan-speaking peoples like the Sioux, because they were enemies of our allies.The Foxes and the Natchez, that were bothers to us and to whom we unfortunately did nasty things.When we started colonization at the beginning of the 17th century, we were here for furs. The main “workers” in the economy of fur were the indigenous themselves who brought us furs, so we HAD to be nice with them.How land was acquiredAt the very beginning, the French chose a different approach than the Dutch from New Netherland. The Dutch wanted to be a neutral party, but Samuel de Champlain, lieutenant of the viceroy of New France in his trade post of Québec, chose to side with the Wendat Confederacy. The Wendat Confederacy was made of 4 nations : the Attignawantan (people of the Bear), the Attignaenongnehac (people of the Rope), the Arendaronon (people of the Rock) and the Tahontaenrat (people of the Buck). Later a 5th people joined the Confederacy : the Ataronchronon (people of the Swamp). The Wendat were excellent for trade, and their economy was specialized in corn (maize) production. They had commercial allies that provided other products, like the Pétuns that gave them tobacco (pétun in French is an old word for tobacco). Other allies of the Wendat were the Ashinaabe (of Algonquins in French) and the Innu (or Montagnais in French). All what the French did was to join the Wendat’s already-established commercial network, and the Wendat rose in power because they were the main indigenous intermediate for European products for all the west of the continent. Since the Wendat Confederacy was the enemy of the Iroquois Confederacy, this explains why eventually the French would be at war with the Iroquois in 1660–1701.The way the French set their claims to territories was different from the Dutch and the English. The Dutch and the English often organized a transaction in which the indigenous would sell their lands to the settlers. One thing they did not care of knowing was wether the sellers had rights on the territories they sold… so sometimes they sold the territories of their neighbours, which created a lot of issues! The French on another hand made solemn ceremonies every time they discovered a new territory saying that henceforth, the land belonged to the King of France and that the peoples there were under his protection. Famous examples are the ceremonies done in Gaspé by Jacques Cartier and the ceremony done in Louisiana by René-Robert Cavelier de La Salle. In the ceremony of Gaspé, the indigenous people that was there (whose identity is unknown) seemed to understand the meaning of the ceremony and manifested its disapproval. Despite as bad as it may sound, these ceremonies were no big deal in the daily lives of the indigenous : in reality they were still sovereign and could manage to impose to Europeans their sovereignties. When the French built a fort, a trade post or a catholic mission somewhere, they asked for indigenous permission to do it. (well, not always : the Iroquois were not happy when the French founded Détroit but the French managed to convince them to accept it.) For the indigenous, these were convenient shops to get products that were beginning to become essential for them and they also were French Embassies to keep a regular contact with the governor of New France, that they knew under the name of Onontio. On the contrary, the English did not ask for their presence. For example, after the Conquest of New France in 1760, general Jeffery Amherst did not ask the indigenous neighbours to occupy the French forts like fort Niagara or Michilimackinak, and so it contributed to the bad relations that lead to the Revolt of Pontiac in 1763.French colonisation happenned at a much slower rate. At the time of New France, the English colonies had 14 times the population of New France. New France colonies were pretty much uninteresting economically. Canada and Acadia (or later l’Île royale) were cold places with little agriculture possible and were only good for furs or fishing at the time. Louisiana was unpleasant swamps and mosquitoes, excepted the north, that we called le Pays des Illinois or Upper Louisiana. However, French did significant efforts to be more populated. In 1663, King Louis XIV took in charge the colonies of New France and from corporate colonies they became actual royal colonies and became actual provinces of France, with an actual government just like any other province (a Sovereign Council). The new intendant Jean Talon at the time promulgated harsh laws to stimulate the growth of the population. Quebecers fertility rate would stay the highest in all the Western World until the 1960’s, so Jean Talon’s efforts really, really paid off well. After the English lost the colonies of the future United States, they had only 3 colonies left and the French population was so big they would need to wait until 1851 to manage to drown us with massive immigration. So despite New France had less population, it wasn’t unsignificant. All of this means that in terms of colonization, the French were less of a menace for the indigenous peoples. The English were on the contrary called “eaters of land” because when they started agriculture, they destroyed the forests and animals would run away. The Abenaki people in Québec, that now live in two réductions from the time of New France that are now called Odanak and Wôlinak were refugees from one of the regions the English setteld and were perhaps the most enthusiast allies of the French.In 1697, when the British were seeking peace with the Abenaki, the latter clearly expressed their opposition to British colonial expansion and their attachment to the French. The Abenaki chief demanded, as a condition for peace,“That he [the British Governor] begin by withdrawing the English from their land forever.That they [the Abenaki] did not see on what grounds he claimed to be their master, that neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever been, that they had given themselves to the King of France willingly and without being forced to do so, and they would never take orders from anyone other than him and his generals.That they would never allow the English to have habitations on their lands and they had granted this permission to the French alone.”Aboriginal People in the Canadian MilitaryBy the way, when I say Louisiana, I mean all of this :2. Catholic missionnariesAnother explanation could be the catholic religion. Due to the scandal of Castillan’s mistreatments, there was a debate in Rome that concluded natives were humans beings and therefore, they deserved salvation. That meant it was not acceptable to kill them, catholics had to attempt to convert them. Of course it is bad, it’s assimilation and all, but not always. Missionnaries were forced to learn indigenous languages and write manuals and therefore contributed to their preservation. New France’s missionnaries often looked at what other Jesuits did in Castillan/Spanish colonies and emulated it, like the reductions, that were first invented in Paraguay. The six modern indigenous villages of Kanahwake, Kanesatake, Akwesasne, Odanak, Wôlinak, Wendake are all French reductions. By contrast, English often held the calvinist (and jew) belief they were the “chosen people” and that the natives were on the contrary forsaken by God and did not deserve to live. The native dying of diseases was a sign God ethnically cleased the continent to make it available to them. When the French managed to convert indigenous peoples, they were enthusiast catholics. Many reasons can explain that. For example, some Kanien'kehá:ka (or Mohawks in English/Dutch, or Agniers/Agnieronon in French) fled the Iroquois Confederacy because they had issues with alcohol and since the missionnaries did not tolerate any alcohol it was seen as a way to solve their social problems. Sometimes war and diseases did such an impression on indigenous it made them become skeptical of their own traditions in medecine, etc. and preferred to listen to the catholics. French missionnaries often used technology and astronomy to impress indigenous peoples and it gave them a lot of prestige. Missionnaries were adamant learners of indigenous languages and they were often kind. Womens like nuns took care of their sick ones. Sometimes the first to convert were unconventionnal individuals amongst their own people and at odds with them. One example of indigenous catholic is the Kanien'kehá:ka Saint Kateri Tekakwitha. So for many reasons, French catholicism was much more efficient to create alliances with indigenous peoples than English protestantism. Regarding languages, the French often left among indigenous peoples young boys to learn the languages, and they were called truchemens. Famous ones include Étienne Brûlé and the black portuguese called Mathieu da Costa. Afterwards, it was the missionnaries that took that role. The opposite also happenned : in the 17th century, indigenous were encouraged to send young people to French schools in the colony, and there is even one more interesting case of a young Innu teenager boy called Pierre Pastedechouan : he went to France, learned French, Latin, catholicism, etc. and came back to his own country. The result was disastrous : he was held in contempt because he was a bad hunter, no women wanted to mate with him… and he eventually died alone lost in the woods (was this on purpose ?). Since its been years he did not speak his language, innu-aimun, he had difficulty to speak it again.3. Legal equality and inequalityTheorically, in French law, an indigenous individual converted to catholicism became officially a French subject and enjoyed the very same rights as any French subject. They could do whatever they wanted in France if they so desired. This process required no naturalization at all, the were considered French naturals. This is very significant because this was not the case in the Kingdom of France itself : for example, the French conquered the Catalan region of Rousillon and the question arose if they were now French subjects or not, and some people believed they had to make an oath and do a naturalization process. When Acadians were conquered by the British in 1713, French expected that if they were ever to be back under French sovereignty, they would need to take an oath because they were not sure anymore of their allegiance.In the Charter of the French West Indies Company, in the article 34, it is stated that :« ceux qui naîtront d’eux [les Français], et des Sauvages convertis à la foi catholique, Apostolique et Romaine, [ils seront] censés et réputés régnicoles et naturels Français, et comme tels, capables de toutes successions, dons, legs et autres dispositions, sans être obligés d’obtenir aucunes lettres de naturalité. »“those that will be born from them [the French], and the Savages converted to the catholic, Apostolic and Roman faith, [they will be] supposed and reputed French régnicoles [in-Kingdom, as opposed to ethnic French outside the Kingdom] and naturals, and as such, able to all successions, donations, legacy and other dispositions, without being forced to obtain any letter of naturalization.”However this is theory. In reality, as the colonies had more French women, the elite of the society started to develop a racist speech in both Louisiana and Canada in the 18th century, which is in stark contrast to the 17th century, that officially encouraged mixed weddings. This lead in 1716 in the prohibition by the Marine Council in France of mixed weddings in Louisiana, because in the Pays des Illinois French settlers mixed “too much” with indigenous Illinois people. However, the settlers kept doing mixed weddings, because it was not forbidden under the Code Noir (that ruled black-white weddings). In 1728, the Superior Council of Louisiana had to rule about a catholic indigenous widow called Marie Actipiacourata. By law she was a full-fledged French subject and should have had the same rights as one. By law, her indigenous ancestors could not inherit anything from her husband. The Superior Council decided to appoint a tutor to keep the goods of her husband and that tutor would have to give two thirds to the children and one third to the widow. This was illegal under the Custom of Paris but was considered a fair judgement because it was seen as inappropriate for an indigenous woman to be able to manage the goods of a French :Let’s read the commissaire-ordonnateur La Chaise :« Le motif de cet arrest, quoique contraire a la Coutume de Paris est judicieux, [car] il ne convient pas que des sauvages emportent le bien des François parmy leurs nations. »“The motive of this decision, despite it is contrary to the Custom of Paris is judicious [wise], [because] it is not appropriate that savages take away the good of the French among their nations.”So indeed there existed legal discrimination for indigenous peoples, but it could have been worse. Besides… the state had not ears everywhere, so it was possible to escape the law. There exist examples of French women and men prefering to live among the indigenous peoples, it is documented!4. Indigenous slaveryIt is worth noting that there existed an indigenous slavery. In New France, most of slaves were panis (in English : pawnee), a nickname given to indigenous slaves because the first such slaves were indeed actual Panis (Pawnees) sold by the Illinois people to the French. It is critical to notice these slaves were sold by indigenous peoples to the French, and that indigenous themselves had customs of having captives (the French interpreted this as slavery despite it was maybe not the best way to understand this). The French did not discrimination regarding these transactions. An example of that is when an Abenaki party captured Susanna Jonhson in English colonies and sold her to the French. She is one famous example of white slave and she wrote a book that instantly became a best-seller at the time. A minority of slaves were Black. Canada was not a colony in which plantations were feasible, so the slaves there mostly use for domestic purposes, they were more a matter of prestige than anything useful. This was different in Louisiana, that could do plantations, and this is why the smaller State of Louisiana in 1802 was a slave state from the beginning, and later joined the Confederacy. In the colony of Canada, the cruel treatment of the black woman Marie-Joseph Angélique is often pointed out, however she was blamed for Montréal’s fire of April 10, 1734 ; her treatment was excetionnal. Slavery would be abolished by the English in 1833 for Lower Canada (where the French population lived). For Louisiana… wait until the Confederacy’s defeat.5. How the French did and did not aknowledge indigenous sovereigntyOfficially, indigenous nations were under the “protection” of the French king. Sometimes French were confused with the meaning of that. Is it like vassalization ? Is it like being subject ? Well, “protection” was in European legal traditions an unequal alliance. The mere concept of alliance implies the other one is a state you can ally to, so it was an indirect aknowledgement of their independent status, of their sovereign status. However, if a “protection” was to last for a long time, there was a risk of co-sovereignty appearing and ultimately, becoming subjects.6. French had no more morals, they were just forced to be nicerWhen you compare New France to the Castillan-Aragonese Crown’s colonies or to the English colonies, or to the United States, or even to the Canadian Federation, New France indeed appears quite nice ! However, let’s not kid ourselves. The French did not have any more morals than other Europeans, it’s just the conjuncture that allowed this situation. In other colonies at the same time, like French Guyana, the French were not so nice. Actually, the French were “kind of nice” with the indigenous peoples for the very same reason the English were forced to be “kind of nice” with us until 1851 : GEOPOLITICS. We were not numerous, and we had less soldiers than indigenous peoples had warriors. We were in North America for the furs, and the fur trade implied : the same people meeting the same nations all the time, preventing the indigenous peoples from buying the less pricey English merchandises by opening trade posts much deeper in the continent, convincing the indigenous to bring their furs thus not having to pay French hunters to do it, etc. Also, French could not defend New France alone, the military help of the indigenous peoples was vital. There were structural reasons we were forced to be nice.However, this did not please everyone… It was frustrating for authorities…In 1730, the intendant Gilles Hocquart wrote this :“Cette colonie aurait besoin d’un plus grand nombre de troupes pour imprimer plus de respect et plus de crainte aux Sauvages et les mettre par là dans la nécessité de subir les loix que le Roi impose aux françois, et jusqu’à ce qu’il plaise a Sa majesté d’aprouver ces veuës, nous profiterons de toutes les occasions pour amener peu a peu les sauvages au point ou ils doivent estre. Les menagements passez que L’on a eus avec eux, ont pu estre nécessaires : mais il seroit bien à désirer aujourdhui qu’on pust les forcer a devenir Cytoyens.”“This colony would need a greater number of troops to imprint more respect and more fear to the Savages and to make them into the necessity of enduring the laws that the King imposes to the French, and until it pleases His Majesty to approve these views, we will profit of all the opportunities to increasingly get the savages at the point at which they should be. The past accomodations we had with them might have been necessary : but today it would be desirable to force them to become Citizens.”So you see, we the French were nice because we really were forced to. It is also true the King of France gave specific instructions to be “soft” with the indigenous peoples :Instructions from the King to the governor Rémy de Courcelle, 1665 :« le Roy a deux objets principaux à l’esgard des Indiens naturels. Le premier est de procurer leur conversion à la foy chrestienne et catholique le plus tost qu’il sera possible, et pour y parvenir [...] son intention est que les officiers, soldats et tous ses aultres subjets traitent les Indiens avec douceur, justice et équité, sans leur faire jamais aulcun tort ny violence. Qu’on n’usurpe point les terres sur lesquelles ils sont habituez soubs prétexte qu’elles sont meilleures ou plus convenables aux François. Le second objet de sa Majesté est de rendre dans les suittes ces Indiens ses subjets travaillans utilement à l’accroissement du commerce [...] ; mais son intention est que tout cela s’exécute de bonne volonté et que ces Indiens s’y portent par leur propre intérest. »“the King has two principal objectives regarding the Indian naturals. The first one is to provide their conversion to the christian and catholic faith the soonest possible, and in order to achive it […] his intention is that officers, soldiers, and all his other subjects treat the Indians with gentleness, justice and fairness, without doing them any wrong or violence. May no one usurp the lands on which they are used to under the pretext that they are better or more suitable for the French. The second objective of His Majesty is to make of these Indians his subjects afterwards, working in a useful way to the increase of trade […]; but his intention is that all of this shall be executed willingly and that these Indians are inclined to it by their own interest.”It is striking to read that because it looks like the Royal Proclammation the English would make much much later, in 1763. The French King wanted to protect the indigenous from his own subjects much sooner than the English King, in 1665! One of the major reasons for that is that when Bartholomeo de las Casas revealed how cruel the castillan Criollios were with the indigenous in their colonies, it made a scandal in Europe. In France, Montaigne wrote a nice piece that said that the evil Castillans destroyed “innocent”, “child-like” nations (he inaugurated the myth of the good savage). So the King of France really wanted to have a good reputation in Europe and to avoid what the Criollios did to the indigenous peoples.7. Some evil things that were done by New FranceHowever there exist also dark counter-examples of some evils actions New France did. At the very very beginning, the first colonists were not always nice with the indigenous they encountered. For example, some people rode on some indigenous men as if they were horses, because, you know, they were so “savage”. Of course this conduct quickly stopped because it could ruin our diplomatic relations… There exist some specific examples of extermination attempts. The King of France issued a decree to exterminate the Iroquois Confederacy (we were at war for decades). In the Illinois Country (Upper Louisiana), New France sought to exterminate the Fox nation because they were such a commercial nuisance. In Lower Louisiana, there were also grave problems with the Natchez people. However, overall, these evil acts are no so common in New France’s history indeed, but they are worth mentionning because it wouldn’t be fair to say it was flawless.8. Relationship with us afterwardsAfter 1815, the indigenous peoples were no longer significant players in North America’s fate, and their main concern was to get the best deal possible from the English. Kanahwake’s Kanien'kehá:ka (Mohawks in English, Agniers in French) organised war parties with the English against us when we tried to have our own Revolution and our own Republic. However, even after New France, it’s surprising sometimes how French colonists could be more sympathetic to indigenous peoples. In 1838, Robert Nelson proclaimed the Republic of Lower Canada in Napierville, and the 3rd article of our Declaration of independence reads as following :3. Que sous le gouvernement libre du Bas-Canada, tous les individus jouiront des mêmes droits : les sauvages ne seront plus soumis à aucune disqualification civile, mais jouiront des mêmes droits que tous les autres citoyens du Bas-Canada.3. Under the free government of Lower Canada, all individuals will enjoy the same rights : the savages won’t anymore be submitted to any civil disqualification, but will enjoy the same rights as all other citizens of Lower Canada.I suppose that when they say civil disqualification, they mean for example that the indigenous peoples within Lower Canada could not vote. In a way, it talks of integrating indigenous peoples into Lower Canada so it’s not all that great, but nevertheless it also desmonstrates some open-mindedness too. It’s striking to read that when you know the Patriotes were admirers of the United States, which not so long ago elected Andrew Jackson, a guy that became a hero because he killed so many natives… The Patriotes also sent Amury Girod (a Patriote born in Switzerland) to negociate with the Kanien'kehá:ka of the village we now call Kanesatake (then they were called les gens de la Montagne I think). He wrote his report of the talks he had with them neither in French or in English, because he knew the English understood these languages, but in German. It’s one of the rare historical sources in Québec’s history written in German.Somewhere between 1840 and 1960 Quebecers started to become afraid to claim anything indigenous in their identity, maybe because they expected that to worsen the racism they endured. Indigenous ancestry became a shame to be concealed. The church wasn’t fond of it either, because it was associated to heatens. Unfortunately, Québec did participate to the federal program of the residential schools. In 1990, there was a conflict between the city of Oka and the reserve of Kanesatake, it was called the Oka Crisis, and even the Canadian army went there to confront the Kanien'kehá:ka (Mohawks in English, Agniers in French) warriors. At the time, many Quebecers believed the indigenous peoples did not exist anymore and 1990 was a revelation (anyway that’s a testimony I read somewhere). It’s important to understand that in Québec and Maritimes, there never was treaties in which indigenous peoples would surrender their lands, unlike elsewhere. In Ontario and the Prairies, they did surrender territories in the Upper Canada treaties and the Numbered treaties. In the colony of Vancouver island (before it was annexed to the colony of British Columbia), the lieutenant-governor Douglas did somewhat good treaties with local indigenous, but later governors would not necessarly respect them. In Québec, at the end of the XXth century, new treaties were made like the James Bay Convention and the “Paix des Braves”. With some nations like Kanien'kehá:ka (Mohawks in English, Agniers in French), Crees and Inuit, diplomacy is more difficult because they assimilated a lot to English and therefore internalized the same contempt the English have against us that is parroted in English-speaking media. There are a lot of misunderstanding. French-speaking populations are less informed about indigenous issues than English-speakers because all new information is only in English and if there exist a CBC Aboriginals in English, there is nothing alike in French. However, less knowledge can also mean less predjudices so it can have good sides too : the least people are in contact with indigenous peoples, the less likely they were told stories from their ancestors and therefore they are more open-minded. There are fewer experts and historians that speak French and those who deal with tribunals are forced to keep their research secret so information is still hard to get. There are some attempts to reclaim the parts of Québec’s identity that originated from indigenous peoples in the 18th century but I’d say it is done in a clumsy way. Until a very recent time, no information was availble in North America regarding indigenous peoples, it’s only since the 1980’s it is becoming more widespread. There exist a desire in Québec to make things right, to make things better, to rebuild the good relationships we had in the 17th and 18th centuries, but so little people know anything about indigenous peoples they do it in a most clumsy way. One thing that did not help is that so far the independentist movement gave very little thought on indigenous issues, not because they are not sympathetic but because they don’t know how to handle these issues. Unfortunately, they usually propose unimaginative solutions like “we will be nice with them”, not seeing the irony that “nice” is not enough, that independence is the only way (they should understand because they are in the same situation). The territorial issue was always touchy because the main concern of the independentists are that anglos take away Montréal from Québec so they are nervous when Cree and Inuit say they don’t want to be part of Québec but be considered sovereign entities. If they open the door to one they might open it to other groups… I’d say most issues come from the fact both groups have a hard time understanding the perspective of the other. I believed the inuk author Taamusi Qumaq gave some thought on the topic but I’m not finished reading his autobiography so I can’t tell for now. At least, some things are going in a better direction : recently, a government was created for Cree people, called Eeyou Istchee.Anecdote : the current largest group of French speakers in Louisiana is the indigenous Houma nation. This is a fact that should be more known.