While working hard to prepare the 50th anniversary edition of The Arès Revelation planned in 2024, I once more wanted briefly to depict the supernatural events just as I had experienced them in Arès in 1974 and 1977, and while respecting the truth as much as I can to write for a world which has almost completely stopped reading and which can hardly agreed on a transcendental testimony, even though very heartfelt,  because their capability of accepting it is not contingent on a sincere story, but it is so on the challenges brought about by the meaning of the testimony.
Everybody has noticed  that passionately neutral items about unexpected facts, which the livings discuss very often as bodies of materialism, as refusers and sometimes as malicious tongues, seldom as interested persons, and very seldom as persons that make a commitment.
The Revelation of Arès raises very various theses. As soon as some items like the supernatural are tackled, intelligence has considerable difficulties thinking  normally, because natural personal trends, individual  interests, habits, the unverifiable, and so on, strain reason.
All turns tricky and contentious when the reality of a Power that allegedly manages the Universe (12/4) should be explored. Passions are stronger then, because that which is involved  is not knowledge, but it is life itself. If someone has to acknowledge, to conclude a reading,  that he or she might be in position of endorsing an authority other than that of  materialistic physics or popular thinking or basic psychology, he or she may be in position of questioning himself or herself as a stand-alone being.
Countless are the human beings that consider that being free to think and take decisions about anything in life is fundamental. Their deep self might feels like it is being attacked not regarding a potential search for truth, but regarding the defense of freedom of thought, the right of free expression of it, and the right to choose destiny.
It is not surprising then that The Revelation of Arès causes responses which range from widespread indifférence to mockery, disdain and even violence. A materialist considers that looking for distant echoes of  extraterrestrial lives is more "scientific" or reasonable than reading a Message having come from the Universe, but all over considers that it does not result in an existential question about humanity. Inversely, if you do not object to realize that God exists— not the God of religion, but the Life (38/5) spread (ii/4) over infinity—, together surrounds us and lives in our depths, you may run the risk of a great inner disruption. Preconceptions, passions, the search for peace of mind, and so on,  prevent from accepting the truth particularly whenever it calls the approach of All into question.
While rewriting all the annotations for the fiftieth anniversary edition of The Revelation of Arès I have been clear about not being seen as a religion as well as not delving into developments on God's nature. What I have written  deals with the need of love, forgiveness, peace, spiritual intelligence and freedom from all prejudices, that is, the need of that which The Revelation of Arès calls penitence, and above all the courage to search beyond the 'patency', that is, to embrace metaphysicss.

____________________________________

In front of the widespread indifference which the apostles of  The Revelation of Arès face and in front of the censorship by the social networks  how can we present an event like the Arès event?
We do not know, because that which has been seen and heard is One as the Substance of Substances (xxxiv/6), but it is innumerable as a display,  because the lines that had been thought along by the Witness are seldom the same that are thought along by his listeners or readers. I have stayed aware of that untold problematic issue as long as I have worked prepating the fiftieth anniversary edition of The Revelation of Arès.
God expressed his views in 1974 and 1977 in France where freedom of expression has been long legalized, but freedom of expression means nothing more than the fact that speaking and editing are free. Now, it is also necessary to give people possibilities to embark on a continuous process of following what the event teaches and that is certainly not going to be easy to achieve.
The freedom to tell a truth, whenever the truth annoyed the received opinion, was historically just threatened by the power of the State and the settled authorities. Today the freedom of telling the truth is hijacked by two opposing shifts. On a side in the name of freedom of expression people can attend the most extreme expressions of interest, disregard or rejection, and on another side people still in the name of freedom of expression note counterpoints inspired by ideological trends opposite or even very conflic-ting, which are spread by the dominant mentality that strives to impose its concept of that which is allowed to be told and that which should be silenced.
The animosity against The Revelation of Arès is not coming from some authorities or institutions who identify themwelves formally, but rather from groups or collatérals instutions which proceed by intimi-dation or preclusion hard to overcome.

The only boon of freedom of expressiont is to enrich diversity of opinion barring juridictionally offending opinion, but freedom of expression does not ensure that a universal message can easily emerge from the shadows. Some people can be confident Michel Potay really is the receptacle of a Divine Word and support him strongly, of course, but other people retain their right to oppose him, even if they act in bad faith. More than a century went by until prophet Jesus' teaching began changing a few behaviors  in the world after the crucifixion.
We have to face adversity to defend our values as well as be very patient.
For slightly lower than fifty years I have faced coertions and intimidations of all kinds, but I have usually kept that adversity inside and thought that my brothers were able on their own to find the best manner to promote The Revelation of Arès while being aware that it is very difficult in any case. I think that by and large they have done the best they could and that they have had limited results because they have lacked time and a lot of missionaries on a one side and that on another there is a time for everything in history. If you are referred to history you can see a good lot of instances of latenesses between causes and effects. An adversary debate can lead to a kind of spontaneous development of the Word's meaning just if it is free, but contrary to what many people think we have not gotten there yet; the right time is not that far, notwithstanding. In the end, falsehoods and denials are invariably modulated by the prism of opposing incapacitations.
We do not have access to the public medias (broadcasting, television, and so on.), which all work according to the same operating methods. In our fractured pluralistic societies non only arguments cope with each other, but also dreams cope with each other — just have a look at environmentalists, wokists, and so on! —. You cannot watch presentations of streams of ideas either on social networks. The media platforms that programmers choose are linked to algorithms that put forward the messages most shared in politics, trade, science, etc., which are often very emotionally-charged particularly with anger, envy or set ideas. This produces a distortion which sometimes makes The Revelation of Arès baffling.

We are being faced to a dilemma. From all quarters in the world  politics makes laws against the resurgence of faith when based solely on love. Hence we live in a censorious society, because nowhere on earth does law belong on goodness, forgiveness, benevolence, and so on.  Everywhere law is based on remuneration: such-and-such a fault deserves such-and-such a punishment. I am thinking of Tocqueville's words, "I had left you deal with the abuse of freedom and I find you out under a  despot's feet," But if the State fails to take action, the desires for hegemony of the pressure groups in conflict might well lead to mayhem. In short, flexibility is reduced all around.
A good place to start, some think, is by seeing debates as important, because it is the only good way to discuss and stand up against each other on equal terms. But how can human beings discuss 'Words' that all have allegedly come down from the infinite Eon? Engaging mankind in spiritual debate cannot be the solution; freedom of expression leads nowhere when there are nothing but dominating beliefs.
A certain amount, a not very high one, of debating activity may be part of the solution.  Some associations have been trying to  initiate it on the Web. They usually are users of social networks, they are certain to have some role to play in the search for making concepts immediate, which were considered to be distant previously. An indispensable provision for this would be to forget about rivalry, which currently is not taken into consideration. There is no freedom of expression whenever the Word that each religion or subreligion reveres is imperatively willing to rule. It is then necessary concurrently to grant other kinds of social exchanges. Freedom of expression, I have ceaselessly retold, is the problem, but is the solution as well, on the condition that the debate is never distorted by cheating. In short, freedom happens to result in excessive noise, but also is the sole good means of preventing that very excess.
How can we complete Genesis and then quit it with anything but slowness and progressivity? How can we quit the cave (just see Plato) to the walls of which Adam chained himself by way of anything but by groping very humbly? Among all the gross warpings of the conditions of life that man has inflicted on himself time (Rev of Arès 12/6) attracts attention on himself. Time has made every change slow and ensured that anything true and effective never comes to man's mind fast. We grope and fumble while ascending to Good. Good has no pinnacle, because it has been unattainable so far, it is the Life, the Father, the Saint, which are that faraway. It is unreachable Good, because it never stops ascending, sprawling, spreading (ii/4) over time, but never comes close to paroxysm, as it has no paroxystic potential. Good on Earth as it is is that which is never normally sold, never derives from law, or from ways of life, it is that which cannot be given by religion, or by politics, or by morals. Good should always be a basic need for humans just as it is an eternal basic need for the Father. Good is the boundless immeasurable Quality which is indescribable and which makes all that takes place after death is completely unknown and ineffable: the reports of heaven or hell in the Kuran are nothing but tales for children. It is unlimited immeasurable Good that makes God, as the continuous Reactor of Good, is simultaneously the Eternal Fugitive and Eternal Life.
Just as a learned man is a man that likes and has the time to learn, an exponantial spiritual man is the man that is willing to move outside his specific field of love, that which is creative. Good is no more that which is intended for internal use in the minimal loving being's life, but it is absolute Good intended for external use in the maximal loving being's life.
Man can grow into an active being in global creation, a cocreator in the supreme eternal sense. In the materialistic intellectual  sense  man at the same time or completely is just a kind of agnostic being.
An agnostic says, "Creation may be seen as the integration of time duration into chaos... The Bible can be taken this way, because it mentions it in undertones: Earth was shapeless and empty, tenebrae flew over abysses (chaos of matter)  and God's Spirit was hovering above waters (the duration that creates order) (Genesis 1/2). The beginning is possible because there was an evening and a morning, the first day (Genesis 1/4). The next day will be the second day, and the day after will be the third day, and so on, for to create is to make things follow one another" (Emmanuel in "A comment of Genesis").