Pour nous joindre, cliquez
דף הבית

Female genital organs

Our scientific topics

The Boomerang effect

To contact us

To go to our blog

Science and Faith

France and God

Our objective

Friends sites

Every life born from knowledge

Others spiritual topics

Read in music

psyh

FRANCE AND GOD

Continuation of the chapter 4


The Revolutions



The whole of their works was going to produce the advent of Communism in Russia of the tsars remained in a disconcerting feudality, until the beginning of twentieth century, and to generate the former USSR (Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics), one from both principal world powers during seventy years.

For those who will have read at least the description of their work enclosed, it can remain no doubt; these various characters didn't miss passion for their ideal. It is however a thing which the life can learn, "any passion devours, this and those ones, which surrounds it". In other words, some of those I was say, "the end, justifies the means". Even if we don't put into doubt some proverbs in their maxims, the precepts that emerge from them are not always of one dimension to the glory of God. They can indeed bring in their daily uses a relation in which the human value disappears, and lead to certain heresies of our history, that of humanity.

We'd better not make the conclusion that these men forgot this essential value owed to human being, perhaps even they too much attach to it, like a injustice quasi hereditary, a injustice of God if He had existed or at least a injustice that He let make. Number of them assimilated this "god" to an ideology from weak cowards like I did it, maintained in this reasoning by confusion between the majesty whom He represents in a child's heart, and observation of selfishness of a dominant class, covetous and manipulator, recommending itself of God. For these philosophers God didn’t exist and was only one heresy that it was necessary to remedy by all human goodwill, intelligent and scientific.

What these philosophers could not know to have too precipitately rejected it, it is that God gives the intelligence and perspicacity to those who ask it to him, but not to those who fights Him. The one who believes to have any quality in himself, by his instruction or his own life's analyses, receives an intelligence limited to the man, the human spirit, and not the God's Holy-Spirit like we will see it, in the next chapters.

Through result of this first revolution, they saw there only a buffoonery of history. The few small advantages acquired by the people, were too similar, according to them, at those acquired by the English with their long and ridiculous way, so that one or the other methods can be plausible to long-term. Idealists of a social equality, key for them of all happiness, the various situations of this time had started to prove to them that the source of all human miseries was called indeed: God!

From period 1789 and its negative feedback, by the Empire then in a paroxysm of irony for them, after the empire a new monarchy, their analysis are rife. They were especially to mark all the youngest, that before the stabilization of intellectual redundancy, a new seism was going to consolidate them in their conclusions, and to especially to bring them the need's convictions of another type of actions and the setting-up of their ideal.

A concept that they had minimized perhaps too much, had however been created in the French collective memory, "only the republic was favorable to the people". It's why the people arrived at the revolution of 1848, always led by the middle-class, for laying down the object of their hopes: the "Republic", and by addition: the "Good Republic"!

Perhaps of good it had the idea this revolution of 1848, but as regards the republic, the second was not going to be long to behave a little like its big elder sister of 1792. Unemployment was already extremely present, and the use of unemployed was going to be done, like some would like to see it still nowadays implemented, by employment in works of public interest, then called "the national workshops".

Its execution was going to be entrusted at Labor Secretary "Marie". He began to impress the unemployed Parisian persons that he made managed by central School's young pupils. It seems however that Marie saw in the national workshops thus conceived, not only the advantage not to infringe upon the rights of private employers, but also withdrawing a great number of unemployed Parisian from the street's seductions, political clubs and socialist demonstrations. Reciprocally, on the socialist side, one very early perceived this kind of operations and the preserving of government's orientation. Reciprocally, on the socialist side, one very early perceived this kind of operations and the government's conservative orientation.

The rejoinder was formulated by a popular demonstration that required the creation of a Ministry of Labor, i.e. the explicit setting of the social reforms to status of State's duties. The government came out on top granting to him much less: the creation of a formed commission of workers' delegates who would sit with dignity at the Palate of Luxembourg, in the armchairs of the pars of France, with in the chair Louis Blanc 1 and Albert 2, and who would study the social problems.

Louis Blanc remained indeed member of this supreme collective executive that was the provisional Government but beyond what he was minority; he did not have still a government department to manage, therefore null hold on a portion of reality. In Luxembourg, one studied indeed the problems, one made some arbitrations useful in minor social conflicts, and one exposed in greater details and publicly the various socialist theories of time, which contributed much to frighten the bourgeois man. As will indeed write Karl Marx two years later, with much bitterness, "while in Luxembourg one sought the philosopher stone, one struck at the Town hall the currency that had trading rate...".

This was for what we could call the "conciliating republic", that is to say between February and May 1848. Reversals of situations identical to July 17, 1791, were however not going to delay.

As soon as the following day of the elections for installation of constituent French National Assembly of April 23, the first bloodshed were going to take place in Rouen, then devastated by the crisis, and a total and massive unemployment. The commissioner of the Republic, Deschamps, who had organized national workshops to help the workmen, was popular among them, and he was from them, rare, who inclined to the socialism. The bourgeoisie, of which the leader was the district attorney General Sénard, republican with National's nuance, (party in opposition to socialism) was exasperated by the new taxes that was used to cover the national workshops' expenditure, admittedly not very productive, and not like charitable organization. Old scores between two parties was regulated at the time of the elections: Sénard and friends were elected, Deschamps and his friends beaten, the whole department's votes having easily submerged those from big town. April 26, the known results, a working-class demonstration progressed in front of the town hall.

Did the workers want, like one had said, to dispute the ballot result, to see imposing the Deschamps' nomination? Or, more probably, to point out their needs and to protest on suspicion against the national workshops' removal (their alone resource), suppression that the victory of the men "of order" enabled to foresee?


1) Louis Blanc, French historian and politician (Madrid 1811-Cannes 1882). Supporter to the socialist ideas, he contributed in his writings (ten years History, 1841-1844) to enlarge the opposition against the monarchy of July. Member of the temporary government, in February 1848, he saw his workshops project to fail, and had to exile himself after the days of June. Returned to France in 1870, he was deputy (Congressman) of extreme left at the French National Assembly.

2) Albert, mechanic who was very controversial, put in position subordinate in the temporary government, like to give the exchange to a rival list in a bourgeois majority.


They were pushed back harshly by the National Guard, remained of bourgeois composition. Blows confused carried in the scuffle sustained by the loads of cavalry were felt like a provocation by the workmen, who, finishing their central demonstration, surged back in their areas where they built barricades. In evening and the following day, Sénard will require the troop, and even the cannon, and barricades were swept without loss for the police force, but with cost of ten workmen deaths.

Our attention to this event is not as disproportionate as it appears: it is an important thing in itself, not like difference in opinions between republican groups, but like first bloody conflict, which broke on a line of fight of classes, the euphoria of new fraternity, on which the people had mobilized themselves.

What had happened in Rouen in April was going to reproduce in June of this same year in Paris. As of this first date, the national workshops' liquidation had become the majority's principal concern. Firstly, because she wanted to finish some with the social experiments, even lost, and more especially because they were expensive. Secondly, because their function second of political neutralization played only less and less: because one saw to bring together themselves workmen from the workshops and socialist clubs' workmen! One heard moreover, in some their gatherings, cries of "Long lives Napoleon"! Lastly, third reason of fear, in the entourage of Lamartine 1 some advanced the daring idea to bind the national workshops' question to that of railroads: one would have to use this labor on the railway building sites stopped by the crisis, but the State would absorb then on its account.


1) Lamartine: Alphonse de Prât of Lamartine (known as Lamartine): French poet, diplomat and politician (Mâcon 1790/Paris 1869). Deputy opposed to the mode, he publishes in 1847 a "History of Girondins". February 24, 1848, it is him that proclaims the republic at the Town hall of Paris. Provisional government's member in 1848, in the function of Foreign Minister, he loses of his charisma after the "days of June". After one stinging failure at the presidential elections, he gives up the policy and turns over to his first loves, poetry.


One imagines all merits that the poet in this solution found: humanity (to liquidate without too much drama the workshops) and economic progressionism (the railroads' Magnum Opus, for which it had feelings almost Saint-Simoniens). But the Parliament's majority didn't want nationalization, which had a little too much smelled socialism to the bourgeoisie's detriment; perhaps also it didn't want to avoid the drama.

If we read certain declarations of time, some Reports or Memories, whose those of Karl Marx or Henri Guillemin, we can also have the impression the drama was not only accepted, but caused: the workshops' dissolution, the almost unavoidable revolt that would follow and the repression that would come in its turn, would make possible definitively to make a complete brake with the threats of the street and socialism. It's in any case the plan that occured. The pattern was carried out, in the name of Parliament's majority whose monarchist right side was the going wing, by a special subcommittee whose recorder was the count de Falloux.

From Government's side, one counted less on the executive Commission than on the ministers, and in particular on the new Minister for the War, the Cavaignac General 1. This character then became the man of the moment. Soldier until his fingertips, fiercely antisocial and friend of "the order", he had on the other Generals the additional advantage to be unquestionably republican, as son of Conventional and brother of a ardent militant of the Thirties. However, taking into account the composition of the Parliament, the republic was a guarantee whose "order" could not forget yet.



1) General Louis Eugene de Cavaignac : (Paris 1802 - Ourne, 1857). Minister for the War during the second Republic, he was invested in June 1848 of dictatorial capacities, which enabled him to crush the working-class insurrection, then nominated executive branch's chief. Candidate at the presidency of the Republic, it was beaten in December by Louis Napoleon, future Emperor Napoleon III.


June 21, the dissolution of the national workshops was declared, and was left to the workmen the alone ability to engage themselves in the army or to go to clear the marshy Sologne.

The workmen's despair was expressed initially the 22 by gatherings and march in the streets, then the 23 by the erection of barricades. An hard battle began then during three days, along the North-South line on the Town hall's level, which separated Parisian bourgeoisie of west from working-class of east. The Mobile Guard, the National Guard of the residential districts, and especially the army entered in action, with a perhaps calculated slowness.

In a private conversation brought back by Victor Hugo 1 in his book "Things seen", Lamartine was clearly accusing Cavaignac to have let enlarge the riot, like being able to give to repression more magnitude. The 26 on midday, the battle was gained, after heavy losses, but, like always, unequally shared, the more so that many insurrectionists had been massacred after the combat.


1) Victor Hugo: Great French novelist, Pair of France (1802-1885). He developed his work in many kinds. Led by a human ideal and visionary he generally tried to express through his work a political direction.

Side of "the order", where one had wanted to see in insurrection an burst of armed robbery and unsociability, the clear conscience was perfect, and one imputed to the workmen rebel not only the putting to death of two Generals, but also that of the archbishop of Paris, Mgr Affre, struck during an attempt at mediation by a bullet shot from boulevard's house by an isolated unknown.

Even if that had not failed to confirm "the already understood" of Karl Marx and Engel, Saint-Simon and Hegel having then died for twenty five years, for those who were going to be the Masters philosophers of the Soviet revolution of October, a much greater trick still prepared by the arrival of first presidential elections.

For the partisans' majority of constitution, the French "Washington" could be only Cavaignac, but Cavaignac was republican, and the greatest share of the leading classes had not taken yet favor for republic. The right of National Assembly, separating itself this time from the men of the National, constituted a committee and started to monopolize the expression of party of "the order". The royalists adhered to it easier than none of the two possible dynasties offered at that time a pretender eager or able to try his chance at the universal suffrage, and that monarchy remained in the majority idea, the keystone necessary to a Conservative system. The party of "the order" thus decided to have for candidate at the Republic's presidency, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.

His career of adventurer, the debts of which he was covered, his physical appearance even, rather ungrateful in that nothing revealed at first sight his intellectual capacities nor his will, all that made believe that one could always overcome on him. Extra, the popularity of his name in the masses, a little worrying in itself, was in the obviously advantageous circumstance.

The operation was going to prove to be good, since on December 10, 1848, the voters chose Bonaparte by 5 434 000 votes; followed Cavaignac (1 448 000), Ledru-rollin (371000), Raspail (37 000), Lamartine, introduced in solitaire (8 000).

December 20 Cavaignac left the role of provisional government's leader and the Republic's President took possession of it. The constituent Assembly acclaimed Cavaignac like new Cincinnatus, and it accepted with an attentive gravity the official oath of President: Louis Napoleon Bonaparte swore solemnly to remain loyal to the Constitution, this Constitution that obliged him in a formal way to become again four years later, a citizen like the others.

The outcome, although known, can appear extremely ridiculous to us today. Before the four years expiry this Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, this adventurer, was going of course to carry out his putsch. He was even going to take the joke, at the same time perhaps like a mystical superstition, at the same time perhaps like a prefiguration of his second failure in duty, to achieve it on December 2, 1851, at birthday of the imperial coronation and anointment of 1804, victory of Austerlitz in 1805, and his future imperial coronation and anointment thus in 1852.

How was it possible that such inconsistencies didn't mark the observers whom were our philosophers? Was this 2 December itself other thing that a repetition of history?

Karl Marx, one of the first, made a fate to this analogy by calling "Dix-Huit-brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" the sequel that he gave to his work "classes Fights in France". A striking parallel could go further moreover. Hadn't another look the image of these extremists from left which one called "Montagnards" in 1792? For this philosopher, it was the whole of the second Republic, and not only its final episode, which had value of repetition bouffonne; Ledru-rollin (1843) after Robespierre (1793), like Badinguet 1 (nickname of Napoleon III) after Napoleon, it was the joke after the tragedy.


1) Badinguet: Nickname which was allotted to Napoleon 3 and which was not other than the name of the workman who lent to him his clothes at the time of his escape in 1846 from the fort of Ham)


One is less severe today, insofar as better is appreciated what the second Republic brought again compared to the first: one could say deep-rootedness. The republican idea overflowed the intellectual elites, those of the middle class executives and small middle class organized in companies post- or néo-jacobines, to gain in few regions, popular sympathies of mass. That would go considerably to complicate the problem for most hesitant at the republic, because by gaining the people, the republican idea necessarily combined with the other aspirations of the people, social aspirations, aspirations at the greater comfort.

In the explosion of spontaneous expressions that accompanied the insurrections of December, a formula often came back: the "good", the "good republic", "We will bring back the good republic"... What was this to say, if not the republic that had governed France from May 1848 to December 1851 while maintaining the people in his usual difficulties of life was not the "good", not the true one, not the real one, in other words that the true republic could be only one republic favorable to the people of modest means?

The lesson that the French learnt some, was certainly going to bring much more than Karl Marx could then consider it, since his synthesis of this events led his disciples to wipe the slate clean of any rich person shape and their richnesses to make reappear ashes a new civilization, beautiful. Once again, this man enlightened in the heretical perception of moment, was going to give birth in the realize heart of many, with a practical application even more heretic, to the "happiness" of each one. Contrary to the socialist methods, which will have much more difficulty to stand out thereafter, because more reasonable and softer in their creation, his eagerness to create an ideal world, had borne for always the human history of a heavy stamp. This one can however seem to us today having been necessary, by the only fact that it allowed the world, to measure how much it is impossible to the man to set up by the force, which God wants to do by the Love.

Another people was going to take over to French people to be demonstrator all that. A People very poor what's more, but a people I was eyewitness, which was made up formidable men and women, but no more just than others.

It is true the one who is already in misery, does not risk the worst! If the French had to complain, there is now more than two centuries, just eighty-five years ago, these people lived the pangs of a monarchy not even worthy from our thirteen or fourteenth century. Its king was not called king, but tsar, which comes from Latin, Caesar. They claimed were descendant of Auguste, the anoints of the Lord and received a worship to the "adored" tsar, like the Eastern sovereigns.

With 174 million subject, and 21 784 000 square kilometer the Russian semi-European and semi-Asian Empire constituted in 1914 a complex and original world. Czarism was a system of government dictatorial, there can however be no comparison with the French monarchy of Hold System.

Russia until 1905 got no democratic structure, no egalitarian tradition. In the fight against the Mongols' domination in fifteenth century, princes de Moscovie had unified Russia and created a centralized and despotic state. Resulting from the nobility, czarism continued to be the protective shield for this nobility all while reducing it to a relatively negligible political role.

Ivan III (known as The Grand) 1 had married in second weddings Sophie Paléologue, niece of the last Byzantine emperors. He proclaimed himself, "tsar of all Russia", and successor of Byzantine Empire. Autocrat he adopted the rites and the Byzantine court's ceremonial. His armorial bearings were also of Byzantine origin: the eagle with two-headed. From Byzantine tradition the tsars kept always his same titles, the ceremonial, the symbols, but also the methods of government, from where importance of intrigues of court, the secrecy, the bureaucracy, the worship to the "adored" tsar, like the Eastern sovereigns.


1) Ivan III (known as the Large one) (1462-1505), he released Russia from Mongolian suzerainty (1480) and adopted the title of autocrat, making of him an absolute monarch. Married with the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, name given to the Roman Empire of East whose capital was Constantinople and which lasted from 395 to 1453; he wanted to be the heir to Byzance. This Christian gréco-Eastern empire extended to the sixth century on Balkans, Asia Mineure and the Middle East, from Syria in Egypt, as well as on south of Italy, Sicily and North Africa. It reached one's peak with tenth and eleventh centuries then declined whereas a new international order dominated by the Latin Occident was standing out.


Until 1905, the despotism tsarist was total. The imperial family was numerous and constituted the "imperial house of Russia". The tsar was the land greatest landowner of all country and to his private possessions, the "goods of oudiels were added", State's properties intended to support the members of the imperial family. The court intrigues played an important part in the government of the empire and this phenomenon still became more extensive at the beginning of the twentieth century under the reign of Nicolas II. He was 46 years old in 1914 and reigned since 1894. Of poor value, he hardly finds defender nowadays. Full of one’s own importance and of his authority, he conceived his role, like this of an absolute despot.

As of his accession, he declared: "Each one must know, dedicating all my forces to the happiness of my people, I will defend the autocracy's principles as immutably as late my father, I proclaim it openly." This dictatorship hardly left place for least freedoms, even most formal.

At the borders, a severe overseeing was exerted on all travellers transporting newspapers, reviews, books... One cut books' pages considered to be subversive; one passed on newspapers' articles, ink pad charged with a very fatty printing ink, then sprinkled with sand, so that they aren’t readable any more. One prohibited the Victor Hugo's texts translated into Russian; the only original texts were authorized!

The publications in "colonial" languages, in other words those of empire's not Russian nationalities, were comparable with foreign publications. To escape from the censure, one made manuscripts copied at great risk of his freedom. A great number of works, newspapers, reviews, were thus abroad printed. It was particularly the case of the newspaper Kolokol (the Bell), of Herzen, Russian revolutionary writer died in exile in Paris in 1870. Often the authors preferred to censure themselves to avoid bans of publication.

The self-censure had thus become the most censure pernicious form. The reading of Darwin was prohibited, however in 1872 the Capital of Karl Marx was authorized, but in German language. The censor, rushed a little, had undoubtedly not seen harm in extremely difficult work of political economy. It was however the first shrapnel shot against the Palate from Winter.

The arbitrary arrests were current use, and the judgments for political offences very heavy: the prison, the deportation in Siberia, in certain cases the exile could be pronounced without judgment, to do, it was enough to proclaim the besiege situation. Sometimes, the police surveillance was even exerted on the families of condemned, victims themselves, in certain cases, of repression. Nothing protected the individual against omnipotence from the State, the bureaucrats and the police officers.

The orthodox church, with the bureaucracy, the police and the army, was one of the four large pillars of regime. All the subjects of the empire were however not orthodox; there were the Jews (approximately 5 million), the Catholics of Poland and the Baltic States, the Moslems of Caucasus and Central Asia, the Protestants of Finland and the Baltic States, but it enjoyed very many privileges. It was a church of State and the tsar was the orthodox Church's chief as anoint of the Lord. As wrote it at the end of century, the first adviser of Nicolas II, Pobiedonostsev: "the State cannot be restricted to represent the society's material interests, because it would then strip itself of its moral power and would destroy its spiritual union with the nation; it is only in this condition that are maintained in the people the feeling of legality, the respect of law and confidence in the power".

This Orthodox Church had been born in 1054 from the schism with Catholic Church, whose branches resulting from the Byzantine Empire and the Patriarchate of Constantinople had separated. The differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of this time were undoubtedly important at the eyes of theologians, but for the external observer, they didn't appear fundamental.

Under the whole's domination of this system, the people were maintained in a very great destitution. The living conditions, to see survival, were extremely difficult, in particular for the women. How wrote it, the Russian great poet Nekrassov in the medium of nineteenth century the woman's situation was particularly dramatic: "Ah! Your prize is a poor prize, Russian woman! Where to find more painful fate? That before age you would be faded, nothing astonishing, Russian people's Mother who is able to support all, Mother suffering so much sufferings! "

The famine remained threatening and the food shortage was not rare. The medical situation was catastrophic. One was lacking doctors in the rural areas. The epidemics of typhus, of cholera were frequent. On 1910, there were 185 000 cases of cholera for all the empire. The malaria and scabies prevailed durably. For example, in 1910, one announced 225 000 cases of malaria in the government of Samara, 167 000 in that of Saratov, 400 000 cases of scabies in the government of Viatka.

The external brilliance of Russian civilization at nineteenth and beginning of twentieth century, should not hide the real situation lived by the people, and in particular the fact that the culture was reserved only for one negligible minority. Lenin considered, not without reason, I quote: "there is no more, nowhere in Europe apart from Russia, only one so wild country, where the popular masses are so deeply deprived of instruction, culture and general knowledge”. Aulard, the French historian about the Revolution of 1789, precisely noted in a collective work published in 1922: Soviets' History, "from the intellectual point of view, the night was deeper in Russia of 1917 than in France of 1789".

Ce peuple si miséreux allait donc servir d'exemple au monde dans cette tragique utopie, tant dans sa phase « d'épuration » que These people so pauper were however going to be used as example at world in this tragic Utopia, as well in its phase "of purification" as in that of practical application known as "Socialist", which never arrived, but until its dying day is remained under authoritarian government thumb. Tragedy, because it began in a bloodshed, a quite useless blood, just like 1789 was it for France, but even perhaps because of moral idleness than the system set up, produced in this large population. Perhaps it also brought to some an awakening of their man value, but he is still too early to realize it. What it created on the other hand, they are other bourgeois, not more honest undoubtedly than those about whom Napoleon spoke.

A veil is drawing itself over the humanity however, and it is obviously at that we must look at. This Spirit's veil that are the revolutions of violence, which brought or first Napoleon Empire or the still Napoleon Empire second or proletarian Empire. Undoubtedly we must to banish idea that highlight from it and any shape of revolution, which were and will remain only the history's interludes, but of destructive interludes. What prevailed on the humanist socialism of “finer feelings”, itself limited like we will see it further, was nothing other than the human spirit in all its misery. A mind often deprived of good direction, because it can reproduce only what it knows, whereas what it knows is nothing more than that prints it, deforms it, destroys it through its sufferings and its fears.


1) Lénine (Vladimir Ilitch Oulianov, known as), Russian politician (Simbirsk 1870, Gorki 1924). He adheres since 1888 to a Marxist club, spends three years in deportation to Siberia (1897-1900) then gains Switzerland, where he melts the Iskra newspaper and exposes in "What to do? "(1902) his centralized concept of the revolutionary party. This one carries it at second congress of the P.O.S.D.R. (1903) and the Lenin's partisans form from now on the bolchevic fraction of the party, opposed to its menchevic fraction. After a time in Paris (1908-1911), then to Cracow, he turns over to Switzerland in 1914 and indicates to the Russian revolutionists their objective: to fight the war and to transform it into revolution. In April 1917, he crosses Germany and returns in Petrograd, where he imposes his views on the P.O.S.D.R. and to the Soviets, and directs the insurrection of October. President of committee of the people's police chiefs (Oct. Nov. 1917-1924), he makes sign with Germany the peace of Brest-Litovsk and imagining to the international extension of the revolutionary movement, he creates the international Communist (1919). But the civil war in Russia and the failure of the revolutionary movement in Europe lead him to be devoted to the construction of socialism in the U.S.S.R., which he melts in 1922. After the period of the "Communism of war" (1918-1921), he adopts in front of the economic difficulties and interior resistances, the New Economic policy, or "N.E.P". In 1922, Lenin is struck of hemiplegia. Man of action, he was also a theorist (Materialism and empiriocriticism, 1909; Imperialism, supreme stage of capitalism, 1916; the State and the revolution, 1917; the infantile disease of Communism, "leftism", 1920).


The man seeks what he covets at the others, and it is for that when he received the object of his desires, he employs it still more badly than these one of whom he was jealous. Happiness as for them, are only transitory and they don't mark us deeply if they aren't located in God's Spirit. It's for that it's so difficult, until impossible to leave victorious a revolution. The one who stoops to follow his carnal impulses, must expect that the trap will snap shut early or late on him, whether he is man or nation.

These Philosophers counted too on the only common sense and the human integrity. Could they imagine that some of them, sometimes those whom seemed most incorruptible, were precisely those whom at the following day would act to opposite even values whom they defended so bitterly?

What did they have at their disposal these idealists of a civilization of balance, in which each one could live in a perfect harmony with his neighbor, because perfectly equal as regards the social aspects? What could they get to differentiate the words from a "Jesus or Judas"?

God probes the hearts and can give the discernment to those whom follow him, whereas in their dimension of flesh and blood they had them only suspiciousness at their disposal. The natural man does not have in him basic qualities on which these philosophers built their theories. They however didn't miss sincerity, and perhaps were they close to an ideal that God wants to give to the tomorrow's world, but their process of installation and their management, was not of human size. What did they have, placed at the disposal of each one and especially of humblest? Of God! But they didn't know it!

They did not know it because those, whom claimed themselves the worthy representatives of God, had given reason to a monarchy that would stem like from God himself. One god thus who would have sought and wanted crushed the weak one with the profit of always more strong man. Him who said, "Submitting yourselves one another", whereas this submission on ground exists only in the sense "dominating / crush" by monarchy venerated as an idol, as if it were the image even of God on ground.

Him who said, "Have love one for another; even as I have had love for you", when those who "succeed" and go to Mass every Sunday, are only money-grabbing, self-seeking and pretentious, egoistic, even dominating and scornful vis-a-vis with those whom have not "fruits". About which fruits do speak they? Are this of success and glory or fortune and property, or again, always better for them and more badly for poorest?

This richness and these fruits there will disappear soon. In their too human goodwill and their condemnation of God, by confusion between Him and them claimed themselves His worthy representatives, these sincere men who were our philosophers did not look to their predecessors, the Jesus-Christ's apostles. We do not speak about their method of implementation that was opposed, but their expected result. These apostles of whom we can look at the example and remember that them also, but for them led by the Holy Spirit of God, started to live a beginning of social life.

This first system, just like the following was transitory, because the man's religiosity was not going to be long to prevailing on the Spirit of God, just like in the second the personal selfishness of man was not going to be long to take precedence on the integrity of most sincere. Will we say in that God did not do better than the man or reciprocally? Or will we say quite simply that it was not time, and God has reserved this one to us so that a greater number, profit of it?

We must above all pose one postulate, God is not this who wants to crush or destroy, but well this who wants to make us grow, to raise us to His image, from all walks of life that we came and from some race that we are, we all can be His children. We only prohibit this happiness to him! The theory is a thing, the result is another, and will be never the same for the one who stoop to kill, rather than to love.

There is another revolution that is raising today and carried it also the name of "socialism”, from which we know the fruit. Anybody have already noted the abominations on the people of God, in the Jews or even the Gypsy during the last world war. All remember, except their torturers! Shamelessly, as only the demon can do it, they deny the history and remake it with their way. Those seem fort convinced and it is for that they are convincing, but just like the popular masses had followed the bourgeois of 1789, they are followed by the weak ones whom often believe more in one religion of the man than to the true faith in God.

In arrogant way, but deprived of sense, they pass oneself off as victims of the classes already rejected by much as Hitler was putting the blame to the Jews, disabled person or Gypsy. Because the history is repeated, in order to pay homage to all persecuted, passed, present and unfortunately undoubtedly, to come, we will finish this chapter, by taking time to read a text of Primo LEVI, which speaks to us so well about the human eloquence and the plagues that it can convey.

No doubt that he had learned it at his costs, but so long as we all can worry about it: "All we must know, or to remember us that when they spoke in public, Hitler and Mussolini were believed, applauded, admired, adored like gods. They were "charismatic chiefs", they had a mysterious capacity of seduction that didn't owe anything at the credibility or the accuracy of the remarks that they held but which came in the suggestive way in which they held them, at their eloquence, with their flow of words of politician who likes to play to the crowd, perhaps innate, perhaps patiently studied and developed. The ideas they proclaimed were not always the same ones and were in general aberrant, stupid or cruel; but they were acclaimed and followed until their death by thousands of devotees.

It's necessary to remember that these devotees, and among them the zealous executors of order inhuman, was not born torturer, they were not except rare exceptions, of monsters, they were average men. The monsters exist, but they are too very few to be really dangerous; those who are really dangerous, they are the ordinary men, the civil servants ready to believe and obey without discussing, like Eichmann, like Hôss, the commander d' Auschwitz, like Stangl, the commander de Treblinka, like twenty years after the French soldiers who killed in Algeria, and like, thirty years after, the American soldiers who killed in Vietnam. It's thus necessary to be distrustful of all those who want to convince us by other ways that the reason, in other words of the charismatic chiefs: we must well weigh our decision before delegating to somebody of other the power to judge and want in our place (...)

It may be that a new Fascism, with its procession of intolerances, abuse and constraints, is born out of our country to be imported in, or that it breaks out from interior with a violence able to reverse all the barriers. Then, the wisdom councils will be useful only if we find in God the force to resist: in that also, the memory from what occurred to the heart of the Europe, there isn't so long time, will be used to us as assistance and warning "...

In conclusion of these historical realities, we made only confirm the biblical text that we quoted on which rests all these writings: the carnal man is unable to make it although he would like to make, but practical the evil that he would not like to make (see Romans 7-18/20).

This is why in the next chapter we will turn to the spiritual field that built our history, that of our carnal psychology. It is of it that are born all these conflicts and by it that we are always led in our third millennium, as long as we are not victorious according to God from our wretched human nature.

It is against it and against its guide that we must fight with the assistance of God, against it we must carry out our real combat without to condemn one another, then we will know what wants to say, To Love!

Beginning of chapter Top Top

This work cannot be sold. It is offered free of charge for information by Association

CHRETIENS DE L'ESPOIR, 2 Impasse Saint Jean - 26110 - VINSOBRES - France.

Tel. (33) 0954705737 – Fax (33) 0959705737 - E-mail: christianofthehope@free.fr - Company registration number 444 684 427 00016

Following chapter Top
דף הבית של ספרים הפרק הבא