FRANCE AND GOD

Texts written in a color other than that of this one are quotations whose origin is communicated in bibliography.

Continuation of the chapter 4

The Revolutions

The whole of their works was going produce the advents of communism in a Russia of the tsars remained in a disconcerting feudalism, until the beginning of the twentieth century, and generate the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), one of the two Major world powers for seventy years.

For those who have read at least the description of their work above-mentioned, there can be no doubt that these different characters were not short of passion for their ideal. However, there is one thing that life can learn, "all passion devours, what surrounds the passionate, but also the people around him". In other words, some of those I was, are saying "The end justifies the means". Even if we do not have to question certain proverbs in their maxims, the precepts that emerge from them are not always of a dimension to the glory of God. They can indeed bring into their everyday uses a relation in which the value of the human being disappears, and lead to certain heresies of our history, that of humanity.

It is important not conclude that these men had forgotten this essential value that we owe to the human being, perhaps even they were too attached to it, as an almost hereditary injustice, an injustice of god if he had existed or at least an injustice that  he allowed to do. Many of them, moreover, classed this "god" as an ideology full of superstitions of weak cowards who were afraid of death, as was my case before my own meeting with Jesus. Like these philosophers, I always interpreted to their disadvantage, the behavior of the rich that I judged in their selfishness, without realizing that my gaze was sometimes more distorted by my own egocentrism than by their bad behavior. Like these philosophers, I always analyzed my own frustrations to the detriment of the greedy and manipulative dominant classes, recommending themselves from a god who did not exist, to better fool and enslave their fellow men.

If for my part I was always motivated by the only necessity of bringing out anyone of his heresy of believing in the one everyone called God, in order to bring it into what I considered freedom, others, like these more passionate philosophers that I of the future of the greatest number, endeavored not only to demonstrate the necessity to eradicate the idea of the existence of God by any good human will, intelligent and scientific, but introducing to their ideology, some inhuman rights which justified it. The notions of the Divine Law no longer existing at their level, so they added to their bitter rantings, ravings and inhuman utopias that others were going interpret as a right of justice to eliminate the rich declared manipulative because of their only wealth. Like gods upholder of their own law, they gave themselves the right of life and death, and in the following decades, they were going undertake an extermination that they considered just, of those who had always fooled them, and often mistreated, in the name of this god. which did not exist.

As we will see later, it is certainly not because of their only unreason that they were going to be led to the abominations of 1917 that everyone knows, but also because of the great stubbornness of those who thought themselves invested with divine rights, the reason why God did not want human kings, so let's not go too fast.

What these philosophers did not know, because of having for hastily rejecting Him, is that God gives intelligence and clairvoyance to him who asks it to Him, but not to the one who does not believe of Him. He who believes that he possesses all quality in himself, by his instruction or by his own analyzes of life, receives an intelligence limited to the man, to the human spirit, and not to the Spirit of God, as we shall see. over the next chapters.

Through the result of this first revolution, they saw only a tomfoolery of history. The few little advantages acquired by the people were not very different from the long and derisory path taken by the English for one or other of the methods to be plausible in the long term. Idealists of a social equality, key to them of all the happiness, the various situations of the time had begun to prove to them that the source of all the human miseries was actually called: God!

From the period of 1789 and its counter-reaction, by the Empire and then paroxysm of the irony for them, a new monarchy; their analyzes were making good progress. They were going all the more mark the last born that were Karl Marx or Engel, that before the stabilization of the intellectual redundancy, a new earthquake was going strengthen them in their conclusions, and especially to bring them the convictions of the need of another type of action for setting up their ideal.

A concept that they had perhaps too minimized, had nevertheless been created in the collective memory of the French, "Only the republic was favorable to the people". So this people reached the revolution of 1848, always led by the bourgeoisie, to put in place the object of their hopes: the "Republic", and in addition: the "Good Republic"!

Of "good", it got perhaps the idea, this revolution of 1848, but as for the republic, the second, it was going soon behave a little like its older sister of 1792. Unemployment was already very present, and the employment of the unemployed was going be done, as some would like to see it implemented still today, by jobs in public good tasks, then called "National Workshops".

The execution was going to be entrusted to Mary as Minister of Public Works. He immediately began to enlist the unemployed Parisians, for whom he used young pupils of the Central School to supervise them. It seems, however, that Marie saw in the National Workshops so conceived, not only the advantage of not attacking the rights of private employers, but also of subtracting a large number of unemployed Parisians from the seductions of the street, political clubs and socialist manifestations. Conversely, on the socialist side, this type of maneuver and the conservative orientation of the government were very early on perceived.

The reply was formulated by a popular demonstration which demanded the creation of a Ministry of Labor, that is, the explicit introduction of social reforms as to be part of State's duty. The government escaped to this, by granting it much less: the creation of a commission composed of workers' delegates who were going to sit with dignity at the Palate of the Luxembourg (seat of the Senate), in the chairs of the peers of France, under the presidency of Louis Blanc 1 and Albert 2, who would study social problems.

Certainly, Louis Blanc remained a member of this supreme collective executive that was the Provisional Government but beyond what was a minority, he still had no ministerial department to manage, so no hold on a portion of real. In Luxembourg, problems were indeed studied, some arbitrations useful in minor social conflicts, were fulfilled, and the various socialist theories of time were exposed at length and public, which greatly contributed to frighten the bourgeois. As will indeed write Karl Marx, two years later with bitterness, "While in Luxembourg they were looking for the Philosopher's stone, one struck at the City hall, the currency that was current...".

1) Louis Blanc, historian and French politician (Madrid 1811-Cannes 1882). Won over to the socialist ideas, he contributed by his writings (History of ten years, 1841-1844) to join the growing number of the opposition against the monarchy of July. Member of the provisional government, in February 1848, he saw his project of National Workshops fail, and had to go into exile after the June days. Returning to France in 1870, he was a extreme left-wing MP in the National Assembly.

2) Albert, a highly controversial mechanic worker, put in subordinate position in the Provisional Government, as if to give the exchange to a competing list, in a bourgeois majority.

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

From the day after the elections for the establishment of the National Constituent Assembly of April 23, the first bloodsheds were going to take place in Rouen, then ravaged by the crisis, and total and massive unemployment. The Commissioner of the Republic, Deschamps, who had organized National Workshops for the relief of the workers, was popular among them, and he was among those few who inclined to socialism. The bourgeoisie, whose leader was the Attorney General Senard, Republican of the finely-shaded of the National, (party in opposition to socialism) was exasperated by the new taxes which were used to cover the expense of National Workshops, it is true, little productive if not as a work of charity. The account was settled during the elections: Senard and his party were elected, Deschamps and his friends beaten, the votes of the entire department easily overwhelmed those of the city center. On April 26, the results known, a workers' demonstration took place in front of the city hall.

Did the workers want, as was said, to protest the outcome of the vote, or even to impose the appointment of Deschamps, or more likely, to recall their needs and protest preemptively against the suppression of the National Workshops (their only resource); suppression that the victory of the men of "order" allowed to predict?

They were driven roughly back by the National Guard, remained of bourgeois composition. The confused blows carried in the rush and then the cavalry charges were felt as a provocation by the workers, who, ending their central manifestation returned to their quarters, where they raised barricades. In the evening and the next day, Sénard will require the troop, and even the cannon, and the barricades will be swept without loss for the law enforcement, but at the cost of a dozen dead workers.

Our attention to this event is not as disproportionate as it seems: it is an important thing in itself, not as a difference of opinion between Republican groups, but as the first bloody conflict, which broke on a line of class struggle, the euphoria of the new fraternity, on which the people had mobilized themselves.

What happened in Rouen in April was going to happen again in June of that same year in Paris. From that first date, the liquidation of National Workshops had become the main concern of the majority. First, because it wanted to end social experiments, even lost, and especially since they were expensive! Secondly, because their second function of political neutralization played only less and less: do not we see reconciliations between workers of the National Workshops and workers of the socialist clubs? Did not we also hear, in some of their gatherings, cries of "Long live Napoleon!"? Lastly, the third reason, the fear; in Lamartine's entourage was the daring idea of linking the question of National Workshops to that of the railways: this manpower would have been used on the railway yards interrupted by the crisis, but that the state would have taken over.

1) Lamartine: Alphonse de Prât de Lamartine (known as Lamartine): poet, diplomat and French politician (Mâcon 1790 / Paris 1869). Deputy member of the National Assembly opposed to the regime, he published in 1847 a "History of Girondins". February 24, 1848, it is he who proclaims the republic at the City Hall of Paris. Member of the Provisional Government in 1848, in the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs, he lost his charisma after the "Days of June". After a bitter failure in the presidential elections, he abandons politics and returns to his first love, poetry.

The merits that the poet finds in this solution are already sensed: humanity (liquidating the Natinal Workshops without too much drama) and economic progressivism (the great work of the railways, for which he had almost Saint-Simonian sentiments). But the majority of the Assembly did not want a nationalization, which would have felt too much socialism to the detriment of the bourgeoisie; perhaps it did not want to avoid the tragedy.

To read certain statements of the time, certain Memoirs or Recollections, including those of Karl Marx or Henri Guillemin, one can also have the impression that the drama was not only accepted, but provoked: the dissolution of the National Workshops, the almost certain revolt that would ensue and the repression that would come in turn, would definitely remove the threats of the street and socialism. In any case, it was the plan that it went. The game was conducted, in the name of the majority of the Assembly of which the monarchist right was the marching wing, by a special commission whose the reporter was the Comte de Falloux.

On the government side, less account was taken of the Executive Commission than of the ministers, and especially of the new Minister of War, General Cavaignac.1 This character became then the man of the day. Military through and through, fiercely antisocialist and friend of "the order", he had on the other generals the additional advantage of being clearly Republican, as son of Conventional and brother of a fervent activist of the years 30. Now, given the composition of the Assembly, the Republic was a guarantor whose "order" could not yet to go without.

1) General Louis Eugene de Cavaignac (Paris 1802 - Ourne, 1857). Minister of War during the Second Republic, he was invested in June 1848 with dictatorial powers, which allowed him to crush the workers' insurrection, then was appointed head of the executive power. Candidate for the presidency of the Republic, he was defeated in December by Louis Napoleon, future Emperor Napoleon III.

On the 21st of June, the dissolution of the National Workshops was declared, and the workers were left with the sole faculty to enlist in the army or of clearing the marshy Sologne.

The desperation of the workers, had first expressed on the 22nd by rallies and parades in the streets, then on the 23rd by the setting up of barricades. A fierce three-day battle then began along the north-south line which, at the level of the City Hall, separated the bourgeois Paris of the west from the eastern workers' Paris. The Mobile guard, the National guard of the bourgeois quarters, and especially the army, went into action, with a slowness perhaps calculated.

In a private conversation reported by Victor Hugo 1 in his Things seen, Lamartine was clearly accusing Cavaignac of having allowed the riot to swell, as if to be able to give the repression more scope. On the 26th, at noon, the battle was won, after heavy losses, but, as always, unequally shared, especially since many insurgents had been massacred after the combat.

1) Victor Hugo: Great French novelist, Peer of France (1802-1885) He developed his work in many genres. Led by a moralist and visionary ideal, he generally tried to express through his works a political meaning. A fervent Christian of anticlerical faith, he dispersed into occult practices, particularly after the death of his daughter Léopoldine at the age of 19.

On the side of the "order", where one had wanted to see in the insurrection an explosion of brigandage and savagery, the good conscience was perfect, and the rebel workers were imputed not only to the killing of two men generals, but also that of the Archbishop of Paris, Mgr. Affre, struck during an attempt at mediation by a bullet fired from a house of the Faubourg by an isolated stranger.

If Saint-Simon and Hegel had then died for twenty-five years, this did not fail to confirm the "already understood" of Karl Marx and Engel. For these idealists who were going the master thinkers of the Soviet revolution of October, a far greater farce was still prepared by the arrival of the first presidential elections.

For most partisans of a constitution, the French Washington could only be Cavaignac, but Cavaignac was a republican, and most of the ruling classes had not yet taken sides for the republic. The right of the Assembly, separating itself from the men of the National, constituted themselves into a committee and began to monopolize the expression of party of the "order". The royalists adhered to it all the more easily since none of the two dynasties possible at that time offered pretenders who were willing or able to run the chance of universal suffrage, and that the monarchy remained in the majority idea, the keystone necessary for a serious conservative system. The party of "the order" therefore decided to adopt as candidate for the presidency of the Republic Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.

His career as an adventurer, the debts of which he was covered, his physical appearance itself, quite ungrateful, in which nothing at first revealed his intellectual aptitudes or his will, all this made one think that one will always have governance on him. Moreover, the popularity of his name among the masses, a little disturbing in itself, was obviously advantageous in this circumstance.

The political maneuvering was going to be good, since on December 10, 1848, the voters chose Bonaparte by 5,434,000 votes; followed Cavaignac (l 448 000), Ledru-rollin (371000), Raspail (37 000), Lamartine, presented single-handed (8 000).

On December 20 Cavaignac left the role of leader of the Provisional Government and the President of the Republic took possession of it. The Constituent Assembly acclaimed the first as a new Cincinnatus, and it received with an attentive gravity the official oath of the second: Louis Napoleon Bonaparte solemnly swore to remain faithful to the Constitution, this Constitution which was formally obliging him to become again four years later, a citizen like the others.

The outcome, although known, can appear to us to be very ridiculous today. Before the four-year deadline, this Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, this adventurer, was going of course conducting his coup d'état. He was even carrying the joke until to do it, at the same time perhaps as a mystical superstition, at the same time perhaps as a prefiguration of his second crime, to accomplish it on December 2, 1851, the anniversary of the imperial coronation of 1804, of the victory of Austerlitz in 1805, and its future imperial coronation thus in 1852.

How was it possible that such inconsistencies did not mark the observers who were our philosophers? Was this December 2nd something other than a repetition of history?

Karl Marx, one of the first, make short work of this analogy by naming Louis Bonaparte's Eighteenth Brumaire the following he gave to his work, "Class conflict in France." The parallel could go further, moreover. Had not we seen the image of these left-wing extremists called "Montagnards" in 1792? For this philosopher, it was the whole of the second Republic, and not only its final episode, which had the value of repetitive jest; Ledru-Rollin (1843) after Robespierre (1793), as Badinguet 1 (nickname of Napoleon III) after Napoleon, it was the farce after the tragedy.

1) Badinguet: Nickname attributed to Napoleon III and which was none other than the name of the worker who lent him his clothes during his escape in 1846 from Fort Ham, according to one of the two versions given.

Before taking the next step and the revolution of October 1917, given the hindsight we have today, we must draw a less severe pre-conclusion from the second Republic, because it brought a rooting of the Republican idea and an example of mass lived, which the former had not really highlighted. The republican idea overflowed the intellectual elites, those of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois cadres organized in post or neo-Jacobine societies, in order to win mass popular sympathies in some regions. This did not go without complicating the problem for the most hesitant to the republic, because by winning the people, the republican idea was necessarily combined with the other aspirations of the people, social aspirations, aspirations to greater welfare, without extinguishing during its three years of life, the idea that had emerged in 1848.

In the explosion of spontaneous expressions that accompanied the insurrections of December 1851, a formula often came back indeed: the "good", the "good republic", "We are going to bring back the good republic"... What was that to say, except that the republic that governed France from May 48 to December 51 by keeping the people in their usual difficulties of life was not the "good", not the true, not the real, in other words that the true republic could only be a republic favorable to the people of modest means?

The lessons learned by the French were going certainly to bring much more than Karl Marx could have foreseen, since his synthesis of events led his followers to make a clean sweep of every form of rich persons and their wealth to come to life again from the ashes a new civilization, beautiful. Once again, this man enlightened in the perception of the heresies of the hour, would give birth in the heart of many, to an even more heretical practice, for the realization of the "happiness" of each one. Contrary to the socialist methods that will be much harder to impose later, because more reasonable and gentler in their creation, his determination to create an ideal world forever marked human history with a deep mark. This one, however, may appear to us today as having been necessary, by the only fact that it has enabled the world, to measure how impossible it is for man to set up by force, what God wants to do by Love!

Another people was going to take over from the French people to be the demonstrator of that. A people very poor, moreover, but a people, I was a witness of it, who were made up of formidable men and women, and yet not more honest than others.

It is true that one who is already in misery, does not risk anything much! If the French had to complain, there are now more than two centuries, just eighty-five years ago, this people lived the throes of a monarchy not even worthy of our thirteenth or fourteenth century. Its king was not called king, but tsar, who comes from the Latin Caesar. They claimed to be descendants of Augustus, the anointed of the Lord, and received worship to the "worshiped" Tsar, like the Oriental sovereigns.

With 174 million subjects and 21,784,000 kM2, the Russian half-European and half-Asian empire was a complex and original world in 1914. Tsarism was a dictatorial system of government, [...] however difficult to compare with the French monarchy of the old regime.

Russia until 1905 received no democratic structure, no egalitarian tradition. In the struggle against the domination of the Mongols in the fifteenth century, the princes of Moscow unified Russia and created a centralized and despotic state. Resulting from nobility, tsarism continued to be its protective shield while reducing it to a relatively negligible political role.

Ivan III (known as the Great) 1 had married Sophia Palaiologina, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, in second marriage. He proclaimed himself "tsar of all the Russias" successor of the Byzantine Empire. Autocrat he adopted the rites and ceremonial of the Byzantine court. His coat of arms was also of Byzantine origin: the two-headed eagle. From the Byzantine tradition the tsars preserved not only the whole of titles, the ceremonial, the symbols, but also methods of government, hence the importance of court intrigues, secrecy, bureaucracy, worship to the tsar "worshiped", as the Eastern sovereigns.

1) Ivan III (called the Great) (1462-1505), liberated Russia from Mongol suzerainty (1480) and adopted the autocratic title of tsar, making him an absolute ruler. Married to the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, name given to the Eastern Roman Empire whose capital was Constantinople and which lasted from 395 to 1453, he wanted to be the heir of Byzantium. This Christian and Greco-Eastern empire extended in the 6th century to the Balkans, Asia Minor and the Near East, from Syria to Egypt, as well as to the south of Italy, Sicily and North Africa. He reached his golden age in the tenth and eleventh centuries and then declined, whereas prevailed a new international order dominated by the Latin Occident.

Until 1905, tsarist despotism was total. The imperial family was numerous and constituted the "imperial house of Russia". The tsar was the largest landowner in the country and his private possessions were added "oudiel's possessions", state property intended to support the members of the imperial family. The court intrigues played an important role in the government of the empire and this phenomenon became even more widespread in the early twentieth century under the reign of Nicholas II. He was 46 years old in 1914 and had been reigning since 1894. Of mediocre value, he finds hardly any defender nowadays. Full of his authority, he conceived of his role as that of an absolute despot.

Upon his accession, he declared: "Let everyone know, that devoting all my strength to the happiness of my people, I will defend the principles of the autocracy as immutably as the late father, I openly proclaim it." It was a dictatorship that did not left little space for the slightest freedom, even the most formal.

At the borders, a severe surveillance was carried out on all travelers carrying newspapers, magazines, books. Pages of books judged to be subversive were cut off; it was passed on newspaper articles, stamps loaded with a greasy printing ink, then sprinkled with sand, so that they were no longer legible. The most diverse information until the worldly notebooks were "blue-penciled".

Publications in "colonial" languages, meaning those of the non-Russian nationalities of the Empire, were assimilated to foreign publications. To escape censorship, copied manuscripts were passed at the great risk of his freedom. A large number of books, newspapers and magazines were printed abroad. This was particularly the case of the newspaper Kolokol (Колокол - The Bell) of Herzen; Russian revolutionary writer who died in exile in Paris in 1870. Often the authors preferred to censor themselves to avoid publication bans.

Self-censorship had thus become the most pernicious form of censorship. The reading of Darwin was prohibited, however in 1872 Marx's Capital was authorized, but in German language. The censor, a little in a hurry, had probably not seen a malice in a very arduous work of political economy. This was however the first shell fired against the Winter Palace.

Arbitrary arrests were par for the course, and convictions for political offenses very heavy: the prison, deportation to Siberia, in some cases the exile could be pronounced without trial, it was enough for that to proclaim the state of siege. At times, police surveillance was carried out on the families of the convicts, victims themselves, in some cases, of the repression. Nothing protected the individual against the omnipotence of the state, the bureaucrats and the police officers.

The Orthodox Church, with the bureaucracy, the police and the army, was one of the four main pillars of the regime. All the subjects of the empire were certainly not orthodox; there were the Jews (about 5 million), the Catholics of Poland and the Baltic States, the Muslims of the Caucasus and Central Asia, the Protestants of Finland and the Baltic States, but it enjoyed many privileges. It was a state church and the tsar was the head of the Orthodox Church as the Lord's anointed. As the first councilor of Nicolas II, Pobiedonostsev, wrote at the end of the century:  "The state cannot confine itself to representing the material interests of society, because it would then strip itself of its moral strength and destroy its spiritual union with the nation, and it is only on this condition that the people maintain a sense of legality, respect for the law and confidence in power. "

This Orthodox Church was born in 1054 from the schism of the 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 that time were probably important in the eyes of theologians, but to the outside observer they did not seem fundamental.

Under the domination of the whole system, the people were kept in a very great destitution. Living conditions, even survival, were extremely difficult, especially for women. As the Great Russian poet Nekrasov wrote in the middle of the nineteenth century, the situation of the woman was particularly dramatic: "Ah! It is a poor lot that your lot, Russian woman, where to find more painful fate? That before the age you are wilted, nothing astonishing, Mother of the Russian people able to bear everything, Mother suffering so much suffering! "

Famine remained threatening and famine was not uncommon. The health situation was catastrophic. There was a shortage of doctors in rural areas. The epidemics of typhus and cholera were frequent. In 1910, there were 185,000 cases of cholera for the whole empire. Malaria and scabies have durably raged. For example, in 1910, there were 225,000 cases of malaria in the Samara government, 167,000 in Saratov, 400,000 cases of scabies in the Viatka government.

The outward splendor of Russian civilization in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries must not conceal the real situation experienced by the people, and in particular the fact that culture was reserved only to a tiny minority. Lenin 1 considered, not without reason, I quote: that "there is no longer, anywhere in Europe outside of Russia, only one country so savage, where the popular masses are so profoundly devoid of education, culture and general knowledge. " Aulard, the French historian on the Revolution of 1789, noted precisely in a collective work published in 1922: The History of the Soviets, "that from an intellectual point of view, the night was deeper in Russia of 1917 than in the France of 1789 ".

1) Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, known as), Russian politician (Simbirsk 1870, Gorky 1924). In 1888 he joined a Marxist circle, spent three years in deportation to Siberia (1897-1900) and then to Switzerland, where he founded the newspaper Iskra (Искра - The Spark) and displayed in "What to do?", (1902), his centralized conception of the Revolutionary Party. This one wins at the second RSDLP Congress (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party) (1903) and Lenin's followers now form the Bolshevik faction of the party, opposed to its Menshevik faction. Set for a time in Paris (1908-1911), then in Krakow, he returned to Switzerland in 1914 and traces to the Russian revolutionaries their aim: to fight the war and turn it into a revolution. In April 1917, he crossed Germany and returned to Petrograd, where he imposed his views on P.O.S.D.R. and the soviets, and directs the October uprising. President of the Council of People's Commissars (Oct. Nov. 1917-1924), he signed with Germany the peace of Brest-Litovsk and considered international expansion of the revolutionary movement, creating the Communist International (1919). But the civil war in Russia and the failure of the revolutionary movement in Europe led him to devote himself to the construction of socialism in the USSR, which he founded in 1922. After the period of "war communism" (1918- 1921), it adopts in the face of economic difficulties and internal resistance, the New Economic Policy, or "NEP". In 1922, Lenin was stricken by Hemiplegia. Man of action, he was also a theorist (materialism and Empiriocriticisme, 1909; imperialism, the supreme Stage of Capitalism, 1916; The state and the Revolution, 1917; the infantile disease of communism, the "Leftism", 1920).

This so poor and unfortunate people was going therefore serve as an example to the world in this tragic utopia, both in its "purification" phase and in that of so-called "socialist" 1 practice, which never happened, but remained until the last breath under the influence of an authoritarian government. Tragic, because it began in bloodshed, a very useless blood, just as 1789 was for France, but even more perhaps because of the moral asphyxia that the system put in place produced in this large population. It may also have made some people aware of their value as a man, but it is still too early to realize that. What she created, on the other hand, were other bourgeois, no more certainly honest than those of whom Napoleon spoke.

1) Socialist period that never happened: For memory, in the initial communist ideology, this utopian period was supposed to occur from itself after the period of "purification", so much happiness would be great in a people thus edified.

A curtain rises however for humanity, and that is obviously what we must look at. This veil of violence, placed before the human spirit to better dominate it, is manifested by itself through these examples of the bloodthirsty revolutions, which brought or the first Napoleonic Empire or the Second Empire still Napoleonic or the Proletarian Empire. No doubt we must banish the idea that emerges and any form of revolution, which were and will remain only parenthesis of history, but destructive parenthesis. What prevailed over the humanist socialism of "good feeling", itself limited as we shall see later, was none other than the human spirit in all its misery. A spirit often devoid of common sense, because it can reproduce only what it knows, whereas what it knows is none other than what prints it, deforms it, destroys it through its sufferings and its fears.

The man seeks what he covets at the others, and that is why, when he has received the object of his desires, he uses it even more badly than the one he was jealous of. Happiness, on the other hand, is only ephemeral and does not mark us deeply if they are not located in God. That is why it is so difficult, until it is impossible to come out victorious from a revolution. When, man demeans himself to follow his carnal impulses, the trap is closed sooner or later on his author, whether man or state.

These Philosophers, therefore, relied too much on common sense and human integrity. Could they imagine that some of them, sometimes those who appeared to be the most incorruptible persons, were precisely the ones who were going behave the very opposite of the values they defended so fiercely?

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

God probes hearts and can give discernment to those who follow Him, whereas in their human psychological dimension they only had the suspicion at their disposal. The natural man does not possess in himself the basic qualities on which these philosophers founded their theories. They did not lack sincerity for all that, and perhaps they had a lot in common to an ideal that God wants to give to the world of tomorrow, but their process of setting up such a system and its management, are not from human dimension. What were they getting available, put at the disposal of everyone and especially the most humble? Of God! But they did not know it!

They did not know it because those who claimed themselves the worthy representatives of God had given reason to a monarchy that would have come as from God himself. From a God thus, who would have sought and wanted to crush the weak in favor of the always stronger! He who said "be submissive to one another", whereas this submission on earth only existed in the "dominating / crushed" sense by a worshiped monarchy as an idol, as if it were the very image of God on earth.

Jesus, His Son, said to us, "Love one another as I have loved you." What shall we say then of those who commended themselves as coming from Him, His disciples, His church, and supported the tyrants in His name, flouting all His precepts? We will not blame them anymore because just like us they were only men. If we would to stoop to condemn our peers in their mistakes, would we not take the risk of doing worse than them before God?

This bad carnal practice of the good precepts of God will soon disappear. In their too good human will and their precipitation due to their condemnation of this God, by confusion with those who claimed themselves His representatives, these sincere men who were our philosophers did not look to their predecessors, the apostles of Jesus Christ . We are not talking about their method of implementation which was opposed, but of the expected result. These apostles of whom we can look at the example and remember that they too, but led them by the Holy Spirit of God, began to live a beginning of social life.

This first system, just as the following was ephemeral, because the religiosity of man was soon going to prevail over the Spirit of God, just as in the second example, the personal egoism of man was not going to take delay in taking precedence over the diabolical illusion of the most sincere. Shall we say in this that God has not done better than man or vice versa? Or shall we simply say that it was not the time, and that God has left it for us so that more people can benefit?

We must first to take a postulate, God is not The One who wants to crush or destroy, but The One who wants us to grow up, to elevate us to His image, from whatever environment we come and from whatever race we are, we can all be His children. We alone forbid Him this happiness! The theory is one thing, the result is another, and will never be the same result for one who stoops to kill, rather than to Love.

There is another revolution that is growing in the world today by the new rise of the extremes and which have also borne already the name of "socialism", whose fruit we know. We have all already noticed the abominations on the people of God, in the person of Jews or Gypsies during the last world war. All remember, except their executioners! Shamelessly, as only the demon can do, they deny the story and rewrite it in their own way. Those appear as being very convinced and that is why they are convincing, but just as the masses had followed the bourgeois of 1789, they are followed by weak persons who often believe more in a religion of man than to true faith in God.

In an arrogant, but meaningless way, they place themselves as victims of classes already rejected by many as Hitler lashed out at the Jews, disabled persons or Gypsies. Because the history repeats itself, to pay homage to all the persecuted persons, past, present and unfortunately no doubt to come, we will finish this chapter, taking the time to read a text of Primo LEVI that speaks so well of human eloquence and the scourges it can convey.

No doubt he had learned it to his cost, but if only we all know how to take it into account: "All we need to know, or remember that when they spoke in public Hitler and Mussolini were believed, applauded, admired, worshiped like gods. They were "charismatic rulers", they possessed a mysterious power of seduction which owed nothing to the credibility or the accuracy of the remarks which they held but which came from the suggestive way in which they expressed them, to their eloquence, to their histrionic fluency, perhaps innate, perhaps patiently studied and perfected. The ideas they proclaimed were not always the same and were in general aberrant, stupid or cruel; and yet they were acclaimed and followed until their death by thousands of worshippers.

It must be remembered that these worshippers, and among them the zealous executors of inhuman order, were not born executioners, outwards exception they were not monsters, they were ordinary men. Monsters exist, but they are too few to be really dangerous; those who are really dangerous are the ordinary men, the officials who are ready to believe and obey without argument, like Eichmann, like Hoss, the commander of Auschwitz, like Stangl, the commander of Treblinka, like twenty years after the French military who killed in Algeria and, thirty years later, the American soldiers who killed in Vietnam.

We must therefore be wary of all those who want to convince us by other means than by reason, in other words, charismatic leaders: we must carefully weigh our decision before delegating to someone else the power to judge and to want in our place. (...)

It is possible that a new fascism, with its attendant of intolerance, abuse and servitude, is born outside our country to be imported, or that it is unleashed from the inside with violence capable of overthrowing all barriers. Then, the wisdom councils will only serve if we find in God the strength to resist: in this too, the memory of what happened in the heart of Europe, not so long ago will be able to serve as a help and warning. "...

In conclusion of these historical realities, we have only confirmed the biblical text that we have quoted on which all these writings rest: The carnal man is unable of doing the good he would like to do, but practices the evil that he would not want to do (see Romans 7-18 / 20).

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

It is against this carnal psychology and against its guide called Satan or the devil that we must fight with the help of God, against him that we must lead our real fight without condemning each other, then we will know what it wants to say, to Love!