We have just presented and defined the two ways of using power to organize a society, either in a system of power, military, political and police, economic, theocratic, or in networks of social life, without centralization of power but in participatory local direct democracies gathered around powerful confederations.
These two radically opposed uses of power originate from a particular conception of the human being. This choice of the place accorded to the human being, to the citizens, in the functioning of a social group, is the founding act of a power. In other words, is power exercised by the whole social group, or is power exercised by a minority that has taken power and legitimizes its place through theories, ideologies, and models serving the particular and private interests of that minority?
This place of the human being depends on the relational context. In a small group, group dynamics will be easier to set up and participatory management knows how to develop them in problem solving groups, quality circles, quality improvement groups, etc. Outside the company this small group dynamics concerns sports teams, citizen project groups, associations, etc.
On the other hand, the common idea is to argue that these methods of small group dynamics are not transposable in larger social groups where the number of members implies other management methods, including hierarchical management as in systems of power.
The relationship between Authority-Power-Command.
It is to make gross errors at this level and above all to ignore that in each group, whatever its size, it is to understand and properly organize the functioning of power, that is to say the relations between Authority – Power – Command.
The primary mission of power is to select the knowledge that serves its purposes and to exclude, taboo, knowledge that harms the interests it seeks to develop. Second, the mission of power is to create the laws, the rules that organize the functioning of the society that it wants to lead.
The command is responsible for law enforcement. It requires skills other than those needed to make laws. There are many difficulties in enforcing a law from the point of view of interpreting the law, adapting the law to particular cases and local circumstances, adapting it to citizens who do not understand it or refuse to have it enforced because they propose a law or rule that is more judicious for their interests. The relational qualities of those in charge of command are paramount, as are their skills in finding the adaptation of the law on a case-by-case basis. Command leaders can be replaced if they fail in their mission without necessarily changing a law.
Authority is then the source of power and command. It has nothing to do with authoritarianism or autocracy, which is a style of command used in systems of power to impose the will or ideology of rulers. Autocratic behavior, in interpersonal communication, is the first stage of the attitude of aggression whose more serious behaviors are saboteur, persecutor.
Authority belongs to the citizens and they delegate all or part of their mission of authority to those whose mission is to exercise power or command. In the event of a crisis of power and command, citizens resume their delegation of authority either to temporarily exercise the tasks of power and command themselves or to appoint new officials for the tasks of power and command.
These relations between authority – power – command take place in a cultural context that defines the culture of the social group. A group culture includes values, norms and lifestyles. The coherence between these elements guarantees the strength of a culture to lead a social group towards the goal it has set itself and which directs the realization of its goals, its missions through the life projects it undertakes. Lifestyles change most often and most rapidly. Young people play a large part in this, but other age groups or social groups, such as the elderly, people at the end of their lives, citizens excluded from stable and well-paid work, etc., are undergoing a change in their lifestyles which calls into question the values and norms in this social group culture.
Command mission leaders are the first to come into contact with these lifestyle changes. Either the leaders of power ask them to repress these new ways of life in order to keep in power conservative policies, or the leaders in power accept to adapt the laws, the rules to these new ways of life. Thus, the exercise of power can be blocked, closed to all changes or it can be open, flexible to adapt to new ways of life and modify the values and norms of the culture of the social group.
presents the legal solutions chosen to organize the relations between authority – power – command within a political, economic, social, cultural culture adopted by a nation, a group of citizens gathered around the same project to live together on a given territory or throughout our planet.
The history of constitutional law in France since 1789 is on this edifying, shocking point. In the Ancien Régime, a provision was made to ensure a flexible exit from the crisis: When the kingdom’s coffers were empty, the king was obliged to convene a meeting of the States General, as was the case in 1789. But the revolutionaries, and their successors up to now, were careful not to renew this sensible measure. In a crisis, when the state’s coffers are empty or have serious debts, governments can pursue their policies without the citizens, like the General States, getting involved. Since 1790, all French constitutions have been closed. The constitutional changes all occurred either after military wars or civil strife, and the 1958 constitution was no exception, following events in Algeria. This blockage of our institutions and this rejection of citizens’ intervention in the event of a political, economic and social crisis contributes to this divide between citizens and their political and economic leaders, which has widened considerably since the 2000s. But these new closed constitutions do not change the relations between authority – power – command because authority remains confiscated by the leaders who took power in 1789. In short, the people, all citizens are excluded from the exercise of power and command.
The cause of this shocking situation is known. The revolutionaries of 1789 had no serious plans to develop a republic in accordance with the ideal of liberty, equality, fraternity. They ignored the workings of the medieval period, the last flourishing period before the establishment of royal absolutism and the centralization of power. This knowledge about how an organization works in networks of life had been lost after centuries of being kept secret and taboo.
The conception of authority, of the mission of authority exercised by the citizens was immediately the subject of major political conflicts. Here we find the clash between the two conceptions of the place of the human being in a society. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s conception served to legitimize systems of power, while Freud’s helped to explain better the functioning of networks of life. Rousseau remained faithful to the conception promoted by the Roman papacy since the Council of Nicaea in the year 320-325. Sigmund Freud, facing the barbarity of the First World War and then the arrival of the Second World War with the Nazi and Soviet crimes, will present a much more realistic and constructive conception of the mission of authority belonging to each human being.
believes that human beings are naturally good and that society corrupts them. This thought has its source in the Christian religion and the Bible: the creation of God in his image can only be good. The analysis of the functioning of society in Rousseau is simplistic because his rejection of royal absolutism remains confused since the king is also naturally good at the beginning. It is therefore the intermediary bodies, the institutions created to defend particular interests, which are responsible for the fact that society does not function properly and corrupts the human being.
The Roman Catholic Church used Rousseau’s thought to organize the French Revolution of 1789 along these lines. The Convention lacks intellectual benchmarks to legitimize its takeover. Former members of the clergy, Abbé Sieyès and Prince Bishop Talleyrand, both trained at the seminary of Saint Sulpice in Paris founded by a Jesuit from Lyon, will influence the work of the Convention on this question of the new republican power. Abbé Sieyès rejected the literal interpretation of Rousseau’s thought that led to participatory local direct democracy when the people governed themselves at the local level. Rousseau did not define the means and principles to be used for direct democracy. The Social Contract of Rousseau is only a philosophical idea that ignores the legal principles of subsidiarity, the alliance of opposites, common property to manage the common goods, the use of a full currency…, as in the medieval period, in the time of cathedrals, before the establishment of royal absolutism. Abbé Sieyès, who distrusts the people and their uneducated, illiterate intellectual level, will defend the use of representatives of the people through the functioning of two chambers. For the abbot, the naturally good human being must be able to perform the function that God has entrusted to him: to govern the Earth. Not all citizens have that ability. The electoral system must therefore be censorial: only the wealthiest can vote. Here we find an illustration of the Christian ideology of the Roman papacy still present: on the one hand, fishermen who do not yet know God and his message, and on the other hand, good men who act according to the precepts of the church, seeking to convert those who live in sin and ignorance of the divine precepts.
Some revolutionaries, such as Robespierre, opposed this idea supported by Sieyès in an attempt to establish a direct democracy that was much less representative. It’ll be the Jacobins. These quarrels weakened the Revolution and Sieyès allied himself with Napoleon Bonaparte to establish the Empire.
“ it was crazy, your Rousseau; It was he who led us where we are. »
Napoleon Bonaparte in Stanislas Girardin, August 28, 1800.
In 1800, Rousseau has died for twenty-two years already but his theories have since largely impregnated French society.
Napoleon Bonaparte has this remark during a visit to Ermenonville, in the Chamber where the philosopher died.
He is then “simple” consul, following the coup d’etat of 18 Brumaire which took place nine months earlier in Paris.
This conception of power, authority, and command, according to the Roman papacy, is now reflected in the notion of the Common Good. This Common Good has nothing to do with the management of the common goods that uses common property and participatory local direct democracy, citizen networks of life. It is more an ideal, the goal to be achieved than a daily reality. The Catholic Church can only show how to reach it. It exists because God created the world and the human being in his image, but the sins we commit (the current highways of sin) prevent us from discovering it and from walking towards it.
The economics of the Common Good and its theses therefore seek to maintain a hierarchical system of power based on the revelation of divine knowledge and the exclusive use of private property. The wealthiest are legitimized because they are the most educated, and somewhere they are naturally good. Hence the fuzzy theory of the natural trickle-down of wealth from the richest to the poorest, at least the poorest who accept to work according to the rules of the richest!
While the economy of the management of commons with common property makes it possible to eliminate, as in medieval times, misery, famine, unemployment through political action carried out by local assemblies which use subsidiarity To adapt optimal solutions to their local particularities, as in the time of cathedrals, as in the first peoples in Asia, melanesia and elsewhere.
Whereas the economy of the common goods makes it possible to eliminate, as in medieval times, misery, famine, unemployment through the political action carried out by local assemblies which use subsidiarity to adapt optimal solutions to their local peculiarities, as in the time of cathedrals, as in the first peoples in Asia, Melanesia and elsewhere.
at first, they tried to explain the violence by referring to mythology, especially greek: Eros, Thanatos, etc. At this time, knowledge is not yet established between these myths and the legend, the mystery of the Andes that the more recent archeological discoveries will explain. We talk about it elsewhere. Around 1936, following his controversy with Bronislaw Malinowski, Freud had the intellectual courage to dismiss his writings as being based on false theories.
Through the example of the first peoples and especially the indigenous peoples of the Trobrian Islands in Melanesia, he understands the shortcomings and shortcomings of patriarchal societies and the advantages and assets of matriarchal societies where women exercise real power. Malinowski’s book: “The sexual life of the savages of the Trobriand Islands” shows that these peoples use powerful rites and especially sexuality through orgiac rites to channel and evacuate individual and social violence. During these rites, it is possible to break the taboo of incest to guarantee peace within a village, a tribe. It is up to the mother and her alone to decide for the future happiness of her children who will thus, happy in their couples, participate in the peaceful life of the village.
Malinowski will use these testimonies of love and social life to establish the doctrine of functionalism to demonstrate that customs and social rites have a function to stabilize a social group, strengthen its cohesion and develop social peace, using in particular sexual freedom, whereas Freud rightly indicated until then that the repression of sexuality would be the foundation of the social order… in patriarchal societies. We have indicated the path that since functionalism leads to structuralism, to Claude Levi-Strauss and to the development of anthropology, ethnology in the humanities.
After 1936 and until his death in 1939, Freud also developed the possibility of minimizing violence for every human being, first in him and then around him. Since then, we have also discovered the example of the Moso people in China, at the foot of the Tibetan highlands: this people without father or husband, where marriage kills love, and who daily lives the pragmatic realization of the fundamental values of humanity: love and peace. Love between human beings, peace between social groups, between human cultures.
Just as Rousseau’s conception of the human being provides intellectual foundations for the justification of systems of power, so does Freud’s, Malinowski’s, structuralism, the example of the first peoples who did not know the centralized state and the industrial society, serve as the foundation for the development of our networks of life, without centralized systems of power.
Authority Power Command in small group dynamics.
Recognition of the role of a small group is not the consequence of a change in paternalistic, autocratic culture or the abandonment of power systems but the consequence of a vital need: abandon conformism and standardization in order to develop active minorities capable of innovating and adapting new technologies.
The core group was the Directorate General team: it is a question of bringing together experts in multiple fields and then, because of globalization, managers from different cultures. In the organization of a group and to develop motivation, group membership and participatory leadership of a team, we find trainings based on group dynamics (Anzieu, etc. ). On this site, we present a training on the use of the Blake and Mouton grid. These trainings have become essential classics in human resources development.
In the 1980’s, the advent of microcomputers, and especially of programmable logic devices, made project groups essential to integrate these new technologies, on the one hand, and quality improvement groups essential to eliminating dysfunctions in the process of producing wealth within a company, on the other. The starting point is the official recognition that 80% of the group’s problems are the responsibility of management, the hierarchical command system, and the organization of remote and opaque power within boards of directors where, as in France, employees do not have the right to vote at shareholders’ general meetings. In the face of robots, programmable logic controllers, microcomputers and their new software packages, the priority became inevitably the raising of the level of competence of all the staff.
Young dynamic executives, we had all participated since 1980 in the introduction of new automation technologies in our industries and our projects were quickly reached through training on participatory management, problem-solving methods, tools of quality circles, time management and time thief hunting, etc. Yet in our factory, when we counted the increase in the value added achieved, productivity gains ( more than 30% in 1986 ), we had seen the figures of our participation ( 2.3 months of gross salary in 1986 ) and of our participation we thought it would last for many years. With a consultant from the I.E.C.I. firm coming to help us automate some of our facilities, we had come to the point where this important development of our initiatives and responsibilities in our project and quality improvement groups called into question the power even in our companies: that it was a matter of reviewing it from top to bottom and sharing it among all the players in the company and not leaving it to the shareholders and the general management.
The key development was the significant increase in skills in terms of generalizing versatility and developing expertise in each department. The courses lasted for more than a year and a week, all the administrative staff and engineers and technicians returned to the Lycée of the surrounding city to learn the use of the Lotus 1.2.3 software package, spreadsheet and word processing, screen sharing and database. A copy of this software package had been purchased and given to the Lycée and mathematics teachers trained staff on spreadsheets, charts, dot clouds and the right of least squares, etc. This in 1986.
The elimination of malfunctions, the improvement of communication and the organization of working time played at the authority level: each staff member found a new motivation, especially when they were involved in decision-making in their quality circle or project group. At the command level, participatory management eliminated most difficulties. Power was in the hands of the staff.
One day, in the cafeteria after lunch, our manager, before having his coffee, stopped us. He was so worried that he slipped into the realm of confidence: He feared for his position as director, because his superiors at the French headquarters, the European headquarters, and the Home Office on the east coast of the United States would soon find, like him, that his post had become redundant. Since the establishment of the Quality Circles and Project Groups, the quality of the files submitted for signature had never been higher. The malfunctions were quickly resolved and he began to understand little of the new expertise acquired in the factory. Faced with participatory management which organized power and command in practice, he and his paternalistic and even autocratic management were now working hard. Its only basic argument: he had to lead an autocratic management like the army in this factory classified Seveso because he had responsibility for our lives in the face of multiple risks of explosion, fire, major industrial disaster with international dimension.
The dilemma posed was quickly resolved. After a fair sharing of the productivity gains made in 1986 and paid in 1987 for participation and profit sharing, not to mention premiums paid at the end of projects or for individual initiatives, in 1988 participation and profit sharing were reduced to half a month’s gross salary. The management of the subsidiary France replied that this was a measure of equity vis-à-vis the other subsidiaries of the group since in France we already had 5 weeks of paid leave, compulsory participation, profit sharing and social security benefits. In other words, the group inquired about other CAC 40 companies that agreed with this level of participation and interest. To achieve this, subsidiary France in its profit and loss account had transferred an exceptional provision to its subsidiary Europe, which adjusted the result to this level of participation and profit-sharing. At the time of this announcement to the plant management committee, the head of the maintenance and new works department who had responsibility for the automation of the whole plant, reviled by this policy, exclaimed “the financial bastards! “.
From that moment my particular interest in the elimination of the financial assholes and the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy in general. The result of the events was the closing of the quality circles, which the staff did not understand and the creation of a quality and metrology service with the recruitment of engineers and technicians specialized in this field… and the purchase of a marble table for laser measurements and others.
At the beginning of 1990, in a telephone discussion with the IECI consultant, who was also disappointed with the end of the total quality movement in France, concluded that the employees through this movement had taken de facto power in the companies thanks to their new skills to succeed in automating workshops and organizing participatory management. Shareholders had realized the loss of their power and command, as had our plant manager around his cafe.
We have known since that the power of private shareholder owners, used these productivity gains to confiscate these profits and use them in its strategy of market domination to carry out costly takeovers of competitors, takeovers and mergers and acquisitions in order to realize further productivity gains through economies of scale made possible by the globalization of the economy and for the sole benefit of the shareholders of the winning companies. Recently, the family and shareholders of this American multinational sold the company to Dow Chemical and the factory with more than 700 employees has a workforce of around 250. The shareholders are still winning, not us!
Widespread participatory management in companies from the early 1990s was replaced by Knowledge Management: employees had to provide their skills in writing so that they could be recorded in the databases. Since an employee could be absent or dismissed, his knowledge remained in the company.
Then came Risk Management: Shareholders shouted by the ENRON scandals and others, have been wary of employees including managers who can divert the means of the company to their profits and thus harm the profits of shareholders. A charter was imposed on the employees with a compendium of procedures to follow under penalty of sanctions. It was the return of neo-Taylorism at all levels suppressing individual initiatives and staff creativity. Finally, the power and command of shareholders was reflected in the restructuring of companies, the relocation… Competitiveness rejected rising skill levels, modernizing the production tool, and, among the four sources of productivity gains, structural changes (outsourcing) and, above all, negative economies of scale (reductions in headcount and wage costs, personnel costs) were used. Standardizing accounting standards eliminated small group management and the character of a human organization in most firms.
Today, this problem has gone beyond business to become a major political problem and to pose a real societal choice, the one we present here: subjugation in systems of power or living free by working in networks of social life.
An introduction to Law.
Authority – Power – Command is also a questioning conducive to an introduction to the law, using initially the frame of reference of the civic instruction and the more thorough of the constitutional law.
The training action presented here is based on the course set up by Gérard to serve as an introduction to the law program in the First Class in his high school. Before immediately starting to describe the different branches and sources of law, Gérard used the experience of his students in group life (family, comrades, sports club, etc. ) in order to identify the fact that the members of the group are obliged for practical reasons to delegate all or part of their authority to a ruling minority responsible for specializing in the drafting of rules of common life.
When the group is small and this delegation is unnecessary, the question of command remains: who is responsible for enforcing and enforcing the rules. The students quickly understand that this mission requires significant relational skills as well as qualities of sincerity, honesty, negotiation. These skills are also the subject of training in communication and organization, personal development (assertiveness, etc. ), and the students recognize just as quickly that a command distributed among the group members according to the skills brought by each, leads to a style of participatory management that is much more effective and efficient than an autocratic or paternalistic leadership.
A deciphering of political life and our institutions.
In terms of constitutional law, the organization of power currently taught is based on the achievements of French history. After Friday, October 13 and the destruction of the Order of the Temple, the development of royal absolutism was met with numerous challenges, the Hundred Years’ War being one among many. To pacify the country and limit royal absolutism based on divine law, it was necessary to wait for Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède and de Montesquieu and his 1748 work, The Spirit of Law. Montesquieu established the principle of the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. It was at the time of the revolution and the establishment of the Republic that this principle was incorporated into the Constitution of 1791.
Already an error has been introduced by Montesquieu: he forgot the military power, the power of the sword. Surely we can accept the implication that this power is confused with the executive. Yet this omission results in the head of the executive being given a monopoly on military power and being able to use it to defend his power. Montesquieu, as we know, was an advocate of enlightened royal power, and he had not broadened his framework of reasoning beyond a constitutional kingship (the English, for example). Therefore, in order to change the leader and the ruling minority, the people or opponents are obliged to go illegal, to take up arms and to overthrow by military force the existing power (executive, legislative and judicial).
We recall that France has never managed to change its constitution without experiencing either military wars or civil wars, the 1958 constitution not escaping this unfortunate tradition ( the characters of the novel “From Eleusis to Denderah, the Forbidden Evolution” will organize a knight order and when the leaders of our systems of power try to destroy it, the knights will lead the military fight and win it. )
Montesquieu’s second mistake was to fail to see that establishing a separation of powers is merely a more democratic organization of a system of power. Beyond this organization, there remains the essential question: the meaning of this power, its purpose. Montesquieu is limited to organizing power and command, it does not affect authority in the sense that we specify here.
He did not seek the origins of royal power in either the Pharaonic Egyptian tradition or the Jewish tradition, or in Celtic culture. The kingdom finds its legitimacy only in the ascendancy to the throne of an initiate able to establish the covenant between God and a people, and Montesquieu has not remembered that in the Gospels, Jesus destroyed this form of organization of royal power centralized in the heart of a system, opening the way for the liberation of peoples and re-establishing a network organization through Christian communities.
As long as an analysis does not call into question a system of power and does not lay down the fundamental choice between organizing itself in a system or organizing itself in a network, this analysis is biased, incomplete and will inevitably lead to an opposition which will feel betrayed, deceived by a ruling minority which has been able to impose the choice of the system in order to go on to conquer material wealth of which it will have a monopoly. Montesquieu could not have carried his analysis so far without which he would have restored the network organization of the time of the cathedrals and suppressed royal absolutism. Didn’t he dare, wanted, knew what limits he had to his separation of powers? Has he backed away from the forbidden and taboo? Leaving these quarrels to historians and literary critics, the fact remains that Montesquieu was not a poet, that he had no experience in using the first source of personal knowledge, in the initiatory way. He used only his intellectual, rational knowledge.
The 1789 revolution, in which the principle that the people are sovereign, changed the nature of authority to recognize it to every citizen. It no longer comes from a king who received it from God. But after this principle, there was confusion when it came to superimposing these three basic situations; authority, power, command, the system of separation of powers. Abbé Sieyès did not want this principle because he stuck to the organization of the Christian church centered on the papacy and on a ruling elite as learned as in the time of Rome and Gaul. The revolutionaries rejected this position and adopted the principle of separation of powers as one of the pillars of the Republic and of democracies. But this measure is above all a precaution, a prohibition on a return of royal absolutism. The Republic tries to maintain itself in place but it says nothing about its medium and long term project or rather it does not know where to go and what republican culture to put in place with values, norms and lifestyles.
Instead of a republican culture that could take over the elements of the culture of the time of the cathedrals, provided that they knew how to read the history that accompanies the medieval period before 1307, the revolutionaries after 1789 remained at the level of fictions and utopias such as the most famous: freedom, equality, fraternity. Here we remain at the level of Republican ideals, and the essence of an ideal, once it has shown a direction, is that it will never be achieved. In the name of ideals, the leaders of power systems can say anything, since no one is able to describe the path that must be followed to arrive at the ideal. Whenever a Republican leader refers to an ideal, he is lying, because he does not know the way to realize it.
We are no longer at the heart of the separation of powers within the framework of republican power organization, but only at the heart of the separation, on the edge of the gap, of the inevitable divide between citizens and men, politicians who are elected to lead the Republic and democracies within the framework of the systems of power. This false political mechanism then carries all the seeds of dictatorship and at least the return to an absolutism of power no longer exercised by a monarchy and its aristocracy but by another ruling class which wants to become the richest, the upper business bourgeoisie in the new industrial society.
We do not go here in this introduction which presents the choice of civilization between power systems and social life networks, deepening the functioning of the power systems that we will do in Part 2. the use of dogmas and ideologies, of fables, to mask the purpose of the minority that is taking power and command, to maximize its profits and to enrich itself without limits.
Unfortunately, the use of ideals and dogmas, ideologies to establish a dictatorship, could be verified during the twentieth century.
Hannah Arendt studied these totalitarian mechanisms well:
“When everybody lies to you all the time, the result is not that you believe these lies but that no one believes anything anymore. A people who can no longer believe anything can not form an opinion. He is deprived not only of his ability to act but also of his ability to think and judge. And with such a people, you can do whatever you want! “
To support this analysis, we can specify How the tyrants will set up this submission Criminal in addition to the permanent lie :
In 1796, Benjamin Rush , signatory of the United States Declaration of Independence, said:
“Unless we include therapeutic freedom in our Constitution, medicine will one day install a dictatorship that we are unable to design for the moment. »
Let us also recall that in 1979, in the program “Let’s speak of medicine” hosted by Jean Paul Escande, Jacques Attali affirmed:
“The absolute form of the dictatorship is that each of us has the desire to behave like a slave … It is through medicine and the relationship to death that this new totalitarian system is settling! »
Since The 2000s and the various pandemies ” “not successful political to establish a tyranny”: the influenza A (H1N1) specially, we can understand the global health crisis of COVVID 19 and its vaccination campaigns forced as the success of this tyranny based on the use of medicine. The desire to wear the mask and rush to all the reminders sold by Pfizer and Moderna, Big Pharma leaders created by John Rockefeller to get rich with his drugs derived from oil and chemistry, this desire is thus analyzed other than the lies poured by the media properties of billionaires of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy.
As long as we can, in response to Hannah Arendt, we can provide more constructive quotes:
“Well informed men are citizens, ill informed they become subjects.”Alfred Sauvy.
“The fact that men take little advantage of the lessons of history is the most important lesson that history teaches us.”Aldous Huxley.
“The true men of progress are those who have as their starting point a deep respect for the past. Everything we do, everything we are, is the culmination of an age-old work. “Ernest Renan.
“The world is dangerous to live not because of those who do evil but because of those who watch and let go.”A. Einstein.
“Believe me, do not fear the villains or the villains, sooner or later they unmask themselves. Fear the honest man who is wrong; He is in good faith with himself, he wants good, and everyone trusts him; but, unfortunately, he’s wrong about how to get it to men.”Fernandino Galiani, Italian economist, 1770.
“And whatever evil the wicked may do: the evil that the good do is the most harmful of all evils.”Friedrich Nietzsche, 1885.
We are not going to play the good and the bad here, but it is clear that we are finding our choice of civilization between systems of power and networks of social life. The “good guys” who work hard to make everything go well in power systems, forget, don’t know, don’t see who runs their power system and how they’re manipulated, even if they realize they’re being lied to all the time.
Did Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Churchill, too, know and understand which ruling minority used them to maximize its profits? Or were they chosen precisely because they would submit without understanding to this foolish delusion of trying to conquer empires by massacring their peoples in wars intended to obtain exceptional profits impossible in peacetime and the possibility of plundering the wealth of the vanquished? This ruling minority, which is keen to remain secret, is well known: it is the sect of Anglo-Saxon Puritans who use the dogma of predestination to impose their divine directives, which they have established as predestined to govern the whole world living on our planet, we will return to this later in Part 2 of this essay.
However, as early as 1936, people were warned:
“One thinks he is dying for the fatherland; “Anatole FRANCE (1844-1924), L’Humanité, 18 July 1922.
“War, a slaughter of people who don’t know each other, for the benefit of people who know each other but don’t slaughter each other.” Paul Valery
As for questions of people’s beliefs, the attitude of leaders:
“Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth, because they don’t want their illusions to be destroyed.”Friedrich Nietzsche
“Great men call shame losing, not cheating to win. “Machiavelli Nicolas (1469-1527) Florence – Italy.
“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not as dangerous as the apathy of citizens in a democracy”Montesquieu (1689-1755)
“There is no more cruel tyranny than that which is exercised in the shadow of the law and in the colors of justice.”Montesquieu.
In this choice of civilization, there is a constant:
“A conscious and standing man is more dangerous to power than ten thousand sleeping and submissive individuals”Mahatma Gandhi.
The main lie in a system of power is the notion of authority, the mission of authority that belongs to every human being. This mission of authority is confiscated by the minority that runs a system of power. To mask this usurpation of power, it puts forward a principle of separation of powers. When a dictatorship takes place, this separation of powers is always included in the constitutional laws but in practice, the dictator concentrates all powers and exercises them by doing what he wants!
This summary and uncultured confusion, which places authority and authoritarianism almost on the same level, must be stopped, thus allowing those who command, in order to be obeyed, in particular by dissidents who think otherwise, to resort to the heaviest sanctions to defend their power confused with their personal interests. Authoritarian is a style of command. When the person in command respects the authority of the group members, there is no need to use an authoritarian style. On the contrary, the participatory style is obvious and it is the only one that will advance the group in achieving its objectives and motivate each of the members. Democracy cannot live with extremist ways demanding more authoritarianism on the left or the right. This is not the way to get a system back on track, but it is the way to begin committing the most horrible crimes against humanity.
Alfred de Musset, taking stock of the Revolution of 1789 and then the Empire, will have this perceptive observation:
“But all power on earth dies when the abuse is too great. There is no power that goes beyond its limits!”Alfred de Musset
All power in a system runs to ever greater domination, simply because the purpose of the system corresponds to a desire to conquer, to dominate others. The abuse of power by the ruling minority of the system causes its downfall because the people overthrow that minority by arms. Yet we must give up, leave the systems of power, which has not been done since Friday, October 13, 1307 in France and it is not for lack of trying but for lack of knowledge about our history and about this right forbidden by the minority that runs the systems of power, a forbidden right that precisely allows us to leave their systems of power.
Authority Power Command in Social Life Networks.
We have just seen the case of Quality Circles in French factories during the 1980s. In a few years the Total Quality movement with participatory management and the use of the sources of productivity gains, which are the modernization of the production tool and the raising of the level of skills, managed a reduction of 200 billion francs out of the 300 billion that the non-quality in the French industrial production tool cost. We have also indicated how this social movement was stopped and then banned by the shareholders and private owners of the means of production.
In order to better understand the consequences of this choice of civilization between power systems and social life networks and without already deepening the functioning of the life networks, which will come in Part 1, we will discuss here the essential elements of this functioning, starting with
One of the last uses of spiritual and intellectual sources in Europe, in the tradition of the temples on the banks of the Nile and of ancient Greece, was the development of the monastic movement and mainly the Benedictine order. The story is mentioned in part 3. In this story, a single case can illustrate the humanistic culture of social life networks and how it is possible to appoint to power a human being particularly gifted in the exercise of his mission of authority.
The young shepherd Gerbert
wanted to learn and became a novice at the convent of Saint-Géraud-d’Aurillac. He has very high abilities in mathematics and physics. When a prince of Aragon passes to the convent, the prior asks him if in Aragon there would not be teachers capable of continuing the formation of the young Gerbert. Thus he studied in the Arab and Jewish universities of Toledo or Cordoba. He thus introduced in the West Arabic numerals and probably algebra, an optimal solution presented by the exercise of bottom-up subsidiarity much better than the use of Roman numerals for geometrical work, architecture, civil and military engineering, astronomy….
Elected pope through the help of Benedictine leaders, he imposed the “truce of God” on the frank leaders who constantly quarreled to plunder each other’s wealth and expand their feudal territories. His knowledge of the history of the Berbers and the Iberians, Jews and Muslims from his stay in Spain, led him to set as his objective the conquest of Jerusalem and Palestine. He understood the importance of the Tables of Law, probably more through his studies with Muslim scholars than with the rulers of the Roman papacy.
Gerbert, who became Pope Sylvester II, in the year one thousand, began the preparation of the return to the Holy Land for Christians in order to find the lost knowledge but probably saved under the sand or the temple of Jerusalem according to the custom of the high priests of the temples on the banks of the Nile.
The knowledge buried under the sand in Egypt was at that time beyond the reach of the Benedictine monks, it was rediscovered for the Europeans during the campaign in Egypt led by Bonaparte and Kléber, the initiate among others of the circle of coal workers of the upper Doubs who will organize the initiation of Bonaparte in the great pyramid of Giza. Sylvester II entrusted this preparation for the trip to Jerusalem to the monks of Cluny.
Cluny will generalize the use of Arabic numerals and achieve the marriage of cultures present at that time: Greek and Roman culture, Jewish, Muslim and Arab, Celtic. But this knowledge would remain incomplete as long as the source of Mediterranean civilization, the Egyptian source already present at Mount Cassin in the manuscripts saved from the library of Alexandria, in the knowledge brought by John, Anthony, Pacome from the temple of Denderah and his double home of life, as long as this source would not be found further to complete the European culture set up since Cluny.
In order to achieve this, it was necessary to seek in Jerusalem the vestiges of the knowledge transmitted by Moses the Egyptian and pursued by Solomon. In this knowledge developed through the use of our two sources of knowledge, was the spiritual knowledge linked to the mysteries of life and in particular to the encounters with the divine presence, with which the covenant between the human beings who recognize it and the divine presence is established.
We know that the Benedictine objective of establishing Jerusalem as a city open to all religions present on Earth was betrayed by the frank warlords for whom this city remained above all a spoil of war and its inhabitants, a people to be massacred before occupying the region militarily. Following the criminal massacre of the inhabitants during the conquest of Jerusalem on 15 July 1099, the Benedictine order decided to have its own army. Bernard of Clairvaux then wrote the rules of the monks soldiers of the Order of the Temple.
Authority and spiritual knowledge
We will not continue a discussion on the spiritual knowledge found in Jerusalem since we now have access to the knowledge of the temples on the banks of the Nile and essentially to the knowledge taught in Denderah, the oldest temple and initially in possession of the highest initiation. Today, this knowledge is not only historical, it lives and travels through the generations of humanity through those, from childhood to the end of our human condition, who walk on the path of their initiation to the mysteries of life. We will deepen this knowledge in part 4 when we present the realization of works and especially the work of the marriage of cultures from our two sources of knowledge.
To return to Authority Power Command, the initiate to the encounter with the mysteries of life and life after human life knows which presences exercise Power and Command over human life and which have knowledge about the functioning of our universes. This Power and this Command are not of this world. What about the Authority? It remains in the possession of the human being, it invariably results in the mission of authority: to minimize violence within and around us to implement the values of love and peace, founding values of a humanity reconciled in its mortal human condition at the level of our carnal body.
The initiate through his initiatory and spiritual approach shares the experience of his encounters with the presences of life after human life. At each meeting, once his initiation is complete and his dialog of the soul for the soul is well established, the initiate has understood that the first will be the last and the last the first. Human beings are obviously the last after these presences which govern our human condition. However, during meetings, even the first ones present do not act if the applicant or the insider does not make a request.
The insider must act first and presences will respond. Alfred de Musset will present this spiritual reality by writing: God speaks, we have to answer him. This verse is part of his poem Sadness. Yes, he is still at the stage of sadness because his initiatory approach is not sufficiently complete, it remains at the level of a simplistic, even religious understanding. Rimbaud will continue this observation of Musset to go to the dialog of the soul for the soul and become sighted. Our aim goes further, not only seeing because this is the starting point, becoming seeing but then not answering but daring to ask and they will answer! The first will be the last and the last will be the first in the dialog of the soul for the soul during our encounters with the mysteries of life.
Authority on the spiritual level is asking and it will be given to you. On the intellectual level, it is to minimize the violence that is within us and around us and that is an inherent part of our human condition, with its biological origins as animals on planet Earth.
From this point on, it becomes easy to understand the complementarity between this spiritual teaching and intellectual teaching. The initiate has overcome the fear of death, he has received the gift of absolute love and with intellectual and rational teaching, he is able to share and put in place the means to live in peace and dignity, justice and humanity on planet Earth respecting Life from that of the planet, its vegetation, its animals, its natural resources, its oceans to the Life that lives in him and is the same in each of us.
It is also easy then to admit that obviously the insider will not submit to an autocratic, tyrannical Power and Command, to the ideologies imposed by the leaders of economic, political, military power systems and fanatical theocracies.
The use of our first source of knowledge which does not need to know how to read and write is the way to eliminate tyrannies with their permanent lies and the manipulation of fears linked to death and trafficked by medicine, as for the end 2019 and the COVID 19 crisis. We present our two sources of knowing in the cultural institutions of life networks. But we must present them here as soon as we analyze the authority and the mission of authority belonging to each human to minimize violence in him and around him. Fear of death is a violence developed by theocracies and their fanatic dogmas. The initiate who met the mysteries of life, even if he had to return to his human condition, is no longer afraid of anything neither of death nor of the tyrants who use this fear to submit peoples with a tampered medicine In the service of their only materialistic interests and their criminal madness.
For him, the choice of civilization is very clear and clear, determined! He shares his spiritual and intellectual knowledge among the social networks… but also the memory of his predecessors who have been assassinated, imprisoned and rejected by the leaders of the systems of power.
Before going to the poet’s mission of authority among our social life networks, just as we have just seen the consequences of the choice of civilization at the political, social and cultural level, we will address the elements of this choice at the economic level and the perception of work.