PART 2

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL APPLICATIONS
Concerning democracy and other forms of government

One day while walking in the small city of Questembert in Brittany, I had the pleasure of admiring the market place dating from the 14th century. It had been constructed to serve as a covered market for the farmers of the region. During those times the farmers sold directly to the customers. One and a half centuries before this lovely building was terminated, the inhabitants of this small city had procured 500 oak barrels. They then placed them in water for a century to augment their resistance. It was foreseen that their building would last for ten centuries.

Between these considerable expenditures and the complete utilization of the buildings five generations had participated ! What is astounding in this case, and in many others, was that these people, most of whom were poor, working for the long term was considered as normal by them. They conceived the future as a present lived by their descendants. who they could not imagine as being other than the same as they were. During those times, building for the family was not considered as sacrificing for it, but working for the survival of the blood line..The "blood" was the symbol of the hereditary qualities of the line.

Today, the future seems to be indechifferable, and effectivey it is ! That is why we tend to live in the present and the immediate future. For many modern couples to have a natural or adopted child makes no difference.

In the 14th century, the small city of Questembert lived practically in autarchy., as did most of rural France. the local markets were the centers of the economic life and the central power had not as yet taxed all the transactions. The projets of local interest did not eminate from some far-off royal bureaucrate.? They came from the local people who decided knowing all the consequences. It was a perfect example of direct democracy and decentralization. As for the professions, they were regulated by the corporations. Even the King did not have the right to interfere in their functioning. The corporations formed independent and free communities.

In parallel, there existed a representative democracy, the one in which one delegated one's power of decision to a person of one's choice. The delegate did not have the power to choose projects but merely to approve their execution. For if a project must be freely discussed by all while keeping in mind the advise of the men art, its execution cannot be collective. It must be given to a proven professional. It is in this manner that they proceded in the Middle Ages in the construction of cathedrals, when the foreman (the archetect) was the best mason or the best carpenter.

This ancient form of democracy was much simpler than that of today, because they lived in the absolutely concrete. In the important projects communication was through designs or models. No ambiquity was possible, no surprises and no need for imagination for those concerned. The talents of an orator were useless, the model and the designs were sufficient.

In all concrete realizations, there is the project and its execution. In other times, one did not undertake a project without first evaluating the feasibility in all details. Today, our governments tend to consider that a project is an end in itself, that is it answers an expectation and that it is undertaken to please and to receive the support of the public who ignore, just as do those who propose it, if it is really feasible and how long it will take. The execution is a task of management which is a servile work... However, if words are easy, art is difficult . In private enterprise a boss is valued only when his decisions are the result of a profound feasibility study; otherwise his employees question his capabilities and end up considering him as a joker.

The example of the market place of Questembert shows us how much, in the past, long term projects were rather usual. Mr. Colbert had oak trees planted in order that two centuries later, these new forests could produce masts for the French boats. In the same sense, the construction of the royal rope factory of Rochefort was not to answer immediate needs but as a wise precaution to answer the navy's future needs.

To govern, is to foresee.

Here is a text of two decisions made by Louis XVI and Napoleon concerning the presence in France of Blacks brought from Africa. My purpose is not to judge their merits, but to show that all changes which could eventually engender a problem were treated at their beginning. To wait until difficulties arose to then care for them was unthinkable. It would be an unexceptable sign of carelessness.

Decree of the king's State Counsel

His Majesty having been informed that the number of Blacks has multiplied so much in France, taken daily from the colonies this portion of men so necessary for the cultivation of the lands, whose stay in the kingdom and especial in the Capital, causes the greatest disorders, and who, when they return to the colonies carry with them a spirit of independence and indolence and are more harmful than useful. His Majesty has thought that it was wise to defer the requests of the inhabitants of the colonies by forebidding the entry into the Kingdom of all the Blacks.

His Majesty has ordered moreover that all the Blacks, half-castes and people of other colors who would be brougth into the Kingdom, or who should enter therein, will be arrested and taken to the nearest port to be embarked. His Majesty having been informed that some of the Blacks of both sexes who have been in France before this declaration have undertaken to contract marriage with Whites, which for good order cannot be tolerated : in this respect, the King and his counsel forbids all his White subjects to contract marriage with Blacks, Mulattos or people of other colors.

Made at the State counsel, in the presence of the King,
held at Versailles on 5 April 1778.
Signed : De Sartine

Bullitin of the Laws of the Republic
Decree No. 2001
Concerning the forebidding of the entry of Blacks, Mulattos and people of other colors without authorization into the continental territory of the Rebublic.
On 13 Messidor, year 10 of the Republic one and indivisible.
The Consuls of the Republic, upon the report of the minister of the Navy and the Colonies, the State Counsel lets known, Decrees :

Art.1 : It is forbidden for all foreigners to bring on the continental territory of the Republic, a Black, Mulatto, or other persons of color, of one or the other sex.

Art.II : In parallel it is also forbidden for all Blacks, Mulattos and other peoples of color, of one or the other sex, who are not in service, to enter in the future on the continental teritory of the Republic, under whatever pretext, at least that they be in possession of a special authorization of the magistrates of the colonies from which they are to leave, or, if they have left the colonies, with the authorization of the minister of the Navy and the colonies.

Art. III : All the Blacks or Mulattos who will enter, after the publication of the present decree, upon the continental territory of the Republic, without being in possession of the authorization mentioned in the preceding article, will be arrested and held until their deportation.

Art. IV : The minister of the Navy and the Colonies is charged with the execution of the present decree, which will be inserted into the bullitin of laws.

The First Counsel, signed Buonparte
The secretary of state, signed Hugues B. Maret
The minister of the Navy and the Colonies, signed Decrès

*

The concept of Napoleon is remarkedly illustrated in the famous film of the american film producer King Vidor, Our Daily Bread (1934) in which he shows a group of unemployed victimes of the 1929 stock market crash who had formed a small rural community. There soon followed an endless discussion as to what "political" system they should give this community.

Some argued for a socialist system, others for a liberal system , etc. The discussion would have continued endlessly if a small man, who had been silent until then, finally made everyone agree to a solution by saying : "You can adopt any system you wish, but as for me, that which I know is that we need a good chief." Then, pointing at the man who had been the driving spirit of the collective adventure, he said :

"The chief, that's him ! "

Immediately everyone agreed to that no matter what their political convictions. Napoleon, as most military chiefs, also thought that discipline is the principle force of all organized groups, for it is the basis of order. Whatever the objective, maximum efficiency requires a unique chief and a strict obedience to orders. But, of course, this hierachy and this discipline can have grave inconviences if the chief is not equal to the task.

In any case, until the 19th century the chief was held responsible for all his acts : Napoleon horsewhiped general Dupont upon his return from Spain for having capitulated. The captain of a sinking ship remained on board; the head of an enterprise which failed and he could not pay his debts, committed suicide. Today, a corporate president who leads his company to bankruptcy is "fired" and is awarded a hudge bonus, leaving the personnel and the stockholders to pay the losses.

Napoleon also said that "War is all a question of execution". His know-how on the battlefield was more important than his plans.

For best results, it is indispensible that all projects be prepared by and decided with the one who will be responsible for its execution. In effect, it is only he who can determine its feasibility and will be able to refuse all decisions which would be difficult to apply. When he who elaborates a project and he who directs its execution are the same person, we attain maximum efficiency. However, even if the chosen chief turns out to be very efficient, the fear exists that he will foster projects which are not conform to the interests of the community because he thinks more of his own power and prestige, or that he is looking after his own , his families or his friends interests. This can often incite the community to renounce this from of government and to prefer a group subservient to those who direct them. Unfortunately, this often leads to consequences which render it powerless.

In general, we admire the important administrative reforms and other creations realized during the Premier Empire in a very short time. But we must realize that today a Napoleon, whatever be his genius, would be unable to do it if he were named chief of the French Republic. His first priority would be to prepare for the next election and as to how his party should proceed to win it. On all projects, he will be obliged to ask himself the question : will this help me gain or lose votes ? Since only the decisions able to bring votes are retained, that explains why each goverment always gives more privileges to those who serve it well, by always adding and never subtracting these advantages. The result is that the civil servants have so many advantages compared to the workers in the private sector, that social injustice becomes flagrant and scandalous.

To elaborate a projest as those of the ancient inhabitants of Questembert, a project requiring a large effort by the citizens in order that their descendants would profit from it, is unthinkable today. While then it was a habit to work for the perenity of our families, now we live for the immediate and the only measures we expect from our government are those which will improve our lot immediately : less working hours, better retirement benefits, more vacations, more social security, more family allowances, assistance of all kinds and especially less taxes.

Obsessed by the next election, about which they are continually thinking if not speaking, the elected government members continually examine the public soundings. All presidents of the Republiic are obliged to attend all the important soccer matches, to embrace the members of the national team when they have won and to invite them to the Elysée palace. All the stars of "show business" are also invited and given decorations. On each one his visits to the provinces, shaking hands with the crowd and kissing babies are indispensible.

Unfortunately the politics of contunually giving more and more to the citizens runs against the hard economic laws. Each individual, each head of family or enterprise knows that he cannot spend more than he earns : perpetual indebtedness is considered as both stupid and contemptible. Yet, since 1945, each year the french government prepares a budget in deficit and each year the public debt increases. It is just the contrary of the management practiced at Questembert when they did not hesitate in sacrificing the present for the future. In effect, no politcian thinks of the problems which will be caused by the immense public debt, especially since they know that they will no longer be here when it explodes. Even the citizens accept to sacrifice their future generations to enjoy the immediate advantages offered to them.

Each year, the immovable bureaucrates of the audit office (created by Napoleon) publish a report on the errors, the faults, the abuses and the disfunctioning of the public services in order that they be corrected. No one questions the exactness of the report, but the government which should take it to heart and publically thank the authors, doesn't say a word. They are deathly afraid of annoying the innumerable public servants who are always ready to go on strike. This fear of displeasing was studied by the editor in chief of the magazine "Le Point" who entitled his book "The Cowards of the Republic". But really, can the politicians do otherwise than to fear their voters on whom their future is dependant ?

*

I distinquish two major faults in our French democracy. The first touches the system used to recruit our deputies among whom the ministers are also chosen. A selection is first made in chosing the candidates, who must quit their jobs to campaign. It is easy for the bureaucrates who can take leave and return to their job whenever they wish. It is feasible, but difficult and risky for those in liberal professions, for a doctor, a lawyer, etc., can theoretical find a replacement and return later. It is impossible for the chiefs of enterprises, where he who leaves his job is definitively replaced. That is why 80 % of the French who produce, transport and commercialize consumer goods are not represented b y one of theirs in the National Assembly, while the bureaucrates have the majority. Let us recall that under the ancient regime the three large state classes of France - the third estate, the clergy and the nobility were represented in the body politic.

The second fault in our french democracy is due to the fact that, in a system more and more dominated by the media presentations, the voters judge the candidates on their exterior appearance and especially on their speaking talents. Howerever, if their are men of action who know how to express themselves others do not have this talent. King Charles the fifth was mocked in his youth because of his inability to express himself. He was considered as a dimwit who would be eaten alive by the nobles. Having become the regent during the captivity of his father Jean le Bon, then crowned King, he imposed himself thanks to his energy , his tenacity in face of dangers and his capacity to do great things for France, all of which made him worthy of the surname of "Charles le Sage". In private enterprise a glib talker is seldom appreciated for he his judged by the results. In an election only the knowing how to talk can be judged.

There is an old saying worth repeating : "Good talkers are not good doers." It is generally true and it signifies that the deputies are seldom gifted for action. This also explains why our French ministers search for the effect of their words rather than giving themselves to the task of accomplishing their projects. To present a beautiful program is often an end in itself. Finally, there is a third fault which is a result of the system for the recruiting and the promotion of civil servants whose duty is to apply the laws and to realize the projects voted by the parlement.

Now we know that this recruiting is done by the presence of a diploma or by tests. Once recruited, the job and promotions are guaranteed for life. The many advantages offered are one of the principle motivations of the candidates for civil service jobs. There is not as in the private sector a trial period and accelerated promotions for the best. Whatever the value of a civil servant, the guarantee of a job and promotion by length of service makes it impossible to progress and leads the nation, which is faced by the difficult international competition, into paralysis.

Most people are ignorant of the fact that a new law voted by the parlement is not put into application until it has appeared in the "Journal Officiel". This generally takes a year or so, and sometimes it never appears... Why this long delay ? Because the authors of the law have never studied how and by what financial means this project is to be realized !

Didn't one of our most distinquished chiefs of state like to say : "the management will follow" ? He thus showed with what distain he considered the executors.

*

Contrary to that which is generally thought, democracy in France does not date from the revolution of 1789. At that epoch, the French nation was defined politically as a simple addition of citizens. In fact, it became a democracy of ideas rather than a democracy of realization. In the villages the life in autharchy permitted a form of concrete democracy which was direct from the base. The projects were discussed and understood by all the citizens. Those who were responsible for the realization of the project , their way of life and their know-how were equally known by all. The royal administration did not intervene in these local activities, nor did they intervene in the organisation of the corporations who directed the professional activities. At the height of absolutism, Louis XIV, master of his subjects after God, had less power in these domains than the president of the French Republic of today

Thus it is the evolution of society which has caused the disppearance of the direct contact between the citizen and the projet which concerns him, for the abstract relationships have replaced the organically lived ties. Today, the citizen is content to delegate his power to someone of whom he has only seen the photograph, the one who has presented an inevitably enchanting program. As Rousseau had so clearly observed: the citizen is sovereign only on election day. After election those he has chosen act in their own way without consulting him.

Contrary to that which exists in France, there still exists in Switzerland a voting system in small communities where a mayor is obliged to submit to the vote of the population all local projects such as a swimming pool, a football field, a kindergarden, a round about, a cultural center, etc. The project must be described in detail and the budget presented in detail. To undertake the project he must receive a majority of the votes.

In the Swiss Confederation there also exists a popular voting system by which any citizen can have a referendum initiated if he can present the project with a certain number of signatures. In France this system exists on paper in certain politcal parties. they are discussed during elections but are immediately forgotten after.

*

The inhabitants of each nation have a dominant mentality which differs from nation to nation. Thus, the same political regime will not necessarily have the same aspects in each nation. Thus, for example, the Scandinavian democracies do not resemble those of Africa which have not been able to stop the tribal wars. As for the largest democracy in the world, that of the United States, it has gradually been transformed into a simple plutocratic oligarchy. that is to say, the rich and the financial powers are the masters of power. To be a presidential candidate and to be able to run a presidential campaign one must have a considerable capital at one's disposal. Those who offer the capital chose their candidates, whose programs always resemble each other. They also own the medias which form the public opinion, thus in the end it is they who run the country. That is the prime reason why 50 % of the american voters do not vote knowing that whatever be their vote, it cannot influence the politics of their nation.

However, the rich Americans who have earned their money by the sweat of their brows are pragmatic, realists and efficient by nature, thus it seems natural to the citizens of the USA that ministers (secretairies) are experiences men, members of the business world. In France that would be unthinkable, where the ministerial positions are compensations accorded to those who have merited it by their participation in the successful election. Certainly, at times the President and his Prime Minister try to name a minister having some experience in the domain, but it is not an absolute necessity. If he decided to name as his minister of industry an industrialist who had succeeded brilliantly in his work, a real "self made man", this would be considered by the french polical class as a betrayal. In fact, almost all politicians in our world are convinced that a democratic regime is not very efficient and thus none would think of applying the principles i XXXXXX In private enterprise, the few trials in this sense , with the election of the president and the other chiefs, have always led the companies to bankruptcy. Yet on the contrary, when war is declared and the government realizes that efficiency is absolutely necessary, there is no hesitation in abandoning all the sacred principles of democracy. An example: when the United States declared war on Japan, they imprisoned almost all the American citizens of Japanese origin, the only critirion being race.

Thus, we see that as soon as a democratic country is at war, it renounces all the liberties, its objectives being primarily a question of efficiency. The people are mobilized by force, the censure of the press is established , habeas corpus is surpressed, the military courts replace in many cases the normal civil courts, etc. Finally the regime becomes like that which exists in despotic regimes or dictatorships. The only difference is that at the end of the war, in general, things return to normal.

Often in periods of peace and prosperity the demand is greater than the offer and the lack of efficiency of the goverment is supportable by the majority, who feel that it as an increase in their liberties. But should an economic or other crisis occur, democracy again finds itself threatened.

 
On justice

Laws evolve with morals, which themselves are tranformed by the effect of innovations. Therefore, there is not an evolution of ideas by themselves, but there is first a technical and biological evolution, which is the first cause of the evolution of ideas. Of course, there also exists a purely intellectual evolution of ideas. The theologIans can debate on the sex of angles and Galileo can advance our knowledge by demonstrating that the Sun does not turn around the Earth but that the Earth revolves around its axis. We will soon know if there is water on the planet Mars, etc. But all those discoveries, important as they are, have little influence upon morals and the laws which direct them.

On the contrary, we note that a very sensitive person, not able to endure the suffering of a human or an animal, wishes to adopt laws which prevent as much as possible this suffering. Yet just a few centuries ago the peasants , little inclined to pity and relatively insensitive to the suffering of others - as are the animals - did not see the utility of lessening it.

This modern evolution of sensitivity of human beings is genetic and is provoked by technological evolution.

If, today, our legislators seem preoccupied with homosexuality while in the past they ignored or condemned it, it is because their number of homosexuals has considerably increased among the dominant of our epoch : journalists, movie, radio and television stars, etc. We know that homosexuality is not an intellectual choice, but an inborn orientation. This is a case where genetic evolution has provoked the law. In the 18th century, the traffic of vehicles drawn by animals in cities was as difficult as that of today with automobiles. However, there were not driving regulations with their numerous interdictions and obligations, just the obligation to drive well. The driving rules became necessary when with the invention of the automobile resulted in the great increase in the number of accidents with numerous victims. The law was changed due to the technological evolution.

Each generation believes that it is more intelligent than the previous one. We find here the idea of progress by continuous perfectionning . The people of Sodom and Gomorrha thought that they were more civilized than those of Sparta. However, it was merely a case of two different societies, one of which lived a life of abundance and ease - this always gives rise to an evolution of sexual mores which have genetic repercussions.

The laws in each country are defined by the ethnic majority and, within this group, by the top social or military class. In the France of today, there is no doubt that it is the intellectual class which determines the law. If it was determined by the much more numerous lower classes, the laws would most certainly be different.

The intellectuals of the white race think that they are at the forefront of progress, which consists of a perpetual "change for the better". Thus they believe that the peoples who think differently are simply "retarded" in the evolution which is leading us to a perfect society, a carrier of universal values. In fact, among these other peoples only a few intellectuals accept these ideas, all of which brings them honors and material benefits and offers them places of honor in international organizations. But their people still conserve their customs, mores and values - even if they are told that they are "archaic and barbarian".

In the socalled "civilized" countries, the best way to become rich is to speculate in the stock market. That requires intellectual qualities which most people do not have. Certain individuals understand better and know how to use things rather than words and numbers, so they try to use these qualities to make their fortunes. For example, some organize burglaries or armed bobberies. Yet while speculation has become legal, profiting from robbery is illegal and severely punished. But these types of individuals do not have a quilty conscience. They think that laws are made in favor of and for the protection of those who make them.

We do not contest the enrichment of an individual due to his qualities and the quantity of his productive work. On the contrary, for a long time both robbery and speculation were condemned, both were considered as infamous activities. . This way of seeing things has also evolved. The intellectuals who make the laws, little by little found positive the attitude which consists in valorizing an asset, not by the pleasure that the possession brings but only from the point of view of the profit it may bring in case of sale. We must admit, that speculation has become a legal activity practiced by many. Today,we all find it hard to resist this temptation to become rich in this way.

Whether the power be in the hands of a man or an elected government, it is always the right of the strongest which prevails. La Fontaine in his "The wolf and the lamb" shows us a wolf trying to justify his action by a right recognized by all. In his "the animals sick with the plague" it is the well off who give themselves a good conscience by finding a quilty party to weak to defend himself. Finally, La Fontaine concludes: "The reason of the strongest is always the best" and that "According to whether you are powerful or miserable, the court judgements will render you white or black".

*

In fact, in all societies, those who detain the power enact laws which correspond to their behavior and condemn those whose behavior is different. In any case, it is in the nature of things that each one judges his neighbor in respect to the behavior one would adopt under the same circumstances. In a community of clones, each having the same behavior, there would be no need for laws, police to arrest those who disobey, nor judges to punish them.

The behaviors are more moral when they concern those with whom we are very close. A very good example is given us by the medieval Islandic society , where there were no police and where the state and judiciary institutions were almost inexistant , as shown in the work of Régis Boyer. Robberies were very rare in this small and very homogenious community, where everyone knew most of the others. This is far from true in large anonymous societies where the individuals find it difficult to find something in common. The result is a drastic lowering in morals. To rob the members of another community appears less contrary to morals. The soldiers of Napoleon's Grand Armée, who at home would not dare steal an apple, showed themselves in Italy, Spain and elsewhere, as looters at all levels of the hierarchy. And even today, the crime rate is much greater in the cities than in the countryside.

In a hive, all the worker bees never stop going and coming in order to bring nectar and pollen which they collect in flowers. There is no need for controls to see if some are not just strolling rather than working, for they are all genetically identical.

Let us now take as an example a man living alone on an island. In his solitude he can never have the sentiment of conducting himself morally bad. If he was with his twin monozygotic brother , there would still be no problems between them. On the contrary,, as soon as he would be living with another person very different, multiple subjects of discord would quickly arise and their existence together would soon become impossible - unless they agreed to a law of conduct or that one completely dominated the other and determined his conduct.

Thus we know that their is a close rapport between morals and genetic proximity. Thus, for we humans, it is the differences in behavior which are going to create the need to elaborate rules and laws of conduct. Here again we find the ancient quarrel of inborn verses acquired. Those who believe in the acquired believe that the same education for all will engender identical behavior. The adversairies think on the contrary that, in most cases, it is the inborn which commands. For the first it would suffice to increase the schooling, for the second, we must avoid the mixing of beings genetically different.

*

We explained above that the invention of the printing press had made it possible for intellectuals having abstract knowledge - in opposition to knowing how, which counted alone before - to impose their values. These intellectuals thought and wanted to impose the idea that the individual is formed by the acquired abstract knowledge and that it could be given to them only by those who possessed this knowledge. Thus, they concluded that delinquency could only come from a bad family or social education. Thus, the only remedy possible was to open schools and make attendance obligatory.

Mr. Jules Ferry, a partisan of secular and obligatory schools, proclaimed: "A school which one opens, is a prison which one closes". Their is no doubt that he was sincere. So they multiplied the number of schools, but alas, the prisons also continued to incease in number, to such a point that today they are all overcrowded, even though the judges certainly show more leniency than in the time of Jules Ferry !

In the 19th century prisons were called "houses of correction". What is the definition of the word in our dictionary ? It is: "The action to correct, to change for the better, to bring back to rules", but also : "Corporal punishment. blows given to someone, Punishment." The supposed reason for the prisons in olden times was to change the delinguents for the better, to bring back to the rules through corporal punishment. However, the idea that each individual is directed by reason, which is formed by the schools, continued to take over. So, the "houses of correction" were changed into "supervised education" establishments. Of course, this evolution of the vocabulary is hypocritical. It makes believe that punishment is abandoned, while it is known that the privation of freedom is one of the worst punishments. And Besides, what "education" does one really give in those "establishments" ?

This idea that, contrary to animals, the human being is directed by reason - and that this reason is formed by family, society and especially schools - is so anchored in the beliefs of the intellectuals, that even the multitude of failures have not been able to change their opinions.

*

For the past fifty years, the question of automobile accidents and of the delinquency among the drivers has provoked the adoption of a considerable number of innovations and improvements in order to protect the occupants in case of an accident. These are the only measures which have resulted in a lowering of the number of dead and injured. The public authorities have also enforced the education of automobile drivers, to make them aware of the dangers, and to begin to educate them earlier in their schooling. Costly publicity campaigns on the subject are organized. All of that has given litle results. However, recently a minister had the idea of returning to the old control and punishment methods, mainly the immediate payment of a fine, and very quickly the number of accidents diminished considerably.

But many say, if you believe more in the inborn than in the acquired, it means that you do not believe that we can change the behavior of human beings ? This is certainly true, but you can inhibit certain behaviors which do not conform to the rules.

The delinquent driver is not necessarily a bad driver, but rather one who overestimates his capabilities. To inhibit, is usually to paralyse by fear. for example, that which provokes the fear of a punishment already received. The driver who must pay a large fine every time he breaks a law, for example the speeding rules, eventual feels inhibited each time he feels he is beginning to break the rule again. The concrete education by means of punishment has thus opposed the abstract education which depends only upon reason.

For many generations this concrete education was practiced by the families to insure the good behavior of their children. In the country, it was especially the respect of the property of others which was inculcated. The popular saying was: "He who steals an egg can steal a cow", which indicated that the punishment for the stealing of an egg was as severe as that of a cow.

Of course certain historians assure us that insecurity was greater during the "ancien regime" and that the cities were veritable death traps. However, let us recall the assassination of Henri IV. In order to travel in Paris, where the streets were often blocked, they used a carriage in which one could not lock the doors ! His assassin, Ravaillac, just openned the door to stab the King in the chest.

Also, during the times of king Louis XIV, almost anyone could visit the Versailles palace under the condition that they be properly dressed. There was no apparent security service to prevent thefts and acts of vandalism so easy to commit. Could we act in the same way today ?

In 1789, when the revolutionaries took the Bastille, this enormous parisian prison , they found only seven prisonners : four counterfeiters , a sexual pervert and two insane. Today, we are informed that five hundred or so chateaux and large properties are burglarized each year, that in the large hotels the stealing by clients of linen, silverware and objects of all kinds are extremely frequent. Yet, all those thieves are persons who supposedly were taught how to properly conduct themselves at home and in our schools in which teaching is obligatory !

*

The more a nation is civilized, the more laws and regulations there are. Does that mean that the more civilized a nation is, the more protected are the honest citizens ? Or on the contrary, that the means to steal, to cheat and to aggress them have increased to such a level that the number of laws and regulations, the number of police to arrest the delinguents and the number of courts to judge them must continually be increased ?

Alas, we note that far from better protecting the honest citizens, a perfect knowledge of the laws allows the swindlers to steal from them in complete impunity. Who has not received a letter of the type : "Congratulations, Mister X, you have just won a flat screen television set worth 1500 euros !" You read and reread the letter and there seems to be no doubt. You are merely asked to write to tell where and when you wish to have this marvellous televion set delivered, but please send a small sum to cover "administrative costs". That is how, today, legal robbery is practiced by a company which depends juridically upon a far away country where it would cost you a fortune to attack them.

Who has not known or heard of an honest person who has lost all his possessions to a dishonest buyer, assisted by an unscrupulous notary who never confirms in writing that which he promised verbally.

*

Goethe wrote : "I prefer justice to disorder". Today's dominant ideology has a strong tendency to think the contrary, since it gives so much importance to certain injustices. But alas ! sometimes certain injustices are necessary.

It is thus during the First World War in 1916, that many soldiers began to tire of offenses which resulted in very little advances but very large loses. In certain sectors, many refused to participate in new offensives and mutinies occured all along the front. The consequence could have been the defeat of the entire French army, with its cort_ge of calamities for all of France.

Already, there were more than 800,000 dead for naught. The repression must be swift and terrible. That it was. Thousands of officers and soldiers were arrested, of which seventy were excuted as examples. Yet there were among them veritable heros. The mutiny stopped and the war was finally won. The commanders had preferred injustice to disorder !

 

 
Social justice

In this chapter, allow me to begin with a dogma - in reality very questionable - according to which happiness will be obtained by increasing the buying power. This dogma is already adopted by the governments, the political parties and the labor unions. Thus, I will study the mechanisms of the increase in buying power in order to show that those who pretend to be the authors are merely painting a lovely picture.

*

In agriculture many technological changes provoked by inventions and discoveries - fertilizers, mechanization of many tasks, biological improvement of seeds, etc. - permitted already in the 19th century to produce much more with much less labor. Thus, the rural exodus became inexorable. Also, because of other technological evolutions, at the same time we saw the creation of numerous industrial enterprises which needed a large number of workers.

During many, many centuries, the farmers lived in a relatively stable environment and used techniques which evolved little and slowly. Thus, they had created a rather happy life style : open air activities, healthy because essentially physical, a division of tasks which permitted each to organize their work to reach the objectives freely accepted and shared by all, and their family way of life made it possible to be born, to work and to die among one's own. The sunday rests, the festivals at the harvest times, the family events and the religious celebrations were sufficient distractions. There was no need nor desire to take leave to go elsewhere.

The departure to the cities, and the work in factories caused an enormous upheaval. The work in factories was during fixed hours and the work was often limited to the repetition of the same gestures. The feeling of liberty disappeared. The air was often polluted and smelly. Of course, one was protected from the rain but deprived of fresh air, light and sunshine.

When one creates an enterprise, one encounters numerous problems, and the need to produce and sell to compensate the expenses is imperative. Thus the social preoccupations take second place. It was the author Emile Zola who knew best how to described the hard life of the workers during his times. Certain progressive men, such as Jean Jaures, took these problems to heart and sincerely tried to do something.

Also, certain indusrialist who had become rich, began to worry about the social problems - one spoke of "pauperism" - and to attack the problem of the lot of their workers. We can cite the exemplary case of Jean-Batiste Godin (1817-1888), the inventor of the stove with his name. He was a selfmade industrialist who transformed his enterprise into a workers cooperative. Today, such an action is called "paternalism", an attitude which is condemned by most socialists and labor unions, for whom it is only their actions which can permit the workers to obtain better working conditions.

One might think that France, the country of the Revolution, homeland of the Declaration of Human Rights, was always at the head of social progress and that she was an example for all, notably between 1870 and 1914, the crucial period during which the Third Republic was governed primarily by men of the left. Alas, none of that is true. The first Social Security was created by the prussian chancelor, Bismark, in a government dominated by the aristocrates. In this area, Germany was always in advance of France, to the point that in 1919, the Alsacians and the Lorrains having again become French preferred the regulations of the imperial German regime to those of the French Republic. This proves once again that the inborn counts more than the acquired, for the German temperment was on the whole more altruistic and communal than the French, which remained more indivualistic.

*

At the beginning, the French unions were undeniably inspired by the desire to obtain for themselves and their comrades better working conditions, without the least personal interest. However, things changed little by little. After some time, those who were at the same time trade unionists and workers wanted to become solely trade unionists. Thus it become important for them to always formulate demands in order to appear to be credible.

Just as the doctors who make a living from the sick, the disappearance of them would be, in a certain way, a catastrophy. It would be similar for the modern trade unionists who exist thanks to the labor conflicts. The big difference is that the doctors are rarely responsible for the sick they look after, while the labor leaders always try to arouse labor conflicts without which they would no reason to exist. There is nothing more detestible for them than a generous owner who cuts the grass from under their feet. Therefore, their first principle of action is to change an acceptable situation into an intolerable one. By accusing the bosses of exploiting the workers, the trade unionists spread false ideas by voluntarily assimilating the bosses who manage their enterprise efficiently because they have the know-how, to a financial director. The first has only one goal, that of running a good enterprise. the second is usual only found in the large companies where his has often been parachuted. He thinks of growing only by acquisitions of other firms. He speculates on the possible increase in value by using his knowledge concerning financial operations. His capabilities are limited to that.

The abyssal loses that many large enterprises announced in 2002 had no other cause than than gross errors in estimating the value of their acquisitions. If those bosses had just judged on internal growth , having of course the capability, which is obviously doubtful, they would not have arrived at that point. There enterprise would have been healthy and the economic crisis inexistent.

In reality, an enterprice always needs a chief, even if he does not have the title. The best is someone who has made his career in the company or in a similar one, thus he will know perfectly how the company functions. There also exist enterprises where the owners who share the profits without having anything to do with the making of the good results. They are not necessarily the same in the two cases. By assimilatng the boss, indispensible for directing an enterprise, with its owners, the workers have often missed the target.

*

In order to better understand how it would be possible to increase the purchasing power of the workers, I will compare the production of consumer goods to a cake. Let us suppose that ten persons. make a cake of 1 kilogram. We can divide the cake into ten equal portions giving each a piece of 100 g. We could also cut it into unequal portions corresponding to the work done by each. If certain persons have more, others will have less. Let us suppose that one of them has found a way to double the volume of the cake without increasing the cost. He then says to the others that each will receive 1/12 th of the new cake, that is 166 g. and he will get the rest, that is about 500 g. Thus each one sees his part increase, although unequally. The largest portion given to the one who had invented the method is a just return for his research. If we suppress this incitement , we destroy the possibility of each one to increase the size of his piece of the cake.

We can see by this example that there are two very different problems : the one of making the cake and that of sharing it. To be only preoccupied with the sharing of the cake and neglecting the problem of making the cake is an enormous error. To limit the part of the cake given to the creatives and to the most active at all echelons , that is those who have made it possible to increase the size of the cake, is to risk seeing it reduced to nothing, thus everyone loses.

sharing, it is clear that one can give only 100 grams to the ten persons having participated in the production of the cake. He who incites some to demand 119 ggrams can only provoke discontent and a refusal.

This example also applies to a country where it is impossible to increase the total wages to the point where they surpass the commercial value of the totality of consumer goods produced. If not, the difference is compensated by inflation which increases the value of the goods to make it equal to the total wages. This is an elementary economic law : when the demand surpasses the offer, the prices rise, and of course visa versa.

In order to benefit from a surplus of cake, there are in fact only two methods. The most equitable and the simplest consists in surpressing the increase in salaries decreed by the government. From then on, in each enterprise, the total wages remains stable, then all improvement in productivity translates, due to competition, into a lowering of the sales price. this signifies that with the same salary, each worker could consume more.

The second method consists , for the government as well as the labor unions, in demanding that the increase in productivity be compensated by an increase in salaries or by a decrease in working hours. The question which then arises is to know whether the adoption of these advantages will be just and equitable. The powerful labor unions in the public sector, but inexistant in the small companies, do they not favor their members to the detriment of the workers in the small and medium size enterprises ?

The labor unions and the government voluntarily lay claim to having increased the buying power and the improvement of working conditions. In reality they can merely distribute the cake produced by the gain in productivity, which usually results from the judicious use of technical innovatins which are often a result of some obscur workers actions or ideas. On their contrary, the bureaucrates, accustomed to obtaining advantages thanks to the repetitive demands of their labor unions or of governmental decisions, think it was thanks to the labor union. In reallity, the government and the labor unions merely distribute the cake made by others.

The prettiest girl in the world can only give what she has and the most powerful labor union in the world can only distrubute the increase in productivity in which they have not participated and in many cases which they have rendered impossible because of their strikes. If Louis XIV had lost his mind and had decreed the the French should work only 35 hours per week, half of the poplulation would have died of hunger in less than a year.

*

There is a problem which is difficult to resolve and which can result in social injustice. It is that which concerns the differences in salaries according to differences in jobs. Should a secretary be paid more than a truck driver ? Should difficult manual work be paid more than intellectual work ? In reality, the differences are often provoked by the basic law of offer and demand. If there is a shortage of truck drivers the increase in salary is ineluctable, but if there is an excess of secretaries there will be a strong tendency to lower their salaries.

However, there exists an injustice which cannot be contested, it is that which is connected with the differences in salary and social advanages for someone who changes companies in which he works, each of which has a totally different collective wage agreement. These agreements are the results of negotiations between the labor unions and the bosses of a given corporation. If the company is working in a growing and very profitable sector, the labor unions will easily obtain multiple advantages, such as bonuses, paid vacations, etc. A corporation which is in a difficult and regressing sector will not be able to give these advantages. Thus, a secretary who moves often and changes jobs will sometimes be surprised at the considerable difference in the advantageous guaranteed by the collective bargaining agreement with the enterprises.

Something which is presented today as an important advance in social justice is the supposed participation of the workers in the profits. It is in reality an injustice. It is not always easy to determine who is really responsible for the profits made by an enterprise. One must at least consider the economic situation. For example, the french steel mills were in hard times, when suddenly the need for steel increased markedly. the companies made big profits but the salaries remained the same. The automobile company, Nissan; was about to go bankrupt. A genial new boss was able to make it a very properous company. The profits and the increase in value became considerable. The new boss of the company was paid a little more but the stockholders who had nothing to do with change received a lot.

The prosperity of an enterprise depends in part on the boss who knows how to chose the best strategy and his collaborators who will know how to make it work, and of course upon the economic situation of the moment for which he is not responsible. Thus, to include the workers in sharing the profits seems to have no sense. That would be equivalent to assimilating a private enterprise to a public service. What must the workers of most small companies, who make very little profit, think of this, or those who are working for a company about to go bankrupt which is not their fault ?

To impose participation on all private enterprises would merely enlarge the existing rift between the lot of the workers and the civil servants.

*

The government services, as we have seen, find it more gratifying to translate the increase in productivity by raising the salaries rather than lowering the prices to improve the puchasing power. On their part, the trade unions always demand such increases in salary in all public and private enterprises.

However, the increases in productivity are calculated globally on the production of all consumer goods, while the increases in salaries, other than the minimum determined by the government, are negotiated separately in each enterprise. The attitude and demands of the labor unions would seem to be legitimate if they demanded more for the lowest salaries. But, alas, it is just the contrary, for the labor unions are less interested in the lot of the nonunioized workers in the small companies than that of the civil servants, who thus always receive better raises.

The only means the labor unions have to apply pressure is that of a strike, that is to stop the activity of an enterprise. A strike has at the same time direct consequences which are a loss in income for the enterprise, and indirect ones which perturb the functioning of the enterprise and the public who are not responsible for the conflict and have no means to resolve it.

Thanks to the right to "strike" the power of the the labor unions is proportional to their "power to do harm". It is clear that a strike, even if justified, decided by a labor union in small stores would merely ruin them and enrich the big super markets. In return, the power to do harm of a strike in the railroad or the electric company and all the many users is considerable - not because of the loss in income to which the directors are indifferent - since the government, that is to say we, will cover the deficits. This power to do harm is such that we do not exagerate when we say that the workers of these public owned enterprises, who moreover benefit from numerous privileges, contribute largely to social injustice. It is said (and known) that in order to be hired by the company EDF, it is better to be a son or daughter of one of the workers. Privilege has become hereditary as that of the aristocrates during the Ancien Régime" !

Therefore, the right to strike appears to be an absurdity which was conceded by the democracies because of simple electoral demagogy. Evidently, that does not mean that we think that the workers should have no recourse. We could imagine an organization similar to the conciliation board which would try to resolve these collective conflicts. Such an organization being responsible for dealing with the conflicts concerning both the private and the public sectors, would little by little be able to render more coherent : the working conditions, the salaries, the social advantages, the retirement age, the amount of the pensions, etc. , of all the workers. Social Justice would thus become a reality instead of just a simple slogan of the trade unions.

 

Produce, Trade, Finance

Human beings cannot live with just love and fresh water, nor of intellectual, cultural or spiritual nourishment. If it were the case, all the solution of the many problems caused by our life in organized society would evidently be much simpler. Unfortunately, we are also mammalians subject to divers biological needs. Man has never been able to live without the air he breaths, water to drink and irrigate and food to sustain him. We also need the sun and a natural environment similar to those under which our savage ancesters evolved. But our needs have progressively changed because of a process of adaptation to innovations. These innovations have modified the world recognized by our five senses, which are commanded by our genes, which are changed by selection to adapt to the environment. It is by these multiple adaptations that modern man has been forged considerably different from his primitive ancestors.

We read in the "Encyclopedia" concerning the XVII th century peasants ; "I know that [...] in our countryside there are children born in good health, that they swim across rivers, that they endure the cold, hunger, thirst, lack of sleep and when they are sick , nature alone cures them without the help of remedies." It was these types of peasants which furnished Napoleon the soldiers of the Grande Armée. They left their respective provences and walked all the way to Moscow in bad shoes, carrying heavy loads. The engineers of general Elbé were able to construct a bridge while naked in the ice cold river Bérézina . In our day such exploits seem impossible.

*

Occupied primarily to feed himself, primitive man lived by the hunt and gathering. He then invented trapping and raising of animals which replaced almost completely the hunting of game. Slowly the develpment of agriculture became more important. Soon each family could produce all its needs thus leading to a number of social changes. Now they could exchange their surplus goods for others at the local market.

In the begining commerce was only done with products which could be transported. As long as the conditions were rudimentary and transportation very slow, the marketing of fragile and perishable goods was impossible. The tradesmen brought into each region the goods which could not be produced there, provided they could get something in exchange. Northern France could offer cereals to Aquitaine or la Provence and receive in exchange oils or wine, but the Brittans could not export their milk, butter , fruits and vegetables nor fish . Only some privileged ones - who were able to make money on the products of workers by various means - were able to offer themselves these expensive products.

This concerned primarily the indispensible food products, which of course are quite variable. This is well illustrated by the variability in the daily consumption of bread per person in France, which in the 20th century has fallen from 900 grams to 150 grams . This large reduction is due in a large part to the reduction in physical activities and heavy manual work.

As a matter of fact, commerce developed principally for the products made by the crafts which could use the new means of transportation. Thus, the consumption of both necessary and vanity goods could increase infinitely. But, necessity is first the satisfaction of a minimum of one's needs and these needs increase as our strength and our physical resistance diminish. The need to protect against bad weather, the search for comfort and that of least effort have been the primary motivations for the adoption of appropriate cloths and objects which ease the execution of tasks. Vanity consumption - which in a sense is unlimited - is tied to the desire to be noticed : the will to be powerful for men, the desire to please for women. Wasn't it said that Josephine de Beauharnais, the wife of Napoleon, possessed hundreds of pairs of gloves, shoes and other fineries. It is still true in our times, perhaps even more so.

*

In former times, the artisan did not try to make a fortune, but just to be able live honorably from his work. Among the members of his corporation there existed understanding, mutual help, exchange - to the point where voluntarily allowing ones talented apprentice, who you had formed and who knows all your techniques, to go to a fellow member was not unusual. This was the principle of journeymen. Today, this type of practice would hardly be acceptable to our industrialists, since the harshness of competition has changed the mentalities.

There were no intermediaries between the artisan and their customers. They were members of the same community and the reputation of both was well known. To demand an exaggerated price or not pay that which is due rarely occured, for it would disqualify the authors.

To trade, is to buy to resell with an intermediary between the client and the producer. This arrives when, for various reasons, the buyer is unable to go directly to the producer, Often the buyer does not know the price paid by the merchant to the producer. This system makes it possible for the merchant to exagerate the increase in the price since the customer is often unable to evaluate a reasonable price.

During the epoch of the artisans, the trader could mutiply his sources of supply and his clients, thus also his turnover and his profits. On the contrary, the artisan's production capacity was limited thus he could never make a fortune. Among the artisans there existed a heirachy analogous to that of the peasants. It was determined by their talent, efficiency, intelligence and their work. It resembled that which we observe in social animals and is contested by nobody.

But slowly, trade gave birth to money as a means of exchange. Thus, a new heirachy was created. very different from that existing among the artisans and the peasants : that of money. The trader does not create riches, he makes them circulate. He can make an honest living but he can also become rich by dubious means. Already, in the peasant classes the horse traders had a detestable reputation as liers and cheaters. Thus little by little an atmosphere of distrust of the traders developed among those who earned their daily bread by the sweat of their brows. Already, in greek mythology, Hermes, the God of eloquence and travelers was also the God of merchants and thieves.

What is the point in common of these personages ? It is the possibility of abusing your confidence. The politicians bewitch and elude you with their lovely promises. Are they sincere and capable of fulfilling their promises, or are they simply trying to convince you just to get your vote ? There is a well known saying "a good lier who comes from afar". A traveler can also disguise reality with his fine words and thus take advantage of you. A trader can fool you concerning the quality, the vertus and the price of that which he presents to you. As for the swindler he has taken advantage of your confidence which has caused you to relax the surveillance of your goods. That greek mythology associates the big talker, the traveler, the bandit and the merchant, is certainly not an accident.

After the invention of money, came the lenders and the usurers . Aristotle already considered the usurer as "the most contrary to nature of all the methods of acquisition". This accusation was repeated later many times by the church authorities.

During the Middle Ages, usury was defined as the levying of an interest by the lender in an operation which precisely should not include an interest, because it did not imply either production or transformation of concrete material things. By making a profit on something purely artificial and abstact, the usurer made this profit by practicing that which the theologians of the time called a mortgage on time, a time which belonged only to God. For example, Thomas d'Aquin does not deny the productive power of capital but he affirms that money loaned for spending or consuming cannot be givren into the hands of the borrower without the existence of a quantity of goods equal to the amount loaned. The result is that if the loaner demands interest , it is paying a service which he has not rendered, thus an illicit gain, for he has sold that which does not exist.

From the aversion of certain tradesmen, we pass to hatred of financiers, who without effort become far richer than those who produce by hard work. For the church, usury was also an offense to charity. But the first institution of the west could it refuse for long the sumptuous gifts of the financiers ? Thus, after having accepted them, how could the church denounce the devilish power of money ?

Detached from its intrinsic value indexed on gold, this marvelous means of exchange, which money is, quickly became perverted. Today, money exchange, allows financiers to become rich by procedures which we will study later.

*

Those who create consumer goods constitue the solid base of a region, a country, a nation. First they are able to supply the demands of their sector freely. Then, should they have a surplus, it serves as a means of exchange for products not available in their country. Although a people who are purely merchants can become powerful, they remain fragile. They depend upon sources of supply which might disappear and on buyers who may find other suppliers. A country which is incapable of producing the majority of its consumer products must import them, usually in exchange for its raw materials. Today, Africa sells its oil, minerals and wood - most are unrenewable or overexploited, thus condemned to disappear. When all the reserves will be used up, what will become of this continent ?

Today, we can see the quasi-disappearance of traditional agriculture. It has been replaced by industrial type agriculture. The small, medium and large industries have replaced the artisans. The commercial activities which took place on the local market place were taken over by local stores which, after having had their hour of glory, have been devoured by the supermarkets and chain stores. The bakeries and the florists have survived, but for how much longer ? Although some independent carpenters, plumbers, painters, truckers, etc., still exist, most of these types of activities have been organized into small companies.

In France, there exist two types of companies: the small and medium size companies (PME) which employ the majority of workers, and the big enterprises. The PME's are seldom quoted on the stock market. The bosses are generally also the owners. It is they alone who suffer the consequences of their mismanagement. Generally, they know their clients very well, as well as the functioning of their enterprise. They are the chiefs who cannot be replaced. Also, they cannot pass from a particular professional sector to another. Generally, they give their personnal properties as guarantees to the banks with the risk of losing all should they go bankrupt and often they are not covered by the public unemployment insurance.

We observe just the reverse situation in the large companies quoted on the Stock Market. The bosses are generally interchangeable..They can easily pass from a company selling mineral waters to one manufacturing chemical products and can terminate as a bank director ! We can verify it everyday by reading the financial press which presents the trials of the big bosses. As an example allow us to cite the following case. A short time ago, the administrators of Swissair, in an attempt to save the company from bankruptcy hired the financial director of Nestle !

Naturally, he only accentuated the problems of the airline company because the problems were not financial but structural and management. During the same period, two new enterprises in the same sector, the irish Ryanair and the british Easy Jet companies, directed by experienced pilots, offering the same services but practcing totally different management methods, have been resounding successes.

By concretely managing the functioning of their companies instead of limiting their actions to the judiciary-financial sectors, they have even surpassed British Airlines (BA) ! In the 19th century, most enterprises had the same style and spirit as our actual PMI's, and not paying one's debts was considered by the boss as a veritable dishonor. Times have certainly changed !

Here is what the socialist Jean Jaurès wrote on the 28th of May 1880 in the newspaper La Dépeche du Midi, in an article entitled "The Condition of the Bosses" :

There is only a courageous ruling class. During all epochs the ruling classes were constitued by courage and by conscious acceptance of risks. He who directs is he who does what the directed to not risk to do. Respected is he who voluntarily accomplishes for others the difficult and dangerous acts. He is a chief who procures security for others by facing the dangers himself.

"Courage for an entrepreneur is the spirit of enterprise and the refusal to turn to the state ; for a technician it is the refusal to compromise on quality; for the director of personnel or the director of the factory, it is the defense of the company and it is in the factory that he defends authority and with it the discipline and order.

"In the medium size industry, there are many bosses who in a large measure are at the same time the cashier, the accountant, fhe designer and the foreman; and they have along with the tired body, the mental cares which the workers have only by intervals. They live in a competitive world where solidarity is unknown. Until now, in no country, have the bosses been able to get together to protect themselves , at least to a large measure, against bankruptcy which can destroy in one day the fortune and the credit of an industrialist.

"Between the producers, it is a battle without mercy. To conquer clients, they reduce prices to the limit, during the crisis years the sales price of merchandise can fall below the cost price. They are obliged to accept delays in payment which for their buyers is a margin against bankruptcy, and at the arrival of the least difficulty the watchful bankers demand payment within twenty four hours.

"The workers often accuse the bosses of being playboys who want to make more money to play with, but all the real bosses really want is to win the battle. There are many who, when increasing their fortune, are not really more joyful. In any case, it is not of that which they are thinking. They are happy when they have a good inventory and are able to say that their ardent efforts are not lost, that there is a positive and palpable result, that after all the hazards something good has come and their power for action has increased.

"No, to tell the truth, the boss, such as our society actually makes him, is not in an enviable condition. And it is not with the sentiment of anger and covetousness that men should look one at the other, but with a certain reciprocal pity which could be the prelude to justice !"

This portrait of the employers, as pictured by Jean Jaur_s at the end of the 19th century, shows us how miuch the morals have evolved. Today, the big financial bosses parachuted by the board of directors of the large companies can make the worst errors. They are considered as mere vicissitudes which do not darken the honor nor the interests of those who committed them. Of course, the politicians condemn verbally such actions, but do they do anything about it when they are in power ?

*

Today, all large enterprises are public companies with shares quoted on the stock market and they are financed by the market or by the banks and the nation. These three organisms refer to the balance sheet and the perspectives in order to invest or loan. This helps explain why the presentations of the results often go astray. Using all the legal possibilities, they present a very favorable balance sheet which does not really show the concrete value of the enterprise. Then, by necessity, they arrive at falsifying the accounts - often with the complicity of the auditors.

When Mario Conti, financial director of Nestlé was named at the head of Swissair, he made an audit to know the real situation of the company. The results published on the 26th of April 2000 indicated an unforeseen debt of more than 7 billion swiss francs, that is 4.7 billion euros ! Of course, the board of directors was stupified. This shows how, completely legally, one can manipulate the financial figures. The case of Enron in the USA, is an example of an even more grave case, because there was a veritable falsificaton of the acounts, with the complicity of a very important audit firm responsible for the veracity of the accounts. In both cases, those responsible for the disaster suffered the consequences only partially, while the tens of thousands of stockholders and the employees were ruined.

*

Let us return to the financial world, extraordinarily powerful today. Many say that the financiers produce nothing, transport nothing and distribute nothing : their fortunes, much greater than those of the active managers and producers, are thus acquired unjustly. Others underline the fact that the credits offered by the banks permit the financing of almost any project, big or small, which would not be possible without it: thus they are the beneficiaries.

At the root of all the drifts in human society, one finds the faults in the character of certain members, which others then exploit cleverly. In former times imagination was called "the fool of the house". Thus, it is a fault to fight against. Yet, today, on the contrary, imagination has gone wild and one asks it to take power.

One of the most celebrated fables of La Fontaine , which are the mirrors of popular wisdom, is "the milk maid and the pot of milk." Pierrette, who is carrying her pot of milk to sell it, thinks of all she will be able to do with her money : first the eggs which she will hatch to raise the chickens, the sale of which will permit her to buy some pigs, which will then permit her to buy a cow and her calf. Thinking of this, Perrette jumps with joy ... and breaks her pot of milk. "Goodbye calf, cow, pig and chickens..." The moral of this story : La Fontaine condemns the drifts of the imagination.

Let us leave La Fontaine and approach our present times. The banker appears and tells Perrette that she can immediately buy the cow, calf, pig and chickens. He loans her the money. All she has to do is pay a modest interest, and give her house as a guarantee. Since she will make a fortune, she will repay rapidly. The farmers of the region, seeing the apparant success of the young farmer, also decide to increase their production. One after the other, they go to the banker who loans money to each one with interest to pay and their farms as a guarantee. The production, which until then was sufficient , explodes. The overproduction and the lack of sales take place. Unable to pay their debts, the farmers lose their farms which thus become the properties of the fanciers. Of course, they remain as operators of the farms but for the benefit of the banks. They have lost their liberty and must account to the banks.

This perverse credit mechanism is true in all types of enterprises. A kind of competition which leads nowhere obliges them to turn to bank loans to invest in order to remain competitive. They have thus entered a vicious cycle and often become victimes. Today, it is more and more difficult for a boss to remain owner of his enterprise : sooner or later; his enterprise will be acquired by a financial group. Now, when an enterprise functions well thanks to the director, the cadries, the foremen and the employees, it generates a good profit and and a strong increase in value. Once it has been bought the profits are pocketed by the new owner. He is no better than a busybody.

*

In the past we did not live on credit as we do today. The middle ages were an epoch rich in productions and realizations of all sorts : houses, bridges, chateaux, churches, cathedrals, ships, carriages, furniture and oratorial instruments. Credit did not exist. There was no need to stimulate activity, because all was payed cash, even the religious monuments. In the case of the latter, when there was a shortage of money, the work stopped.

All was managed by an internal organization of the church called the church counsel. Enormous masses of gold circulated everwhere, and what is most important, one seldom heard of robberies, of misappropriation of funds, of corruption or of misuse of public funds. Today, even concerning the charity organizations, we hear such strange doings that the medieval honesty seems unimaginable to us !

It was a perfectly healthy economy, which left no worker unemployed . In all non agricultural activities, overproduction was impossible since they worked on orders. With the peasants, the harvest varied with the climatic conditions but not the work to be accomplished. As in the world of wild animals, one adapted to hard times.

If the usurers , then the financiers had not appeared , knowing how to play upon the weaknesses which we all have, we would probably still be paying cash. That would not at all hindered the technological evolution, for it is the inventive genius which is the motor of all evolution and not credit.

This so tempting credit has always allowed the financiers to prosper. In the best quarters of the cities, their headquarters show off their richess and hundreds of thousands of their emplyees are active in innumerable branches throughout the world. They are formidable organizations which exploit those who produce, but from which almost nobody can escape.

After having visited the headquarters and the branches of all the financial organizations of the world, go see the small and mediuum enterprises and the farms. You will be dismayed to ascertain that all those who produce the goods necessary for our lives, rarely have luxurious installations, and often live in mediocre or even miserable conditions. You will see a permanent scandal, and you will be astounded to learn that the media never say a word concerning this. Why? Because they all also belong to the financial powers.

*

In enterprises, we must distinquish between the work tool and those who use this work tool to create riches. In former times, for the peasants their work tools were the earth, the buildings, the materials and the domestic animals. They did not consider themselves as the owners but as tenants for life. The goods belonged to the family. Their duty was to care for the heritage and to pass it on. The son who did not conform to the tradition of his father and the lineage was said to be "denatured". The peasant was free to decide the management of the family patrimony, he alone was responsible for the proper accomplishment of his mission . The popular saying was: " Work, take the trouble, it is the base (work tool) which is the least lacking."

Another interesting example is that of the commercial ship. The shipowner outfitted the ship and managed the cargo. He bore directly the consequences of good or poor calculations, including those tied to the dangers of the sea. The Captain, the sole master aboard after God, was responsible for bringing the ship to port. In case of damages and diverse difficulties, he was not judged by the ship owner but by his peers - that is by other captains, the only ones capable of understanding his decisions and to sanction his errors during his navigation.

This so satisfactory sharing of responsibility is evidently rather far from our actual systems in which the board of directors are unable to judge the work of the director. Today, avoiding responsibility is the rule: "Responsible , but not quilty" ! In the large companies, the deciders suffer only partially the consequences of their errors. If the decision is made to fire them, instead of sanctionning them, they receive such a large departure indemnity that they can live in luxury.

Among the many cases cited in the press, we cite a typical example : in 2002, the chiefs of the suisse-swedish company ABB, forced to leave the company after having obtained bad results, received departure indemnities of 233 million suisse francs , that is 156 million euros, while the company registered a loss of 793 million euros !  

*

Many bosses of PME's consider themselves to be disillusioned : "In the end, we are working for the banks." In our actual competitive system, the obligation to use credit is not very different from the obligation to use publicity. In any case that does not change the classification among enterprises. It is the same as if one authorized doping for sportsmen. They would all be obliged to take dope and the results will not have changed. He who would refuse the system for his health would be illiminated. The only one to win would be the drug seller.

What is the manner in which enterprises are obliged to have recourse to the financial organizations ? The credit usual given is 60, 90 or 120 days. If an enterprise sells at 90 days that signifies that the credit furnisher represents a quarter of his turnover, which is considerable. Let us take as an example the following typical enterprise. The boss knows perfectly well the manufacturing technology and the possible evolutions. He must also master the market, the clients and the competition. In return, when he accepts credit, evaluating the risk is not his work, and is outside his competence. He has clients in France and abroad and he is unable to check their financial situation before delivering.

A more logical system consists of obliging the banks to open a company credit for each enterprise having an account ; this would permit the cash payment of all purchases . The banks could easily do this for they know perfectly well the account of their clients, the situation and the balance.

Besides, their job is to evaluate the risks. But they refuse this system and prefer that of bill of exchange or bill payable which the client returns to his supplier, who then discounts it with interest at the maturity. If the bill is not honored, the bank debits the account of the supplier. Thus the bank frees itself of the risk and keeps the interest.

The political powers could impose campaign credit but they prefer to preserve the privileges of the financial organizations , rather than helping the thousands of PME's, who do the best they can with the suppliers credit, in addition to the interest they pay to discount the bills. In fact, they support each year a certain number of unpayed bills which are added to the agios and other expenses.

When an enterprise wants to modernise its buildings, its equipment and its machines, it must again have recourse to its bank, which always asks for security guaranteeing it from all risks. Yet, we know that many banks have had heavy losses due to unfortunate operations, all of which seems contradictory to that which we have exposed above.

The real reason is that for the banks there are two types of clients : the PME's who usually do their banking with the lower management of the bank, who follow the directives of the directors. Then there are the large enterprises and certain privileged clients whose affairs are handled directly by the bank directors. For the PME's the rule applied on loans is pawnbrokering, that is secured loans. But for the large enterprises, if they have the same superior school deplomas as the financial directors, the banks practice loans on project, without demanding security.

Naturally, a young graduate of one of the French superior schools of commerce knows perfectly how to draw up a project with an assotment of figures. It is like Perrette and her pot of milk rewritten by a graduate of the Polythechnique or Ecole National de Commerce. Yet, a large number of business projects fail, which results in large losses for the banks. These banks then recover some with their loans to the PME's.and private parties.

The bosses of the large enterprises of today are essential financiers. thus, they seldom have the know-how to accomplish internal growth. Their real talent is speculation - that is, to have external growth by acquiring enterprises working in the same sector. They try to arrive at a dominant and profitable position in the sector.

The workers, victimes of these takeovers know they they are going to work for the financiers who expect a good return on their investment. Thus from this point of view, the lowering in the number of workers and dislocation of factories are perfectly logical options. The financiers which follow these practices are no worse than the armement makers. It is the system of which they are mere products which is pernicious.

*

In the previous pages I have tried to show how we have passed imperceptibly from a period where man produced and consumed without the need to borrow, to our actual epoch in which we all live on credit. Some assure us that this credit system is beneficial because it allows people to enjoy a few years earlier this "change for the better" which is progress. Consider this automoble which you pay over a period of several years, if you economize over those two years before buying you would not enjoy it, but alas, the bank would not profit from the loan it would have given you. Now If you economized, in two years you could again buy a new automobile. If you took the credit, you may have enjoyed you automobile for those two years, but it will have weakened your personal situation (risk of losing your job, less revenue due to various reasons, sickness, etc.), and above all it renders you more dependent.

Consumer credit, which many commerces now offer to customers at relatively high interest, is a veritable scandal. Hundreds of thousands of families having accepted the temptation find themselves suddenly unable to pay their debts.

As another example of the damages caused by using credit, we can cite the situation of the farmers who have become excessively endebted to obtain more machines to improve their productivity and thus their profits. The incontestable result has been that they merely became poorer, even completely ruined , while the Credit Agricole bank has, thanks to these loans, become one of the richest french banks. The farmers used this credit to speed up their modernization, finally, they have just speeded up their disappearance.

The idea of abolishing credit apears to be crazy and totally utopian. However, it is totally possible by a simple slow lowering of the legal length of loans with interest payment to finally arrive at a total suppression. The colassal mass of money managed by the financial organizations could slowly pass into the enterprises and private hands. The general economic situation would be greatly improved, especially during the economic crisis which appear periodically.

Let us consider the mecanisms of a crisis, whose consequences can sometimes be terrible. The majority of the enterprises are joint-stock companies, with the stocks negotiable on the stock market. If a company issues 10,000 shares , each share representing a fixed value, the price normally varies little during a year. But in reality this is not true. Why? Because the stocks have become obiects of a speculative game. At the time of a great increase in the profits of the company, the market price of their stocks takes off. Those known as the "insiders" - because there are always those who are better informed - have bought just before the rise and of course will resell soon after.

Just as their exist fashions which certain human beings follow subconsciously, in the stock market there are periods of collective euphoria . It was thus that in France in 1999 the global rise in the price of stocks was over 50 %. This of course was absurd if one had compared the real increase in the venal value of the enterprises, which normally the stocks represent.

The casino games, the lotteries, the horse races and many others are not sources of economic disorder, although they are considered by society as useless and an unmerited enrichment. Gambling was long condemned and considered by the religious authorities and even the socialists as immoral. Speculation in the stock market, which is much more dangerous for the economy, today on the contrary is practically never condemned.

Between 1919 and 1929, one could play the stock market on credit. You bought a stock on Wall Street for 100 dollars payable a year later. If at the end of the year the stock price was 120 dollars, you could sell it, pay your loan and still have a profit. Since the market prices continued to rise, enormous sums were invested, which of course caused an enormous inflation comparable to the Law sytem in the 18th century. Thus an enormous difference arose between the market (fictive) value and real value of the enterprises.

A financial bubble like this can spontaniously be absorbed but it causes multiple perturbations in economic activity. It can also implose as it did in 1929. It began in America and soon spread to Europe. It caused a cort_ge of failures, unemployment, exasperations, rancour and social misery. Without the 1929 Wall Street crash and its consequences, Hitler would probably not have been able to take power in Germany, which could have prevented the disasters of World War Two. Only the United States, where this earth quake began, finally acquired an enormous increase in economic and military power and riches.

The case of Japan is a bit different. We all know the quality of japanese products  : automobiles, motorcycles, cameras, computers, televisions, electronic games, mixers, fishing rods, etc. In all the modern industrial areas the Japanese have proved to be excellent. Thus their country should be one of the strongest economically. Yet today Japan is experiencing a grave crisis which seems incomprehensible to many. In reality it confirms the perverse effects of credit on project and to the impossibility of those who furnish the credit to ascertain the reaal value of these projects. The result is an avalanche of failures.

So where is the prosperity which one should have through credit ? A pawnbroker type loan appears not to be economically dangerous, credit on projet appears to be a high risk bet : it depends upon the capability of he who gives it to evaluate the real value of what is proposed. We should never forget that the 1929 Wall Street crash, provoked by the frantic speculation of the financiers, was directly responsible first for an enormously high level of unemployment and then of a terrible world war.

 

The exploitation of man by man

To exploit means , among others to use someone or something in order to profit from it. In nature all the animals use plants and other animals to live, but it is a durable exploitation, since the resources exploited are renewable, and in principle eternally. Primitive man left this natural order of things when he began to systematically exploit plants thanks to agriculture and animals thanks to breeding.

To exploit does not necessarly mean to misuse or mistreat. The intelligent peasant provides good pastures for herbivore animals and good cereals for his chickens, but he kills them as soon as they are ready for consumption. The human beings could not have left his natural animal state without abusively exploiting animals and plants. According to the Bible, Genesis (1.28) It is God who told man to "Increase and multiply, fill the Earth and conquer it, dominate the fish of the sea, the birds in the sky and all the beasts which swarm upon the Earth." Thus, to exploit nature to increase the human population was ordered by God . But the human being went far beyond that order.

Here is an example. Man has known since ancient times that certain women having learned the strong desire for sex felt by many men, and having realized their capability of accepting a large number without finding neither pleasure nor disgust, found the means to exchange pleasure for material goods. One could consider that as a form of exploitation of desire. Since, the paid prostitution practiced especially by pretty, somewhat lazy and not very intelligent women, to the exchange parties of the hypocritical upper classes, there exist many ways of exploiting the excess masculine sexuality. Naturally, certain men exploit prostitution by demanding a percentage for some hypothetical protection of the prostitute.

*

Before discoveries and inventions permitted man to exploit the energy resources, alas not renewable, animal and human force were used at a grand scale, usually under the condition that it brought in more than it cost. This was the long period of serfdom and slavery. This practices did not all chock the intellectuals of the time, who also profited by it. For example, we know that a great number of the signers of the american Declaration of Independance - "The founding Fathers" of the United States of America, were themselves slave owners.

Slavery has always been practiced. Here is what Frederich Engels, a friend of Karl Marx, wrote in 1875 : "It was slavery which made it possible on a rather large scale the division of work between agriculture and industry and afterward the apogee of the antic world: Hellenism. Without slavery, no greek state, no greek arts and sciences; without slavery no Roman Empire and no modern Europe. We should never forget that all our economic, political and intellectual evolution has as a preliminary condition a situation in which slavery is necessary as is generally admitted. Thus, in this sense we have the right to say : without the antique slavery, no modern socialism." When you admire art, the sciences and the philosophy which we have inherited from Antiquity, it is natural that we remember all those slaves thanks to whom the intellectuals and elite were able to devote their time to develop and use their talents.

Today the number of black Africans commercialized and used as slaves by various western nations is estimated to be at least 42 million. It is common today in France to condemn slavery, which is very easy since we do not need them. Our intellectuals and politicians are often rather discrete concerning this ancient slavery because it served the elite. Yet on the contrary, they are intransigent in their condemnation of that which served to enrich the slave traders, then the western planters and industrialists.

In effect, it is rather difficult to objectively judge the mores of other peoples, as well as those of our own in former times. Today at the dawn of our new religion of "human rights", we concluded quickly that all our ancestors were ignoble individuals. But as Montaigne had so justly said, one could consider that "Barbarism is that which is not of our usage". Thus my comments are not made to approve or condemn the ancient morals, but to verify their reality, to analyse them and to try to understand and explain them.

*

According to the historian Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau, a specialist concerning the question, slavery has existed since times immemorial in Africa as well as in the Near East, in Greece and in Egypt. But it seems that the only one of interest to the historians and the journalists is the immense black slave trade which existed essentially between the XIV th and XVIII th centuries.

The very poorly informed public often believes that the Blacks were captured and brought from Africa by the armed Portugese, Freenglish and Dutch troops. It was not so ! In effect, the european countries had rather large commercial fleets which traded with Africa but which seldom penetrated into the interior. Slavery already existed in Africa and local black traders offered this "merchandise" along with other items.

International commerce during those times was completely free, the authorities of the four western european countries did not intervene, moreover it took place primarily between Africa and the Americas. However, when it was learned that the far away French possessions used slaves, Louis the XIV th, who could have easily simply ignored the situation, decided with Mr.Colbert to promulgate the "Black Code".

Today, this Black Code is considered by the intellectuals as "a legal infamy", as a veritable crime against humanity. They often cite the articles in which it is notibly written that a slave has the statut of a chattel, that assemblying is forbidden, that runaways would have an ear cut, etc. Present thusly, the Code Noir appears to be terrible. It would have been if it had worsened the lot of the slaves. But, it appears that it was just the opposite - of course depending upon the degree to which the royal authorities could apply it. In effect, the relations between humans depend much more upon their nature than upon the laws which regulate them. Let us recall that in France in 2004 there were 1.5 million complaints made by battered women and that 29 of those died because of this bad treatment. It seems evident that there are more battered women since they are supposedly protected by the law than when they were not protected by the law, simply because the mores have changed.

Thus let us examine this "Code Noir" and try to understand what were the objectives of the makers. By considering the slave from the judicial point of view as a piece of furniture (today he would be considered rather as a machine), Colbert was only confirming reality. In effect, it was the Africans who were selling their compatriots by considering them as merchanise. Thus, those who bought them from the slave traders could also resell them. The primary responsibles for this system were the african authorities, who did not want to allow their subjects to leave the country freely. Colbert's second objective was to avoid incidents between the two communities - one very numerous, the Blacks, and the other much less numerous, the Whites. That is why in article 16 he forbid the slaves to gather together day or night. It is exactly the same as we do today when we forbid the assemblying at night of the young in the difficult quarters of the cities, who are most often the sons of immigrants.

The punishments inflicted upon the slaves who disobeyed the authority of the whites was certainly severe. Compared to those inflicted today upon our juvenile delinquents and criminals they appear to us as extremely cruel. But if we compare them to those applied in France at the same epoch, we can only relativize. Let us recall that during the reign of François the First, torture, quartering, and decapitation by the hatchet or the sword were used frequently, that a male or female thief were hung, that poisoners and heritics were burned on the stake, that counterfitters were boiled in oil. All were finally abolished during the reigne of Louis XVI and replaced by the quillotine . Compared to all those cruel methods , an ear cut appears as nothing at all !

*

The third question aborded by Colbert and Louis XIV concerned the protection of slaves against bad masters.as well as the possibility of a change of status. While Article 1 merely repeats the previous law which prescribed the chasing of all Jews from the colonies, article 2 prescribes that all the slaves will be baptized and instructed in the catholic, apostolic, roman religion. When we realize that in those times all the French practiced this religion and that the clergy were all powerful, we can measure the importance of this article : the slave refound his human dignity.

Finally, the last articles of the Code Noir are dedicated to freeing of slaves. They consist of giving the slave the same rights as the master. For example, we can read there : "The masters after the age of 20 can free their slaves ... without giving reasons for their freedom."

Article 55 ; "The slaves who have been named as heir by the master, or executor of their testaments, or tutor of their children, will be considered as freed."

(article 56):; "We declare... the slaves do not need our letters of nationality to enjoy the advantages of the natural subjects of our kingdom, land and countries under our obedience..."

(Article 57) : We grant to the freed the same rights, priviledges and immunities as enjoy those persons born free; we wish the merit of acquired libery produces in them, as much for their person as their goods, the same effects as the happiness of natural liberty causes to our subjects." (article 59)

It is thus that this "legal infamy" finishes, drawn up by Colbert and others and signed by Louis XIV. It is obvious that this code, incontestibly conceived to regulate slavery, aims at sanctioning the harshest of masters and to help the most charitable. But we must also admit that its adoption did not change much in the relations between the Blacks and the Whites.

All those who have read the novel "Gone with the wind" or have seen the film inspired by it, will have noticed how well the Blacks were integrated and could express themselves as if they were members of the family - in a way that is freer than our domestic help of today finds in some of our middle class families.

In the colonies, the revolts which occured were almost always made by the freed slaves. For they were able to confirm that to have the same rights did not confer perforce the same capabilities nor possibilities. The Blacks of today who have exceptional gifts for sports, music and the dance - which are less frequent in whites - have only rarely shown much talent in the domains of organization and of technical and scientific creation. A white transplanted into an african tribe would make a sad performance, for he would find it dificult to adapt to the hunting and domestic techiques.

In the same way, for a black african living in a country organized by the whites, to receive the same rights as the whites will not guarantee that he will succeed as well as they in all domains. The freed slaves who had acquired the same rights as their former masters were surprised that they were always refused for certain functions. Of course there was always some racism, but it must be understood that the social system in which they found themselves was conceived for the whites keeping into account their specific capabilities. So integrating former slaves was not an easy thing. That is why the freed slaves often revolted.

*

In the French ancient regime there existed three social classes : the clergy, the nobles and the commons. The clergy regrouped almost all the intellectuals and they wanted to reign over the mind, the nobles were those of power and force, the commons was the know-how to do.

The commons was made up of the artisans and the peasants most of whom lived in small rural communities in which they all knew each other. They were largely self-sufficient since each village lived practically in autarchy. The peasant produced the food, the artisans weaved the materials for clothes, constructed the homes, the roads, the carriages, the furniture, the wash houses, the fountains, the instruments, etc. All the activities were grouped into totally independent corporations.

Therefore, one might think that the artisans and the peasants could have easily done without the clergy and the nobles, thus they would be richer (they would escape the taxes) and that their material life would be better. In any case, the global social system would have been very different. Of course, in those times the artisans knew how to join the useful to the agreeable , the beautiful to the functional. Almost all they made by hand was well done and beautiful. Without them France would not have had beautiful churches, monastaries, cathedrals, castles, nor all the sumptuous things which they contain.

Nicolas Fouchet is one of the symbols of this ambivalence of the role of the nobles. Not only did he make an immense fortune in a short time by abusively taxing the commons; but he also transformed a part of this fortune into works of art of a durable and inestimable value.

As I have already written, exploiting is not necessarily synonymous with mistreating. Whether it be by self interest or by goodness, the nobles worked to protect their "subject" and helped them to become more prosperous. A great number of vegetables, fruits and flowers were introduced into France by the aristocrates from which the peasants also benefited. We all know the story of the origin of the potato !

In effect, no more than the habit makes the monk, the function does not make the man. Within the nobles and the clergy there were in all times admirably couragous, good and devout men, just as there were brutes, egoists and fools. Also, it is rare not to find men in power who don't abuse it, sometimes a little sometimes excessively.

Montesquieu wrote that "all absolute corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". It is difficult for men to resist temptation when it is at hand. It is the abuses of certain ones which finally lost the aristocrates and the clergy. One of the profound causes of the French Revolution was that too many of the ruling class had forgotten the basic principle : he who directs must not only be he who gives orders, but also he who gives the example.

If the commons had not had above them the clergy and the nobles, France would have probably remained a country formed of a mutitude of small communities living in autarchy and speaking a mulitude of languages. It is by trying to exploit these popular masses that the nobles had forged a nation without really wishing it. That is, they had no other objective than to have the largest possible piece of territory so that a maximum numbrer of peasants could be taxed.

This desire for power of certain nobles can be compared , in our present day, to the bosses of the large corporations who dream of acquiring other companies - not for the benefit of the workers or for the prosperity of the company which they wish to control, but simply for their own enrichment and happiness and that of their board of directors.

When in former times, after a war, a certain region passed under the domination of a new prince, the only change for the inhabitants was their taxes which served to enrich a new soverain. It required many years before the inhabitants grouped together by the same soverain became conscious of belonging to the same country. Just before the French Revolution, less than a half of the population of the kingdom spoke French ! It was still so a century later. It was the French Republic which was decisive when it instituted military conscription and imposed French as the national language and obligatory schooling.

Although the opinions concerning the good or the bad of the clergy and the nobles are divided, we must admit that they both committed a terrible error. In effect, after having condemned as vile and dangerous the commerce of money - that is to say primarily the loans with interest - they finished by accepting it and finally abusing it. The commerce of money permitted certain men to amass immense fortunes by this form of activity completely foreign to the biblical imperatif : "You will earn your bread by the sweat of your brow." The syytem of values which recompensed until then the most capable and the most courageous soon began to disappear.

With their newly acquired fortunes, the most capable for the commerce of money were able to slowly acquire all the means of production. But as we have already seen, the enterprises - whether they be industrial, agricultural, commercial or services - make profits a part of which is distributed as salaries to those who did the work, while the rest forms the profits which belong to the owners. and also increases the value of he enterprise. But when it is a question of financiers as owners, they do not participate in the functioning of the enterprise, except to bring in capital which serves partially to invest. Thus it is a parasitic system which is consecrated.

All this capitalistic system can be legitimized only by the dogma according to which all that is new is progress... that is, a "change for the better". A veritable rush forward which is supposed to permit us to enjoy innovations sooner, but they need capital to be realized. In ancient Europe, when there were few innovations and in which the means of production evolved very slowly, the artisans and peasants were content to renew their instruments and tools occassionally. They had no need for capital, the real productive economies were sufficient. And when a supplier made credit it was always without interest !

 

Greatness and decadence of the peasantry

A long time ago, primitive man subsisted like other omnivorous animals on fruits, vegetables, fish and game. Certain men with an inventive mind then had the idea of systematically producing their food by using agriculture and raising animals. Then, like for most animals, to feed himself represented the major part of man's activities, besides the time dedicated to perpetuation. They formed about 95% of the French population. Thus, Mr. Sully was able to say in the 17th century : "ploughing and grazing are the two mammaries of France."

Until the 17th century, the peasants formed about 95 % of the french population. Since most individuals aborbed about the same amount of food, it is easy to understand that they consumed grosso modo 95 % of what they produced. Therefore their conditions were very different from the farmers of our XXIst century who generally produce only to sell and often do not even raise chickens or vegetables for their family consumption.

When a peasant cares himself for his chickens, rabbits, pigs or his calf, their quality and taste remains the same for his family and the potential buyer. This type of farming lasted until the 19th century, which knew the apogee of french gastronomy. In effect, even the best cook cannot make a first class dish of chicken or trout raised on an industrial farm. Today, a wild trout living in a clear mountain stream, feeding on small fish and insects no longer exists. A chicken raised on a farm in the open air and catching grasshoppers and worms, all free of chemical products, has also practically disappeared.

The Peasants, this numerous population, so healthy thanks to their intense physical activity, acustomed to the rigors of the weather (unheated homes) and eating natural products, formed an extraordinary breeding ground. Of course, they suffered terrible epidemics, which usually came via the ports where the people lived in contact with many imported foreign germs and maladies existing in latent or endemic form in other populations, to which the natural defenses of the French population were not adapted.

As with wild animals, in the rural population the child mortality rate was very high but that was compensated by the fecundity of the peasant women and did not in any way perturb the activity of the survivers. Death was considered merely as a change in state and the beginning of a new life;To qualify this demographic system, the biologists speak today of an "R strategy", which is characterized by a very large number of children where one occupied oneself very little with them.

In our modern society there is the "K strategy", which on the contrary is characterized by a small number of children which are very much cared for by the parents. Of course, one can be indignant towards these ancient mores - qualified today as being cruel - but they should be placed in their context. Montaigne - who in his writings admitted that he did not know exactly how many children he had - remarked soberly : "Each one calls barbaric that which is not of his usage."

It required only two centuries to destroy this thousand year old peasantry. It began slowly then accelerated. When there are victims -and the peasant class was indeed a victim - we all have a natural, instinctive and inborn reaction which consists of looking for a quilty party. We have the feeling that in all circumstances there are those who are good and those who are bad, and it is sufficient to kill the bad to cure the social ills and save the victims. Alas, when we consider it closely, we find the often the victims themselves are directly or indirectly responsible for the harm they have endured. Thus, by accusing hypothetical responsible ones, they merely give themselves a clear conscience by dodging responsibility.

*

The history of the autodestruction of the European peasantry is particularly revealing, and even exemplary. It is exemplary because nobody had decided or wanted it, whether it was the peasants themselves, the citizens, the politicians or the lay and religious thinkers. It happened in spite of all. This autodestruction demonstrates very well that nobody directs evolution, that it is totally unpredictable and it can have the worst consequences.

The French peasants autodestroyed themselves by freely adopting innovations which appeared to promise a bettering of their lot. The first catastrophy occured during the first part of the 19th century with the invention by Edward Adams of the still, which permitted the manufacture of alcohol from fruits.

The Brittons and the Normands, which were a vigorous and energetic population, suffered directly the terrible consequences of the over consumption of calvados. Very many of them became alcoholics, but even worse, their descendants suffered the consequences. Worst of all, it was often the best and strongest who were seduced by the new drink. Thus, the result was a damaging reverse selection. Even today it is in the northwest of France where we find among the young a rather high level of alcoholics.

Three other inventions were introduced sometime later. All three were destined to increase the harvests and diminish the effort to produce them. Of course, they were received enthusiastically by many farmers. These three aids were : chemical fertilizers, pesticides and the machines which replaced the ox and the horse.

The pesticides include the insecticides which kill the insects harmful to plants, the fungicides which protect against cryptogramic maladies, and those which killed the weeds which were before where often cleared by hand.

In former times, the harmful insects were to a great part eliminated by the birds and the plants cultivated then had a natural resistence to plant diseases. The young generation of farmers thought that the insecticides would destroy the insects not destroyed by birds. But in reality, by destroying the insects by poisons, they also destroyed large numbers of insectivore birds. After the treatments with fungicides, the natural defenses of the plants were also weakend . Moreover, the improvement of plants by selection often give plants less resistant to diseases. The insecticides and fungicides soon became indispensible inspite of their inconviences. Moreover, the pesticides and the fertilizers containing too many nitrates are the primary causes of the polution of our water ways and the water table.

Then the tractor came. With far less work and fatigue It permitted to plow, to harrow, to plant and to weed, and finally the combine by which one could cut, gather and reap at the same time. All these inventions were the promise of a veritable golden age for the farmers but there were unforeseen consequences. Where 20 persons were required to cut a field of wheat, to dry it,, to thrash it and to put it in bags, only 1 man was needed to drive the combine. The result : the 19 others were out of work and had no choice but to migrate to the cities to become factory workers or join the unemployed ranks.

Naturally, those costly machines were not well adapted to small farms nor to polyculture. The government technocrates encouraged the regrouping , the suppression of the hedges (which played an important ecological role and notably in preventing flooding and limiting to effects high winds) and the constitution of large surfaces for monoculture. Thus certain areas were entirely consecrated to cerials, others to sugar beets, others to potatos, others to fruit trees, etc. Our pleasant countryside with its diverse aspects was transformed into the American style monoculture farms. Have you ever walked through a 1000 acre sugar beet farm ?

Moreover, to buy the new machines, the farmers became endebted - and by a sort of individualism, they rarely regrouped in cooperatives to buy the costly machines. The more they became endebted the more the Credit Agricol bank displayed an insolent prospertity. Here again we find the sad reality of what we have already shown : the financiers become richer as the producers become poor and gradually disappear. That is how , thanks to our marvellous technical innovations, the number of French peasants has passed from 95 % of the population to 3 % !

Another incident due to the socalled "change for the better" was the increase in productivity. this overproduction causes a drastic drop in prices and a complete dependence of the farmer on the visissitudes of the market.

*

I had the pleasure of meeting an octogenairian whose parents had had a farm in the Finist_re at the end of the 19th century; He told me that he remembered that the people were perfectly happy. He assured me that his grandmother had never been angry in all here life , and that her 12 children were all A students. Since I tried to imagine how this family of 17 children lived, without family allocations and on a farm where the earth was not very fertile. I concluded that they must have had a fairly large farm. The man quickly set me straight. His parents only had 12 acres ! The ferm thus resembled a large vegetable garden with a large hen house to produce food which served to nourish the whole family. Unnecessary to say that the world price of pork, of wheat and of potatoes did not preoccupy these farmers ! They simply continued to live in autoarchy, in a totally independent but responsible manner.

Today, in order to survive, french agriculture has access to about twenty different types of government aid. In the Orne department, which I know very well, a member of the agriculture service assured me that if the subventions were surpressed, all the agriculture enterprises would go bankrupt within a year. Naturally these "compensatory aids" are accompanied by administrative directives and controls. Since the entry of France into the European Union, the surveillance of the agricultural sector has become more and more fussy. Concerning this I found a letter by a farmer entitled "The farmer facing the administration" sent to and printed in the Orne newspaper. He paints a revealing picture full of a bitter irony.

Here is the text :

"Courage, let us flee...

"During our Agricultural fair, a public poll revealed the 75 % percent of those asked said they found the farmers "courageous and modern". The qualification " courageous" makes one smile when it is used at a time when the non-farmer work week is 35 hours paid 40.

"Courage, it is certainly needed to be able to support the veritable pounding offered each week by the press on our profession, which points its finger at us for the least bit of malfunction. Courage, it is certainly needed to be able to fill out the great number of forms before the 30th of April, because besides the PAC documents destined to obtain the compensations (and not premiums) which only partially compensate the alignment of our agricultural prices on the world prices. That's not all, their are two other files.

"The DAP file (Declaration of Activities of Pollution) a file of unbelievable administrative heaviness : the vocabulary is undigestible, there are equations and coeffients of a delirious complexity, and there is the end to meet all ends , " of world class", the modulation of compensatory aids file. This file is used to calculate the standard gross margin, and just in case, it is used to modulate the compensatory aid.

"It begins with two options :

Option 1 : I check the box "I do not fill in", In this case the standard gross margin accounts for 150,000 écus at the 1994 value (the écu is used because it is more cutting and resounding than the euro !)

"Option 2 : I check the box "I fill in...", and there, be carefull for your eyes, the desire for details is astounding, even inquisitory. Here are several edifying examples repeated textually :

"Example 1 : A cow present all year on the farm counts for one in the JO7 catagory, but three male cows remained the entire year and which had one year on the first of november will count for 304 days x three animals which divided by 365 days = 2.391 in the catagory JO2 and (365J -304) x three animals which divides 365 days = 0.499 in the catagory JO3. Question : what does one do for the leap year ? "Example 2 : For the poultry. Declare the mean annual number even if used only for family consuption.

"Box J14 : Chickens male and female of the "Gallus" species raised as layers but not as yet producing, etc. Thus I had 7 chickens, a fox ate one of them and I suspect that two have not as yet laid eggs, that makes a total of how many ?

"Box J17 : Rabbits, always concerning family consumption. Only the females having given birth at least once are to be declared, do not declare the rabbits bred for the first time... There, I hesitate, because I have three female rabbits and I don't know if they are pregnant and I suspect that one of them is a male. Obviously I have a problem.

"None of the above is invented and I will do you the favour of not presenting the other seven items of the same type. and I will not write about the difference between associate cultivations, mixed cultivations and successive cultivations, or of the vegetable garden with its dozen tomato plants, seven turnups and eventually the snails.

"Our National Education and our Universities should question themselves concerning their production of such brains for our ministries. Rabelais said: "It is better to have a well made head than a full head.

"We have escaped for the moment a fourth file, that of the CTE which is destined to more or less to neutralize the two preceding ones. For the moment it is blocked at the starting block (too complicated they tell us) !

"In his letter sent to the farmers, the minister states that all the measures are made to reorient our agriculture and to create jobs. Jobs for bureaucrates without a doubt, to fill out lists and process the numerous files, and of course to control them, for the signature of each file is preceeded by the inevitable: "I certify... and I promise to communicate to the administration all elements needed in an eventual control of my farm and all errors in the declaration can lead to a nonpayment of the compensations and even penalties" !

"Ladies and Gentlemen farmers gather up your chickens if the roosters are on the loose and be careful of the rabbits who go astray !

"Those people are going to make us love America ..."

G. Suzanne, La Perche, 4 May 2000.

To tell the truth, our farmers of today have nothing in common with those of the past. But the misfortune of our farmers does not stop there. Certainly, most live very poorly and pass permanently under the humilitating conditions of assistance and control. They are no longer able to manage their farms as they wish, and furthermore, while in former times they were valued, now they are scorned and even detested.

In effect, the fertilizers and pesticides which they use and the industrial type of stock farming which they practice are the primary causes of the pollution of the water tables, that is the water indispensible for our survival. Long gone are the times when each one had at his disposition a well or a fountain of pure water. Long gone are the rivers where you could catch all kinds of good fish. The bottoms of the rivers in Brittany are covered with a brown layer caused by pollution , and if today the salmons have returned symbolically, it is only due to the considerable investments and governmental subsidies.

As for the breeding ground of hard working men which once formed the great majority of the french population, it has completely disappeared. The peasant class committed suicide when it adopted all the new technologies.

*

The intellectuals think that it is their ideas which lead the world. Was the slow disappearance of the peasants due to the putting into place of a particular doctrine which foresaw in the changes a happy evolution of our society ? Then who were the choristers of this mutation ? What writer, what philosophe and what politician consecrated their talents to recommend the end of the rural world ? To tell the truth, there was not one ! On the contrary, many had broken hearts upon seeing the gradual agony of a certain peasant France, which many writers described with sadness and nostalgia. Thus, the european society was transformed without even one intellectual or one political leader having explicitly wished it.

Therefore, we see that there are always two worlds which cohabit : on one side the concrete real world which evolves at the will of technological inventions ; on the other side the abstract world of the manipulators of pure ideas, who disallusion themselve permanently in believing they have the capability of changing the world. When a change , resulting from the adoption of certain innovations, affects society as a whole certain can of course be offended and thus combat it, others approve with pride as if it were they who were the cause. In Reality, all are merely flys in the ointment. None of that will effect evolution which, finally, only obeys its intrinsic logic.

Inspite of, religions, ideologies, and political systems very different one from the other, most of the peoples of the world have adopted the automobile, portable telephone, television, radio, travel by plane, etc. This worldwide extension of new technologies results in a greaer and greater homogination of life styles and cultures. Only a few irreductible specificities resulting from the inborn characters proper to each ethnie or people remain.

The principle role of the political power is to merely codefy the changes. The arrival of the automobile had forced the governments to establish driving rules. It is essentially the same for all innovations. But we also note that all those laws, although by very diverse political regimes, end up strangely resembling each other; When one approches concrete problems, in general there is only one possible technical solution to solve it. Then it must be made to work , and then the rules edited to make it respected. It is only at this level the different political regimes , according to whether they we strong of weak, that they have the means to enforce that they be respected by the people or ethnies which can be more or less disciplined.

*

The peasantry, formaly hard working, healthy and with a fecundity permitting nations to grow and develop, today has essentially disappeared. Let us not hesitate in saying that it is : "one of the greatest socialogical catastrophies in the history of humanity.

The taste quality of agricultural foods has diminished. Formerly totally "biological", they are now nourished with chemical fertilizers and insecticides. the general aspect of our countryside continues to degrade because of the suppression of the bocage and the disappearance of polyculture. With the arrival of fertilizers, pesticides and agriculteral machinery, our peasants thought they were arriving at the golden age. It was alas, just the contrary.

Before they were loved and admired, today they are accused of having become the biggest polluters. Before, they were independent and responsible, now they are under the orders of fussy bureaucrates who dispense aids and subsidies upon which depend their survival. Yesterday they formed the largest social class. In less than several decades they have become a marginal population almost at the point of disappearing.

This "change for the better" looked at objectively is certainly an aspect of progress which merits reflection.

 

Publicity

Man, by his very nature, belongs to a gregarious species. He informs his alikes and he is informed by them - of all which passes inside and outside the community. During prehistoric times primitive man could already notify others of the discovery of a source of nurishment or the approach of a dangerous preditor. This information transmited by word of mouth seems at first sight to resemble the procedures of publicity, which consist of bringing an information to the attention of the public. However, the informer had no particular personal interest in ensuring that the members of his community take into account his communications. It was given in a purely altruistic way to help in the survival of his group.

Publicity, as we see it today, was born the day when an individual found it of personal interest to bring to the attention of the community that he had something to sell . At the orgin this was merely an information and not an incentive to buy. But the boundry between these two concepts is not always easy to discern. However, today, it is clear that publicity informs of a product for the purpose of inciting to buy it.

The first "publicity" information system was the sign and the first reaction against this sketch inciting consumption was the popular saying: "Good wine has no sign". As many ancient proverbs this one exposes in a minimum of words the fundamental problem of modern publicity. If all the wines of the world were delivered in the same type of bottles, with the same label, the consumer's choice would only be made according to his taste and his financial means. Now publicity - indirect when it uses different medias, direct when it is directed to the customer via brochure, or by packaging which valorizes the article at the selling point - has as a purpose the exercizing of a psychological pressure which diverts the public from its natural choice. Thus, choice has become cultural - it is induced by exterior pressure - popularly known as brain washing !

Other than the fact that publicity incites one to make a choice different than that which one would make naturally, it also increases the price. In effect, the cost of publicity is reflected in the price. The publicity investment is higher when the seller tries by this means to make his product look better than the competitors. A telling example is the price of a perfume - 25 % is due to publicity !

There is of course a difference between informative publicity, which makes known the existence of a new product and describes it with a maximum of objectivity, and incitative publicity which, by psychological action, deforms natural judgement. This is by far the most used. It is "always lying" at a minimum by omission. In any case, one or the other contributes to "progress" since the only and unique implicite message is that happiness in life consists of consuming more and more !

*

But why this publicity, which increases the cost of all which we buy and also incites to make a bad choice, has it developed so considerably ? It is because we live in an information society and that, if an enterprise makes publicity for a given product, it is because they hope to increase their sales in detriment to their competitors. Each enterprise believes it will increase its sales by increasing its publicity budget. The result is an increase in competition among them with the result that we are more and more mentally intoxicated and submerged in an excess of images which would have stupified our great grand parents.

large enterprises have at their disposal a publicity budget and it is clear that the publicity campaigns which they launch tend to annul each other. It's somewhat like doping of athletes : as soon as some take dope, the others are obliged to follow. The performance level increases , but since doping has become the rule, the general classification is not modified. It is the same with publicity campaigns . As soon as a certain number of enterprises resort to it, the others must follow. Here again the final classification is not modified. Only the pocketbooks and the health of the consumers suffir the consequences.

Globally, publicity does not increase consumption. I present as proof a report by Jacques Bille, vice president of the AACC, published in 1996, on the Evin law concerning the interdiction of publicity in favor of alcohol and tobacco.

"Two facts are obvious in the report : The Evin law has not contributed in improving the heath of the French. Several studies are conclusive : that is, that in the european countries, there is no correlation betweeen the consumption of tabacco and the interdiction or not of publicity.

"On the contrary, the negative consequences of the law on the advertising sector is evident : in six years the loss in advertizing revenue amounts to 900 million francs !"

Let us sum up the thoughts of Jacques Bille : alcohol-tabaco publicity serves nothing but it gives the publicity agents an income of 225 million francs per year... paid by the consumer ! Let us suppose that in a certain country publicity on alcohol and tabacco are effectively forebidden. Well, that will not change consumption. That could even increase it if the economy made by the producers was used to lower the prices. Thus, the clients choice would be made by the comparative pleasure procured by the different brands of alcohol and tabacco.

Moreover, we should distinquish the consumption tied to a passing fashion to lasting consumption, whether it does or does not serve of basic needs. Needs do not depend upon publicity. That is why, at the beginning of the twentieth century , the bakers offered only large loaves of bread and the French consumed 900 grams per person. At the end of the same century, in spite of the offer of many different kinds of bread, the consumption had dropped to only 150 grams per day per person. The publicity did not improve the level of sales. It was the eating habits which had changed.

As for tabacco, it is not the absence of publicity which can lower the consumption : it is first the substantial increase in sales price and secondly on the consequences on the health of the numerous smokers. Studies show that the number of women smokers continues to rise and the effect on health of smokers is evident. If the consumption by women continues to increase, as is shown in resent studies, it is not because of publicity. It is first a life style and simply because all the new female smokers have not as yet fully noted the bad consequences of smoking !

*

The history of the consumption of tabacco is both interesting and rich in information.

We know that it was in 1565 that Jean Nicot (thus the name "nicotine") lord of Villemain, introduced into France the plant which we call tabacco, as well as its usage - which he had observed in South America. In those times, the elite of french society took pride in introducing new flowers, fruits and vegetables , which shows how close the entire population was to nature.

At first tabacco was considered to be a good medicine. Perhaps they had not had enough time to confirm its harmfulness, or perhaps the hardiness and the excellence of the natural defenses of the men of those times was sufficient to preserve them. In effect, it is the constant weakening of our natural defenses which has resulted in the appearance of diseases which did not exist before except in a latent state. Besides, even today the damages of tabacco are not the same on all individuals.

It was in the middle of the 19th century that the doctors noted that the excessive use of tabacco caused certain diseases, such as chronic bronchitis. Nobody listened because under the reign of Napoleon, the manufacture of tabacco was a state monopoly which meant that the sale of this product helped fill the state coffers. Thus the successive governments desisted from combating smoking, for it was a source of revenue. Moreover during the third republic - a rather socialist regime - tabacco was distributed free to all the young men during their obligatory military service. That is where most young frenchmen learned how to smoke. It is only recently that the public powers have begun to institute measures to diminish the use of tabacco.

This brief history of tabacco shows the time needed to know precisely all the favorable or unfavorable effects of an innovation. It also shows how difficult it is for a democratic power to combat a drug which is appreciated by a majority of the voters, especially when the state profits notably from the diffusion of the product.

*

For a given population, the revenue available for spending is not extensible. Normally each individual uses his salary to pay for his lodging, his cloths, his food, banking, voyages, etc. Since all those who offer these products of consumption also use publicity, there exist little chance that they will increase their part of the market. Only the availability of credit can increase the global consumption to the extent that the amount of credit surpasses the amount of repayment. The governments which try to augment the consumption know this - to their great regret, for if it were otherwise it would be a marvellous means to keep their promises.

Today, so many new products or changes in old products appear each year, that informative publicity is indispensable. But where do we stand on incitive publicity ? It plays the same role as the super saleman who, after his sale, leaves you with the feeling that you have been had ! However, the publicists pretend that they can do nothing for a bad product and can only promote the good. This we can doubt. It is perhaps true concerning frequently renewed products, which one can stop buying after having tried them. But how about all the others ...

You have certainly read, like many of us, books which you have judged as perfectly worthless, but for which an enormous publicity, usual well done, incited you to buy. We can also cite as an example the video. When the first magnetoscopes appeared on the market, several types were proposed to the public. In general, the Betamax system was judged as the best. However, its rival, the VHS system imposed itself. The conceptors had merely put into effect a much more aggressive publicity campaign.

This is an example of the evil influence of publicity : with that could we say bad "money" often chases the good. We know that we are all more or less able to be influenced, even for the renewable products for which the exact ratio quality/price is not always easily calculated . Often, an incitive publicity which is rather a veritable intoxication, thanks to the telling images or the repetition of slogans, can easily swing the balance and not necessarily in favor of the best quality product but of the one for which the best publicity was made.

*

Let us return for a moment to this consumption of fashions which concerns primarily the young and the women. It is a phenomenon which did not exist in other times, except in a marginal manner among a tiny group of idle rich. The young of today who believe they are the most free and most independent part of our society are, alas, the most submitted to fashions of the day. The makers of fashions use the dominants, that is to say, the admired people to launch their new things, which has no other purpose than to increase their business. An excellent thing you will tell me, because since commerce is good for industry and that is what gives work to people.

In reality, the fashion system represents an enormous waste, for all which is in fashion is soon rejected for a new fashion and only a small part is recycled! As is often said: "fashion is that which is quickly no longer in fashion !"

Besides, incitement publicity favours the adoption of innovations which utilize unrenewable resources without trying to know if they could be replaced by renewable resources. Without being an initiator, it participates in a dangerous evolution provoked by our continuous search for the least effort and new sensations.

Since, in all the social classes almost everyone watches television, this phenomenon also merits being analysed. In France there exists a great number of television chains, especially since the installation of cable networks (why this term "chains" which also signifies enslavement ?). Most ot these are free, as is also true for the radio chains. The gratuity evidently seems to be sympathetic. But in reality it is illusory , since in reality this chains live thanks to publicity. Thus, since the cost of publicity is included in the price of the things we buy and consume, it is through the purchase of many products that we pay for the radios we listen to and the televions we watch.

But that is not all ! Because of being financed by publicity, the radio and television chains inevitably depend upon the demands of the publicists. But, these have but one preoccupation : to be heard and seen by a maximum number of people. Since they are convinced that in order to have this vast public, they must offer , especially during the hours of maximum audience, rather low level popular type programs, thus of doubtful quality. Moreover, a direct correlation has been established between the publicity budgets of the radio and television chains and the degradation of the quality and level of their programs.

When attacked concerning the vulgarity of many of his programs, one of the directors of the major station was honest enough to admit that his role was to sell a maximum of publicity space. We know that the price of a minute of publicity is proportional to the number of viewers (measured by the "audimat"). Thus the television emits primarily programs which the directors think will interest the widest audience. Those who have other preoccupations - less numerous but having a larger buying power - are offered late night programs with publicity better adopted to their tastes.

A television in the hands of an intellectual class who would think only of raising or "cultivating" the people, thus lead the people to resemble them, would also be a grave error. Each person, each social milieu and each category of television viewer expects to see programs fitting his tastes, his identity and his specificity. Thus, replacing the amusing programs by purely inellectual and educative programs , even with the best of intentions, is not a solution. But we know that an amusing program destined for a large audience can be at a low or high level and that the desire to please everyone is not an excuse to accept mediocrity or vulgarity.

Publicity on televisioni s the only source of revenue for the private chains. It is often fallacious, mostly by omission. They are also continually impolite - they continually and systematically interrupt the speakers (the programs). That is, they abusively interrupt all programs whether it be a film or a live debate. The shows which captivate us, interest us and touch us are continuously interrupted for the publicity spots, the contents of which have nothing to do with the program we are watching.

This type of interruption is odious, but the television chains cannot do otherwise. To be able to sell their publicity they must assure the client that all will be done to insure that it is seen. That is also one of the reasons why many programs do not start at the announced time, because the publicity has priority. Not long ago, the television was rather a succession of programs interrupted by publicity spots. Today it is almost nothing more than a succession of publicity interrupted by programs !

*

I would now like to envisage what would be the comportment of a consumer in case of the absence of publicity and try to imagine the consequences. The consumer, In this case, not being influenced and guided in his purchase by "advertising" would be interested primarily in the quality/price ratio of the products. He would first have to multiply the comparative trials, which would be an intellectual activity. Then, he would ask the advise of others.

Finally, he would read the reports by the advertizers who would eventually cease publishing publicity. Having lost this important source of revenue, it would be necessary to assist them, for example, by abolishing a certain number of taxes they pay - they could be granted free postage, etc. The reports would then have a better chance of being equitable. The enterprises would then know that they could no longer use brain washing publicity to sell their products, but only their quality/price ratio.

*

In order to terminate this subject, I would like to analyse a preconceived idea concerning the consumption by households. It is believed that this consumption depends upon three factors : publicity, credit and the increase in openning hours of the stores. In reality it is just the contrary.

If the volume of consumer credit increases enormously, if the amount of publicity doubles and the stores remained open twenty four hours a day, seven days a week , the consumption of goods would diminish instead of increasing, for the simple reason that sales prices would have increased. In effect, credit simply diminishes the buying power by the amount of interest to be paid. The cost of publicity increases the price of the products and finally the increasing in openning hours increases considerably the stores operating costs, thus also their sales prices to maintain the same turnover. In most cases, that which the stores sold before in eight hours , would now be sold in twenty four hours !

Thus, all the procedures thought to augment the sales run against the fact that the consumption depends only upon the money received by the consumers in the form of salaries, retirement pay, private income, etc. This amount is essentially stable.

What are that factors which could increase the real amount of consumption ? First and above all an increase in productivity. which would lower the cost price and thus the sales price. Then, somewhat less and only momentarily, credit, when it globally surpasses the dette payments received.

If publicity, credit and lengthening of store openning hours do not increase sales, why has this method increased ? It is becaause of permanent free competition among the enterprises. As we have already indicated, when a certain enterprise starts an incitive publicity campaign the competitors feel obliged to do the same, thus the publicity campaigns annul each other. In the same way, when a store decides to stay open until 22 hours and weekends, they will notice an increase in sales to the detriment of the competitors, but htis advantage will quickly disapprear when they also decide to do the same.

As for the use of credit, basically it is a result of one of our weaknesses, which is the desire to enjoy things immediately and which publicity tries to excite and exploit. We know that credit merely advance the time of the first purchase, but the reembursement retards the second, unless another credit is obtained.

Publicity, credit and lengthening of openning hours of stores are the fruits of liberalism. They are the parasitic activities of commerce. They are added to certain other practices, such as sales, whose effects are particularly perverse.

It is perhaps time for the different forms of commerce to regroup themselves into independent corporations with centralized power, as existed in former times. Thus, each corporation could slow down or even eliminate excessive competition which often resorts to excessive and even doubtful procedures to sell.

 

The evolution of the couple and of sexuality

Living as couples exists in all animals only if it is necessary for the perpetuation of the species, that is the raising of the young. With birds it is generally the rule for a couple to be formed for a season or for life. On the contrary, with mammalians (except the superior primates) or insects, the life in couples is rare. The male and female only draw together for the coitus. They do not live together either before or after, for the impregnation is almost always rapid and successful.

In the film of Marcel Pagnol La femme du boulanger (The baker's wife), the actor Raimu reproaches his unfaithful cat, which in reality is intended for his young unfaithful wife. Thus, he has committed a sort of anthropological error. No more than does a prostitute betray a customer when she meets another one, a cat cannot betray the one who impregnated her for she may never see him again.

Therefore, we can see that the formation of a couple implies a common project. Until recent times, it was also so with the human beings. Naturally, it was not a question of "free" and reasonable choice, but the result of an act of love with which there was often also a question of interest. Morally, the husband and wife constitute a whole. As Antoine Saint-Exupéry wrote in his novel Terre des hommes : "United with our brothers in a common cause and which is situated outside of us, only then do we breath, and experience shows us that to love is not to look at each other but to look together in the same direction."

In the times when 95 % of the french population were peasants, the couple's projet was to create an enlarged family where the work was shared according to each ones aptitudes. There was also the will to perpetuate the family qualities of which they were proud. The dictum "Good dog, hunt of race" clearly alludes to it, because "race" formerly designated the family and the lineage. They also said : "Good blood does not lie", the "blood" was taken as the symbol of that which we name today genetic patrimony. Obviously, they firmly believed in heredity.

The fertilization of the female organ by a male organ is present in all living beings in which reproduction is sexual. It represents for all the condition for survival - since each living thing, animal or vegetable, is naught but a mortal vector of a genetic patrimony which infinitely transcends their own existence. The life as a couple in animals is therefore never just the start of sexual attraction, which is merely that selected by evolution in order to assure the reproduction.

At the end of winter in our northern regions, the birds leave their group to live as couples even though they continue to feed themselves individually and ask nothing of their partner. We might say that their union is purely sentimental. There follows the seach for a place to make a nest and the building of it. When the nest is ready and th eggs are ready in the female, the fecondation is made by a coitus which lasts just a few seconds. After the laying of the eggs there is the sitting time, the birth of the young birds and then their raising, and all the work is shared.

Outside the few moments during fertilization of the female, the birds can be considered as being asexual. In certain species, such as the swallow - where couples are formed for life - it appears that there are brief interludes of sexual unfaithfulness, but which has no effect upon te couples sentimental faithfulness and the performance of their common tasks.

*

Now let us see what takes place among the mammalians , in particular those which live in Europe since we are studing the mores of the Europeans. As we have noted, the shared life of a couple is practically nonexistant among mammalians for generally the female takes care of the young alone. If nature had foreseen an equal expenditure of energy between male and female concerning perpetuation, coitus is the frontier where the efforts of the male stop and where those of the female begin and, of course, are long lasting.

During the periods of heat which precede coitus, the male's life is upset. He is completely obsessed with the desire of possessing a female and the presence of another male sets off a violent aggressivity in him. He battles with all his force to ensure that his rivals renounce and retreat while awaiting another chance to inseminate a female (or perhaps inseminate a female rejected by the dominant male). It was Darwin who was the first to study this behavior and which lead him to develop his theory of sexual selection : the dominant males are those who can inseminate the greatest numbrer of females, thus their stronger genetic patrimony will predominate over that of the other males.

The victorious male who has chased away the other males is , in spite of his passion, respectful of the females he desires so. The females seem rather placid and just annoyed by the advances of the male. It is only when she is fertile that she will accept his advances. The male will exert all his vigour into the short act which will bring him a supreme enjoyment and such a great expenditure of physical and nervous energy that it will take him some time to recover.

The female, as placid after as before the brief coitus, will not as yet begin to use her energy capital - which she will begin to use during the gestation. It is then that during many long months and even years that she will undertake alone the ensemble of tasks to assure the perenity of the genes of the male she had hardly known.

*

Could we surmise that in the life of a primitive human couple, the coitus had as litttle place in their lives as in that of the mammalians ? That which makes us doubt it, is that the female is almost continuously fertile, which makes her very different from the animals which can only be fertilized during their periods of heat. Certain biologists estimate that the disappearance in humans of the seasonal characteristic of sexual activity had played a considerable role in the primitive social forms. But in fact, we know almost nothing concerning the sexual life of our long ago ancestors.

We know very little more concerning the sexual life of he peasants during the ancient regime, while we are better informed about those of the small minority made up of the members of the court, the nobles, the libertines and the sexual perverts. We only know that most of the artisans and peasants did not know how to read or write and that they were apparently rather modest. Among the peasant class, numerically by far the most important, the will to survive and live without sacrificing all for sex was manifest.

For the peasants, clothing represented the most important part of their spending. We remark in the painting of Le Nain entitled "Family of peasants" that the men and women have only their face and hands uncovered. At the end of the 19 th century when Van Gogh and Millet painted similar scenes of rural life, we find the same will to cover all nudity, even during the heat of summer.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who had lived many years with the peasants, wrote in his novel Émile : "You must have lived with the simple and coarse peoples to know until what age a happy ignorance can prolong the innocence of the children. It is a spectical which is at the same time touching and laughable upon seeing the two sexes delivered to the security of their hearts to prolong in the flower of their age and in the beauty the innocent games of childhood, and to show by familiarity the purity of their pleasures. When this friendly youth marry, the couple give mutually the first fruits of their bodies and are more dearer one to the other; a multitude of healthy and robust children become the pledge of a union which nothing alters, and the fruit of the prudence of their first years."

Let us cite the example of King Louis the 14th who was already king of France at the age of twenty when he fell madly in love with Marie Mancini and wanted to marry her. A virile and ardent young man, he made numerous voyages in her presence and , when for state reasons he was obliged to break with her, he was broken hearted. Now his passonate love had remained pure, for Marie Mancine was still a virgin when she married sometime later. Does that mean that in the 17 th century sexuality did not have the place it has today ?

For the moment let us consider clothing, which has always had the basic function of protecting us from the elements and to hide our nudity. Why is it that the human being is the only one among the many animals who wishes to hide his nudity ? I will eliminate the idea that it was religion which imposed this habit, since everywhere in the world the active religions impose only those mores which are spontaniously approved by the majority of the faithful - without this they would no longer be practiced.

One of the major things which differentiates man from animals is his imagination. A dog remains indifferent to the image of a female dog photographed in a pose which if it were in reality he would consider as attractive, while a man can feel a strong emotion facing a photo of a naked woman. The reason is simply that the dog does not have an imagination. This indicates the beginning of an explanation : if man hides his nudity, it is in order not to over stimulate this imaginative capacity which is proper to man. Let us remember the biblical episode of the forebidden fruit : "Thus their eyes opened and they saw themselves naked, they hid their nakedness." (Gen. 3.7). If there is one uncontestable and universal "freeing from nature" , it must thus be this one.

In order to perpetuate themselves, all the well organized human communities have tried to put a brake on pleasures of the senses which move them away from their natural finality. Modesty and the care used to hide his nudity are parts of these means. The citizens of decadent societies have never ceased imagining a thousand ways to enjoy sex by countering the exigencies of perpetuation. Today, we can confirm it continually. Even children are no longer desired to maintain and transmit the family virtus, but simply to amuse us. - just like house pets -, or they are simply refused under the pretext that they are too heavy a "load" !

*

Thus, we have just studied the finality of the couple and that of coitus among animals. We have seen the relative importance of copulation for the male, and even certain extreme cases where a unique act of copulation leads inexorably to the male's death . This is true for the praying mantis where the female, during the copulation begins to devour the head of the male while his abdomen continues his work. The head is useless in the process of insemination but the head gives her force and nourishes the eggs. Nature does not like wasting !

With the mammalians, the male orgasm is exactly comparable to that of man. It does not exist in the female. The male is like a gardiner who works hard to plant, while the earth which receives the seed is passive. and does not start to work until after the planting to germinate the seeds and to feed the plants. For the male mammalians, including man, all is linked : it is the ejaculation of the seed necessary for the insemination which provokes the pleasure.. No ejaculation, no pleasure, no fertilization. On the contrary, a possible pleasure for the female changes nothing concerning the capability of fertilization. Biologically it is useless.

The feminists, obsessed with their idea of parity, of course do not accept this natural difference. They find it scandalous and think that men and women should tend toward identity in this domain, as well as in others. Thus they insist that the female orgasm is exactly the same as the male orgasm and that it procures an equivalent pleasure. Since pleasure does not exist in any other female mammalian, they affirm that the female orgasm proceeds from this "freeing from nature" which is the greatness of the human being. Little import that it is useless in procreation if it procures a marvellous pleasure , easy to obtain and free !

Free perhaps, but not always easy to obtain. Modern sexologists claim that a woman who does not have an orgasm is frigid and that it is an infirmity which must be cured. They care litle that his woman is in perfect health, that she sincerely loves her husband and that she is happy to have children.

In fact, how many women are there who are or declare themselves to be frigid ? The results of surveys on this subject are contradictory. In the United States, the famous "Hite Report" concerning the sexuality of Americans is nevertheless considered as an authority. Along with numerous collaborators, Shere Hite did a profound study in which we can read : "The women who think they have an orgasm when making love undoubtedly do not have one. In any case, the orgasm, whether it be obtained by coitus or otherwise, and whatever be the difference in perception, can have but one fundamental origin : whatever the modality it is always due to a stimulation of the clitoris. "

If the women do not really have an orgasm during coitis and if moreover dominant ideology affirms that it is abnormal not to have it, what value can we give to public soundings which ask the question : "Do you have an orgasm during coitis ?" Would a woman accept willingly to declare herself frigid, thus infirm, to the questionner ? Probably not ! Of course for the men there is no ambiguity, either they ejaculate or they doesn't, and there cannot be any doubt concerning the cause and the proof of their orgasm. But, if their vanity is better satisfied when they arouse the pleasure in their partner, she can easily simulate it. The prostitutes who never feel anything during their performance know very well how to make the client believe that she has climbed to the seventh heaven.

In olden times did the women in the great mass of artisans and peasants have orgasms, or were they passive during the love making ? During those ancient times they compared the man to a torrent and the woman to a lake. Today, sexual pleasure must be reciprocal, a rather recent concept. Before the second World War, a very popular song had these words: "He made love to me all night, my legionaire". I suspect that today we would write : "We loved each other all night".

Let us reconsider this mysterious orgasm which the modern liberated women claim to have by means of a vibromassager better than with a male partner. It is certain that it is difficult for a man to stop during coitus. Moreover, I read in a Swiss magazine an article by Michel Germer, psychiatrist, psychotherapist and sexologist : In animals precocious ejaculation is the rule. It is a question of the survival of the species. Primitive man must have passed through that stage when he copulated in a dangerous environment under the nose of his predators. In effect, precocious ejaculation became a problem only from the moment when the sexual act was no longer considered uniquely as a means of perpetuating the species but as a source of pleasure. The most recent official definition of this problem is exemplory : it speaks of an "incapacity to sufficiently differ ejaculation in order that the partner can also find the pleasure of sexual relations...".

This text shows us clearly that a virile man in normal coitus ejaculates soon after penetration - which terminates the act - as is always the case in wild animals. Obviously such a coitus cannot provoke an orgasm in a woman. Thus frigitity cannot be considerd as an infirmity. Of little importance, the feminists, the sexologists and many men will say that that which counts is to have found a new source of pleasure. I can accept that but with the condition that it will have no consequences on the genotype which we are going to transmit.

*

Now when I look at publicity in our magazines, I find entire pages dedicated to subjects such as this one : "You have a problem with erections ? Speak to your doctor about it". I also see entire pages proposing women's undies more and more enticing, exciting and provogative. One has the impression that the more and more fanatic that men are about sex, the less and less virile they are - which after all is not contradictory.

At the same time, we find that 15 percent of European couples are sterile, and many more find diffulties of all sorts to have children. The male sperm loses regularly its power to impregnate, without the reseachers being able to find the cause of this deterioration. Even more startling, one marriage in two ends in divorce. Each year, in France, more than one million and half of wives complain about being beaten.by their husbands. In the large cities of France, half of the apartments are occupied by persons alone. Solitude, frustration and failure : is that the great result of "sexual liberation" ?

Today, more and more men and women openly declare their homosexuality. Even if they have the impression, it is not they who have freely choisen this condition, for they were born with it. This inborn sexual "orientation" apparently more and more frequent among todays young generation, is it tied to the new sexual practices which will make the genetic patrimony evolve toward a sort of bisexuality of the human beings ? It is perhaps a happy evolution from the point of view of pleasure, but what will be the effect on the perpetuation of the human being and society ?

 

Parity

Parity, according to the dictionary "Petit Robert", is "the fact of being alike", and according to the "Petit Larousse " it is "perfect equality". Thus the idea at work in parity is that of Mémeté. Forcing the ideal of equality to the extreme, the feminists demand today absolute parity between men and women.

The problem is that, considering all species of mammalians, it is certainly in the human beings where we find the greatest difference between the males and the females. That is why in all competitive sports, even those which do not depend primarily on muscular power, like table tennis and fencing, we always find two categories: masculin and feminin. Here are at least two professional domains where parity is impossible. Moreover, it appears that the sportsmen are not complaining.about this "segregation".

Let us now consider the manual trades, intellectual professions and finally artistic activities - understanding that when I write of manual trades, I mean those in which mainly the hands are used to do the work and that this does not prevent the hands from being commanded by intelligence.

During my lifetime I worked frequently in the building trades. Among the masons or the roofers I never met a woman. I have also often been in supermarkets, but at the cashier's position I almost never saw a man. Does that signify that bosses of building enterprices are terrible "machists" and those of the supermarkets are fierce feminists ? Evidently not. Only the selection by aptitude can explain this difference. The men are more apt at work requiring strength and endurance , while women have a manual dexterity superior to that of men, as many bosses of enterprises have been able to verify. This is certainly a hard knock for this precious parity !

With the immense number of manual workers of former times there was a division of work according to the aptitudes in both sexes. That is why, among the peasants, there existed no contempt for house and barnyard work, as well as the education of the children. However, these women did not envy the men who devoted all their time to the hard work of ploughing, planting, haymaking and other heavy tasks. This sharing of work which had never been codefied by the civil or religious authorities, was freely accepted. Of course, there were always exceptions to the rule, but especially when necessity made the law. For example, during World War One most of the male peasants were in the army, so many women had to take their place in running the farms. But when the soldiers returned, the partition of the work became what it was before.

It is technological progress which reduced more and more the "manual" work as well as the work time. As a result it increased the leasure time, which has progressively resulted in the disappearance of the division of work which had existed since neolithic times. Contrary to that which the feminist leaders imagine, feminism had played no role in this evolution.

Leisure developed slowly to the point where the question was soon asked as to how to occupy the long time without activity. The pleasures of sex were one of the ways to fill this leisure time. The woman who, as with all mammalians, was from the origin first a mother raising her children, gradually became primarily active in the sexual game. From passivity she was invited to become active as a courtesan. From this point of view, parity was indeed realized . But this parity, it is the men who had wished it, and it would be absurd to see therein a feminist victory.

Let us now consider "manual" activities other than professional. Notably, for women it is the care of children, especially from birth to school age, to do the buying of groceries, washing dishes, decorating and cleaning the home and to do some sewing. The real feminists, without a doubt not very good at this type of work for they are generally the "viril" type of women, consider this work as "degrading". That is certainly not the opinion of the majority of women, notably those who work in factories where their perform fastidious and repetitive tasks and can never show their sense of initiative, their fantasy and imagination. To manage a household, do the buying, and to cook for a family gives them a great liberty of choice and organization which does not exist in professional work. However that which is not acceptable is that many professional women have the home work to do after a hard day at the office - a question which the feminists seldom discuss.

The equitable sharing of work according to aptitudes, which existed in other times among the peasantry, does not exist today. The work done outside the professional field should therefore be shared as much as possible, in accordance with capabilities. One of he solutions is perhaps to eliminate all "manual" work requiring know-how. For example,today cooking is often limited to heating prepared dishes, laundry is washed in a machine, one no longer mends, no more knitting, etc. In spite of all that, we note that household tasks are rarely shared, for the women still do most of that work. The know-how to do, yesterday preciously passed on from generation to generation, is disppearing often in dramatic proportions.

*

Another important difference between men and women was revealed during the invention of language. With primative man, conversations were rather limited because of lack of means. But very quickly, the women developed the capability and surpassed the men. In all the tests concerning verbalization the women are better than the men. The men seem to do better in tasks requiring spacialization. It is known that, in childhood, the girls tend to learn how to speak before the boys and have a wider vocabulary. Evidently, this difference plays a role in choice of professions : the women are generally preferred to men in the communication tasks (secretary, public relations, publicity, etc). But there are also repercussions in the relations between the two sexes.

Today, it is estimated that women talk three times more than men, thus conversationsbetween men and women sometimes become difficult. The men often complain that the women speak about too many things which are of no interest to them., and the women complain that the men do not listen to them enough.

In former times, in many regions of France - notably in Provence, where the model of a wide family was the norm - several couples lived on the same farm for the farm work required a lot of hands. While the men worked in the fields the women prepared the meals . At noon the men returned, sat down at the table and the women served them.

For the real feminists, this custom is considered as horrible : women debased to the rank of servants. In reality this custom made it possible for men to return quickly to their work. Besides, once the men had gone, the women sat down, ate leisurely and gossiped about subjects of interest only to them. It was a verg good organization.

*

What is the situation in the intellectual activities ? In the professions we can distinquish two categories : those in which a school deploma gives a status for life and insures a career, and those for which a diploma is not indispensable and serves primarily to learn the subject and serve as a partial preselection; but professional references presented when looking for a job furnish much more significant indications.

In fact, all careers depend upon basic aptitudes and success on the job. In the private sector many persons without diplomas have had spectacular successes. Yet, the feminists have not hesitated in noting that in school studies the girls do better than the boys. Thus they are more favorable for the system used by the public services, where the selection is made for life and the diplomas and the theoretical knowledge determine the career. On the contrary, they are offended when they note that in private enterprise parity as in the public sector does not exist. They accuse the employers in the private sector of being horrible "machists" who consider their "phallocratism" before their professional interests.

The veritable problem is the following : Either the hierachy fixed by the scholastic success coincides exactly with that which determines success in real life, thus all the bosses in the private sector are effectively "machos", or indeed this heirachy is determined by diplomas and tests which reveal only a small part of the aptitudes and qualities needed to succeed professionally. Thus, the recruiting system and the guarantee of a career in public service are an aberration, for they favorizes the inapt and prevent those who have proved themselve in the field to progress as they merit.

The egalitairian feminists who demand parity between men and women, also inherited the idea from the Age of Enlightment when a Condorcet could declare that "there is no diference betwen the two sexes which is not the work of education." The idea was used again in our times by Simone de Beauvoir who declared without laughing: "One is not born a woman, one becomes one". Such an affirmation signifies that education, that is the acquired, is the only determining factor and that all the inborn capabilities were naught but "preconceptions". Thus she formed a total reversal of values, since she took the opposite view not only concerning the popular wisdom such as is express in the fables or dictums, and denied all the certitudes well established by all those who , during centuries, were able to verify the reality of the preponderance of heredity in all domains. However, this intellectual idea of all acquired imposed itself progressively , without a doubt because of its optimism, thus it was seductive. It was reenforced later by the theories of Sigmund Freud, who claimed that all the strange things in comportment are also explained by the acquired, especially by the "traumatisms of childhood."

Unfortunately for this ideology which had become dominant , the progress in biology proved false the idea that the human being is at birth a virgin clay thus completely malleable. The researchers (with Gregor Mendel) first clarified the laws of heredity, then deciphered (with Crick and Watson) the exact nature of the genetic code. Thus, they were able to verify that our genetic patrimony is found in all the cells of our body, in our hair, our nails, in our secretions: saliva, sweat, sperm, etc. They also discovered that there exist genetic diseases (inborn not acquired), as well as hereditary predispositions to contract others. Today, a certain number of this affections are treated by genetic therapy or other appropriate methods.

A certain number of biologist have even gone further. They have proven that our personality, our aptitudes and our tastes also depend to a large part upon our genes. This has been demonstrated by the studies of adopted children and of identical twins. They have also found , thanks to molecular biology, the neurosciences and cerebral imagery, that the brains of men and women show from birth on several structural differences.

Thus it is obvious that Condorcet was completely mistaken, which however did not prevent certain intellectuals to follow the same road . Certain journalists and socialogists also continue on this road while ignoring all the scientific knowledge concerning this subject. As for the thesis of Freud which has long ago been refuted by research, it continues to appear in many magazines for women. The freudian psychoanalysis, which at first was considered a therapy, has never cured anyone, except perhaps acting as a placebo. Today, it is being abandoned as a therapy. They merely claim that the concepts invented by Freud make it possible to understand oneself better, just like other ways of psychological investigation. Yes, why not ?

*

We imitate those who we admire, those who appear to be superior. In former times there were trades for men and others for women - the principal one for women was mother of a family. Nobody ever asked themselves which was superior to the other. Not one women in Brittany ever dreamed of becoming the captain of a ship or would consider it a promotion to have been named one. Besides no man ever dreamed of keeping a household. For a woman to practice the trade of a man, was an implicit way to declare her superiority over the other women. It also ridiculed the great majority of women who did not have the slightest desire to become a sailor, an aviator, a soldier, an automobile racer, or a boss of an enterprise. Things are not the same today. The feminists have insisted that the trades of men should be open for women to finish with men being the "privileged".

All these trades, all these professions and all these activities which today tend to become "bisexual" give rise to the impression of profound disorder and a feeling of inversion or a confusion in accepted values. In effect, many activities which were formerly considered as specifically masculin, as that of a soldier, were organized in consideration of the characteristics of each sex. Imagine a group of soldiers walking along a road. One of them needs to urinate. He stops, turns his back to his comrades and does his duty. A woman soldier in dungarees has to unbutton her pants and squat behind a bush. Simple, but obviously there is a problem...

The feminists claim that the history of the condition of women is a result of their servitude invented by the "male order" , that is by the dominant patriarchy. They have forgotten that since time immemorial women have exercised a strong influence over men and they have often shown that they possess extraordinary skills. "That which woman wants, God also wants", was once a popular saying. How many men have sacrificed all because of the passion they felt for a woman ? Today, the feminists affirm that women must be "autonomous" - with the risk of becoming even more vulnerable. However, when we study the previous centuries, we note that a great number of women played eminant roles in that past. This does not seem to be the case today since they have insisted upon parity.

In many countries, the supreme power can be held by a woman, a queen or an empress - but not in France because of the salic law. We all know the stories of Isabelle the Catholic of Spain, Elisabeth of England, the Grand Catherine of Russia and many others. Joan of Arc began as a simple peasant girl . The nobility of the sword , which represented that which was specifically the most masculin in the kingdom, usually commanded the armies. But it is useless to continue this enumeration : for we all know that the history of Europe has always been marked by numerous women whose names and qualities are written in our history. Is it the same today for the women of our time who, moreover, have the same rights as men ?

The feminists are recruited almost exclusively among the intellectuals or among the women who physically and psychologically are not very feminine and they are a minority. Although they seem to follow the fashions, most of the women are perfectly happy to live the way of women and have no desire to imitate the men. If some bloom incontestably in their work, many regret being obliged, for purely money reasons, to exercise their professional and family obligations at the same time. Almost all exert themselves to seduce and manoeuver men by using the means and ways which have always been theirs. In the United States while it is primarily the men - fiananciers, speculators, chiefs of enterprises - who make the money and often make fortunes, it is the women who possess two thirds of the american fortunes - a beautiful example of how the weak sex knows how to conquer the strong sex.

To terminate this subject, let us note that there exist intellectual activities other than just professional activities. This is the case of the card game of Bridge. There are regularly separate tournements for men and for women. The feminists have never asked that this discrimination be stopped, and this for a good reason : as in sports competitions they do not want to lose the advantages which are theirs in this domain.

Where are we in the question of parity in the artistic domain ? When one reads about the life of Molière, one notes that in his times there were an equal number of male and female actors. But on the contrary, the authors were almost all men. In return, under the ancient regime, it was the custom among the aristocracy and the haut bourgoisie to teach the girls how to play a musical instrument - rarely the boys, except if they insisted. This was contrary to the practice of today, when the young are allowed to make their own choice.

Since the girls learn music much better than the boys, one would think that the majority of the composers would be female. Unfortunately creativity is not learned, thus except for a few exceptions, as for example Elisabeth Jacquet de La Guerre at the end of the 17 th century or Lili Boulanger at the beginning of the 20th, we must admit that musical composition has always been essentially masculine . It is only in the execution domain that parity exists. If it is true that painting, sculpture and especially literature have permitted a large number of women to show authentic creative talents, from Madame La Fayette to Camille Claudel, Marguerite Yourcenar and many others, we note that the women have always remained the minority in those disciplines.

All civilizations are a mixture of sciences, techniques and artistic activities. We know that these three domains evolve only by creations, innovations and inventions, whose frequency and importance vary according to the epochs and the peoples. The inventive ideas are not a result of a particular education. Modest or immense, they appear in all social levels and in an irrepressive manner. It is thanks to this that the human species was able to leave, for better or for worse, the primitive life to become that which we are today. Now, it is incontestable that the inventive idea is mainly masculine. A consultation of the file of invention patents proves it. That is without a doubt the principle difference between men and women, and it seems irreductible, for it is inborn. One cannot speak of "parity" without taking this into account. But since the blessings of innovations are very questionable, this difference in capability does not necessarily plead in favour of men !

*

Of course, I have not deliberately wished in his chapter to fight against parity in the name of some sort of masculine "superiority". I wish simply to show that it is a question of the mind. The idea of improving the feminine condition by evolving towards a parity which after all is is nothing but an alignment on the masculine model, and which means an indifferentiation of the masculine and femine social roles, is an immense error and an utopia.The twentieth century women are certainly not happier after several decades of "feminism", than those of the previous centuries. When we realize that 50 % of the young couples divorce, that half of the apartments in the large cities are occupied by unmarried singles and that one counts 1.5 million battered women in France - without counting those who hide their distress - one cannot say that parity has really brought them happiness.

I come back to the judicious words of Napoleon : "To direct an army, it is better to have one bad general than two good generals". They don't have the same views, they quarrel and those under their orders feel very quickly that they are no longer really commanded. The heirachy which existed in the family had no other object than that of ensuring proper functionning of which all benefited. As soon as there is a community of life, work and action, it is necessary that order be established and reigns, even if sometimes it leads to injustice. We find once again the words of Goethe : "I prefer an injustice to disorder".

 


End of Part II

MAXIME LAGUERRE
Translated from the original french
by Edward S. Maykut
(5 January 2006)
(intertitres de Marc Schweizer)