“Le Réveil” by Laurent Gounelle

Hello! And welcome to the first episode of the show “Jaco’s Finds.” And I say the first episode, if naturally, we disregard the introductory episode to the show; otherwise, it’s the second, but anyway. I would therefore like to introduce you to a book that I recently read by the author Laurent Gounelle, which is entitled “Le Réveil” and which can be translated to “The Awakening.” Know that, as of now, it’s only available in French.

Also note that except when I was able to provide a link to the English version of the quotes contained herein, all other translations are free translations as close at being literal as I could to them.

But first, let me give you some background on how I came across it.

As a subscriber to INREES’s magazine “Inexploré” (INREES stands for the Institute for Research on Extraordinary Experiences), I discovered it through an article on the website of the same name, to which I have access through my magazine subscription.

The article is entitled “Le trilemme de Rodrik : les forces incompatibles”¹ which translates to “Rodrik’s trilemma: the incompatible forces” and which was published on April 14, 2022. The trilemma is so named after its author, Dani Rodrik. He is a professor of international political economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Rodrik’s trilemma – Definitions

And so, by way of introduction to Rodrik’s trilemma, the article in question mentions that: Democracy, sovereignty and globalization are “three invisible forces that govern our lives and that influence people.”²

But before we get into it, let’s perhaps first define the three forces or concepts that the trilemma mentions.

• First, there is the concept of “Democracy” or, more specifically in the context of this trilemma, the concept of economic democracy. The latter consists of the ability of a population, of a society to decide democratically on the economic environment in which it wishes to operate in. For example, deciding on working conditions, deciding on wages to be paid, deciding on environmental policies in relation to their economic contribution or even in relation to their economic impact.

• Then there is the concept of “Sovereignty” which allows a nation-state to establish the rules that govern the functioning of its economy autonomously and independently of other countries.

• Finally, there is the concept of “globalization,” in its ultimate expression, which aims to eliminate as many economic barriers as possible between countries. This means promoting the free movement of capital, goods and companies.

Rodrik’s trilemma in theory

So, according to Rodrik, there is a major incompatibility between these three forces, which means that a nation-state can only choose two of them, hence the notion of a trilemma.

The problem is as follows: As mentioned in the article, “when the economy becomes international, companies exchange more and more goods and services and become interdependent. States then enter a game of particularly strong competition and lose, in the wake of globalization, the possibility of applying interventionist national policies to protect their people. The government can also choose to sacrifice the democratic process if it wants to exercise real national sovereignty through interventionist and/or authoritarian policies, while at the same time being part of globalization. Democracy then takes a (serious) hit, as is the case with China and Russia, which favour a so-called golden straitjacket.”³

Quotes by Laurent Gounelle on Rodrik’s trilemma

Laurent Gounelle, still in the same article, mentions that: “The concern is that the governments of the world choose, in their very large majority, in a more or less official way, the hyper-globalization of their economies, in particular by providing fiscal incentives which allow multinationals to impose their own laws. These laws can violate our freedoms and the veracity of the information. The choice of hyper-globalization thus greatly reduces the democratic forces.”⁴

But as he mentions further on: “many elected officials today have an interest in favouring the expansion of multinationals, especially because they know that their political careers are not eternal. Once their mandates are over, they will be able to get hired by one or more of the multinationals they have favoured.”⁵ All the more reason for our political elite to favour globalization.

Rodrik’s trilemma – In pratical terms

But, in my view, notwithstanding of what Rodrick says, while it may be true that in theory all three forces can’t coexist in their entirety that is, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in reality all three do coexist, but that two of them take precedence over the third.

And so, it is clear that at this point in time, in the face of the hyper-globalization that seems to be the order of the day, the other force that is privileged is sovereignty and democracy is then the one force that’s suffering. Our governments may be exercising their sovereignty, but in the face of the importance given to hyper-globalization, they often exercise it only in accordance with the economic rules dictated by the multinationals which they do business with. It would therefore be wrong for a state to claim to be economically sovereign when its sovereignty may be much more illusionary than real, since it is these globalization multinationals that dictate the rules of the world market. Governments thereby cooperate and collude with them and therefore have very little influence on the rules that are put in place. And so, if our economic sovereignty is diminished, imagine what this means for our economic democracy.

Conclusion of the article on Rodrik’s trilemma

But it is not because our political elites will have chosen to privilege globalization and the sovereignty of the state to the detriment of the economic democracy of the people that we are powerless. For it turns out that if the people do not share the opinion of our political elites as to the little importance they give to the concept of economic democracy, certain levers remain always and forever in the hands of the citizens of the world, including, among others, our purchasing power.

Thus, in conclusion of the article on Rodrik’s trilemma, its author as well as the author of the book, Laurent Gounelle, in turn, deliver a message of hope to which I fully subscribe to and with which I would like to end the first part of this podcast.

“…, let us act rather at the level where we find ourselves [says the author] ’The more of us decide to take a stance, the more this stance will change the world, underlines Laurent Gounelle. From the moment I decide to buy organic products from a small shopkeeper close to my home rather than from a large chain store, I create a movement. It is through simple and concrete economic acts that we will change the nature of an economy.’”⁶

Then, the author of the article mentions that “the bottom line is this: translating what our hearts suggest into action. ‘We have much more power than we think,’ says Laurent Gounelle. The key is to wake up, to become aware of our own values and powers. In each situation of my life, I take the time to listen to my heart which tells me what is right. All the answers are within me as soon as I know what I want and in what world I want to live in.’”⁷ The author of the article concludes with: “Being informed, acting locally, thinking about tomorrow’s world while being aware of the existing levers, without forgetting to dream of new models, this is what can guide us towards transformations that can benefit us all. ”⁸

It is therefore important to remember that, as Laurent Gounelle mentions in the conclusion of his book “Le Réveil”: “Their power (speaking of multinationals) is in fact the power that you and I give them through our simple consumption choices.”⁹

Rodrik’s trilemma on the Web

To better understand Rodrik’s trilemma, I invite you to consult a very good video on the subject, only available in French, though (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0d7hPjaIg) or to consult Dan Rodrik’s blog which is only available in English. (https://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/06/the-inescapable.html)

You will find both internet links in the transcript of this podcast on the philosopher pilot’s website at (http://thephilosopherpilot.com).

From the article to the book

So, this is what summarizes the article on Rodrik’s trilemma, an article which, by simple curiosity on the subject, led me to acquire the book “Le Réveil” by Laurent Gounelle, thinking that this book only dealt with this topic.

But how surprised was I when I discovered that the book “Le Réveil” was much broader than the only topic of Rodrik’s trilemma. In fact, there is only one chapter devoted to it, chapter 11.

As I read the book, I discovered that more than just a book on economic principles, it was a thought-provoking book on how we are governed. It describes the mechanisms and levers that are in place to influence people and that political authorities use in exercising their right, desire and obligation to govern the societies for which they are responsible.

The book’s Introduction

The introductory page of the book quotes Noam Chomsky as follows: “The general population doesn’t know what’s happening, and it doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know.”¹⁰ This quote comes from a book published in 1993 called “The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many.”

There could not be a better introduction to the reflection to which the author invites us. What do we really know about the forces at work and the mechanisms used by various levels of government in the exercise of their democratic powers, for example? Are their intentions always noble ones or are they sometimes tainted by issues other than those they should consider foremost, in carrying out their duties?

The book’s premise

And so, in order to fuel our reflection on the subject, here is the premise of Laurent Gounelle’s book.

Without spilling the beans, let’s say that in the course of the novel, the state decides to wage war on death in five subsequent ways, starting with:

1. Tackling the deaths caused by road accidents.
2. Then those caused by too much sugar consumption.
3. Then, it decides to abolish the use of cash in order to put an end to all forms of illegal transactions (drugs, theft, pimping) since they are normally done using cash.
4. Then, the government wants to tackle global warming.
5. And finally, it decides to introduce a facial recognition camera system capable of analyzing facial expressions and thus recognizing someone who is about to commit a violent act.

Can we or rather should we wage war on death?

But the question immediately poses itself: can we, or rather should we, wage war on death?

Here is what one of the characters in the book says:

1- “To wage war on death? … Doesn’t that amount to sacrificing life?”¹¹
2- “When you wage war on death, you wage war on life, because life and death are indissociable.”¹²
3- “I believe that one cannot live well if one is always afraid of death.”¹³

In the book, one of the passages quotes an anecdote about “Avicenna,” a great intellectual of the eleventh century who was both a philosopher and a physician and which goes as follows: “He was also a great drinker. He drank all the time without ever being drunk: his mind remained clear. One day, someone said to him: ‘But finally, Avicenna, you are a doctor, you are aware that drinking so much will shorten the length of your life. Avicenna stared at him for a few moments, smiling, before answering quietly: I am not interested in living long but living large.’”¹⁴

Death is an integral part of life since it is its ultimate outcome. And insofar as we know it to be inevitable and accept this fact (do we really have a choice), knowing that we know neither the hour nor the day when it will happen, why should we dwell on it? Nothing and nobody can dissociate themselves from it. And to think about it constantly, as the characters in the book do in their daily lives, could only darken our thoughts. But it was Serge Bouchard, a great Quebec thinker, anthropologist, essayist and radio host who died in 2021, who mentioned in an interview, while quoting Montaigne (a French philosopher, humanist and moralist of the Renaissance, who was also an erudite writer): “Montaigne said that to live is to learn to die. [Serge Bouchard went on to say] I spend my time trying to give meaning to this life and I prepare to leave it with dignity.”¹⁵ And so, as we strive to give meaning to our lives as Serge Bouchard suggests, why not take a little example from Avicenna and live fully?

Manipulations, how do they go about it?

Let’s get back to the book’s main premise, which is the imposition of various measures to enable the government to wage its war on death.

In order for all the measures conceived to be implemented, the population must be convinced to adhere to them. It would seem that the first time such a mass control scheme was used, in a “systemic” way to use a buzzword, according to what the author says on page 27, was in 1917 by the “Committee on Public Information” whose mandate was to convince the American population of the merits of entering the war, something it was reluctant to do. To this end, the book mentions that “the idea is not to convince with rational arguments, but to induce emotions in people to forge public opinion from scratch by shaping it in the direction desired by the authorities.”¹⁶

As the book progresses, the author makes us think about the merits of the various restrictions as they are put in place. He also makes us think about the way we consume information and the fact that we receive it continuously, and on multiple platforms, which can only help a government to get its message across, whether their intentions are noble or not.

And as for the news media, while I personally have no reason to doubt the integrity of the professional journalists who report the news to us (to the extent that the word says it, that they are professionals), we must always remember that the information that is shared with us is really only the information that the people in authority decide to share. (Bureau chief, politicians, CEOs, etc.)

This is why the author portrays one of the book’s character having a hypothetical conversation with Noam Chomsky that goes like this: “Why do you read the newspaper young man [says Noam Chomsky]? Uh… To get world news … [The character says] [And Noam Chomsky to reply,] no sir. By reading the newspaper, you get news about what’s written in the newspaper…”¹⁷

Thus, as time goes by, while various measures are put in place in the novel, they always seem to be on the pretext of seeing to the well-being of the population and to decrease the death rate deemed too high. But is this really the case? Could there be other instances or organizations that would benefit as much if not more from the situation than the simple targeted population, whether we are talking about economic or political instances?

As for the role played by the multinationals of this world in the establishment of various governmental policies, Laurent Gounelle blames the Davos forum, among others, when he mentions this: “That multinational bosses want to tackle the world’s problems does not lack guts since they are at the origin of most of them: pollution, global warming, cultural degeneration, violence… That they then take the liberty of proposing solutions that, miraculously, also suit their business will surprise no one. So, we can just smile and nod…”¹⁸

And so, how do they go about achieving their goals? By controlling the message constantly and on all possible platforms, but even more so, by dividing and conquering the population as the author tends to demonstrate.

And what better example of dividing the population than the use of facial recognition cameras, which are mentioned in the book? I didn’t know about them until now, but it seems that China is already using them. The author explains that a so-called social credit score is given to all citizens based on their behaviour. And since everything they do (in the public domain) is monitored, it’s easy to tell if they’ve broken the law or disobeyed an order. If they have, their friends are notified of their poor grade and are encouraged to lecture them or to stop socializing with them.

It is said that “The system relies heavily on shame and fear of exclusion from the circle of friends.”¹⁹ Hence my concern that this technology might be applied worldwide with increasing ease one day, because, as mentioned in the book, “today’s youths were born with Facebook and thus have been conditioned from an early age to thrive on the approval of others. They are ripe for social control: the simple fear of the judgment of others will push them to follow the injunctions of the powers that be like sheep.”²⁰

And so, with respect to the manipulation of the masses, Noam Chomsky is quoted in the book as follows, “ … propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state…”²¹

Then, later, he is quoted again as follows: “ The whole tradition of popular control has been exactly that: to keep people isolated, because if you can keep them isolated enough, you can get them to believe anything.”²²

To that end, here is a quote from Machiavelli, a Florentine humanist from the Renaissance period who is quoted in the book as follows: “Relying on fear is the best way to get people to give up their freedoms. Whoever controls the people’s fears becomes master of their souls”²³

Finally, referring to the German authorities who shaped German public opinion during the Second World War, Laurent Gounelle mentions that: “When you do it right, by playing on emotions, you can make people believe anything, including horrors, even to the most intelligent and cultured among them.”²⁴

To this end, several examples in the book show to what extent, in the name of new-found freedoms, the population was ready to accept new directives, even if they seemed absurd.

The parallel with the COVID-19 pandemic

So, is there a parallel to be made with the COVID-19 pandemic and the situation that the book proposes? I do not know Laurent Gounelle’s point of view on how the COVID-19 pandemic was managed in France. And therefore, I am not in a position to know if the analogies contained in his book are veiled criticisms of the French government or not. However, all I can say with certainty is that the scenarios contained in the book such as the relentless fight against deaths related to road accidents and those attributed to the over-consumption of sugar give much food for thought as to the mass manipulation techniques that governments could use (or are already using).

And so, in my opinion, anyone reading this book cannot help but see a potential parallel with the way in which governments of all nations have enticed their citizens to comply with the confinement rules and behavioural directives imposed in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.

My perspective on the pandemic

But, before going any further in my remarks, so that there is no ambiguity about my intentions in introducing you to this book, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you my point of view on the pandemic in relation to the book’s thematic. Although in many respects I share Laurent Gounelle’s concerns about the stratagems that governments can use, and the contexts in which they might resort to them, I am not one who could be described as a conspiracy theorist when it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Generally, I agree with voluntary vaccination and with the ideology behind most of the confinement measures that were put in place, even if I did not always agree with the way they were implemented or their duration. But I do recognize the right of a democratically elected government to do the best it can under the circumstances to protect the population which it is responsible for.

Therefore, I consider that the techniques of mass manipulation that Laurent Gounelle warns us about and that were used by the various governments that govern me, in the context of their management of the COVID-19 pandemic, were used advisedly. Each situation is unique in itself and in this case, I would conclude my remarks on the pandemic as follows: faced with the urgency to act, faced with so many unknowns, the governments had no other choice than to do everything possible to ensure that the greatest number of citizens would comply with the health measures. And so, desperate times called for desperate measures!

Conclusion – The forces at play

But whether or not you agree with the way the pandemic was handled in your part of the world, it is important to be aware of the methods used and the forces at work, because there is a fine line between what can be considered appropriate and what can be considered abusive. And everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of where the line might be.

It is therefore important for all of us to understand the mass manipulation techniques used and to judge of their relevance, because this is the only way to remain vigilante, and thus make our governments accountable in order to avoid any potential abuse.

It is therefore the duty of every citizen to ask himself, in what context we accept to be manipulated by the political authorities in power. And even if the intentions seem noble, we should always ask ourselves: to what extent and in what context are we willing to accept to sacrifice our freedoms?

This is the kind of question and stake that the book confronts us with, which cannot help but make the reader think all along it’s unfolding.

After reading the book, it becomes evident that it would not take much for these same techniques to be used for other purposes, hence the importance, as mentioned by Laurent Gounelle, that: “… everyone has the right to know the mass manipulation techniques that the powerful are trained to employ. Thus, everyone can recognize them when they are at work, in order to thwart them and thus be able to preserve their freedom.”²⁵

Conclusion –
Protecting freedom and exercising one’s obligation to express oneself

So, why did I introduce you to this book which, I admit, could be considered controversial by some (even Laurent Gounelle expressed his hesitation about writing such a book)?

Well, because, like Laurent Gounelle, I consider that it is my duty, as it is everyone’s duty, to establish a dialogue. And since in many ways the story of the novel can bring us back to the story of the pandemic, where too often discourses have fallen on deaf ears, I believe that it is more important than ever to engage in a dialogue with anyone who wishes to engage in one.

I therefore share the author’s point of view which he makes at the end of the book which is, “My hope is also that this book will help reduce the divide that has been deliberately induced in the population, sometimes even within families. What divides us makes us sad. We do not deserve to suffer because of different points of view and our family, friendship and, more broadly, our human relationships are essential to our life balance. It is high time to reconnect with those who think differently, and to love each other despite our differences in order to live fully what connects us to one another.”²⁶

And just as I mentioned in the introduction to the show “My point of view at 35,000 feet”: “ … whether your opinion agrees or disagrees with mine does not matter. What matters is the dialogue that each opinion generates. Because without opinions there are no debates and without debates there are in turn no dialogues. It is through dialogue that we are able to better understand ourselves and above all, to better understand others, and thus our society can progress. It is certainly important to express your opinions, but it is even more important to listen to the opinion of others, whether you agree with them or not.”²⁷

It was Noam Chomsky who said that, “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”²⁸

So that’s why I’m thankful that Laurent Gounelle wrote this book.

Ultimate conclusion

I would like to end with a quote from the book, too beautiful not to share with you: “A human being, in order to awaken to himself and to blossom, needs to raise his soul. Raising one’s soul is the result of working on oneself, which spiritual traditions from all over the world, from Christianity to Hinduism, from Islam to Buddhism, and from Judaism to Taoism, invite us to do. Secular spirituality also invites to it: it is the whole approach of the philosophers since the antiquity, which seeks the way to wisdom and ‘to the good life.’ This work on oneself aims at raising one’s consciousness, notably by clarifying one’s thoughts and intentions, by freeing oneself from one’s fears, by mastering one’s impulses, by developing compassion and love within oneself: love of oneself, love of others, love of life. This work is demanding, difficult, but the real efforts it requires are always rewarded, because they make us advance day by day on the path of a lasting joy, well beyond the small and very ephemeral happiness that we can all feel at times. Why is this work on oneself demanding? Because it will always be easier to let ourselves be caught up in our fears than to gain confidence, it will always be easier to be subject to the gaze of others than to free ourselves from them, it will always be easier to judge than to understand, it will always be easier to obey our basic instincts than to free ourselves from them: it will always be easier to let ourselves be dragged down than to raise our consciousness.”²⁹

For more information

I hope you’ve enjoyed this podcast.

For more information about Laurent Gounelle or his book “Le Réveil,” I invite you to consult the links, which are only available in French and which can be found at the bottom of the podcast verbatim located on the http://thephilosopherpilot.com website.

1. https://www.laurentgounelle.com
2. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Gounelle
3. Questions à Laurent Gounelle
4. YouTube video entitled: Laurent GOUNELLE ou « Le réveil »

You will also find the links mentioned above relating to Rodrik’s trilemma.

On that note, until next time

And until then, be well.

Jaco