It is clear why history seems to us to also be an institution contributing to the general work of the binding of energy. A historian of May and a disciple of Isaac Deutscher, who can hardly be suspected of conservatism, involuntarily confirms this in this statement: “A historical fact can be interpreted, studied, exploited, and acted upon-or it can be ignored. To a great extent the outcome of the next crisis depends on the seriousness and skill with which the contesting parties will profit from the lessons of previous experience.”6 “To profit” is to produce the theoretical and practical apparatuses that will allow free energy to be bound the next time that it attacks the system. Writing a history book always aims to produce a historian’s knowledge as its content, that is, a discourse that is at once consistent and complete, in which the non-sense of the event will be rendered intelligible, fully signified, and thus in principle predictable. It is to seek to institutionalize something that appeared at the time as foundationless, anarchic. To do so is to contribute to power by destroying force.