When Churchill and Roosevelt appointed Dwight D Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander, he was not expected to win the war by himself. Eisenhower, the meticulous, leave nothing to chance, planner was frequently at odds with the generals under his command. George Patton was a barely controllable maverick. Bernard Montgomery had an amazing knack of rubbing every American officer (and most of the British military establishment) who came in contact with him the wrong way. Brigadier Simon Frasier - better know as Lord Lovat - was a flamboyant showman known for putting himself and his whole command at unacceptable risk. Yet every one of these men, and hundreds of others highly placed in the armed forces of a dozen nations, had vital roles to play. Roles to play not just in the invasion of France in June 1944, but in the entire conduct of the war from Pearl Harbor to the Japanese surrender, and beyond.

The parallel with today’s desperate war on the burgeoning marxist islamisation of Britain should be obvious. Right now, England needs Richard Tice, It needs Rupert Lowe, It needs Ben Habib. Each of these men has a following, and a special skill that are essential to the path to victory. And there are others - men and women who can be trusted with the future of the British heritage. We may not all agree on the priorities. We may not all agree on the methods. But for sure, we all agree that the old boy elite of the Conservative party, and the woke elite of Labour must be swept away and burned on the trash pile of history.

Nigel Farage has ably demonstrated his leadership and organisational skills. Without Farage, Brexit would never have happened. Without Farage, the entire Identity and Democracy group in the Brussels parliament would not have come into being. Farage has the credentials and the credibility to lead Britain out of the disaster created by successive socialist governments since 1945, abetted by successive stop gap placeholding Tory governments who consistently shirked their responsibilities to undo the ever tightening noose of marxism.

It is way past time for partisanship on the right to disappear. Whichever of the great leaders that emerged from Brexit and ReformUK you happen to favour, now is the time to call on them to set aside their personal ambitions, and find ways to come into agreement and work together. The May elections will be here before we know it. The Labour politicians up and down the country are running scared to the Greens, because they see Starmer scuttling Labour on the reef of Islamification. Now the huge block vote that Islam represents will be the undoing of the United Kingdom unless the conservative movement gets its act together.

Conservatives are, almost by definition, highly individualist. Each of us has our own agenda. But we can’t get any part of our individual agendas looked at with only 5 seats in the Commons, and 3 on a city council in the North. We must focus on the primary task in hand, which is wiping the field with the Greens, the Socialists and the Tories. That has to be the number one priority, whatever it takes. There’ll be time afterwards to iron out the other priorities, deal with the rape gangs, the migrant hotels, the massive welfare hand-outs, and all the other things that drag us down. We MUST win the elections first. Until that happens, nothing happens.

So muck in and do your bit. There’s a war on, and careless talk costs lives. Shut up about what you think might be unworthy in some reconstructionist leaders. Encourage everybody you know to come together in good will. And together, we can Make Britain Great Again.

Now that I have been enlightened, I hereby pledge that I will never again mention Islam, Islamists, Muslims, Moslems, Mohammedans and their wonderful peaceful ideology of domination in anything but the kindest possible light.

Authorś note. I have been turning this topic over in my mind for a long time. The débacle of the Bush-Quayle relection campaign, and the shameless torpedoing of Darrel Issa in favor of Matt Fong in the challenge to Barbara Boxerś reelection in 1998 showed me just how badly conservatism in todays world is fragmented and crippled by infighting. Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” is the bible of the left, and we see its principles in operation daily, not just in US politics, but also in Europe, and particularly in the UK, where Rudi Dutschke’s ¨Long March Through The Institutions” has a stranglehold on every aspect of life. Nowhere is there more need for conservative solidaity right now than in the petty squabbles between right-wing movements in Britain. This has to stop!

This work is Chapter 1 of a 12 chapter volume intended to provide conservatism with the tools needed to combat, and ultimately reverse the tide of profrssivism in our Western culture.

In the turbulent arena of modern politics, where ideological battles rage across media landscapes and social platforms, conservatives (often labeled as reactionaries in a pejorative sense) must prioritize internal solidarity above all else. The principle of “respect your own movement” serves as the bedrock for any effective reactionary strategy. It demands a disciplined approach to interpersonal dynamics within the conservative fold, recognizing that fragmentation is the greatest gift one can give to progressive adversaries. This respect is not mere politeness; it is a tactical imperative, especially in systems like America’s primaries, where infighting can derail promising candidacies and hand victories to the opposition.

At its core, respecting one’s movement means never criticizing a fellow conservative in public. What may seem like a harmless critique today can be weaponized tomorrow by opponents eager to exploit divisions. History is replete with examples of this peril. Consider the 2016 Republican primaries, where intra-party attacks between candidates like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio weakened the field, allowing Donald Trump to consolidate support but also providing ammunition for Democrats in the general election. Such public squabbles echo like echoes in a canyon, amplifying weaknesses that liberals gleefully repurpose. Reactionaries, who often position themselves as defenders of traditional values against radical change, cannot afford to undermine their allies. Instead, disagreements should be resolved privately, preserving a united front that projects strength and coherence.

This unity does not require blind agreement on every issue. Conservatives span a broad spectrum, from libertarian-leaning fiscal hawks to social traditionalists emphasizing family and faith. Expecting unanimous consensus is unrealistic and counterproductive. The movement thrives on diversity of thought, allowing for robust internal debate that sharpens ideas without spilling into the public eye. For instance, debates over trade policies—free markets versus protectionism—have long divided Republicans, yet figures like Ronald Reagan navigated these by focusing on shared goals like economic growth and national security. Leaving room for differences fosters innovation; it prevents the stagnation that plagues monolithic ideologies like socialism, where dissent is often purged.

Understanding that priorities are not universal is equally crucial. Not every conservative places immigration reform at the top of their agenda; some prioritize tax cuts, others judicial appointments. Reactionaries must embrace this pluralism, pursuing small, incremental successes across multiple fronts rather than demanding all-or-nothing victories. This approach mirrors the gradualist tactics that have historically advanced conservative causes. The pro-life movement, for example, didn’t overturn Roe v. Wade overnight but through decades of state-level restrictions, public education, and judicial nominations. Each win, no matter how modest, builds momentum, eroding the radical agenda piece by piece. Insisting on purity tests—dismissing allies who don’t share your exact hierarchy of concerns—only alienates potential supporters and shrinks the coalition.

Finding commonalities rather than differences is the glue that binds this respect. Agree to differ where necessary, but amplify shared values: limited government, individual liberty, cultural preservation, and economic opportunity. This mindset transforms potential rivals into collaborators. In the digital age, where social media algorithms reward outrage, conservatives must resist the temptation to highlight fractures. Platforms like Twitter (now X) magnify minor disputes into major scandals, benefiting only the left’s narrative of right-wing chaos. By contrast, emphasizing unity—such as joint statements on issues like border security or free speech—creates a formidable bloc that can influence policy and elections.

Yet, this respect extends beyond mere avoidance of conflict; it involves active support and recognition of each other’s contributions. Celebrate the grassroots organizer as much as the high-profile politician. In an era where progressives dominate cultural institutions, reactionaries operate as a guerrilla force, relying on decentralized efforts. Disrespecting fellow travelers—through snide comments or backbiting—erodes morale and recruitment. Young conservatives, in particular, are drawn to movements that feel inclusive and purposeful, not fractious.

Critics might argue that such restraint stifles accountability, allowing flawed leaders to persist. However, public criticism rarely reforms; it polarizes. Private counsel, rooted in mutual respect, is far more effective. Moreover, in a polarized society, conservatives must model the civility they decry as absent in the left. Hypocrisy undermines credibility.

Ultimately, respecting your own movement is about long-term survival. Reactionaries seek to roll back what they see as destructive progressive overreach— from identity politics to economic centralization. But without internal cohesion, these efforts falter. As Saul Alinsky noted in his “Rules for Radicals,” a playbook the left has mastered, power comes from organization and unity. Conservatives must adopt a similar discipline, turning respect into a weapon. By doing so, they not only strengthen their cause but also demonstrate the maturity that wins hearts and minds. In the end, a united reactionary front isn’t just strategic—it’s essential for reclaiming the cultural and political high ground.

Mars Lewis ·

It’s time to put a few comforting misnomers to rest about the settlers who came to America and their relationship to those who were already here. The modern habit of flattening history into a morality play may feel virtuous, but it comes at the cost of accuracy. Being first does not confer civilizational primacy, and coexistence myths do not substitute for hard distinctions between societies that build and societies that do not. History is not sentimental. It is developmental. And development always leaves a record.

What existed in North America prior to European settlement was not a civilization in the sense the word has always been understood. There was no written language, no codified law, no durable institutions, no cities, no philosophy, no science, no architecture that scaled, no technological trajectory that suggested imminent development. What existed was a patchwork of tribes, many of them locked in constant warfare, with lifeways that had largely plateaued for centuries.

That is the line history itself draws.

The technological gap between Europeans and the populations they encountered was not modest. It was absolute. Europeans arrived with metallurgy, navigation, mathematics, agriculture at scale, written law, political theory, and an institutional mindset oriented toward permanence. To suggest that the two societies were “not greatly separated” technologically is simply false. One was moving forward on a compounding civilizational arc. The other was not.

And this is the larger issue that continues to distort the conversation: the builders are rarely credited as builders. Settlers are spoken of as if they merely “took” something from an already-functioning civilization, rather than creating one where none existed. There would have been no conquest to speak of if there had been a civilization capable of resisting, adapting, or preserving itself. History does not record theft from nothing. It records replacement through development.

Even today, the consequences of refusing to speak plainly remain visible. Permanent separation through reservations has proven destructive, not protective. Assimilation is how modern societies function. No group thrives by being frozen in time, subsidized into dependency, or incentivized to remain culturally isolated. And when modern “contributions” are reduced to casino economics, that is not empowerment. It is a quiet indictment of a system that rewards stagnation over integration.

Progress is not a conspiracy. It is nature’s method. Everything that survives develops. Everything that refuses to develop is eventually overtaken.

Both groups can be discussed without malice. European settlers and the indigenous tribes they encountered did not operate at the same civilizational level, a distinction the record makes unavoidable.

It aged well enough that I actually posted it online, on my WordPress site in July of 2023, where it got a little traction. Seeing some of the rantings going on today from women who clearly aren’t getting enough horizontal entertainment, it seems worthwhile trotting it out again.

Like it or not, before we are rational, thinking individuals, we are a conglomeration of complex chemical reactions over which we have zero control. Ask any woman who has ever nursed her child just what happens when a nursing mother hears somebody else’s baby cry! That is part of the genetic imperative to send our genetic material on to the next generation, and ensure they also have the best chance of passing on our genes.

Each stage of human development is a process of testing boundaries, seeing how far we can go, spreading our wings and expanding our possibilities. We learn to walk, to talk, to communicate by pushing against the limitations that hold us back, by falling down and getting up again.

We learn from our parents that “No!” doesn’t always mean “No!” (and that “Yes” doesn’t always mean “Yes”). “No” can mean “not right now”. It can mean “not unless you whine and plead enough”. and it can mean “Not until I am occupied with something else, then you can do as you please!” We learn to lie, to dissemble, to camouflage an unacceptable behaviour with an acceptable one. We test the rules. We discover that rules can be broken, some more readily than others, some with more dire consequences than others. And we keep pushing the boundaries.

As teens, we become curious about sex. This is exactly what is supposed to happen. Our parents, our culture, our authorities, all try to set boundaries, but we are still testing those boundaries. How far can we go? Does “no” actually mean “no”, or is there a way to make it mean “yes”. It is essential that we view adolescent behaviour in this context. A boy is with a girl – he reaches out for her hand, and she snatches it away. He reaches for it again, and she is slower to move it. He reaches for it again, she lets him. He puts an arm around her waist; she wriggles away – this time, and the next, and the next, but eventually she becomes comfortable enough to let it rest there. Little by little, the physical side of their relationship develops. She says no, he insists. We may think of it as playing games, but it is actually very real.

But look what happens when adolescents get their hands on behaviour altering chemicals. Her ability to ignore her body and her upbringing perhaps diminishes, or goes away entirely. Maybe he loses the control required to proceed slowly, carefully, one baby step at a time, letting her set the pace. Or, heaven forbid, she finds herself on her back on the couch, with her tongue down his throat, her hands all over his body, half her clothing missing, and he is past the point of no return.

It is not “attempted rape”, not “sexual assault” when a young woman encourages a young man to kiss her and cuddle her, and he then tries to (as we would have said in the British slang of my adolescence) “cop a feel.” That is just testing the boundaries. “OK – we’ve got this far, how much further do we go?” And it isn’t even conscious. At this point, it is hormones driving both of them. He is aroused, he senses her arousal, and animal instinct tells him to seek the sensitive areas that will heighten her arousal and lead to the necessary exchange of genetic material.

The #MeToo movement, and the outrage over the Kavanaugh accusations finds its source in a deep, dark, dirty little shameful secret that woman are terrified will be exposed. They really don’t want anyone – anyone at all, anywhere, ever – to know that they, too, have erotic fantasies.

“Covering her cries with a multitude of kisses, he enfolded her in his muscular arms and drew her to him. Her heart pounded so loudly she was afraid it would be heard by every other occupant of the mansion as she melted into his powerful embrace and gazed up into his piercing blue eyes.”

That’s not written for men to read. That is a gothic romantic fantasy, written for the millions of women who escape from their daily reality in the world of steamy bodice-ripping novels, erotic romance trilogies and really bad late night movies. And their desperately hidden shame is that when they read this, they get a lovely warm tingly feeling. In their head, it is they who are swept off their feet by this caricature of a manly man who overcomes all their resistance.

It is not that women want men not to treat them as sex objects. They just want to choose who the man is who does it to them, and under what circumstances. They want to enjoy, even revel in the erotic tingle without ever giving a thought to what the mere existence of this genre of fiction tells men. Because we men do know it exists. We see the lurid cover art, the provocative movie posters. We hear the talking heads telling us how “50 Shades Of Grey” liberated women. And since there is nothing we would like more than to have our own erotic fantasies come true, we conclude that women really want to be treated that way. A man has a very hard time recognizing that a woman feeling that erotic tingle is not immediately driven to copulate. And a woman has an impossible time recognizing that a man immediately is! It is in women’s literature that a man’s courting of a woman is presented as a conquest. In men’s literature, the themes are generally control of self, victory in violent conflict, survival against the odds. Why then is it surprising that men should deduce that women long to be conquered?

The world is not a binary, either-or place. It is not divided into black and white, right and left, capitalist and socialist, rich and poor, faithful and infidel. Like the colors of the rainbow, there is a whole spectrum of thoughts, ideas, opinions and values. And that spectrum is circular. There is no opposite of conservative, of liberal, of Marxist. These memes blend seamlessly from one to another, in a color wheel.

The standard color wheel measures hue (Red-Green-Blue or Magenta-Cyan-Yellow) circularly, and saturation (amount or intensity of color) radially. In the realm of political and social opinion, we can associate the three major axes of hue in the color wheel with what we will label as Idealist, Pragmatist and Defeatist. We will get into details of these different thought processes as we develop this idea. For now, the most simplistic way to identify them is:

The Idealist says “We ought to…”

The Pragmatist says “I ought to… “

The Defeatist says “Somebody ought to … “

I have alternative labels for these categories, which perhaps expand a little on how I view them:

Idealist <———————→ Collectivist

Pragmatist <———————→ Individualist

Defeatist <———————→ Escapist

Now, understand that each of us moves from category to category, depending on the issue under discussion. We may be quite prepared to take individual action on one topic, whip up community support on something else, and sit back waiting for others to act on things we will only moan about on yet a third issue. The way I see it, the more passionate you are in any of those three possible responses, the closer you are to those arbitrary axis lines in the color wheel.

But what about saturation, then? I think saturation in the color wheel corresponds to selfishness in human thought. Note that at the extremes of saturation, the colors in the wheel become virtually indistinguishable. For convenience, I put zero selfishness at the center of the wheel. This is where Albert Schweitzer, Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and very few other people belong. Those whose life is totally dedicated to the service of others are impossible to pigeonhole. They are simultaneously Idealist, Pragmatist and Defeatist, doing what they can, involving others, and loudly proclaiming to the world the problems it needs to solve. At the other end of the saturation scale, at 100% selfishness, we see the great dictators of the world. Their names and the evils they perpetrated echo down the centuries, and there is no shortage of examples.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that humanity is evenly distributed across these varying reactions to issues. On just about every issue, you will find about 10% of those affected will take the idealist approach, 10% will have a pragmatic response, and the remaining 80% will fall solidly into the defeatist bucket. While the Idealist seeks a collective solution that will compel universal compliance in the solution, and the Pragmatist wants to leave doors open for everyone to come up with a wide range of possible solutions, the Defeatist doesn’t care who does something, as long as somebody (preferably not him) does, and will simply follow, sheep-like, whomever he perceives as having the solution most likely to benefit him.

My daughter came home from school and said, “Mum, you’re not going to believe what happened in history class today.”

Her teacher told the class they were going to play a game. He walked around the room and whispered to each kid whether they were a witch or just a regular person. Then he gave the instructions:

“Form the biggest group you can without a witch. If your group has even one, you all fail.”

She said the whole room instantly lit up with suspicion. Everyone started interrogating each other. Are you a witch? How do we know you’re not lying? Some kids clung to one big group, but most broke off into smaller, exclusive cliques. They turned away anyone who seemed uncertain, nervous, or gave off even the slightest hint of being guilty.

The energy shifted fast. Suddenly everyone was suspicious of everyone. Whispers. Finger-pointing. Side-eyes. Trust dissolved in minutes.

Finally, when all the groups were formed, the teacher said,

“All right, time to find out who fails. Witches, raise your hands.”

And not one hand went up.

The whole class exploded. “Wait! You messed up the game!”

And then the teacher dropped the bomb: “Did I? Were there any actual witches in Salem, or did everyone just believe what they were told?”

My daughter said the room went dead silent. That’s when it hit them. No witch was ever needed for the damage to happen. Fear had already done its work. Suspicion alone divided the entire class, turning community into chaos.

And isn’t that exactly what we’re seeing today? Different words, same playbook. Instead of “witch,” it’s liberal, conservative, vaxxed, unvaxxed, pro-this, anti-that. The labels shift, but the tactic is the same. Get people scared. Get them suspicious. Get them divided. Then sit back while trust crumbles.

The danger was never the witch. The danger is the rumor. The suspicion. The fear. The planted lies. Refuse the whisper. Don’t play the game. Because the second we start hunting “witches,” we’ve already lost.

As my sister and I grew older, and the long-term effects of a brain injury from an industrial accident slowly eroded my Grandfather’s ability to contribute, we kids were gradually co-opted into the process. My sister, at five, knew where everything belonged in that kitchen. I was assigned early in life to drying and polishing the silverware. It never occurred to me that I could have been doing anything else. On Christmas day, in England, it’s dark by four o’clock, so there was no going to play outside at that time; we didn’t have a television, and the adult conversation in the parlour was boring. But the three adult men bantering in the kitchen, kidding one another, and generally having fun, was the entertaining place to be.

In our family, whenever anyone was occupied with anything, somebody would always say “Do you need a hand with that?” I grew up expecting that this was the way life was supposed to be - you looked around to see what needed to be done, and you mucked in and made it happen. My father always waxed and polished the family’s shoes - something of a hangover from his National Service days. I was fascinated by the process, and by the time I was four years old, I was doing my own, and my sister’s.

When I was six, the family found a large house in the outer suburbs of London that was conveniently places for both my grandfather and my father to commute to work. Our house in the inner suburbs had a coal fir in my grandparents’ living room, with a back-boiler to provide hot water for the household. The house we moved into had a brickette stove in my grandparents’ kitchen which served this same purpose. Now, sending a small child down the ladder to the cellar to lug up buckets of coal was never an option in the old house, but my father deemed it quite reasonable, in the new home, to ask me to take on the task of bringing in the brickettes, which were much lighter, from the fuel bunker just outside the kitchen door. I was never told “this is your job”. Instead my father just said “I would like you to take responsibility to make sure your grandmother’s fire never goes out.”

Sadly, the lesson of this sailed through the stratosphere over my head. So badly did I miss the message, that my children, and my grandchildren were all adults before I noticed how my parents had handled this participation issue. Now, as I look back, I realise that my sister and I were never given chores, or jobs, or tasks. Everything we were asked to do was offered to us as a chance to take on a new responsibility. And every such opportunity made us feel proud and grown up. And when it was a once-in-a-while thing - like wallpapering the living room, or rehanging the garden gate - it was always just “Could you give me a hand with this”, with a clear understanding that it was always acceptable to say “No - I’m busy with something else”. Home was where everybody helped everybody else, and the necessary stuff got done. By secondary school age, I was mowing the lawn and vacuuming the stairs weekly, cleaning the windows regularly, clearing the breakfast table and doing the breakfast dishes every school day, and ironing my own shirts (oddly, ironing was my mother’s preferred mindless relaxation activity - she would put on some classical music and spend an hour or more ironing. However, I had made the mistake of telling her I didn’t like the way she did my shirtsleeves!). My sister was doing the Laundromat run every Saturday (sometimes with my help), helping with the meal preparation, and tidying up my mother’s endless clutter. Yes, she had fewer responsibilities than I did, but, for complicated reasons, her high school was nearly an hour’s commute by London Transport each way, which bit seriously into her time.

Now, don’t think we didn’t have a childhood. I was in the Cubs, and the nlater in the church choir (my choice, not my parents’; I learned young that a choirboy gets lots of attention from lots of girls). My sister did Brownies and then Girl Guides. We caught tiddles in the RIver Ingrebourne, burnt our bottoms on the slide in the park playgtound and skinned our knees and elbows roller skating in the pub car park. We sneaked into the railway cutting and put nails on the tracks. We walked 2 miles each way to the public swimming baths (to save the bus fare for hot chocolate and a Wagon Wheel afterwards). In my early teens, my friends and I would cycle the 25 miles to Southend-on-Sea and play on the game machines at the Kursaal. By my mid teens, I had a Friday night and Saturday job in the local supermarket, and a paper round ever y morning. My upbringing taught me that a boy is a man at 13, and it’s then time for him to start doing manly things. That’s when it became so important that the word “work” not have become a four-letter word!

If I had it all to do over, I’d love to be able to go back and implement my parent’s approach with my daughters - and then explain it to them, later. If my mother or my father had ever pointed out what they had done, once I had children of my own, things would have been very different, and perhaps I wouldn’t have grandsons who have no interest in participating in the running of the home, and were (and still are) amazingly creative in finding ways to avoid doing the jobs they were supposed to be doing.

It’s important how we label things in our lives, and especially in our children’s lives. I know it’s a semantic quibble, but calling a task a chore automatically raises resistance. A chore is something onerous and unpleasant, and we use the word that way in our everyday speech. So if our offspring are to learn to participate willingly and cheerfully, we have to modify our vocabulary. ’s essay on chores just needs that little tweak to be a real gem. I recommend it.

I’ll provide a complete translation of the communiqué later in the week. Until then, you’re welcome to make do with Google Translate for the details.

Bonjour M. Langlois,

Mercredi 9 juillet au matin, une vingtaine de policiers de la Brigade financière, armés et en gilet pare-balles, accompagnés de deux juges d’instruction, ont perquisitionné le siège du Rassemblement National.

Tous les bureaux de nos dirigeants ont été fouillés. Tous nos documents, nos mails, nos comptes et nos archives ont été saisis. Nous ne savons même pas quels faits sont exactement visés. Ce que nous savons en revanche, c’est que cette opération marque un nouveau palier dans l’acharnement judiciaire que subit le premier parti d’opposition de France.

Tous nos dossiers de campagne — régionales, présidentielles, législatives, européennes — ont été emportés. Toutes nos données comptables, ainsi que nos documents de travail et de préparation des prochaines échéances électorales, sont désormais entre les mains de la justice. C’est une attaque d’une gravité extrême contre le pluralisme et l’alternance démocratique dans notre pays.

Alors que le Rassemblement National a toujours fait valider ses comptes de campagne par la CNCCFP, année après année, dans le strict respect de la loi, voilà que l’on nous reproche désormais d’avoir eu recours à des prêts de particuliers. Or ces prêts sont parfaitement légaux, encadrés par la législation, déclarés en toute transparence et validés par la Commission nationale des comptes de campagne. Pourquoi y avoir recours ? Parce que, comme vous le savez déjà, aucune banque française n’accepte d’effectuer un prêt au Rassemblement National.

La promesse d’Emmanuel Macron et de François Bayrou d’une « banque de la démocratie » n’a jamais été tenue. Elle n’avait qu’un objectif : empêcher le RN de se financer. Nous n’avons eu d’autre choix que de faire appel aux Français eux-mêmes.

Aujourd’hui, on voudrait nous accuser d’avoir contracté des prêts « à titre habituel ». Mais cette notion n’est définie ni par la loi, ni par la jurisprudence, ni par aucun texte. Combien de prêts au maximum ? Quel montant au maximum ? Rien n’est précisé. Pire : la CNCCFP, censée être garante du droit électoral, n’a jamais émis la moindre objection.

Ce que nous subissons aujourd’hui n’est pas une simple procédure : c’est un harcèlement politique. C’est une tentative grossière d’intimidation. C’est une manière de nous empêcher d’agir, de faire campagne, de représenter les Français.

Jamais un parti d’opposition n’a subi un tel traitement sous la Vème République.

Mais qu’ils le sachent : nous ne céderons pas.

Ces méthodes indignes d’une démocratie ne font que renforcer notre détermination.

Vous avez reçu cet email car vous nous avez transmis des informations vous concernant. Vos données sont conservées à l'usage exclusif du Rassemblement National et ne sont transmises à aucun tiers. Vous pouvez vous désinscrire à tout moment en cliquant ci-dessous :

Not just these. There are many more. These are just the obvious examples right now.

Every one of these men announced to the whole wide world, in clear, unequivocal terms, exactly what they would do if and when they achieved a position of power. They put forth an entirely consistent message, day after day, year after year, decade after decade. They gave interviews. They appeared on television. Three out of these four wrote books. Anybody paying attention should have known precisely what to expect from each of them.

So how on earth is anybody surprised by anything these men are saying, or have said, are doing, or have done? Yet, unaccountably, millions of people seem to be or have been.

I raise this question particularly for the case of King Charles III. The world in general, and the British commonwealth population in particular, have had over half a century to get to know their upcoming sovereign. His milquetoast, largely convictionless, people pleaser, personality has been on full public display since his adolescence. This is the then future head of the Church of England who, as a student at Cambridge University, announced that when he ascended to the throne, he would be not Defender Of The Faith, as every one of his illustrious ancestors had been for well over four centuries1, but Defender of Faiths.

The English crown rules by consent of the people, through their elected and appointed representatives in the Houses of Parliament. In practice this seems to translate into a situation where the monarch rubber stamps everything that comes out of Parliament, no matter how egregiously evil the intent or how obviously undesirable the outcome of the legislation being proposed. There is no question of denial of the Royal Assent. That, we are told, would precipitate a constitutional crisis!2 Her late majesty, Queen Elizabeth II was a staunch defender of both the Christian faith and the Church of England. Of course we will never know what was said between Her Majesty and the numerous men who served as her prime minster Howver, she was an immensely strong and dedicated leader, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that she had the wisdom to invoke the constitutional crisis possibility on occasion, in order to temper what she may have seen as highly undesirable moves from parliament. Her son, on the other hand, seems content to play Good Old Wishy Washy Charlie Crown and allow his country to be sold out to every foreign interest that has the money to buy the cabinet. Anything to avoid rocking the boat, being controversial, or taking a stand.

This is no surprise. Every prior monarch of the United Kingdom was entirely privately educated. Nobody before now though it a good idea to expose the heir to the throne to the indoctrination process that takes place in the nation’s education system, whether fee-paying private, or state run public3. As Prince of Wales, every public statement of the King has demonstrated how effectively the ideologies of the day will always influence his decisions - an inevitable product of the values instilled in him from his time at Cambridge.

Adherents of the Church of England would do well to remind themselves that the kings of Israel and Judah were a mixed bag too. The majority of them are immortalised in scripture by variations of the phrase “he did what was abominable in the sight of the Lord.”

Don’t say this was unexpected. The Bible told you so, and so did Charles himself. So enough with the pearl clutching. Just resolve to ride this out, and console yourselves with the thought that only one king of England ever lived past King Charles’ current age, and he died at 814.

My first and most direct observation is that it seems tragic, given that the principles of success have been clearly understood for at least 2500 years, and extensively studied, analysed, and reported upon for over a century, that there are still people who believe that success is a matter of chance. But then I realize that it is inevitable that this belief be widespread.

There is a very persuasive lie that permeates human culture, which insists that material success is a matter of being in the right place at the right time, and then exploiting those who missed that stroke of luck. This fiction resonates in the spirit of almost everyone, because accepting it means that we are not responsible for our personal lack of achievement. And, moreover, it means that those who have achieved above our level owe us a share in their success by virtue of our lack of good fortune. Herein lies the motivation behind the “99%”. Herein, too, we see the leprous contagion of socialist egalitarianism transmitting its putrefying spores from soul to soul.

Communism and socialism survive and thrive mainly because of human gullibility and envy. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote

“ … il se rencontre dans le coeur humain un goût dépravé pour l’égalité, qui porte les faibles à vouloir attirer les forts à leur niveau, et qui réduit les hommes à préférer l’égalité dans la servitude à l’inégalité dans la liberté”. (Alexis de Tocqville “de la Démocratie en Amérique, Tome 1”, Garnier-Flammarion, Paris 1981. page 115)

“ … there is to be found, in the human heart, a depraved taste for equality which causes the weak to wish to drag the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality in liberty” (my translation).

It is this “depraved taste for equality”, nowadays called “the politics of envy”, on which evil men prey in order to propagate the equally depraved, and by now thoroughly discredited, ideologies of communism and socialism. They want you to believe that it’s just your bad luck that keeps you in misery, and that you need them to rescue you from cruel fate.

Like it or not, where you are in your life right now is exactly where you have chosen to be. That goes for you, for Elon Musk and George Soros - and the day labourer who mows your neighbour’s lawn, the woman at the checkstand in the supermarket. And equally for that guy standing at the traffic light with a little cardboard sign. It has nothing to do with luck, fate, circumstances, or any other outside influence you might want to blame things on. If you think luck matters, take a look at the lives of people like Helen Keller, Dr Ben Carson, NASCAR engineer Richie Parker, or renowned public speaker Nick Vujicic.

Your fate is not predetermined, not ruled by the gods – whatever you conceive them to be. It is the sum of the choices you have made. Little choices. Like choosing to hit the snooze button, one more time, and making yourself late for work, one more time. Little choices. Like staying up late playing video games instead of preparing for the rigours of tomorrow’s work day. Little choices. Like parking at the far end of the parking lot so you burn a few more calories and shed another pound. Little choices. Like carrying your coffee with you from home instead of paying through the nose for it at the Seattle Coffee shop. Little choices. Like squirreling away one or two percent of each pay cheque in a savings account.

When you add up all your good choices, and all your bad choices, where do you end up? On the positive side of the happiness chart? Or the negative side? This is what is going to define your success or failure, your happiness or misery.

You can change your life by changing your choices. But only if you are willing to stop playing the helpless victim, and instead take charge of your circumstances by taking responsibility for your decisions.

Like it or not, this is the horrifying reality for every child in our western civilization today. The state, in the person of Mom and/or Dad does their best to make provision for every one of their needs, and in return directs every moment of their existence.

This may have been successful a hundred and fifty ago in our Western European culture, when young men were apprenticed at 11, and began making their own way in the cut and thrust competition of the real world a decade before they were entrusted with the responsibility of helping to choose the elected officials who would ultimately replace their parents in the role of authority figures. But somewhere along the course of the century that has passed since the end of The War To End All Wars, we have lost sight of this obvious fact.

In our 21st century culture, we infantilize our young. We do everything to protect them from having to grow up. We keep them in school until 5 years after they are ready to start having children of their own, and we remind them daily, with everything we do and say, that we still consider them children. If you doubt this, take a look at the speed limit signs around an American High School! Worse, we encourage them to remain children into their twenties and thirties. We tell them "you're too immature to handle alcohol." Our institutions of higher learning dictate to freshmen - 18 and 19 year-old adults - where they can live. We shelter them, in an ever increasingly intrusive nanny state, from ever having to face the responsibilities for their own decisions, the consequences of their own mistakes. With hand-out after hand-out we send them the subliminal message "You can't make it alone. You need the state to provide for you, to feed you and house you and care for you."

And then we call them "snowflakes" because they believed us.

And finally - the ultimate hypocrisy - we get angry because they demand a government which will permit them to remain in the childish dependency that we have artificially imposed on them from birth.

Part of the objective of the employer was to make it at least unattractive, if not downright difficult, for the new hire to leave their employ at some future date. Enter the employer-provided health insurance program. At first blush, this looked like a win-win for employee and employer. The employees got their family medical costs covered with a minimal deductible; the company bought insurance at group rates that cost them far less than they would have needed to put in the pay check in order for the employees to buy their own insurance, and could write it off as a business expense. More importantly, an employee who had come to rely on the health coverage was much less likely to jump ship and go join the competition.

In the beginning, this worked quite well. But as time went by, and more and more companies added company paid health insurance to their benefits packages, the cracks in the foundation began to show.

To the employees, health care appeared to be effectively free. And anything that has the appearance of being free will always be oversubscribed. And anything that is oversubscribed will end up being rationed - whether by government fiat or by marketplace pressure. In this case it was market pressure. Where people had for centuries turned to home remedies, basic first aid, and the healing effects of rest and recuperation, they now more and more would run to the doctor with every little cough and sniffle, every cut, bruise or graze, every undefined twinge of back, knee or elbow pain. The workforce at large had lost sight of the fact that insurance is supposed to do no more than spread the risk for unforeseen events, and instead came to take it for granted that, in the matter of health care at least, insurance would pay for everything, no matter how trifling. Worse yet, from an employer's viewpoint, malingering now became institutionalized. A generation earlier, when a visit to the doctor to get a medical certificate meant spending real money, few people would ever call in sick. Now, though, a person could stay at home, still collect a day's pay, and all for the price of a $25 co-pay.

In the medical world, to cope with the increased workload, family doctors gave way to group practices, clinics, trauma centers, urgent care facilities. Overheads increased exponentially. Group practices had to compete with one another for business, and so had to offer the very latest in medical equipment and procedures. All these costs had to be recouped in professional billings and the health insurers began to feel the pinch. Laws at the state level governing insurance companies, designed to protect the consumer, generally resulted in de facto monopolies, shutting out out-of-state competition and driving up insurance costs. A generation later, by the 1980s, health insurance premiums had reached crisis levels, and employers now had to face hard choices. Some insurers introduced HMO schemes, allowing a brief reprieve for the employer paid insurance, but by the 1990s out-of-control costs driven primarily by vastly overextended resources forced employers to transfer the premium costs to the employees. Company paid health care was essentially dead before the turn of the century.

How, then, can a company today distinguish itself from the competition in the recruitment market place? The edge now comes in negotiating with the insurance companies for the most advantageous premium and coverage package for the employees. But only the largest companies have the clout to do this. 71% of the American private sector labor force works for a company with less than 10 employees. No wonder so many people go without health coverage!

The solution requires a multi part approach. First and foremost it is vital to educate the populace concerning the role of insurance. People must be taught to view health insurance like their car insurance or their homeowner's insurance. Regular routine maintenance items are just not covered. Period. Colds and zits and dandruff can be self treated with over-the-counter medication. So can insect bites and bee stings. Bumps and bruises and abrasions respond to first aid, without skilled medical intervention. And if you must see a doctor for these things, expect to have to pay for it. At full price. You don't file a claim with your auto insurance when you get a flat tire, or when your rear-view mirror comes off in your hand. You don't look for your home insurance to cover the stains on your carpet or the toilet bowl that your toddler just dropped a 2Lb barbell onto and smashed. In the same way, your medical insurance is not designed to cover normal everyday wear and tear on the human frame.

The number two requirement is to free the insurance companies from the strait jacket of government overreach. This should begin by abolishing the government mandates on what a health insurance policy must cover. Post-menopausal women and young single men are at zero risk of ever getting pregnant, an it should be possible for an insurer to offer a plan that doesn't include maternity coverage at a reduced premium. Similar other choices should be made available, where reduced premiums can be had by accepting reduced coverage. Once the actuarial tables have been redrawn to allow for different risks in different demographics, it becomes economically viable for insurers to offer a wide range of policies tailored to the needs of individuals and families, just as currently happens with car insurance. And suddenly, the market place forces can once again drive down costs.

Next, the nation as a whole needs to wake up to the incredible stupidity of linking health care insurance to employment. If your medical coverage depends on your job, guess what happens when you get too sick to work! Each individual needs to seek out the health coverage that best suits them, just as they do any other form of insurance. By all means, look for group coverage if it saves premium costs, but not if it limits your mobility. If your union, your professional organization, your church, your bowling league offer a group plan, consider very seriously what would happen if you change profession or move to a different state.

Finally, and most important of all, is to re-establish the patient-doctor relationship as the guiding principle in all things medical. As it stands in the USA today, medical care is determined far more by the negotiations between the employer and the insurance company than ever it is by the patient and the doctor. This is a bizarre aberration that must be ended. In most states, the law does not allow an auto insurer to dictate what may be done to repair your car. The same standard must be brought to bear on health care.

The health care crisis facing the USA today is not insurmountable. It requires above all decoupling health insurance from employment, and teaching people to have realistic expectations of their insurance coverage. Given those two advances, any remaining problems can reasonably be expected to work themselves out in short order.

Firstly, an employer doesn't pay you what YOU are worth, he pays what the JOB is worth. The average retail business works on about a 3% profit margin over wholesale cost. If your average customer spends $5 a visit, you'd have to service 100 customers an hour, every hour of your shift, to bring in enough just to pay you $15 an hour, without considering the overhead you cost your employer for workers' comp, social security, state disability insurance, unemployment insurance, mandatory break time, and a host of other charges that are incurred the moment a business takes on employees.

Secondly, a "livable wage" is an entirely subjective concept. It used to be that families were content with a 3 bedroom 1400 square foot suburban home, rather than demanding a MacMansion. They had one car for the family, not one each for Mom, Dad, and two teenagers. Television was 4 or 5 channels, all free, not $150 a month for cable or satellite. There was one phone, in the kitchen, that the family all shared, not 4 or 5 iPhones at $1,000 apiece plus a $50 a month per line service contract. And no tablets or home computers with $110 a month internet connection charges either. Dad went to work, and Mom stayed home and minded the kids - no single Moms struggling to raise 2 or 3 kids and pay for after school or school vacation child care. Kids left school at 18 and got a job or went to the local community college, they didn't go off to expensive universities with expensive tuition and expensive dorms. And they stayed at home with Mom & Dad, contributing to the family budget, until they got married. A livable wage under those circumstances was quite viable for every employer in the nation.

By contrast, what you apparently mean when you talk about a livable wage is one that will provide you with a luxury lifestyle your parents and grandparents hardly achieved even after more than half a century of working for a living.

First and foremost, from the earliest beginnings of human culture, society identified a clear and compelling interest in preventing issues of consanguinity from weakening the tribe.  This means putting in place a mechanism of exclusivity that permits, as far as possible, the ready identification of the progenitors of any particular individual.  We can always be sure who the mother is.  Only an exclusive male-female pairing allows us any reasonable certainty who the father is.  Thus social taboos arose which largely guaranteed a male the exclusive right of coupling with one or more females.

As human social groups expanded beyond the family to the tribe, to the village and then to the town and city, it also became necessary to protect the weak from exploitation or victimization by the strong.  It may be acceptable for animals to have constantly to fight tooth and claw to keep their mates, but humanity needed a better way, a way to put up insurmountable walls around pairings.  The tribe cannot long survive if rutting males are allowed to maim or murder in pursuit of female conquests.  Not only is there an obvious attrition in the male population under such circumstances, but more importantly the genetic diversity of the tribe suffers greatly, and this is potentially deadly to the entire tribe.

The role of religion in this process cannot be overstated.  The powerful, the wealthy, the strong have little fear of their fellow man.  But invoke a powerful and retributive deity or pantheon, and even the strong hesitate to transgress.  And thus the exclusive pairings of the tribal environment become the heaven ordained marriages of the civilized world, with dire threats of divine reprisals for mortals despoiling the marriage bed.

Over the centuries, marriage has evolved to fulfill other social purposes.  Most notably, questions of the legitimacy of offspring, particularly for issues of inheritance, came to be resolved by the consideration of the marital status of the parents.  Countless bloody, destructive wars have set kin against kin as a result of these inheritance conflicts.  And countless lawyers have grown rich pursuing such struggles through the court systems of nations great and small. While not a perfect solution, marriage has been largely effective in the overwhelming majority of cases, in ensuring that stray DNA is not introduced into carefully managed bloodlines. 

In most cultures, the eligibility of a young man, and especially of a young woman for marriage has long been a saleable commodity.  This is still true today in many parts of the world.  whether the dowry is considered to be a bride price paid by the groom to his prospective in-laws, or an endowment settled upon the bride by her family when she marries, the reality is still a commercial transaction.

Subscribe now