Regine Pernoud is excellent, particularly her book on Joan of Arc

I saw the film for the same reason as you, because of Sailer’s recommendation. I laughed a lot, at Bruce Lee, at Dalton’s self-pity and at those preposterous hippies who are despised by commonsensical people like Booth and Dalton. Great entertainment that doesn’t denigrate anyone as inglorious bastards did with the Germans.

Thanks for the link. Their discussion is very instructive and Stephen Meyer has explained well what intelligent design means.

I don’t think this situation of the weaker dominating the strong is unprecedented. How did Christians conquer the Roman Empire? Their strategy consisted of playing the role of victims and becoming martyrs to their cause. They didn’t take up arms or participate in revolutions. But of course, the outcome now is likely to be totally different, and a third party, I.e. neither the former masters nor the former victims, may take advantage of the fall of Western civilization as we know it.

You are right. I meant that it conquered the hearts of people. And it got the approval of Constantine by conquering the heart of his mother, as far as I know.

Mr. Durocher, I think that Mr. Houellebecq’s book Les Particules Elementaires is a really fine description of our future. Certainly more realistic, at least that’s this feel-good science fiction.

Mr. Durocher, another French intellectual who thought about these issues, as you certainly know, was Balzac. Let me quote from his book “Sur Catherine de Medicis”, where he develops an argument on the long term effects of the Reformation:
“Les grands politiques qui Furent vaincus dans cette longue lutte (elle a dure cinq siecles) reconnaissaient à leurs sujets de grandes libertes; mais ils n’admettaient ni la liberte de Publier des pensees antisocial, ni la liberte infinie Du sujet. Pour eux, sujet et libre son en politique Deux termes qui se contredisaient, de meme que des citizens tous egaux constitue un nonsense Que la nature dement a toute heure. Reconnaitre la necessite d’une religion, la necessite du pouvoir, et laisser aux sujets le droit de Nier la religion, d’en ataquer le culte, de s’opposer à l’exercice du pouvoir par l’expression publique, communicable et communiquee de la pensee, est Une impossibilite que ne voulaient point les Catoliques du seizieme siecle.”
Sorry for the typos but I couldn’t help making them.

The great politicians who were defeated during this long fight (it lasted five centuries) granted their subjects great liberties; but they did not allow either the liberty of publishing antisocial thoughts or the indefinite freedom of subjects. For them, subject and free are political terms that Contradict one another, in the same way that citizens all equal is a nonsensical concept that nature denies all the time. To recognize the need for religion, the need for power, and to allow citizens the right to deny religion, to attack religious practice, to oppose the exercise of power through public expression that is both communicated and communicable, is an impossibility that Catholics in the sixteenth century did not want at all.

Mr. Margolis, Mr. John Law worked under Louis XIV’s nephew, the Duke of Orléans, who was the regent while the future Louis XV was still a minor.

Thank you for sharing the article with us, the man has a balanced view on the topic, he is neither a Trump hater nor a globalist, but is simply trying to assess the United States’ strengths and weaknesses.

Indeed, disgenics in action. The same happened in Rome, by the way. The rich stopped having children because women were liberated and preferred to frolic around rathen than to be tied to multiple pregnancies. Emperor Augustus saw the danger of the new customs brought about by wealth and tried to reverse the trend by imposing the Julian laws in 18 B.C., but they had little effect. Eventually they had to resort to the barbarians to fill the demographic gap and the empire ended.