The political divide, today, is neither right nor left; it exists above all within society as a whole, between political representation and the aspirations and expectations of the people.
On the one hand, we have (in Europe still, but no longer in the United States), the single party of right-wing and left-wing liberals, along with their extreme versions, who make up the so-called “democratic” parliamentary representation. On the other hand, we have the People.
The People do not feel represented by this representation; half no longer vote; the other half no longer have confidence in their elected representatives—three quarters therefore no longer trust their politicians. Indeed, the polls show us that three-quarters of the European population agrees on the essential questions concerning our social life, our well-being and even our survival, but the political system is incapable of making the decisions desired by society, despite this popular majority which is not represented in Parliament.
What mechanisms of so-called liberal and “democratic” representation has led us to this situation?
It would be wrong to think that the situation will improve by electing the extreme parties that, however, revel in the word “People.” Take, for example, immigration, suppose it were to be stopped, and that, in addition, all illegal immigrants, present and past, were to be expelled. But if, on the other hand, native families are no longer having children because politics, the economy and culture are not designed for the good of families but for money, then it would be futile, and even totally hypocritical, to try to prevent the replacement of the people of French origin. And yet, this is the case with those who claim to resolve the issue of immigration without creating a policy and an economy for our families who have children.
Before Trump, the whole of the West was largely unaware of these questions of the life and survival of peoples, with answers that involve the families and intermediary bodies that form the basis of homelands. The Republican Democrats were Democratic Republicans, like us, right and left, because of the same so-called “democratic” system of representation. The People were never asked if they wanted mass immigration, as Vice-President JD Vance so aptly pointed out.
In his second term, with the whole system being against him, Trump excluded the Democrat Republicans (because of the unjust and scandalous attacks of the “Democrats” who had infiltrated the State and its internal and external security organizations) whom he put in the camp of the Republican Democrats—in order to address the American heartland. He may have done this as a political tactic, but he did do it. The People placed their trust in him because he was against the system and its traditional representation to make MAGA happen. America was able to bring about a revolution, within its very democratic institutions, by reconnecting with the real People, through this combination of circumstances.
So, let’s try to understand the real divide between the people and the political class, which continues to run through Europe, in order to understand the message that JD Vance is addressing to us Europeans. Vance fears that we no longer share the same values, because America has been able to ensure a profound change in politics in the service of the People by breaking with the so-called “democratic” system that excluded the People.
Let’s look at France, for example.
On the one hand, we have the single party of political representation, currently in the French Parliament. This representation is rooted in what it calls the values of the republic, and it is wrong to say that Marine le Pen’s party is outside these liberal values, which all stem from the philosophy of the social contract, where liberalism has founded society as a free political society since the Renaissance, with Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau, for example. The elected representatives of the RN (National Rally) have broken with the formerly Christian, though minority roots of the historic movement, to have only liberals, in morals and politics, who are for abortion and euthanasia, for marriage for all, with libertinism for all, practiced, to begin with, right in their very own homes.
This social contract of the French Revolution, which claims to embody the values of the republic by reducing the Republic (Res Publica) to its revolutionary form, is based on the assumption that man is not naturally social; he is an isolated individual who must therefore create society “democratically” through the free social contract. The elected majority then carries out the project of the represented people.
The problem with the social contract is that it is pure fiction. It has never existed because man is naturally social, necessarily born into a family with a father and a mother; he is born into a family, in a homeland with a culture, with heritage, but also with a specific physical and social environment that is not universal but particular to the Nation. The fiction of the social contract, on the other hand, leads us to all the social problems listed by Vance in denouncing our European “democracy.”
With the social contract, we have the policy that makes up the social project of man and society; on the other hand, with families and the naturally social man, we have the policy put at the service of families and social realities that go far beyond politics.
The family realities from which society emerges are not created by politics; politics must therefore serve them so that they develop in their dynamism. The real People come from families; they are not created by the social contract, which only creates the people represented “democratically.” It is therefore not the majority that makes up the truth of society, because society is this multiple, real given, established from families; the majority only serves to choose the ruling elite at the service of society.
Let us try to understand the system of “democracies,” born of the fiction of the revolutionary social contract, founding political society through majorities that make up the truth of the people represented. We will then understand Vance’s questions about how our European “democracy” works, unfortunately without the first US constitutional amendment, which allows the real People to have their say. His questions stem from the experience of a man who, before becoming Vice-President of the United States, wanted to live and survive in a totally disorganized family and social environment, and who also chose to be a Catholic through reason, that is to say, with an understanding of Catholicism.
The liberal system of the fiction of the “democratic” social contract is individualistic. It necessarily starts from isolated individuals, fallen from the sky, to make society as in Rousseau and his Robinson Crusoe. Indeed, if society were to emerge from families, with a naturally social man, then man would not be totally free to make society by the majority as he sees fit; he would, in fact, be constrained by a given reality, as we have seen, with his family, his homeland, the multiple legacies of history and, above all, the solidarities of love and truth expressed by his conscience of good and evil.
Also, in the liberal system of the so-called “democracies” of representation derived from the social contract, man cannot be naturally social because his freedom is constrained by his nature and society cannot therefore be created by majorities that make up the truth of society; society must therefore be created by totally free individuals, having no family or social roots, no spiritual heritage, or even a given physical nature.
The liberal system of the fiction of the “democratic” social contract is also secularist, relativist and subjectivist.
By rejecting what we are given at birth, with our given nature, our family, our gender, our cultural and spiritual heritage, liberalism also rejects the Creator of reality. God is replaced by man, who creates his own reality, and collectively, by the democratic social contract, the collective reality—society.
The exclusion of the creator God, of man and of society is therefore at the root of the liberal project of the social contract of the “democrats.” Man having taken the place of God, the resulting society must necessarily be secularist with a militant secularism. God is superfluous; society is made by man, for man, without God. Man alone is the Sovereign; there is no room for two Sovereigns, man and God.
Liberalism is therefore also relativist, because the truth of man, and also of society, fluctuates according to the multiple wills of men and majorities that make up the multiple truths of man and society.
Liberalism is also subjectivist, because it is subjective individual will and collective will, derived from individual subjectivities, that make up the reality of man and society, without recourse to the transcendent real, a given real that would constrain freedom; man must make the real himself or he is not Sovereign.
By following this internal logic of the liberalism of the social contract that forms the basis of society, we have all the problems of our society and the totalitarian logic of our liberal society that has become illiberal, which Vance denounces by explicitly referring to his Christian roots.
Immigration, first of all. Indeed, if society is made up of individuals without roots, totally free, all individuals are interchangeable; therefore, borders must be open to all individuals in the world. Nations and countries must be denied in the pursuit of the denial of families that would not exist at the origin of society, the political contract making society. The policy of open borders is intrinsic to liberalism, with the acceptance of all men in the “democratic” society of the social contract that makes up the new political society.
Wokeness, abortion, euthanasia, drugs and ultimately all Western nihilism, up to and including the destruction of man and society.
Indeed, if man creates himself through his freedom, without God or even a transcendence of reality that would constrain him in his freedom, he can obviously create his sex, and he can also decide on life and death, on the fetus which is only the extension of his body, as well as on the life and death of his own body, in assisted suicide. Life is not sacred as a given that is beyond us and, above all, if this life is opposed to the social contract, it can be suppressed as in the “Terror” for the good social project. The free individual can also decide to take drugs because it is a matter of his freedom and his pleasure and he has no particular duties and real responsibilities towards others, except contractual ones which can be canceled by another contract. The same goes for free love and multiple marriage contracts with divorce and marriage for all. Man has become the Master of Being, of Life, of Society, and of Death.
State interventionism and increasing public spending, again. Indeed, if man is the creator of society—if society is not natural to man, with its family and social solidarities extending to the Fatherland—the State must intervene at all times to create the society needed and desired by the social contract. The State must make increasing social expenditures because it is impossible for the State to create society. The engineering of the social contract leads to increasing State intervention, with increasing expenditures due to the rejection of the natural organization of society.
More seriously, the internal logic of the liberal system means that it ends up in the hands of the single party of the illiberal oligarchy, as in the communist systems of the “people’s democracies” that partly stem from the same logic.
Indeed, every society is organized around a common good, as in the society of families where politics is at the service of their good and that of the country which follows from it, with politics not having as its object to make society but to serve the real society which exists without the fiction of the social contract. But if this common good of the social contract is made not real, objective or reasonable, it must necessarily be constructed by the “democratic” contract. This is why the ‘democratic’ political organization of the social contract is designed around lobbies, i.e., individuals who organize themselves to defend their own interests and not any real and objective good.
But if the common good is the result of the various lobbies defending their interests, certain lobbies will have more means at their disposal to ensure their interests prevail because they will have more money. They will therefore manufacture the common good by manufacturing opinion through a bought-out press and through all the means of influence and corruption that money provides—to manufacture the common good in view of their own interests.
Thus, the liberalism of the social contract that freely founds society necessarily ends up as a partisan oligarchy, defending the particular interests of the best-organized rich, who have become the most influential, and thus as a plutocratic oligarchy, as of the Davos club, seeking to shape society for their present and future interests.
It is this party of the rich, always wanting to be even richer, that has led to competitive relocations, for example in the West. Producing at Chinese prices and selling at Western prices, putting the profits in tax havens, is in the interest of the rich to become richer, but is obviously not in the interest of society, families and the homeland, because it leads to mass unemployment, the loss of know-how, the loss of tax revenues and to debt and widespread poverty. The rich of the Davos Club, and their political henchmen selected by this so-called falsely “democratic” system, moreover, want this indebtedness to take all the assets of the real People, their savings and their real estate, and to enslave the whole of society: You will own nothing because we will own everything, and you will be made to believe that you will be free while being totally subjugated to us.
The single party of the rich of the “democratic” social contract system is organized in Davos. This party shapes society according to its interests, as in the communist party and the people’s democracies, through the political bureau that dictates the common political program.
The Popes, confronted with communist ideology, moreover, designated liberalism as the crucible of communism. Indeed, in Rousseau, on the same page of the “Social Contract,” we move from the absolute freedom of the individual making the social contract to his absolute enslavement to the collective contract, this one sealed. The society built by the social contract leaves only this alternative: individualist anarchism and communist collectivism.
Let’s summarize to understand Vance’s remarks about the “democracy” (of the liberal social contract) that is still alive and well in Europe.
The liberal system of this “democracy” is totalitarian. If the social commons is constructed subjectively by the social contract, it cannot be affirmed objectively by reason with the objective Good of the real People; it can therefore only be imposed by propaganda and by force, by the party of the rich or the communist party, which speaks for us all. The party of “democratic” truth must therefore impose its truth, otherwise democracy is in danger. Opponents of the “democratic” system cannot therefore have the right to speak and must be locked up and annihilated to save “democracy.”
The liberal system of the “democrats” is at war with the real People. The People constructed by the social contract, the represented people, has nothing to do with the real People of families. Democratic representation therefore works against the real People, and against families through abortion and euthanasia, which must be enshrined in the Constitution, like the gender law, and finally through foreign preference and war. The people represented by the national representation want to destroy the real People by any means possible to show their legitimacy to speak on behalf of the People.
The liberal system of the “democrats” is at war with the rest of the world. Indeed, if in international society there is no transcendence of Truth and Justice, one must be the strongest to establish Truth and Justice according to one’s own interests. It is therefore necessary to wage war on any power that dares to assert its independence, especially if this power does not share the values of liberal democracy (with the fiction of the social contract) and places God at the center of society with legitimate power that serves the interests of the real People.
For politicians who have been brainwashed by the liberal social contract, the very existence of Russian power that serves Russia is unbearable because it runs counter to their interests, and they want its wealth. For those who want to Make America Great Again, on the other hand, by putting the wealth of a Nation and the talent of the rich at the service of this ambition of the real People of the United States, the concessions made to “democracy” (of the fictitious social contract) matter little in relation to the good done to the real Peoples and to Peace. The agreement between the United States and Russia is sealed on the interests of the People against the system of the “social contract.”
Vance is a Christian realist who questions us Europeans about the follies of the “democracies” of the single party and of the truth of the political social contract against the People.
Certainly, we must not reject Democracy by denying the fiction of the social contract because true Democracy allows the choice of representatives whose primary ambition will not be to make the people but to serve the People in their real material and spiritual needs. If true Democracy does not make the “Truth” of the People through the people represented, true Politics pedagogically expresses the Truth, the Just, the Good of a Nation. It is, in fact, impossible to remedy the lamentable situation in which our People find themselves in the nihilism into which the liberal theory of the social contract has led us, after several centuries of liberalism by the elected elite of the “enlightened” who want to do the People’s will.
Undoubtedly, the truth is not always audible because the People can also be guilty of lying to themselves, though they are more responsible rather than guilty, since they must daily suffer, thanks to the media, the repeated lies of the single party to which the theory of the social contract that makes up the truth of society always leads. It is by loving the People, on the other hand, the primary duty of a politician, that one can tell them certain truths that are not pleasant but which are necessary for the People of each Nation to once again become great by simply being themselves in their Homeland.
The political representation in France, more particularly with the National Rally which is a liberal opposition within the system, is quite incapable of telling the truth to the People. Thus, on abortion and euthanasia, there is no real opposition to this French suicide; on pensions and intergenerational justice, no party is calling for more to be given to the working population and less to pensioners, and no political movement is calling for capital to be structurally linked to labor by not being able to relocate; no one wants to restore our public accounts, boosted by spending through borrowing because a Fatherland should be managed like a family—as no one dares to talk about the sacrifice and virtue that are part of human dignity, nor about fidelity in marriage and against divorce, and for the stability and happiness of all, starting with the children. Yet it is these truths that are essential to true Democrats who want to “Make their Homeland Great Again.”
General de Gaulle embarked on such a challenge in 1969: to rebuild democracy, starting with the real People. The reform of the Senate was designed to give a voice to the intermediate bodies, bodies rejected by the people represented by the revolutionary social contract because individuals were needed to make the social body free. It was also a question of preventing the one-party state of the rich, who would take control of society through the media and through corruption by ensuring that up to 50 percent of the profit from capital would be given to labor, or by adopting the 1/3 law: 1/3 for investment, 1/3 for labor, 1/3 for Capital.
Once again, de Gaulle showed us the way to “Make France Great Again.”
Featured: The Dream of Saint Isidore, by Joseph von Führich (ca. 1830).
