merely used the count: for the latter’srnhigh hopes both secured the loyalty ofrnthe monarchists for the General-Presidentrnand suggested that a great man likernDe Gaulle could not have a mere ballotboxrnsuccessor.rnAnyway, the Pretender was left highrnand dry. He did, however, overcomernthe doubt that only a Bourbon and notrnan Orleans could become king. ThernCount of Paris was a descendant of thernjunior Orleans branch, and his greatgreat-rngrandfather was Prince Philippe,rnnicknamed in the French Revolutionrn”Philipe Egalite” since he had helped tornundermine the throne in 1789 and votedrnfor his cousin’s—Louis XVI’s—death!rnHence the revulsion of the monarchistrncamp. However, since De Gaulle’s deathrnin 1970, the Count of Paris has gained legitimacyrnover his possible rivals—left orrnright—which would have none of him:rnthey have chained themselves to thernflesh-pots of power.rnThus, the Count of Paris has beenrntrying and trying. He has portrayed himselfrnas a conservative to France’s NewrnClass (industry, media, liberals, socialists)rn. This failed, so he tried a populistrntone (labor, the socialist left wing). Onernof the intellectual magazines calling itselfrnroyalist in its title has even flirtedrnwith the new communists and the Arabrnimmigrants, while the count’s right-wingrnsupporters are pulling him in the oppositerndirection. After all, the last Bourbonrnpretender, more than a hundred yearsrnago, announced his program “to reawakenrn1789” as an alliance of king and people!rnThis, too, has a long tradition inrnFrance.rnLast year I received a book, nicely in-rnLIBERAL ARTSrnSINGING FOR PEACErn”When a critical mass of women inrnUN peace-keeping missions exists, localrnwomen in the host country arernmobilized through a positive demonstrationrneffect. . . . They sometimesrnuse unorthodox means such asrnsinging to defuse potentially violentrnsituations.”rn—from “The Role of Women in UnitedrnNations Peace-keeping,” Womenrn2000, December J 995.rnscribed by the Pretender’s eldest son.rnPrince Henri, Count of Clermont. It isrnsmartly titled Adresse au futur chef dernI’Etat, which can be understood in twornways: advice to the next resident of thernRepublic—whoever he may be—or arnprogram for the author himself in case hernbecomes prince-president. To the reader’srnpleasant surprise, the work does notrnonly stand out among the “princely literature”rnof today, it stands out, period.rnThe author has no wish to hide his originsrnand status; he fully claims his royalrnlineage, “the forty kings who madernFrance” since Hugh Capet (ninth century),rnas the monarchist saying goes. Thisrnnatural and modest stance, not at allrnoverdone (he mentions that as a soldierrnin the Foreign Legion, a maliciousrncorporal assigned him to latrine duties,rnand that he was once invited by thernlocal Madam to have lunch with thern”ladies”—something unimaginable inrnan Anglo-Saxon country), is bothrncharming and fitting, and lends himrncredibility. A random list of what thernCount of Clermont is for and against: forrnthe power of customs, against the legalismrnof the bureaucratic state-apparatus;rnfor the prudent assimilation of NorthrnAfrican and other immigrants who showrnloyalty to France; against the treaties ofrnMaastricht and Schengen which robrnFrance of her sovereignty; for the integrityrnof the family through financial supportrnfor each child, therefore againstrnabortion; for a more active foreign tradernagainst the invasion of American products,rnwhether films, videos, or others earmarkedrnin the GATT treaties; etc. Thernlist, with each item separately and competentlyrndiscussed, amounts to a kind ofrnNew Deal, an effort at modernizationrnwhich does not jeopardize the world’srnrichest cultural heritage.rnThe author does not fall into any ofrnthe traps allowing the critics to say,rn”Well, it is easy for him, for what hernwrites is gratuitous.” What he writes, indeed,rnshould be measured and evaluatedrnagainst the background noise of boringrnvacuities of the political class, arrogant,rncowardly, and demagogic. The authorrnhas, after all, at least the same rights asrna Chirac, Barre, Bahadur, or Jospin tornjudge the French situation, that of arndecadent ex-empire kept, through itsrnown fault, on a “European” and trans-rnAtlantic leash. Let us bear in mind thatrnwhat the prince proposes and promises isrnfealty to a French tradition: the regularlyrnoccurring revolt of the nation, whetherrnled by Joan of Arc against the Englishrnoccupation, by the young Louis XIVrnagainst the power of the feudal remnant,rnby Napoleon who “cleansed the revolution,”rnor by De Gaulle against the country’srnsecond-rate status. These rebellionsrnwere accomplished without the curse ofrnan ideology; they were pragmatic, althoughrnwith a strong faith behind them,rnsummed up by Charles Peguy as: “Godrncreated Frenchmen so He may havernpeople to converse with.”rnAll this may not secure the throne, notrneven the presidency. Yet what PrincernHenri writes in this book is henceforthrnon record. France’s present situation isrnsuch that mere survival as a consumer societyrnwould wipe her out as a nation.rnSqueezed between a stronger Germany,rnwhose imperial-romantic penchant canrnnever be discounted, and an imperialistrnUnited States, with its economic-missionaryrnzeal, France’s diplomacy is listless,rnamateurish, and submissive. Therninsane notion of European unity makesrnher governing personnel hesitant, herrncitizens unsure whether they wakernup tomorrow to a Disneyland status.rnBernanos wrote that France must bernsaintly and heroic, or it is not France.rnThe prince does not allow himself to sayrnthis, but he says far more than any memberrnof the political-intellectual classrnwould dare even to think. And it is purerncommon sense.rnPerhaps this stems from the traditionrnof the “people’s king,” a tradition alwaysrncultivated by the throne. Historiographyrnsince the revolution has tried to falsifyrnthat concept and show the king as arndespot. It is a false concept, as shownrnby the recent work of Gaubert, Furet,rnChaunu, among others. In days beforernthe rise of an irresponsible bureaucracy,rnordinary people felt closer to their king.rnThe big question in France is whether arnmonarchist restoration would reinstillrnthis feeling or merely create a redecoratedrnparliamentary (or even presidential)rnregime, neutralizing the monarch, perhapsrnturning him into a politician withrndebts to the “restorers.” Constitutionallyrnand financially tied, not he but thernInternational Monetary Fund and thernDeutschmark would rule, as they do todayrnall over the globe. This is whatrn”globalism” means today.rnThomas Molnar’s PhilosophicalrnGrounds (199]) was recently rereleasedrnby Transaction Publishers as Archetypesrnof Thought.rn46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn