While on Bushido I was reading up on de Gaulle. I was not a Gaullist while he was president because of what I thought was his betrayal of the French army in Algeria. But I was wrong. De Gaulle knew very well that holding Algeria was impossible. He also mistrusted capitalism — up to a point. He knew that left totally to their own devices, capitalists would turn much too greedy for the public’s good. When he retired in 1969, he could have collected his pension as a general as well as that of an ex-president of ten years. He chose, instead, a colonel’s pension, and de Gaulle was not a man of means. He died the following year in relative poverty. Compare that with the 100 million greenbacks Bill Clinton has amassed by hanging out with low-lifes like Jeffrey Epstein (about to do a Taki for at least 18 months) or the millions Tony Blair is accruing from American banks for having played along. The money-obsessed career politicians of today alone make de Gaulle a great man.
They certainly do. As does so very much else about that good conservative dirigiste in opposition to the capitalist corrosion of everything that conservatives exist in order to conserve. Inseparable therefrom was his glorious battle against all four of German occupation, Soviet infiltration, American domination, and the unbalancing of the nascent EU by British accession.
On all four counts de Gaulle was right, as he would have been, for exactly the same reasons, if faced with today's neocon-Islamic alliance in the midst of the Postmodern, globalised, hypercapitalist, meterosexual wasteland.
A new de Gaulle is just what France needs.
And so does Britain.
Where are they?