The Case for Henri d’Orleans



If you google “who is the rightful King of France,” you will undoubtedly have Louis-Alphonse de Bourbon as your first, and likely only, result. Likewise, many sites erroneously state the false “Duke of Anjou” as France’s rightful head of state.

But for people who study the issue, and for most French Royalists, the answer to the above question is not Louis-Alphonse, but Henri d’Orleans, Count of Paris.

Origin of the dispute

The origin goes back to the War of Spanish Succession. Charles II of Spain, the country’s last Habsburg ruler, died without issue. In his will, he named Philip, Duke of Anjou as his successor.

The Habsburgs, who ruled the Holy Roman Empire (i.e. most of the German states/central Europe), were naturally angered. They saw Spain as theirs, so they declared war on France and Philip’s Spain.

Britain, likewise, did not fancy the possibility of Spain and France being united behind a single monarch in the future. Thus, they declared war on France and Philip’s Spain.

This is where the Peace of Utrecht comes in. Philip V of Spain agreed to renounce his claim to the throne of France, and Louis XIV accepted the renunciation.

There is, however, one tiny hiccup: The Fundamental Laws of French succession don’t allow the King to change the order of succession. So, is Utrecht valid?

The validity of the Peace of Utrecht

Yes, Utrecht is valid.

The first duty of the King is the protection and security of the realm. Surely everyone can agree to this.

While France and Philip were winning the war, France’s estimated casualties were between 115,000 and 140,000 men, far more than any other state in the war. Was Louis XIV supposed to just say ‘screw it’ and risk the lives of more Frenchmen when the road to a perfectly amicable and desirable peace was right in front of him? Of course not! To say so would not only be lunatic but downright immoral! The cost of the war was an estimated 400,000 to 700,000 dead!

Louis XIV accepted Philip’s renunciation in a good faith attempt to protect and secure France. The War of Succession constituted a force majeure. Protecting France was a higher priority than respecting the laws of succession. Therefore, the provisions of Utrecht supersede laws of succession.

Keep in mind, this doesn’t render the Fundamental Laws null and void, but was merely a temporary adjustment because of a force majeure. Therefore, despite the change in the order of succession, the Fundamental Laws remain intact and valid.

This is why, when the last French Bourbon, the Count of Chambord, died without issue, most Royalists turned to the House of Orleans in the person of Philippe, Count of Paris. That is why today, most French Royalists support Philippe’s descendant–Henri d’Orleans, Count of Paris–as the rightful King of France.

Don Louis’s disqualifications

With Philip V of Spain’s renunciation being valid, Philip’s descendants lost all rights to the French throne. That should go without question. Therefore, Louis-Alphonse is simply not in the line of succession to the French Throne.

Furthermore, the Spanish Bourbons are not French. They stopped being French the moment Philip V’s renunciation was accepted and the Peace of Utrecht was entered into the National Register of France.

A foreigner cannot become King of France. This has been a rule since at least the 16th century:

Charles Dumoulin, the greatest French jurist of the 16th c., wrote in his Coutumes de Paris (1576 edition): “Le bon sens exige que les princes du sang, devenus étrangers soient écartés du trône au même titre que les descendants mâles des princesses. L’exclusion des uns et des autres est dans l’esprit de la coutume fondamentale qui ne méconnaît le sang royal dans les princesses que pour ne jamais laisser le sceptre aux étrangers.” (Common sense requires that princes of the blood who have become foreigners be excluded from the throne just as the male descendants of princesses. The exclusion of both is in the spirit of the fundamental custom, which overlooks the royal blood in princesses only to prevent the scepter from falling in foreign hands. Note: this is the text cited by Coutant de Saisseval La Légitimité monarchique, but I have been so far unable to locate the source of this citation.)

Louis-Alphonse is not a French prince. He is, first and foremost, a Spaniard. Further, the Spanish Bourbons left France with no intention of returning. Therefore, according to the laws of France at the time, they would have likewise been considered foreigners even if the Peace of Utrecht were considered invalid.

While it is true that Louis-Alphonse has French citizenship through his grandmother, this does not magically restore him to the line of succession to the French throne. Because of Salic law (the main purpose of which was to keep foreigners from ruling France), only the male line is used to determine succession. And even if Salic law weren’t used, the Spanish Bourbons had already been removed from the line of succession because of their foreignness prior to their marriage to a French woman.

Therefore, once again, the Royal House of France is the House of Orleans, and the heir if the Bourbon Monarchy survives in the person Henri d’Orleans, Comte de Paris.


ADL and other left-wing Lie Groups


Surprise, surprise. The the worthless subhuman scum at the ADL have called the so-called “alt-lite” a “hate movement.”

Much like the SPLC, the ADL is a worthless, radical leftist organisation that calls all opposition “hate groups” as a way to poison the well and spread their agenda.

The ADL previously labelled Pepe the Frog as a “hate symbol.”

And the SPLC have associated Kekistan — a parody of identity politics — with white nationalism.

It doesn’t matter to the SPLC that Kekistan is a satire of the identity politics that the left and the alt-right love so much. No, in the minds of these idiots, everyone who isn’t a radical leftist is “alt-right.”

Just look at how they lie:

The banner’s design, in fact, perfectly mimics a German Nazi war flag, with the Kek logo replacing the swastika and the green replacing the infamous German red. Alt-righters are particularly fond of the way the banner trolls liberals who recognize its origins.

In recent weeks, alt-right marchers at public events planned to create violent scenes with leftist antifacist counterprotesters have appeared carrying Kekistan banners. Others have worn patches adorned with the Kek logo.

Monarchy and the Modern World


Anyone who is an astute observer of the internet can see the growth of a minority political opinion: monarchy.

Many will question why it has grown, but I think the answer is simple: people don’t like the present system. They are fed up with the false promises of modernity. This has led to some to revolt completely. Some even reject all elements of democracy and go about as far right as they possibly can.

I, however, am not one of them. While I certainly agree that democracy is not the god that many on the left view it to be (so long as that democracy accepts their conclusions), I think a democratic element within the governing apparatus is necessary.

Aristotle believed that the best government was a constitutional government, i.e. a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. I have to agree. Too often democracy is viewed as a sacred cow by the left and even the right.

Democracy is an important element, don’t get me wrong. I like to think of it as a pressure valve. It is a way of placating the masses, lest they revolt against the public order. However, democracy must be checked, lest it destroy the nation.

Undemocratic Democracy

But how democratic are our democracies? Are they democratic in the right ways?

The answer, in my eyes, is a definite no. Most countries, particularly the United States, uses first-past-the-post or plurality voting. This leads to a two-party system that has left many disillusioned and angry (I am one of them).

People feel as if their voices aren’t heard and their concerns aren’t addressed, and they’re absolutely right. There’s no real need for the politicians to address the concerns of the people because the plurality voting system allows politicians to win elections without even getting a majority of the votes.

In fact, the majority can even vote for everyone other Person A and Person A could still win the election. Let’s say that Person A receives 33.4% of the vote while Persons B and C receive 33.2% each. Despite 66% voting against him, Person A wins. That isn’t democratic.

A proportional representation system is far superior, but even in the countries that uses such systems, they find a way to make people feel as if their voice doesn’t count.

Take Germany. While they use a mixed-member proportional system, they have draconian laws against so-called “hate speech.” And we all know what that really is: speech the political class doesn’t like. Dare to criticise Islam—hate speech. Think immigration policy is too loose—hate speech. Think immigrants should assimilate into society—hate speech.

Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to these problems. Countries are different. They have different cultures and different values. But there are solutions.

1. Constitutional (Hereditary) Monarchy

While many countries are constitutional monarchies, very few, if any, do it right. The closest to doing it right are probably Lichtenstein and Monaco.

The problem with most constitutional monarchies is that the monarch has too little power. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the monarch should run the country or decide day-to-day policy, but the monarch is there for a reason—to ensure good governance. The monarch should be a check against the power of politicians.

A monarch, however, cannot be a real check on government abuse if he is powerless. At the very least, the monarch should have the de facto and de jure power to veto laws (though this is something that should be rarely done), grant titles of nobility, award honours, and do the traditional things a monarch does.

But a person may rebut: Couldn’t an elected head of state do these things?

As far as veto laws and be the fount of honour, yes. But an elected head of state is still a politician and, thus, cannot be a check against the political class running amok because he is of the political class.

2. A Proper Legislature

During American constitutional convention, many were afraid of a too powerful federal government, and history has shown that these concerns were well-founded and justified. To curb these fears, Congress consisted of two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House is elected by the people, and the Senate was originally elected by the state legislatures to prevent the federal government from ignoring the needs of the individual states.

But then came the 17th amendment, which mandated the popular election of US Senators. This severed the tie between the state governments and the Congress. No longer did the state governments have say over one half of the Congress. Now the Congress can bully, bribe, and extort states to do the bidding of an ever-growing federal government.

For a large country, history is clear: a portion of the legislature must answer to more local governments, lest the central government grow too powerful.

This is important for the sake of individual freedom. If one finds the laws of the city too burdensome, it is easier to leave the city than the county. Likewise, it is easier to leave the county that to leave the state, and it is easier to leave the state than it is to leave the country. But the farther one must one must go to leave a regulation, the more difficult it is. National laws, therefore, are more restrictive than state laws, state laws are less restrictive than county laws, county laws are less restrictive than city laws, and city laws are the least restrictive.

Therefore, a portion of the legislature must be selected by the people (preferably by a proportional method), while another should be selected more local governments to prevent the national government from growing too powerful.

And while I’m on the topic of legislatures, I think it is important to have a small minority of legislators who represent a special class—the scientists, philosophers, and other persons of merit. Too often are these people ignored.

3. Aristocracy

The original meaning of the word aristocracy was rule of the best. Today, however, it refers to nobility or sometimes people of wealth and social standing.

While I don’t think aristocrats should rule, they are an important part of society. Every society has a de facto nobility. Only by having a de jure system of nobility, may the aristocracy be regulated.

For some reason, people have rejected aristocracy in favour of super-egalitarianism. This was a mistake. While I don’t think nobles should have special legal privileges, it is important to recognise people of merit. And what better way to reward someone of merit than with a title of nobility? This is why the United Kingdom grant peerages to certain people in the arts and sciences, or anyone else who shows some form of merit.

A de jure system of nobility can also be used to hold aristocrats to a higher standard of ethics and virtue. Depending on the system in question, nobles would be attainted for committing high crimes or treason. In other words, their titles could be revoked.

4. Checks and Balances Between the Monarchy and the Legislature

Just as a judiciary should check the legislature, the must be a check between the monarchy and the legislature.

I recommend a body selected by professional organisations of scientists, engineers, businessmen, etc. For lack of a better term, I will call this group the Council of State. They would serve as a privy council and advise the monarch on various matters.

For example, the Council of State could recommend the veto of a bill passed by the legislature, and only the Council of State could overturn the monarch’s veto. This prevents the monarchy from abusing power and backs up the monarch when he needs to veto a bill that isn’t in the best interests of the nation.

5. Executive Power

The downside to the parliamentary system is that the chief executive, the person who executes the laws, is a “creature of the legislature,” as the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it. This means that the prime minister, chancellor, or whoever is determined exclusively by the legislature.

This is the one benefit the presidential system has over parliamentary system. This creates gridlock, preventing the chief executive, controlled by the legislature, from mandating its will upon the nation.

Obviously, a presidential system isn’t exactly consistent with a constitutional monarchy. This is why a recommend a semi-parliamentary system. In other words, the executive is elected by the people, separately from legislature.


It seems obvious to me, and I hope to many, that the problem with the modern world is one of dysfunctional thinking about government and what the governing structure should be. People are more concerned about the things they want than how the government should function. They care too much about the minutiae of mundane public policy while ignoring the constitutional structure of the government itself.

They worship false idols like democracy and irrational reject good things like aristocracy and monarchy because they seem antediluvian. It’s a pure emotional reaction reject these things outright without giving them serious consideration.

My challenge to everyone is to consider all the things I’ve brought up, to question what the governing structure should be. Only by asking these questions, the fundamental questions about government itself, can we even begin to fix the problems which plague the modern world. It just might be that the problem with the modern world is that it tries to be modern, everything else be damned.

#CNNBlackmail – The Assault Continues


Fake News Network CNN have continued their assault against sanity and the American President. This time, however, the casualty is a Reddit user known only as HanAssholeSolo.

CNN have blackmailed the Reddit user by threatening to dox him:

CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change. [emphasis added]

CNN have tried to claim they did’t blackmail the Reddit user, but many aren’t buying it:

A plain reading of CNN’s article, however, contradicts what the network and Kaczynski are saying. If CNN really intended to withhold HanAssholeSolo’s information regardless of what he did, then why didn’t the news organization say it was withholding his private information simply because he’s a private citizen? Why did it go on to add all the conditions about his behavior? And why did it say it could release the private information with an explicit condition tied to his behavior?

Personally, if I reported this story, it would have been pretty straightforward: “CNN is not publishing ‘HanAssholeSolo’s’ name because he is a private citizen.” Period. The rest of the information in that paragraph is unnecessary, because a media organization simply shouldn’t release a private citizen’s personal information. He shouldn’t have his private information threatened just because the president picked up one of his Reddit shitposts, which he made with the expectation that he would be kept anonymous. (Though it is a truly bizarre turn of events that it’s even possible to write this sentence.)

This comes after and undercover research by Project Veritas shows the Russia-Trump collusion story to be fake news.

Health Insurance


Requiring health insurance to cover more things makes insurance more expensive and unaffordable, leading to both higher premiums and deductibles. To understand why this is, let’s ask two questions: what is insurance?

The google definition is as follows:

1. a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

2. a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.

The purpose of insurance, then, is to financially protect against a “possible eventuality,” generally something viewed as tragic or catastrophic. So let me ask the reader — does this sound like America’s current model of health insurance?

Certainly not.

Let us look at an example of a different type of insurance — car insurance. The purpose of car insurance is to cover damage to your or other drivers’ vehicles in the event of a car wreck. Car insurance is generally a catastrophic model.

Now imagine if car insurance became like health insurance. Let’s say the state mandated that car insurance had to cover oil changes, tire rotations, new tires, tire repairs, new brakes, windshield wipers, headlights, tail lights, brake lights, and basic car maintenance.

What would be the result of such inane public policy? Higher premiums. On top of that, the prices of the aforementioned items would increase because they would be paid for by a third party, not directly by the consumer. Auto parts suppliers and repairmen would be granted more market power to bargain up their prices.

This is what has happened to health care and health insurance.

Reread the previous sentence. Notice how I mentioned both health care and health insurance as if they are two separate things. It’s because they are two separate things.

Too often people fail to understand the difference between the two. Your doctor’s office and the services he provides are health care. Your insurance policy, if you are lucky enough to have one, is health insurance.

There are some easy solutions to solving the problem:

1. What I’d like to see is real catastrophic insurance, and I don’t mean high deductible insurance (which is commonly and erroneously called “catastrophic” insurance”. I mean insurance that covers emergency care, end of life care, and maybe a few other things. It wouldn’t cover routine doctor’s visits or prescription medication. If you wan’t more coverage, you’d be able to supplemental insurance.

If routine visits to the doctor aren’t covered by insurance, people pay for them directly out-of-pocket. This gives more bargaining power to consumers and reduces the bargaining power of doctors.

2. Health insurance co-ops. These are health insurance plans owned by the members, i.e. those being insured. Plans would be established and managed by insurance companies in exchange for a fee from the members, but the plans would be owned by the insured. Because these plans are owned by the members and not the insurance companies, the premiums and deductibles would be kept low.

3. Require health care providers (doctors, hospitals, etc) to list their prices up front. This would give more power to the insurance companies and co-ops to negotiate lower prices and allow consumers to shop around.

4. I’d keep the marketplace website open ( / state-run sites). The catastrophic plans would be available on the website along with supplemental insurance.

5. Move away from the employer-provided insurance model. Allow companies to give tax-free vouchers to employees so they can purchase their own plans, and give more freedom to allow for health savings accounts.

Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself: An Open Letter to the Left


Dear left-wingers:

I’m sure you’re wondering what happened with the election of Donald Trump. You must be asking yourself how the polls could have been wrong and all of that.

Let me explain to you why I, and so many others, voted for Donald Trump.

It wasn’t because I support his policies or think he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I find his views on immigration lacking, and I dislike his protectionist rhetoric. He is a man who has said some stupid things.

Being cognisant of this fact, you may ask yourself why I still voted for the man. The reason is because of you. The state of “the Left” in this country (and around the world, quite frankly) has become regressive. Many of you ironically call yourselves “progressives” or even “liberals.”

You deserve neither word. Looking at the world through the various lenses of identity politics—race, gender, etc.—only divides. It does not bring people together. Using political correctness to call out “problematic” speech or behaviour is not a good way forward. All it does is make people resent you.

Take, for example, the absurdly opprobrious concept of “white privilege,” the idea that white people have some privilege just because they are white, ignoring their background, or any other factors, simply lumping all white people into a group of elites. This is absurd and ironically racist.

A quick Google search to define racism give the definition as:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

And it’s not only that you spout such absurd narratives, but you only allow those narratives you agree with. Anyone who doesn’t toe the line and swallow the regressive Kool-Aid will be ostracised and labelled a racist or some other buzzword you regressives have conjured up to shame those you consider heretics back in line.

Instead of allowing an open debate, a marketplace of ideas, you censor and belittle and attack. You shame people for wrong-think and create echo-chambers for your regressive religion.

The echo-chamber you created has led to the rise of the alt-right and far-right groups. You did that. Otherwise reasonable people could not voice their opinions without being ostracised as a bigot. As a result, these people went online and formed their own echo-chambers, many of them eventually becoming entrenched in their own ideologies and growing more and more extreme.

You created Donald Trump’s victory, just as you created the alt-right and the far-right populism that’s growing in America and Europe. You are the cause of that action.

But don’t worry. There is a solution. I suggest you actually become liberals.

I know you might be confused by that, thinking you might already be a liberal. As I wrote earlier, you are not a liberal. A liberal believes in the freedom of the individual and advocates for rights and civil liberties.

I won’t go into the differences between classical liberals (like myself) and social liberals. But suffice it to say, you are not a liberal because you are not individualists. You don’t support freedom of the individual, like freedom of speech. Instead, you censor and bully and harass people. That is not liberalism.

To be a liberal, you must advocate for the rights of the individual. You must recognise the individual agency and character of individual people, regardless of identities like race or gender. Doing otherwise is just backwards (hence the term regressive) and insulting.


E. H. Williams

Some Thoughts on Race


I haven’t done any research about the latest police shootings where two black men were killed by law enforcement. I don’t want to do any research because I doubt I will find very much that isn’t ideologically driven. I only care about the facts. Only through facts can reasonable public policy be made.

Regardless, one thing is clear: Black Lives Matter is a black supremacist organisation. BLM use violence and coercion to get their way. They don’t actually care about black lives or the quality of life for blacks.

They are neo-Marxists and collectivists. They are regressives who want to send our society back by making everything about race, by looking at the world through a neo-Marxist lens. This is not the way forward. BLM-affiliated organisations have supported racial segregation on college campuses with black-only “safe spaces.” If only George Wallace had used the term “safe space,” right?

These are people who erroneously believe that all white people are privileged simply because they are white, while all black people are oppressed because they are black. They believe that white men are part of some nefarious group trying to keep minorities down. This is patently absurd.

This emphasises the collectivist mentality of Black Lives Matter. By viewing people by groups rather than as individuals, they ignore the circumstances surrounding said individuals. They ignore the power and shortcomings of individuals. They view the world only by groups. They expect us to believe that President Obama is oppressed because of his race while a white, homeless wino living under a bridge is privileged just because he’s white. That’s a completely unrealistic and insane way to view the world.

This is why BLM and other like-minded ilk call black right-wingers “Uncle Toms,” a completely condescending and belittling term. Basically, in the mind of BLM, blacks should believe X, and any black who doesn’t is guilty of wrongthink. How dare you have an incorrect opinion?! How dare you not be a neo-Marxist collectivist who ignores the agency of the individual and only views the world through the lens of race or other conditions over which people have no control?

I acknowledge that there are problems in terms of race in this country. I even acknowledge that many whites have a psychologically different view of blacks. I believe this is natural and rooted in biology. It is natural to be afraid of what is different. There is a reason elephants don’t heard with gazelle. They’re a different species. The elephants and the gazelle can tell that they are different from each other. It’s natural to herd in groups that are more similar.

The solution to fixing race relations is not viewing the world through the lens of race or through the lens of neo-Marxist collectivism.

The solution is determining specific problems and fixing them. For example, the drug war. This terrible, idiotic policy has locked millions of people, many of whom were black, behind bars, and billions of tax dollars have been spent making the lives of those involved in the drug trade worse than they already are. It makes no sense.

Police officers should be generally required to wear body cameras. Police officers are there to serve the people. Many of them are good people. I imagine most are. However, there will always be bad apples in any group, especially in a group that attracts people who are drawn to power.

Speaking of power, this reminds me of the quote from Lord Acton: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Putting police officers under an eye would do well in keeping them honest. This goes back to the famous phrase “who watches the watchmen?” This is a problem as old as government itself. With technology, we now have the means to keep an eye on the watchmen who are meant to serve the public.

I’m sure there are more solutions to be discussed, but those solutions should be discussed and debates using evidence, reason, and logic, not ideologically driven drivel.