Silencieuse depuis son retrait de la vie politique en juin 2017, l’ex-députée de Vaucluse reprend la plume aujourd’hui pour la première fois.
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen détaille son projet professionnel : une école supérieure de formation des chefs de demain. Avec l’ambition de faire émerger une génération de cadres de droite. À défaut de renouer avec le combat électoral, l’absente signe un retour hautement “métapolitique”… J’ai pris la décision de ne pas me représenter à l’Assemblée nationale en juin dernier...
Interrogée dans Valeurs Actuelles, Marion Maréchal Le Pen évoque son projet métapolitique et réfute toute ambition électorale. Partant du constat que «la droite enracinée et entrepreneuriale a encore du chemin à faire pour peser concrètement» elle affiche son objectif de renverser la «domination culturelle quasi hégémonique» de la gauche. "J'ai décidé de m'associer à la création d'une académie de sciences politiques, à côté d'autres activités professionnelles. L’école que j’accompagne est libre et indépendante. Il ne s’agit pas d’un projet partisan "
"Nous donnerons des armes intellectuelles, culturelles, juridiques, techniques et médiatiques à nos jeunes afin qu'ils soient les plus performants possible dans l'entreprise comme dans l'arène politique"
Le projet de l'établissement sera bel et bien politique. Il s'agit d'organiser un «terreau dans lequel tous les courants de la droite pourront se retrouver et s'épanouir», en formant «les dirigeants de demain».
«La droite a besoin d'union et de bienveillance».
"Il est temps de s’atteler à des œuvres moins visibles peut-être, plus humbles à certains égards, mais non pas moins efficaces et concrètes".
"La bataille des idées est gagnée à bien des égards, mais elle ne parvient pas à se transformer en victoire électorale. À chaque élection, les financements se font rares, les soutiens limités, les relais compliqués. C’est précisément sur ce rôle que la jeunesse conservatrice de France a une mission d’ampleur à mener. Je suis convaincue que notre famille de pensée doit investir davantage le champ de la métapolitique".
As an environmental activist who was deplatformed from a speaking venue by transactivists, in 2013 I developed curiosity about the power of this group to force this development. A year later, when Time magazine announced a transgender tipping point on its cover, I had already begun to examine the money behind the transgender project.
I have watched as all-women’s safe spaces, universities, and sports opened their doors to any man who chose to identify as a woman. Whereas men who identify as transwomen are at the forefront of this project, women who identify as transmen seem silent and invisible. I was astonished that such a huge cultural change as the opening of sex-protected spaces was happening at such a meteoric pace and without consideration for women and girls’ safety, deliberation, or public debate.
Concurrent with these rapid changes, I witnessed an overhaul in the English language with new pronouns and a near-tyrannical assault on those who did not use them. Laws mandating new speech were passed. Laws overriding biological sex with the amorphous concept of gender identity are being instituted now. People who speak openly about these changes can find themselves, their families, and their livelihoods threatened.
These elements, along with media saturation of the issue, had me wondering: Is this really a civil rights issue for a tiny part of the population with body dysphoria, or is there a bigger agenda with moneyed interests that we are not seeing? This article can only begin to graze the surface of this question, but considering transgenderism has basically exploded in the middle of capitalism, which is notorious for subsuming social justice movements, there is value in beginning this examination. Who Is Funding the Transgender Movement?
I found exceedingly rich, white men with enormous cultural influence are funding the transgender lobby and various transgender organizations. These include but are not limited to Jennifer Pritzker (a male who identifies as transgender); George Soros;Martine Rothblatt (a male who identifies as transgender and transhumanist); Tim Gill(a gay man); Drummond Pike; Warren and Peter Buffett; Jon Stryker (a gay man); Mark Bonham (a gay man); and Ric Weiland (a deceased gay man whose philanthropy is still LGBT-oriented). Most of these billionaires fund the transgender lobby and organizations through their own organizations, including corporations.
Separating transgender issues from LGBT infrastructure is not an easy task. All the wealthiest donors have been funding LGB institutions before they became LGBT-oriented, and only in some instances are monies earmarked specifically for transgender issues. Some of these billionaires fund the LGBT through their myriad companies, multiplying their contributions many times over in ways that are also difficult to track.
These funders often go through anonymous funding organizations such as Tides Foundation, founded and operated by Pike. Large corporations, philanthropists, and organizations can send enormous sums of money to the Tides Foundation, specify the direction the funds are to go, and have the funds get to their destination anonymously. Tides Foundation creates a legal firewall and tax shelter for foundations and funds political campaigns, often using legally dubious tactics.
These men and others, including pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government, are sending millions of dollars to LGBT causes. Overall reported global spending on LGBT is now estimated at $424 million. From 2003-2013, reported funding for transgender issues increased more than eightfold, growing at threefold the increase of LGBTQ funding overall, which quadrupled from 2003 to 2012. This huge spike in funding happened at the same time transgenderism began gaining traction in American culture.
$424 million is a lot of money. Is it enough to change laws, uproot language and force new speech on the public, to censor, to create an atmosphere of threat for those who do not comply with gender identity ideology?
The “uniform” the eighties band Gang of Four was singing about is not the one our Armed Forces wear. Our military uniforms are the emblem of a superb professional fighting force that is accountable to Constitutional limits, and commanded by a civilian president elected by the sovereign people. No, progressives love the uniform worn by the “strong man,” the “man on horseback,” the “great leader,” what in Latin America is called a “caudillo,” or “cacique,” or more crudely, “El Gran Chingon,” the thugs with the gaudy Gilbert-and-Sullivan uniforms bedecked with rows of phony medals.
Hence the left’s admiration for Castro, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Chavez, and most recently Kim Jong Un’s sister, the head of propaganda for the North Korean terror state whom the left’s media lackeys effusively praised during her appearance at the Olympics. No matter how blood-stained, any tyrant can be an object of the left’s affection, as long as he or she is on the side of “revolution” against the hated capitalists and the repressed bourgeoisie. This century-long love affair explains the endless parade of useful idiots making pilgrimages to totalitarian hell-holes like Stalin’s Russia or Chavez’s Venezuela or Castro’s Cuba, there to swoon over the Potemkin heaven on earth.
It also accounts in part for the surreal, cult-like worship of the tin-pot messiah Barack Obama, whose very trouser crease could thrill the starry-eyed pundit, whose banal rhetoric could send tingles down the leg of the most hard-bitten journalist. That’s why Obama’s use of Executive Orders and his “phone and pen” to subvert the Constitution’s separation of powers was celebrated by the same progressives who squeal about any Republican president’s “imperial overreach.”
That’s because power is a good thing to the left––as long as it’s used by the right people to construct their egalitarian utopia and “get things done.” Just listen to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman swooning over China’s efficiency at “getting things done”: “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.” This is the modern version of the cliché that “Mussolini made the trains run on time,” or the paeans to Stalin’s “miracle” of rapidly industrializing Russia penned by Walter Duranty or Lincoln Steffens. They seem to have forgotten that the power to command forced labor can build a lot of things, from pyramids to autobahns––and precisely engineered death camps.
That “pragmatism,” needing only enough power to build the “better future,” lay at the heart of early progressivism, just as it rationalized the excesses of Marxism and Nazism. Woodrow Wilson whined about the inefficiency of divided government and the inability of the president to make “good” laws. He fretted about superstitions like the balance of power and limited government, which proscribed the centralized power of a technocratic federal government that could run our society and economy more efficiently in order to achieve greater equality, social harmony, and prosperity. Several decades of serial bloody failures to make this pipe dream a reality has not deterred the true believes. They still long for the strong leader, a “soft” despot to be sure, one filled with therapeutic bromides, but still a despot who would not be stopped by antique Constitutional niceties, or concern himself too much with protecting our natural rights.
This explains why Obama was the progressives’ dream boat, complete with the tinsel and gilt messianic aura that most “great leaders” peddle. And like them, he failed to fulfill the dream of “equality” and “social justice.” Obama did succeed, however, at “fundamentally transforming” America into a country dominated by the wannabe totalitarians who abused the Bill of Rights and turned government agencies and the coercive power of the state against the citizens they were supposed to serve. But the Constitution and the common sense of enough American voters proved strong enough, at least for now, to check this abuse of power, proving once again the brilliance of the Founders’ Constitutional architecture.
There’s something, though, even more disturbing about the left’s fondness for the “man in a uniform”: the way it bespeaks an unhealthy love of power, and a sick fascination with political violence. How else do terrorists like Angela Davis or Bill Ayres get themselves reintegrated into society and living among us as celebrities, these two in universities that have “Peace” programs and preach non-violence? Or thuggish groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter get glowing media coverage and White House invitations? Or psychopaths like Che Guevara, who enjoyed personally executing political prisoners, become matinee idols? Or history’s greatest mass murderer, Mao, still decorate pop art and tee-shirts? Leftists love “a man in a uniform” because when they say, “I need an order,” to quote the Gang of Four again, he answers “Shoot! Shoot!”
Unlike our comfortable “caviar communists” parading their “radical chic,” the earlier more honest totalitarians admitted that brutal violence is necessary to sweep away the old order’s remnants, whose “false consciousness” impedes the creation of utopia. Karl Marx warned the Prussian government in 1843, “We are ruthless, and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism.” Vladimir Lenin responded to a critic of his war of extermination against the Kulaks, “Do you think we can be victors without the most severe revolutionary terror?” Stalin was brutally laconic: “Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.” The logic is clear for the left: if the enemy is the bourgeoisie, then the violent elimination of the whole class is necessary. As the founder of the Soviet Union’s secret police said, “We are not waging war against individual persons. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class.”
Our modern leftists and leftist-lite progressives may have lost their gumption for getting their own hands bloody, but they still have their attraction for the strong man who is happy to bathe his in blood up to the elbows.
Reading the Good Book: How to Pore Over the Entire Bible in 365 Days
The first time Meg Hunter-Kilmer read the entire Bible, it took her about six years, at the rate of a chapter a day. By the time she finished, as a freshman in college, she felt like she needed a little break — but she already had her next effort planned.
With the help of a reading schedule she found online, she would read the Good Book again — but this time, over the course of just a year.
She did it. And then she did it again.
In fact, the Catholic speaker and blogger has now read the entire Bible 16 times, 15 of them on a year timeline — and three of them using a reading schedule that she developed herself.
And, she says, “I don’t plan to stop reading the whole thing through in a year.
“I still read with a pencil in my hand. There’s a reason I’m still reading the whole thing.”
For Hunter-Kilmer, 34, the yearlong program provides a consistent schedule upon which to revisit every page of the Bible — each time finding new meaning. And for first-timers, she adds, it can be a user-friendly way to begin a relationship with the whole of Scripture. Tools You Can Use
If the notion of reading the Bible over the course of a year is new to you, you may be amazed by the quantity of writing you’ll discover about the project — and the tools people have created and ideas they’ve shared to help others reach that goal.
For instance, in his blog, Brandon Vogt, an author and content director for Word on Fire Ministries, points out: “The Bible contains around 775,000 words. The average adult reads 250 words per minute. That means if you read the Bible for just 10 minutes per day, you’ll get through the whole thing in a year!
“Everyone can find 10 minutes in their day, whether early in the morning, during a lunch break, or before going to bed.”
Or, instead of timing yourself, you could make use of one of the Catholic Bibles that is divided into 365 segments, facilitating your read-in-a-year project. My Daily Catholic Bible is divided into 20-minute selections, while The Catholic One-Year Bible doesn’t place an anticipated time-length on daily selections.
Alternatively, you could download one of a number of suggested reading schedules that would not only allow you to complete reading the Bible within a year, but would prevent you from potential Leviticus fatigue by offering daily reading assignments that include the Old and New Testaments and the Psalms.
The one from CatholicBibleinaYear.org starts with Genesis 1:1, but also includes a second Old Testament reading, a New Testament reading and a Psalm each day; one via “Speaking of Scripture,” by Bible scholar Mary Healy, also starts with Genesis 1:1 and includes one New Testament selection and one Psalm, along with an Old Testament selection each day.
The Coming Home Network offers a free guide at CHNetwork.org to help you read through the Bible and the Catechism in a year.
And log on to PiercedHands.org to access the Bible-in-a-year reading schedule Hunter-Kilmer created.
“It can be tempting to approach the Bible like a textbook — just get through it,” says Mary Beth Baker, acquisitions editor at Our Sunday Visitor. “But … it’s God’s presence among us. When you sit down with this, you’re saying, ‘Okay, this is God’s word, and I want to encounter him, and I want him to encounter me.’”
Our Sunday Visitor (OSV.com) recently released The Catholic Journaling Bible, which, Baker says, could be useful for people reading their way through the entire book — whether over the course of a year or not. “I’m reminded of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who said he could never meditate without a pen in his hand,” she said. “I think the journaling Bible is a really helpful tool for just being with the word and letting it sink in.”
That’s why George Martin recommends reading the Bible as part of lectio divina: savoring a short passage and meditating on what God is saying to you through those words. “It’s the opposite of speed reading,” said Martin, whose Reading God’s Word Today was published in 1975 and has been in print ever since. “Ultimately, the aim should be to read all of it — but not necessarily in a year, and not necessarily in the order the books are bound together.”
The year timeline has its challenges. As the founding editor of God’s Word Today magazine,Martin accompanied readers on a journey through the Bible in every issue, writing the reading guide so that readers would complete the Old Testament over the course of six years and the New Testament over the course of three years.
And, sometimes, he recalled, he invited readers to skim certain chapters (like those in Chronicles that list the names of the exiles who returned to Jerusalem).
“Reading the Bible cover to cover in a year would be like jogging through an art museum,” he quipped.
“You notice what pictures are there, but the most appropriate way to view great art is to stand or sit in front of the picture for an extended period of time, to notice interplay of color and line.”
Mary Elizabeth Sperry, associate director for USCCB permissions and NAB utilization at USCCB Publishing, an effort of the U.S. bishops, also has some reservations about the yearlong program.
“How long it takes you to read is less important than how you read it,” she said.
“The problem that would come into play is that if it becomes a chore. “Are you reading it as a gift of a loving God who wants to be in a relationship with you?”
For Jesuit Father Mitch Pacwa, the point of reading the whole Bible in a year was to become more familiar with the whole of Scripture — something that he felt he lacked and that, while in the Jesuit novitiate, he was determined to rectify.
It worked: By the time he began taking theology in the seminary, one of his instructors quipped that the novice ought to be the one teaching the class.
“It’s simply familiarity with the text, at the outset — so you get a picture of the whole of Scripture,” said the host of EWTN Live.
“Then, having that as a context, and reading and re-reading and re-reading the whole Bible … connections between texts begin showing up quite regularly.
“But for that to happen, you have to read and re-read and re-read — not unlike the way a musician learns to play scales before they play songs or symphonies.”
Były prezydent Lech Wałęsa, podczas jednego ze swoich wystąpień zaproponował, aby wszystkie państwa europejskie przyjęły „laicki dekalog 10 przykazań”. Wielka szkoda, że polityk od wielu lat noszący w klapie marynarki wizerunek Matki Bożej, nie wspomniał o 10 przykazaniach Bożych.
Tym razem były lider „Solidarności” zaproponował wszystkim krajom europejskim przyjęcie „laickiego dekalogu 10 przykazań”.
– Tutaj są dwie koncepcje. Jedni chcą w takiej dyskusji budować przyszłość na wolnościach: wszyscy ludzie jednakowo wolni. Drudzy mówią na to: nic nie zbudujecie, prędzej czy później mamona i egoizm doprowadzą was do konfrontacji i trzeba w związku z tym przyszłość budować na wspólnych wartościach, uzgodnionych między wierzącymi i niewierzącymi – powiedział Wałęsa.
Deklaracja byłego prezydenta może budzić zdziwienie ze względu na to, że przez przeszło 30 lat, Wałęsa nosi w klapie marynarki wizerunek Matki Bożej. Często również podkreśla swoją religijność. Dlaczego zatem proponuje zlaicyzowanym krajom Europy Zachodniej przyjmowanie „laickiego dekalogu”?