Summary: We are told by the news media about the right-wing parties in Europe. Just as Bush Jr. and Trump are Hitlers, Europe’s far-right parties are fascists. They do not want you to hear the Rights’ actual words. Here is a recent speech by a next-generation leader of France. The Yellow Vest protests echo many of the themes that her party has been advocating for many years.
Speech by Marion Maréchal.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), 22 February 2018,
Anyone who can make a speech like this will go far in politics. She speaks for the reaction against the Left, being proudly Catholic, nationalist, and populist. We will be hearing more from her.
Her bio, from Wikipedia.
“Marion Jeanne Caroline Maréchal (10 December 1989) is granddaughter of France’s National Rally party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen and niece of its current leader, Marine Le Pen. She is a member of the National Front and served as the member of the National Assembly for Vaucluse’s 3rd constituency from 2012 to 2017. Aged 22 years at the time of her election, she became France’s youngest parliamentarian in modern political history. After the 2015 regional elections, for which she received the best result for a FN candidate, she became the Leader of the Opposition in the Regional Council of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur.
“In 2017, she did not seek to renew her mandate as a member of the National Assembly and resigned as a regional councillor. She is currently involved in the education sector and financing the creation of a private school project. In 2018, she removed Le Pen from her last name.”
Her speech.
…France was the first country to recognize your independence. It was it was by French blood spilt on American soil that our friendship began. Today, over two centuries later, here at CPAC we are once again standing side-by-side in another battle for freedom. This freedom is a gift. Economic and political freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, are our common treasures after 1000 and 500 years of existence. The French now must fight for our independence.
France is no longer free today. The French are not free to choose their policies, whether they are economic, monetary, on immigration, or even diplomacy Our freedom is now in the hands of the European Union. This European Union is not Europe. It is an ideology that looks only to the future while being contaminated with historic amnesia. An ideology without land, without people, without roots, and without civilization. The EU is in the process of slowly killing millinery Nations. I live in a country where 80% – you heard me correctly – 80% of the laws are imposed by the EU.
I’m not offended when I hear President Donald Trump say America First. In fact I want America first for the American people. I want Britain first for the British people. I want France first for the French people.
That’s why that’s why I fight for French diplomacy to keep its unique role to act to act as a link between the East and the West. A long history has allowed us to form privileged ties with Africa, with Russia, with Asia, as well as the Middle East. We must be able to decide for ourselves our military and diplomatic decisions. Our forces are complementary. …
We cannot accept a model that creates slaves in developing nations and unemployed in Western countries I refuse I refuse the standardized world proposed by the EU. I consider that people have the right to a historical continuity. All I want is the survival of my nation, to be able to pass on not only manageable heritage, but also my intangible legacy.
This young French generation is not encouraged to connect and love this cultural legacy. They are brainwashed with guilt and shame of their country. The result is the development of an Islamic culture in France. After 40 years of massive immigration, Islamic lobbies, and political correctness, France is in the process of passing from the eldest daughter of the Catholic Church to the little niece of Islam. And the terrorism is only the tip of the iceberg. This is not the France that our grandparents fought for.
How did we get here how did we get here? Because the EU and French governments forgot one crucial point. To open oneself to the outside you must have a solid core. To welcome you have to remain and to share you must have something to offer. Without nation and without family the limits of the common good, natural law, and collective morality disappears as the reign of egoism continues.
Today, even children have now become merchandise. We heard now in the public debate we have the right to order a child on catalog. We have the right to rent a woman’s womb. We have the right to deprive a child of a mother or father. No, you don’t. A child is not a right.
It this the freedom that we want? No, we don’t want this atomized world of individual without gender, without father, without mother, and without nation.
So what do we want? Just like you, we want our country back. I came here to tell you that there is a youth ready for this fight in Europe today. A youth who believes in hard work, who believes that the flag means something. We want to defend individual freedom and private property. A conservative youth who wants to protect their children from eugenics and from the gender theory delirium. A youth who wants to …protect humanity from transhumanism.
Like the American youth, the French youth is an heir of a great nation. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” {Ed. Luke 12:48.} We need to convey our ideas into the media, culture, and education to stop the domination of the liberals and socialists. That is why I recently launched a school of management and political science. What is the goal? To train the leaders of tomorrow, those who will have the courage, the discernment, and the skills to defend the interest of their people.
The challenge is immense, but in the last two years I’ve shown one thing: never underestimate the people. Only a battle not waged is a battle already lost. Brexit in the UK, {??} in France, and of course the election of President Trump proved a fact: when the people who are given the opportunity to take their country back, they will seize it. Through your actions and your talents you have succeeded in putting conservatives right back on the top of the political agenda. Let us build on what you have achieved here so that on both sides of the Atlantic a conservative agenda may prevail.
I finish with a …quote which sends up conservatives’ modernity.
“Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.”
— Attributed to Gustav Mahler, an Austro-Bohemian late-Romantic composer (1860 – 1911).
You are the spark. It is now up to us to feed the Conservatives’ flame in our countries. Vive le nationalisme! …Long live the Franco-American friendship! Thank you.
——————————-
Afterword: about Catholic traditionalists in France
Marion Maréchal’s grandfather was Jean-Marie Le Pen. Born in 1928 to a Breton fisherman, he started work at age 13 and lost his father at 14 when his boat hit a mine in 1942. Politically active as a young man, he had many convictions for assault and battery. He founded the FN in 1972. In 1977, a political supporter bequeathed a fortune to him. He married twice.
His daughter and successor as leader of the Party, Marine Le Pen, has had two divorces. She is Maréchal’s aunt.
Maréchal’s biological father, the late journalist and diplomat Roger Auque, was a French journalist and diplomat – and an Israeli spy. He and Maréchal’s mother, Yann Le Pen, never married. Her mother later married when Maréchal was 4 and divorced when she was 18.
On 24 July 2014 Maréchal was married to businessman Matthieu Décosse (of humble origins). Their baby was born two months later, in September. In their 24 June 2016 issue, Closer announced that she had divorced her husband. She immediately lied – denying it. But the report was later proven to be correct. She had master-played Girl’s Game: wedding, respectability/status, a child – followed by divorce and independence {probably with child support from the mark}.
She is a modern Roman Catholic. Just as in America Feminists conquered the Evangelicals.
Other posts about the Yellow Vest protests
- The “yellow vest” protests in France: peasants playing.
- What the news media don’t mention about the Yellow Vests.
- Why the French protest.
For More Information
Strong recommendation to read: “Two Roads for the New French Right” by Mark Lilla in the New York Review of Books, 20 December 2018.
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about France, about immigration, and especially these…
- Prescient, from January: France volunteers itself as a front line in the clash of civilizations.
- Is Europe sliding towards civil war?
- Important: Martin van Creveld asks: Has a new Thirty Years’ War begun in Europe?
- Stratfor: After Paris, France Contemplates a Reckoning.
- Stratfor looks at signs the end times have begun for France’s Fifth Republic.
- Stratfor: France’s National Front Defeated, For Now.
To better understand immigration
As so often the case, we can see these political dynamics more clear in other societies. We can learn much from the immigration crisis in Europe. It is our future.
Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam
The phenomenon is Europe-wide. It takes a different form at different times in the electoral cycle in different countries. In Germany its AfD. In Italy its the populists now in power. In the UK it was the rise of UKIP (now imploding probably to be replaced by another Farage vehicle) and Brexit. In France it may be a large victory for the right in the coming Euro Parliament elections.
Brexit has received little attention here. Events next week in London will have far reaching implications. On Tuesday the Prime Minister faces a crucial vote, after five days of debate, on the Withdrawal Agreement the government has reached with Brussels. The unanimous opinion is that she will lose it and heavily, and her position is then in doubt. Two more ministers have just resigned, and a third, a Cabinet Minister, is on the brink. This brings the number of resignations to well over 20.
The issue with which Parliament is grappling is the same as it always has been: Sovereignty and Democracy.
The problem the Eurocracy has is that it is terrified of popular democracy along UK lines. So it has created a Parliament in name only and removed itself from democratic accountability. The result however is that dissent and dissatisfaction finds another route. The result is also that their decisions take place in a vacuum with no input or improvement from what in member countries would be the electorate.
And so we find an unelected civil service attempting to run a continent as if it were a United States of Europe, but without any of the institutions you need for that purpose, including an elected administration. All they have is a civil service, a common currency, and a politicized Supreme Court. Its about 10% of what you need.
Watch next week in London. And watch the Euro Parliamentary elections in the spring. And watch the Italian banks and the ongoing confrontation between Italy and Brussels on finance.
Right. France’s problem is Islamic culture, not neoliberal erosion of basic services. Sure. Thanks, Marion.
The Real,
To disagree is natural. Not to see what you’re reading is sad.
Try re-reading her speech. More slowly. Without wearing the thick blinders to screen out heterodox ideas (i.e., crimestop).
She does make this point “After 40 years of massive immigration, Islamic lobbies, and political correctness, France is in the process of passing from the eldest daughter of the Catholic Church to the little niece of Islam.”
It’s likely as overblown as Americans thinking Detroit has become an Islamic stronghold for the invasion to make sharia the law of the land. Her words of daughter and niece are her take, and telling.
From Wikipedia (given you like linking to it): “Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to “the people,” often juxtaposing this group against a so-called “elite.” There is of course more because the word is malleable so “Populists typically present “the elite” as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as foreign countries or immigrants—above the interests of “the people”. According to this approach, populism is a thin-ideology which is combined with other, more substantial thick ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum and there is both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.” So, whether left or right, we have populists creating a monolithic enemy that must be defeated so the ‘the people’ can rule. The Fascists, the Nazis, and the Communists created there own monolithic enemies so that ‘the people’, as they defined them, can rule. Populism has the same problem, it has to create an enemy to give it meaning.
Raymond,
“It’s likely as overblown as Americans thinking Detroit has become an Islamic stronghold for the invasion to make sharia the law of the land.”
Your analogy is quite false. The fraction of Islamic believers is growing rapidly, both due to their higher birth rate, immigration, and conversion. Meanwhile the number of devote Catholics is shrinking. They can’t even recruit priests and nuns to replace the current generation. People can debate when those two lines will cross, but they will in the next few generations unless conditions radically change.
“Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; and it is opposed to all Jacobinistic utopias and innovations. It does not believe in the possibility of “happiness” on earth as conceived by the economistic literature of the XVIIIth century, and it therefore rejects the theological notion that at some future time the human family will secure a final settlement of all its difficulties. This notion runs counter to experience which teaches that life is in continual flux and in process of evolution. In politics Fascism aims at realism; in practice it desires to deal only with those problems which are the spontaneous product of historic conditions and which find or suggest their own solutions”…It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual…..” Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State
Benito Mussolini Fascism Doctrine and Institutions 1935 it’s seem to me nothing new, for european far-right. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
but the economic part of fascism is so different to neoliberism?
“In the economic field, Fascism acts as the instrument of an industrial and agrarian oligarchy, to concentrate control over all the wealth of the country in the hands of capitalism. …. A whole series of measures are being adopted by Fascism to encourage a new industrial concentration (abolition of death duties; financial and fiscal policy; heightening of protectionism), and to these there correspond other measures favouring the landowners and directed against small and medium farmers (taxes; duty on grain; ‘the battle for wheat’). The accumulation which these measures achieve is not an increase in the national wealth, but the plundering of one class in favour of another: in other words, that of the working and middle classes in favour of the plutocracy. The intention of favouring the plutocracy is shamelessly revealed in the plan to legalize the preference share system in the new commercial code; a little handful of financiers will in this way be enabled, without restriction, to dispose of vast masses of savings originating from the middle and petty bourgeoisie, and these categories will be stripped of the right to dispose of their wealth In all these fields, Fascism is carrying out the programme of the plutocracy [ … ] and of an industrial landowning minority, at the expense of the great majority of the population, whose conditions of life are being made progressively worse” A.Gramsci Fascist Reaction and Communist Strategy 1924-1926 capt 16.
Paolo,
Six hundred words. No direct relevance to this post. OMG. Who is going to read this?
I suggest opening your own website if you would like to publish essays. Comments should be directly about the post, and 200 – 300 words.
I like these Le Pen realtalkers.
BTW Larry, that should be “the little neice of Islam” not the “littleness.”
Dark,
Thank you for catching that! Fixed.
Hi Larry,
I absorbed that “the niece of Marine Le Pen” was giving a talk a CPAC by osmosis back in the day. I didn’t know much about Maréchal or listen to or read her speech at the time, but now wish I had. I wonder what the reception was like, because her “conservatism” is much more like Steve Bannon’s (also very Catholic in orientation) than, say Ronald Reagan’s or whatever in Sam Hill Donald Trump’s and those of the minions around him are. And it’s increasingly hard to know what someone thinks or what’s going on by a simple reading of the mainstream press.
MM: We cannot accept a model that creates slaves in developing nations and unemployed in Western countries I refuse I refuse the standardized world proposed by the EU.
Could be Bernie Sanders but couldn’t be Hillary Clinton or Emmanuel Macron. She understands why the Yellow Vests are in the street. The French election was a near run thing, and as someone with her (apparently) clear and coherent vision for France as articulated in that speech and undeniable charisma, we may see a President Maréchal in Paris some day.
Good tip on the Lilla article — he covered pretty much anything I had thought of reading the speech and then some. He’s a remarkable observer and articulates what he sees very well. The link you gave however doesn’t link to it. Link: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/12/20/two-roads-for-the-new-french-right/
Regards,
Bill
Larry,
Things are looking up these days as you mentioned in splendid detail. A lot will depend on how Macron handles his current dilemma between now and 2022 if he makes it that far.
I agree that Ms Marechal will definitely have a major impact on French politics. One thing that strikes me reading this speech is the France seems to be better at producing dissident political leaders than we are. Marechal seems like the real deal. A lot of the dissident leaders in this country who have risen to prominence have, to borrow a phrase from Douglas Southall Freeman, defects of character and competence that make them unelectable or not well suited to office when they are elected. (Examples of the sort of thing I am talking about include Ross Perot, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, and Ocasio-Cortez.) I’ll be interested to follow her career. France is pretty far gone at this point, but we’ll see what she can do.
Freeman, incidentally, was the author of Lee’s Lieutenants, and he wrote biographies of Lee and George Washington. He studied, wrote, and thought a great deal about leadership.
The Man,
“Marechal seems like the real deal. A lot of the dissident leaders in this country who have risen to prominence have, to borrow a phrase from Douglas Southall Freeman, defects of character and competence that make them unelectable or not well suited to office when they are elected.”
That’s a keen observation. There are some obvious reasons for this. Europe has a multi-party system, so parties with 10-20% of the vote can play a role – and build an institutional structure. In our bi-partisan structure, they are locked out from any substantial role in the power structure – and so can’t get funding or recruit players.
The other factor is that vast gift to Le Pen. He’s rich, and that puts him on the same footing as the Bush, Clinton, and Kennedy families. The others are either rich political dilettantes (eg, Trump) or have to scramble for resources as political entrepreneurs (eg, Palin, Ocasio-Cortex).
“France is pretty far gone at this point”
One would think so from reading what the crazy right says. But that is, as usual for the crazy right, totally false.
“One would think so from reading what the crazy right says. But that is, as usual for the crazy right, totally false.”
I’ll refine what I said a bit. There’s enough of an unassimilated (And probably unassimilable) migrant/refugee/Muslim population in and around Paris for a self sustaining urban guerilla war That, in my book, makes for pretty far gone, although not hopeless. There are no easy solutions to France’s problems, and there’s no guarantee that solutions can be implemented. I do think that Marechal can contribute, and I hope she has the oppotunity
The Man,
“migrant/refugee/Muslim population in and around Paris for a self sustaining urban guerilla war”
Those are extremely rare, and even less frequently successful. To believe the existence of a minority means that they will wage an insurrection is paranoia. Another common trait on the Right.
“There are no easy solutions to France’s problems,”
Every nation has problems. There are no “easy solutions” to any nation’s problems.
You are right, the existence of a minority does not mean they will wage an insurrection, and this minority is most unlikely to do that. But the poster was also right to say that France is ‘pretty far gone’. So for that matter is Belgium. France has a largely immigrant Muslim population of a bit under 6 million, heavily concentrated in Paris and Marseilles and one or two other cities. American cities received far larger numbers of immigrants and assimilated them in the late 19th and early 20th century.
But the difference was that those immigrants wanted to belong and fully accepted the cultural legitimacy of where they had come to. Their children went to public school, then college, grew up speaking English and watching Hollywood, the first generation got blue collar jobs and their children entered politics, the professions, business.
The latest wave of Islamic immigrants to Europe isn’t like that at all. Its determined not to integrate, its social practices, sanctioned by religion, are incompatible with the host culture, unemployment is very high and crime is also high.
You doubt it, try walking around the Paris stations at night. Walk around Brussels at night. Or Mechelen. There is a reason why the public spaces are deserted after dark in these cities. Listen to the pronouncements of the Islamic clergy on the culture of their hosts. Nothing like what you heard from the Irish and Italian priests in the early 20c in New York or Boston.
If, as in one of Pew’s scenarios, France has a Muslim population of 17% in 2050, with these same attitudes and religious and social practices, and as concentrated in the same places as now, it will be a different country. Secularism and ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’ will be dead. And, one suspects, the economic effects will be very negative. And long before 2050, we will see a mass move to the right which we have not seen in Europe since the Thirties.
Marion Maréchal may well be a figurehead for it.
henrik,
“American cities received far larger numbers of immigrants and assimilated them in the late 19th and early 20th century.”
That’s the key ignored by open borders advocates. Europe isn’t good at assimilation. They never assimilated their Jewish immigrants – who tried to blend in. After over a thousand years, the experiment ended badly.
As you note, the Islamic immigrants have their own culture. A culture they are proud of. They see little need to change. And government policy is multiculturalism, giving them little reason to change.
Larry, I don’t know the US that well. Do you think that the Muslim situation in France parallels the african-american ghettos you have (or used to have?) in the US inner cities?
JP,
That’s a good question, and one I’m not competent to answer. They both have bad aspects, but it would take a serious expert to go much beyond that.
Most Americans know little about our ghettos. While no expert, I know a little (*little*) from my brief experience as a social worker and as a VP & Director of a Boy Scout Council (we spent a fair bit of time and resources attempting to have units in less privileged areas).
Larry,
Jews in England are assimilated but still a distinct community and religion. Indians and Siks and others in England are assimilated though of a separate religion. The Hugenots of the 17th century assimilated.
There is something distinctive about Islam and the Muslims. They dissent from the culture to which they have come live among, and want nothing to do with it. Education, family law, civil rights issues (for women). Islam is different. Its not the attitude of the hosts, its the attitude of the Muslims.
JP
The difference is, one is only a civil rights issue. The other is both a civil rights issue and an issue of deliberate separatism.
Henrik,
Your “jews in England are assimilated” in response to mine “Europe isn’t good at assimilation. They never assimilated their Jewish immigrants.”
Yours one of the weirdest comment I’ve seen among the 57 thousand comments here. Europe’s failure to assimilate its Jews was shown by the Holocaust. Not just Germany’s leading role, but in the enthusiasm with which some other nations cooperated (e.g., France). Unlike those that did not (e.g., Denmark).
Don’t know about weird. The UK is part of Europe and doesn’t have the history you quite rightly cite. Its a counter example. It has integrated lots of minorities but is failing to integrate or assimilate Muslims.
The German Jews were highly assimilated. Culturally, quite a few conversions. Prominent in WWI decorations and casualties beyond their numbers in the population. But it did not save them. Assimilation is not necessarily a protection.
henrik,
“Its a counter example.”
Bizarrely false. To say “Europe has” does not mean “every single part of Europe has.” The six million dead Jews is more than sufficient support for my statement.
“German Jews were highly assimilated.”
Bizarrely false. Assimilation (to “take in”) means to be accepted by the group. It is process requiring participation by both sides. Neither France nor Germany assimilated its Jews.
Larry, what I am trying to say is that there is a reason why one European country which has integrated and assimilated minorities of various ethnicities and religions has failed to do either with its Muslim immigrants and their first generation children.
And that the difference is to do with charactersitics of Islam.
As to Germany, we can argue about what assimilation and integration means. But by most standards it was high. There was a lot of intermarriage, shown when German wives of Jewish men protested against the regime, with some modest success in some cases. There was integration in the armed forces, as shown by casualty and decoration rates in WWI. There was cultural assimilation in that the German Jews considered themselves thoroughly German. They were found in the professions, academia and industry.
You are confusing the fact that they were identifiable and targetable, and that happened, with whether they were assimilated. They were, and it didn’t help.
henrik,
“what I am trying to say is…”
That’s not what you were saying with respect to Europe’s Jews. Not even close.
“As to Germany, we can argue about what assimilation and integration means.”
No, we’re not going to go there. The dead speak quite clearly.
“You are confusing the fact that they were identifiable and targetable, and that happened, with whether they were assimilated.”
No, I’m not. Your “definition” is made up nonsense. Your comments here are bizarre. You’re close to holocaust denial. There will be no further warnings.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20171201/how-frances-muslim-population-will-grow-in-the-future
I absolutely do not accept my remarks have been in any way anywhere near Holocaust denial. Its an insulting and totally unfounded assertion.
However, for the record, I shall state that there is no doubt whatsoever, and I personally have no doubt, that the Nazi government, with the active or passive participation of much of the German people, did commit the organized murder of some 6 million European Jews in the years between 1933 and 1945. We have the records from the extermination camps and from the history of the invasion of Eastern Europe and Russia. This is not open to question. Holocaust denial I take to be the denial that this happened. I have never harboured the slightest doubt that it happened. I have actually visited some of the places where it did, but did not need that in order to be and remain convinced of it.
These people were targeted and killed because they were Jews and for no other reason.
The best and most authoritative history of this that I know is that of Raoul Hilberg, all of whose narration and conclusions I find entirely credible.
I hope that is clear enough and categorical enough to settle the matter.
Or do I need to add that I do not in any way condone or excuse one of the wickedest episodes in our human history? I do not, and that is what I believe it to have been.
The Yellow Vest movement, according to the most generous estimates, includes less than four tenths of one percent of the French population. They have achieved concessions from the government by the use of indiscriminate violence. In Paris, where I live, they have burned a private residence, torched dozens of cars, broken the windows of countless shops and restaurants and pried up paving stones from the streets to hurl at the police, injuring many. Nationwide their road blockades have so far caused six deaths. It is small business people, truck and taxi drivers, cafe owners and other ordinary people who are paying the price. That you hold them up as an example for admiration says a lot about how far you are willing to go to achieve your goals, what kind of society you want to live in. We’ve already seen the results of your kind of thinking in 1930s Europe.
Morgan,
“The Yellow Vest movement …includes less than four tenths of one percent of the French population.”
That’s not the key number. That is the equivalent of saying that the 1773 Boston Tea Party protestors was only 1/2 percent of the population of Boston. The key is public opinion: polls in late November show that 73% to 84% supported the Yellow Vests. That’s an extraordinarily high number. Probably 3x the fraction that supported the Boston Tea Party vandals.
“They have achieved concessions from the government by the use of indiscriminate violence.”
Small, almost trivial. Violence (e.g., burning cars) on roughly the same scale as the many protests in France (and across Europe) by communities of migrants (past and present). Indiscriminate violence is Paris in May 1968. To see serious indiscriminate violence, read about the race riots that burned in America’s inner cities in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
“That you hold them up as an example for admiration says a lot about how far you are willing to go to achieve your goals”
That’s one of the most amazing reading FAILs I’ve seen among the 55 thousand comments here. This post is about the Le Pen family. The posts about the Yellow Vests describe them as almost meaningless peasants’ protests. I suggest taking off your ideological blinders and re-reading. Who knows what you might learn!