Connect with us



Marine Le Pen is only as relevant to the world as France is

For better or for worse, Marine Le Pen’s importance is limited by France’s geo-political irrelevance. Here’s why.




With people throughout the western world either enraged by or inspired by Marine Le Pen, it is well to remember that on the whole she is an isolated and quintessentially French phenomenon. What’s more is that France is no longer a major geopolitical power and Marine Le Pen knows this.

France is unique in that in spite of being one of the oldest established states in Europe, her late modern history tells a tale of a constant political and cultural identity crisis. This identity crisis remains partly unresolved and that itself is one of the reasons that Le Pen is experiencing the popular success that she is.

Between 1789 and the present day, France has been ruled at various times by five very different Republics, one Bourbon Monarchy and one July Monarchy, two Bonapartist empires, and a Vichy State.

Debates between those agitating for the virtues of  liberal republicanism versus conservative republicanism, Catholicism versus Laïcité, post-colonial Islamic citizens versus semi-homogenous Franco-Europeanism, NATO style foreign policy versus third-way, pseudo-non-aligned policy, continue to rage.

This is all highly interesting if one is fascinated by French history, culture and politics, but is it relevant for the wider world? The answer is no and increasingly the aforementioned questions facing the French are as much a response to internal developments as they are to a metaphysical crisis about France’s increasingly irrelevant role in the wider multi-polar world.

The current President Francois Hollande and his immediate predecessor Nicholas Sarkozy, sought to answer these questions by adopting a NATO style foreign policy combined with a specific interest in interfering in the post-colonial affairs of Francophone states. This explains France’s military intervention into Mali, an operation conducted with all the chauvinism of a neo-colonial war (albeit a putatively short one) and it also explains why France seeks to intervene in Syria which became a French mandate after the First World War.

President Sarkozy’s lust for French glory to be attained via NATO was one of the reasons he led the public relations campaign for the war against Libya which thanks to Wikileaks, we all know was really Hillary Clinton’s war and not his, David Cameron’s nor Barack Obama’s.

I personally think that Jacques Chirac was the finest President of the French Fifth Republic. Domestically he presented himself as a kind of neo-Gaullist figure who embraced French independence from America and Britain’s wars abroad whilst maintaining a mixed economy at home.  If anything, Chirac has been vindicated by the fact that countries which have in the past had successful experiences with neo-liberalism, are now rejecting such liberalism or what the French call ‘Anglo-Saxon economics’.

Like most French presidential candidates, Le Pen has offered her own unique solution to the perpetual French political identity crisis. Contrary to claims in the western media, it is not fascism and parts of it are not even remotely right-wing.

Le Pen is best described as someone who combines Gaullist style patriotism with some elements of Vichy statism and a heavy dose of liberal (in the French sense) republican Laïcité. She sees the test for citizenship as being ideological rather than ethnic or religious and this is not surprising given the fact that the French can, with some justification, claim to have invented an ideological basis of citizenship, something which Ataturk’s Turkish Republic adopted in the 1920s.

In this sense, she is vehemently secular, opposed to a great deal of conservative censorship efforts over even the most obscene forms of expression and is neither racist, anti-Semitic nor anti-gay. She is a classic French liberal Republican on such matters. On the other hand, she is anti-NATO and opposes the EU in its current federalist, Atlanticist, neo-liberal form. She doesn’t however oppose the idea of European culture as something which manifestly exists, the way that many if not most British Eurosceptics do.

In this sense, her views on European identity are more in line with those of Geert Wilders and the Dutch Freedom Party than they are with UKIP who seek a post-colonial British identity which is cooperative with but separate from anything derived from Europe. Donald Trump is clearly more sympathetic to the British Eurosceptic view on such matters.

A Len Pen France would likely disengage with Atlanticist institutions, form pragmatic agreements with non-European foreign powers, including a Trump led America and also Russia. She would also end France’s fixation with her post-colonial identity crisis by being less actively engaged in Francophone colonies and ex-mandates. Her idea of citizenship would doubtless inform immigration law, but not in ways that are surprising to those who understand the uniquely French view of man and citizen.

All of this of course means little to the winder world as France in spite of the protestations of many French politicians, is an increasingly irrelevant state. Her permanent veto on the UN Security Council is an insult to countries like India, Brazil, Indonesia, Egypt and even Japan and Germany (given that it has been many years since the end of the Second World War).

The problem with the French is that they do not have a word for Vergangenheitsbewältigung, (the German term meaning overcoming the past). This is why many in France still cannot admit to the savagery they committed in Indo-China and Algeria in the 1950s and 1960s.

If Le Pen becomes President, it will of course change the nature of the EU, but I do not think it would be the end of European cooperation. It would simply change the nature of the EU and in ways similar to how it will likely change anyway. Something seismic may happen by the standards of the Junkers of the world, but if it does, Le Pen will be a symptom of a process which is already begun rather than a unity instigator.

Le Pen like France itself is a convenient reference point for a western media that can find Paris on the map, even though the rest of the multi-polar world increasingly ignores Paris and her minor relevance in the grand scheme of 21st century geopolitics.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”





Via RT

Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career



Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.


Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Why Joe May be Courting Stacey

Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Patrick J. Buchanan



Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:

Of 895 slots in the freshman class of Stuyvesant High in New York City, seven were offered this year to black students, down from 10 last year and 13 the year before.

In the freshman class of 803 at The Bronx High School of Science, 12 students are black, down from last year’s 25.

Of 303 students admitted to Staten Island Technical High School, one is African-American.

According to The New York Times, similar patterns of admission apply at the other five most elite high schools in the city.

Whites and Asians are 30 percent of middle school students, but 83 percent of the freshman at Bronx High School of Science, 88 percent at Staten Island Technical and 90 percent at Stuyvesant.

What do these numbers tell us?

They reveal the racial composition of the cohort of scientists and technicians who will lead America in the 21st century. And they tell us which races will not be well represented in that vanguard.

They identify a fault line that runs through the Democratic Party, separating leftists who believe in equality of results for all races and ethnic groups, and those who believe in a meritocracy.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed anger and frustration at the under-representation of blacks and Hispanics in the elite schools. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have ignored his pleas to change the way students are admitted.

Currently, the same test, of English and math, is given to middle school applicants. And admission to the elite eight is offered to those who get the highest scores.

Moreover, Asians, not whites, are predominant.

Though 15 percent of all middle school students, Asians make up two-thirds of the student body at Stuyvesant, with 80 times as many slots as their African-American classmates.

The egalitarian wing of the Democratic Party sees this as inherently unjust. And what gives this issue national import are these factors:

First, the recent scandal where rich parents paid huge bribes to criminal consultants to get their kids into elite colleges, by falsifying records of athletic achievement and cheating on Scholastic Aptitude Tests, has caused a wave of populist resentment.

Second, Harvard is being sued for systemic reverse racism, as black and Hispanic students are admitted with test scores hundreds of points below those that would disqualify Asians and whites.

Third, Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Here are Biden’s quotes, unearthed by The Washington Post, that reflect his beliefs about forced busing for racial balance in public schools:

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with.

“What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!

“Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?

“I am philosophically opposed to quota systems. They insure mediocrity.”

That was 44 years ago. While those views were the thinking of many Democrats, and perhaps of most Americans, in the mid-’70s, they will be problematic in the 2020 primaries, where African-Americans could be decisive in the contests that follow Iowa and New Hampshire.

Biden knows that just as Bernie Sanders, another white male, fell short in crucial South Carolina because of a lack of support among black voters, he, too, has a problem with that most loyal element in the Democratic coalition.

In 1991, Biden failed to rise to the defense of Anita Hill when she charged future Justice Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a law-and-order champion responsible for tough anti-crime legislation that is now regarded as discriminatory.

And he has a record on busing for racial balance that made him a de facto ally of Louise Day Hicks of the Boston busing case fame.

How, with a record like this, does Biden inoculate himself against attacks by rival candidates, especially candidates of color, in his run for the nomination?

One way would be to signal to his party that he has grown, he has changed, and his 2020 running mate will be a person of color. Perhaps he’ll run with a woman of color such as Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia.

An ancillary benefit would be that Abrams on the ticket would help him carry Georgia, a state Donald Trump probably cannot lose and win re-election.

Wrote Axios this morning:

“Close advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden are debating the idea of packaging his presidential campaign announcement with a pledge to choose Stacey Abrams as his vice president.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter