Part 1 begins here
Le Pen’s active engagement in politics continued long after 2002 despite his advancing years, his iron constitution resisting the ravages of time remarkably well, but his party had been weakened by the split with the MNR and for the next ten years was much less successful than before. Perhaps the FN’s supporters and even its leader felt that after his unexpected success in progressing to the second round of the 2002 presidential election only to meet with a sharp rebuff from 82% of the French electorate, it was difficult to imagine le Menhir taking the FN any further on the arduous road to power.
Nevertheless, Jean-Marie, by then more than three-quarters of a century old, was re-elected to the European Parliament for yet another five year term in 2004, when the list of candidates led by the FN (which would usually include a couple of sympathetic but notionally independent candidates) polled 9.81% across France.
In 2007, he was once again a presidential candidate, polling 3,830,000 votes, some 10.4%, representing a sharp decline on his result in 2002, despite, it should be said, the support of Bruno Mégret and his MNR, who seemed remarkably willing to let bygones be bygones.
The European elections of 2009 were marked by a further fall in support for the FN, which polled a mere 6.34%, losing a third of the voters who had supported it five years before, so that while its leader and three colleagues were re-elected, they had little to celebrate as the party continued to lose support to more mainstream conservatives.
On 9th April 2010, le Menhir, now well into the 82nd year of his long life, announced that he would not be seeking re-election as leader of the FN, nor would he contest the next presidential election in 2012.
As is well-known, the youngest of his three daughters, Marine, succeeded him as party leader in 2011 after a strongly contested election against Jean-Marie’s loyal lieutenant, Bruno Gollnisch, who was very disappointed to see his old chief support his daughter against his dauphin, a decision that le Menhir was to come to regret.
Had either man read so English an author as Oscar Wilde, Bruno Mégret might have told Bruno Gollnisch that in the FN, considerable importance attached to not being Bruno!
The new broom was to sweep very clean. Still strongly supported by her father (now styled président d’honneur or emeritus president of the FN) at this stage, Marine polled an impressive 6,421,426 votes or 17.90% of the total number of votes case at the presidential election of 2012.
Clearly the change of leadership had greatly revived the party’s fortunes, nor was it a flash in the pan, for in the elections to the European Parliament of 2014, Marine led the FN to its greatest triumph yet in terms of the percentage share of the vote, albeit obtained on a low turnout, 4,712,461 votes, or 24.86% of the votes cast and first place overall nationally, a remarkable result, almost quadrupling the party’s share of the vote in five years.
Marine Le Pen, who had enjoyed a successful career as an avocat (the equivalent of a barrister in England or a trial lawyer in the USA), was at first markedly reluctant to become involved in politics (if your abiding memories of childhood included having your house blown up under you in the middle of the night by your father’s political opponents, you might be reluctant too!).
Once engaged in the struggle, she gave it her all and continues so to do. In many ways she resembles her father but she has also drawn some conclusions that are very different from his, one of which was (and is) that in order to take power rather than merely register a huge protest vote hovering around 18% time and again, it was necessary to “dediabolize” the FN, in particular by distancing the party from forays into historical revisionism and avoiding grossly provocative remarks that provoke amusing fits of vaporous pearl clutching from system journalists and politicians, but are more appropriate to the music hall routine of le Menhir’s entertaining Cameroonian friend, Dieudonné M’Balla, than a candidate for the presidency of the French Republic.
These differences of opinion soon set father and daughter on a collision course. Early in April 2015, Jean-Marie repeated his famous observation that the (supposed) German gas chambers of the Second World War were a mere detail of history, going on a few days later to question whether Marshal Pétain was a traitor to France.
Whatever one might think about the merits of these propositions, their author must have known that they would enrage his youngest daughter, since they were manifestly irreconcilable with her strategy of winning over a broader coalition of voters.
Marine quickly acted against her own father, requesting the FN’s political bureau to suspend him from membership on 4th May 2015, which it did, before expelling him after a tempestuous disciplinary hearing on 20th August 2015. That must have been a stormy affair indeed, though Marine herself did not attend, lest she should be accused of being both prosecutor and one of the judges. Her principal adviser of that period Florian Philippot, who had agitated for her father’s expulsion, also stayed away for the same reason.
Four members of FN’s political bureau of twenty voted against the decision to expel. The “gang of four” consisted of Marie-Christine Arnautu, a Member of the European Parliament and old friend and party comrade of Jean-Marie’s, to whom he had shown much kindness long before, when she was in strained economic circumstances, his faithful sometime second-in-command, Bruno Gollnisch (who must have allowed himself a wry smile at having to defend his old friend against his friend’s daughter, whose leadership campaign le menhir had supported), Jean-Marie’s favourite and most gifted grandchild, Marine’s niece, Marion Maréchal (of whom more shortly: her evident abilities and status as family favourite made her by far the most dangerous opponent of her aunt amongst the four) but also, quite astonishingly given the domestic scene that must have followed that very evening, Marine’s long-term partner, Louis Alliot! Perhaps surprisingly, and to the credit of them both, their relationship endured a further five years after that eventful day.
Never one to accept defeat, le Menhir began court proceedings seeking to have his expulsion from the party that he had founded set aside, which had the curious though perhaps Solomonic outcome both at first instance and on appeal that the judges found that he had been lawfully expelled as a mere member, but since he had a special status as président d’honneur, even though constitutionally expelled, he had been unlawfully excluded from participating in meetings of the party’s political bureau (which had by a large majority expelled him!).
Marine refused to comply with an order that she should allow her father to attend meetings of the political bureau, whereupon the Court of Appeal at Versailles awarded him 25,000 Euros (about £20,000 or $30,000) as damages on 9th February 2018. The FN changed its constitution at a special general meeting a month later, to regularise the position by removing him as président d’honneur.
Several elected representatives of the FN either resigned at once following Jean-Marie’s expulsion, or decided not to seek re-election to public office or within the party, notably including Marion Maréchal, who bitterly criticised her aunt’s dilution of long-standing policies and (more painfully to her aunt than any expression of political differences) Marine’s intellectual qualifications to be her country’s head of state.
While remaining a MEP until 2019, Jean-Marie now rapidly approaching his ninetieth birthday, set about his last great labour, writing his memoirs, which appeared in two volumes, the first Fils de la Nation (Son of the Nation), appearing on 1st March 2018 with marked success. A print run of 50,000 copies soon sold out, as did a second run of 100,000 copies.
The second volume, Tribun de la Nation (Tribune of the Nation), appeared eighteen months later in October 2019. For reasons that are unclear, it did not enjoy the same success as the first. Notably, however, Jean-Marie gave his own judgment on Marine in volume two:
She has some of the qualities needed to be involved in politics: she is brave, energetic and a witty debater. But she lacks self-confidence, which explains her faults. She is dictatorial. She will not be contradicted. I was the only one who would stand up to her in her new model FN, so she expelled me.
He also criticised Marine for adopting much more left wing economic policies[1] than he had done and “striving obsessively to dediabolise the party just as the devil is becoming popular”. In contrast, his granddaughter, Marion Maréchal, is simply described as “a woman of exceptional brilliance”.
There are therefore no prizes on offer for guessing which of the two was invited to Jean-Marie’s ninetieth birthday party, where some three hundred friends, comrades and family members joined him to celebrate one of the most extraordinary lives of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Another welcome guest was the controversial journalist and writer, Eric Zemmour, who was to contest the 2022 French presidential election against Marine, but strongly supported by Marion Maréchal and more or less openly endorsed by le Menhir himself.
Yet it was Marine, not “Z”, whose candidacy had initially sparked much excitement and enthusiasm, who was to go forward to the second round, not least because her “opening to the left” won over millions of working class voters who felt intuitively and quite correctly that Marine was sincerely committed to a combination of immigration control and lavish state support for the economically disadvantaged, unlike the odious Rothschild’s banker, Emmanuel Macron, but also, it must be said, unlike her niece and Eric Zemmour, who are both enchanted by the dynamism of the free market, as, in no small measure, was le menhir himself, so both points of view are worthy of consideration.
Le menhir pulled no punches at his ninetieth. No longer constrained by any party political responsibilities, he chose as his own epitaph a quotation from the famous poet, novellist, journalist and collaborator with the Germans, Robert Brasillach, sometime editor of Je suis partout, who was executed by firing squad on 6th February 1945 for the “crime” of writing articles supporting the German war effort on the Eastern Front.
It must have been an extraordinary thing to hear Jean-Marie, contemplating his death, reading the lines that Brasillach wrote when waiting to be executed:
We marched with our heads held high and our hands were clean. We have nothing with which to reproach ourselves in that respect. The past was so beautiful that, looking back on it, we should not bewail our fate.
Jean-Marie’s health declined rapidly after a heart attack early in 2023. His mental faculties were also in decline by this stage. Ultimately, his three daughters applied jointly to have a guardianship order made, which had the no doubt intended advantage of putting a stay on criminal proceedings then pending against him for abuse of EU funds.
On 3rd July 2024, the Public Prosecutor’s office in Paris announced that his name had been struck from the indictment as he was unable to instruct his legal advisers or to offer a defence by reason of mental incapacity.
These proceedings however continue against several serving and former FN/RN MEPs, the accused including both Marine and her father’s old loyalist, Marie-Christine Arnautu, who has already been convicted and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment, twelve however suspended. The Court’s verdict in Marine’s case is expected on 31st March.
It should be emphasised that none of the accused are said to have acted for personal advantage or to have received one centime of EU funds for their own gain. What they are alleged to have done is to have appointed party members to positions on their personal staffs at the EU parliament, which positions were in reality well-paid sinecures with minimal or no duties, while the holders of the sinecures in reality worked full time as agitators for the RN. Such behaviour may have involved serious breaches of the eleventh commandment. Tsk, tsk. But the consequences of conviction are very serious, including not only the risk of custodial sentences, but also disqualification from standing for public office.
Time in the end grinds down even the hardest granite. Le Menhir died in a nursing home on 7th January 2025, by then fully reconciled with the Catholic Church, with which his relationship had not always been easy, notably because his first wife and the mother of his children, Pierrette Lalanne, was a divorcée, so that they had a register office wedding.
Jean-Marie had told a sympathetic journalist on Le Figaro (France’s principal conservative daily, which always treated him respectfully) that he had three last wishes. He hoped to die surrounded by his family and without suffering too much pain. The second wish was granted, the first, not so much. His family life had been tempestuous, but happily he was largely reconciled with Marine by the time of his death, however she was far away when he died, campaigning in one of France’s remaining colonial possessions and only learned of her father’s death from a journalist at the airport on returning home. As an old political combatant, he would not have been put out by that.
Le Menhir’s third wish was to be laid to rest in the family mausoleum in Trinité-sur-Mer, beside his parents, which was fulfilled, so that his life came full circle and he returned very appropriately for a man of his beliefs to his native soil, mourned by his two often fractious political heiresses Marine and Marion (“Didn’t the girls do well!”, he once said). He has left us, but his blood line runs on in the political life of his country and his memory will endure for so long as national France endures and so, I hope, for ever.
Notes
[1] British though not perhaps American readers will be surprised to learn that in France where (unlike England) a large section of the bourgeoisie is for complicated historical reasons relatively socially illiberal and open to nationalist arguments, the middle class element of the right’s support base is more hard line on race and immigration than the working class element.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
4 comments
JVery interesting. I wonder how le Pen would have felt, had he been well enough to follow the situation, about the falling out between his grand daughter and Zemmour. Just a suggestion: you should do a followup article on what has become of his reputation, etc., since his death.
Also, a quick question if you have time to answer it: what are some good sites that might illuminate the true situation in France (political, demographic, economic, etc.) at this point? I ask as one whose father’s genetic line is half ethnic French (through his own father; my paternal grandma was German).
I thank the author for this informative series about a very great patriot, not only of France, but of the West, too.
I note in passing that nationalists should never trust socialists, and we ought to rid our movement of any type of social democrat. Invariably, racial nationalists who seek to “broaden the base” by offering lavish welfare subsidies (ie, bribes to voters) end up diluting their racialism in favor of their socialism. This happens every single time. It happened in my personal experience with Pat Buchanan in the 90s. The few chances I had to speak with him I begged him to focus his America First nationalism on immigration restriction, and to jettison or at least downplay his (economically illiterate) protectionism. What ended up being the media’s focus (and thus over time, his own)? Trade protection, which always serves to divide economic from racial conservatives (when the cause of ending the immigration invasion requires all rightists to set aside their differences).
And now Trump is pursuing the exact same idiocy. If we must have tariffs (and there is no such necessity), at least wait until AFTER you’ve permanently secured the Mexican border, and mass deported the 40 million alien trespassers (and ideally halted the legal invasion, too).
Mark my words: if by some miracle Marine does come to power, she will end up expanding the already enormous French socialist state, while enacting only tepid immigration reductionist measures. (If the Jew Zemmour came to power, however, he would take very tough measures against both immigration and French Islamicization, and he might enact some free market reforms, too, to get the moribund French economy growing again.) Hard ethnonationalism and social welfare democracy simply do not go together psychologically. It is no accident that as white nations have embraced ever more socialism (and, please note, secularism), they have also become ever weaker racially.
Most here at CC, as well as in the broader racial nationalist movement (Jared Taylor is a great exception), do not seem to grasp this point, which is empirical and not logical.
There are two types of protectionism: a true type and a crony capitalist type, with the latter being (sadly) the standard. The former involves setting tariff rates based on average wages of the two nations in such a way as to equalize labor costs for both countries in order to keep capital accumulation more heavily concentrated at home.
This is an important enough issue that it really ought to be formally debated on our side, so how about this: you (arguing for . . . free trade in some–Austrian School-style?–form?) debate me (arguing for a particular type of Protectionism) in CC on the issue–assuming that we ask Dr. Johnson and that he approves–in some way. A suggestion, involving a series of three articles: in the first article we both state our positions, in a second we each critique the other’s position, and in a third we each respond to the other’s critique. You are insanely articulate even by the standards of CC commenters and obviously like to write. What do you think about the idea?
Mr. (Ms.?) Corax,
I thank you for your kind words and excellent suggestion. Protectionism – really the issue of how ethnonationalists should view international trade, as well as nationalist economic policy more broadly – is indeed an undertheorized area for the racial-nationalist tradition of thought. And yet debates over political economy are such major features of contemporary political discourse that it’s obviously foolish for us to remain mostly silent. We should have public stances on all issues affecting our central concerns (planetary white preservation, and white protection and empowerment wherever our people suffer under adverse conditions of diversity and leftism).
Your proposal is exactly the kind of exercise I would love to participate in during my retirement years. Alas, I’m not remotely retired now; indeed, I haven’t been this busy at any point in the past two decades. I don’t want to risk a self-doxxing, but between my workload (which has gotten somewhat heavier since a small, late-career promotion last year), and a major home renovation I’ve undertaken, not only have I quit my nearly four decade subscription to The Wall Street Journal, I’ve even lately been considering sending a short note to CC staff informing them of my intent to take a 6 month “sabbatical” from my regular commenting (hardly a necessity, of course, but it would seem like the polite thing to do given that I’m one of the “Top Commenters”).
So I’ll leave you with three suggestions: 1) forget this project (or at least any contribution to it from me); 2) think about doing it towards the end of the year; or 3) you could write and post your side of the debate exactly as though I had agreed to do it, and I could commence an extended discussion with you and others in the comments.
Just for the record: I don’t wish to be seen as some doctrinaire supporter of “Manchesterian” “free trade”. That is not my position, nor was that the point of my comment above. I am a militant “propertarian” (ie, defender of the institution of private property, and the inviolability of property rights), as well as a laissez-faire free marketist within – as you correctly surmised – the Austrian School tradition. Unlike most “Austrians”, however, I’m an “Austro-paleoconservative”, not libertarian. For over a half-century I’ve been opposing immigration (and this primarily for white nationalist reasons – not that there aren’t other demerits, from importing spies and terrorists to working class wage stagnation and carrying capacity-exceeding ecological damage, to our post-1965 immigration policies). Many decades ago I started calling for “Liberty in One Nation” (my analogue to Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country”). One can be an “Austrian”, and even a libertarian, and still recognize that mass immigration is simply a Big Government totalitarian program of coercive population replacement and transformation.
The issue of trade from a nationalist perspective is far more complex than the Third World immigration invasion, if only because trade has real benefits, while protectionism has real problems (trade also has downsides, while protectionism has upsides). Also, trade divides our people, as whites can be on any side of the trade equation: buyers/sellers, importers/exporters, producers/workers/consumers, etc.
I strongly oppose Trump’s newest tariffs because they’re a distraction from, if not outright hindrance to, the real work that needs doing, which also considerably overlaps with the three main policy areas which got Trump elected a second time: 1) securing the border and deporting the 30-40 million illegal aliens and future welfare recipients and Democrat voters; 2) safeguarding our free market prosperity, and, especially, halting inflation and even bringing prices down; and 3) eradicating DEI and wokeness as much as possible. Tariffs take the public’s attention away from necessary mass deportations; they divide the broad conservative coalition (which is much bigger than merely the MAGA base – and we should recognize that most MAGAites are not white nationalists), which, for the moment, is united on deportations (therefore, Trump should be “striking while the iron is hot”); and they guaranteedly will raise consumer prices, which the public will misperceive as “inflation” (inflation is monetary debasement, and is the usual culprit behind rising prices; but prices also rise when demand outstrips supply – or when a tariff, which is another form of tax, is imposed). If inflation is still an issue in 2026, the GOP will lose its tiny House majority: are tariffs worth that?
OTOH, trade protection is sometimes necessary for national security reasons, and in such cases (eg, not only missile components, but blood pressure meds) I support it (not as a good in itself, to be clear, but as an adjunct to national security).
Please let me know which option above most appeals to you.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.