Liberté, égalité, KGB: Will France ban criticism of the Republic?
Many critics of French political circles have – rightly – pointed out this incredible ability of politicians to use the argument of the 'values of the Republic' whenever it suits them without ever explaining what these values are. However, the MPs who came up with this bill made a (minimal) effort in attempting to outline what it entails. Thus, it reads: 'The French Republic is based on fundamental principles: liberty, equality, fraternity, secularism, sovereignty of the people, and the indivisibility of the nation. These values, guaranteed by the Constitution and consolidated by law, constitute the foundation of 'vivre-ensemble' [something purely French that can be understood as 'social harmony'].' What would happen to someone who violates these principles? Oh, nothing, just being sentenced to three years of imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 ($52,000).
Beyond the purely vote-catching aspect of such a bill emanating from a right-wing party seeking to appeal to its public worried about the spread of Islam in France, there is something profoundly dystopian about it. All the listed 'fundamental principles' are so vague that anything can be considered a violation of them.
France, which has specialized in devising abstruse theories since the end of the 18th century, is based on the absurd triptych 'liberty, equality, fraternity.' However, any sane person understands that this triangle cannot work. 'Liberty' and 'equality' are by definition antagonistic and 'fraternity' is mainly some leftover of a distant Christian morality. The sacrosanct secularism must apply to everyone – except to the Jewish community, something that tends to frustrate the Muslim community and leaves French citizens, who are predominantly atheist but psychologically remain, as the great demographer Emmanuel Todd coined, in a kind of 'zombie Catholicism,' wary. When it comes to the 'sovereignty of the people,' most people understand that it is a joke since politicians wiped their feet on the people's 'no' during the referendum on the European Constitution in 2005. As for the 'indivisibility of the nation,' an umpteenth abstract concept that implies territorial unity, unity of the people, and unity of law, it would be necessary to explain it to the police and firefighters who can no longer go to some territories of the 'Republic' as France is on the verge of becoming a narco-state. But of course, in this maelstrom of abstract stuff, the end of the quote that is the highlight of the show: 'These values [...] constitute the foundation of vivre-ensemble.'
Not long ago, during the June heat wave, a water park had to close permanently because it was invaded and trashed by 'young people' the very first day after it opened. With the riots of summer 2023 (never described as 'racial' by the French press though they use the term when it comes to the US) and the chaos following PSG's Champions League victory in 2025, along with the daily attacks and violence, the French people seem to be struggling to integrate the concept of 'vivre-ensemble.'
Someone said that the British had problems with ideas but not with facts, whereas for the French it's the opposite. This is absolutely true. The French, especially their elites, live in a completely abstract mental space, which, unfortunately, has tended to colonize the West, particularly through the philosophical movement Les Lumieres and, 200 years later, through the 'French Theory' that eventually lead to the disastrous woke culture.
What the right-wing party behind this bill doesn't seem to realize is that with such vague criteria, France could find itself in the kind of judicial system that communist regimes experienced, where any statement could be interpreted to prove that it wasn't 'Marxist-Leninist.' As the joke goes, in the Soviet Union, it was possible to say anything... in your own kitchen. Well, in France, with such a bill, you'll have to choose your words carefully while enjoying your beef bourguignon. The ignorant politicians behind this text should read Arthur Koestler's 'Darkness at Noon': the main character, a Soviet political commissar who has sent many to the Gulag, finds himself purged by the system he contributed to. With an honest judge, it would be easy to charge them with, for example, having violated the principles of 'equality' and 'fraternity' by increasing their salaries at the National Assembly while asking the French people to make an effort because there is no money anymore.
Of course, given that the country's prisons are already overcrowded and the state ruined, these MPs obviously have in mind to resort to the ultimate repressive instrument of liberal democracies: hitting the wallet. €45,000 for 'anti-republican' remarks made in public. But the fine will, according to them, be increased to €75,000 if the remarks are made 'in a meeting,' on a social network, or by an individual holding a position of public authority or office. €75,000 for tweeting that there is a problem with uncontrolled immigration? Is calling a bust of Marianne (a symbol of the Republic) ugly considered a crime? Does Brigitte Macron's gender enter into the equation of republican values?
But beyond the excesses and abuses such a law could lead to, the Republicans' approach reflects something much more important: the political regime is becoming increasingly oppressive because it is at the end of its tether. Mass immigration has induced such chaos that it is no longer 'manageable,' the working classes are struggling to keep a delusional social system afloat, and more than 50% of voters are now over 50 years old. The country's vital forces no longer have any confidence in their institutions, so they must be constrained. If this law is adopted, the Republic will take care of it, as Macron would say, 'whatever the cost.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump's Patriots are on the way to Kiev. Russian patriots are on the way to victory
On Monday, July 14, US President Donald Trump announced that he had decided to supply Patriot missile systems to Kiev, with the first deliveries expected in the coming days. The key element of this move lies not just in the type of weapons, but in the logistics behind them. While the deliveries will be formally carried out by Washington, the funding will come from NATO allies. The first batteries will be transferred from Germany, which will later be compensated by new shipments from the United States. In essence, a new mechanism is taking shape: American weapons, paid for with European money. But what does this actually mean in practical terms? Is this a major escalation, a political gesture, or simply a reshuffling of existing commitments? And more importantly, how will this affect the battlefield itself? According to Trump, Ukraine will receive 17 Patriot systems – a statement that immediately raises questions. Most importantly, it's unclear exactly what the administration considers a 'system.' If he meant 17 launchers, that would translate into just three or four full batteries, since each battery includes a radar, command post, and between four and eight launchers. This would not represent a dramatic escalation, but rather allow the Ukrainian Armed Forces to replenish and rotate previously supplied batteries. A more ambitious interpretation would assume that Trump meant 17 full batteries. That would be the single largest delivery of air defense systems to Ukraine to date – several times more than what the country currently fields. While the US has the industrial capacity and inventory to provide this quantity, such a generous transfer would be uncharacteristic of Trump's approach. His goal is to make a visible impact, not to set records. The more plausible scenario is that this is a European-funded replacement for earlier systems that have been damaged or expended. In parallel with the Patriot announcement, details began to emerge about long-range missiles. According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration is considering removing all restrictions on Ukraine's use of ATACMS missiles to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. It's worth clarifying that Ukraine already possesses such missiles. Since 2023, its forces have deployed ATACMS variants with a range of up to 190 km, and since spring of 2024, longer-range versions capable of reaching 300 km. The change lies not in the hardware itself, but in the potential shift in how it can be used. Up until now, Washington has forbidden Kiev from using these weapons to strike internationally recognized Russian territory. According to American press reports, those limits may now be dropped. While this move would entail risks, it doesn't represent a strategic game-changer. Russia's layered air defense network, including the S-300, S-400, and S-500 systems, was designed with threats like ATACMS in mind. While a 100% interception rate is unrealistic, operational experience shows a high level of effectiveness. The threat is real, but hardly decisive. As weapons deliveries ramp up, discussion has turned to heavier strike assets. Military Watch Magazine reported that its sources say the Trump administration is exploring the possibility of transferring US air-launched cruise missiles – specifically JASSM models – to Ukraine, primarily for use with F-16 fighters already in Kiev's possession. The JASSM is a stealthy cruise missile designed to strike heavily defended targets. Early variants have a range of up to 340 km, while the extended-range JASSM-ER versions are capable of flying 740–1000 km. With a 450 kg warhead and low observability, these missiles pose a serious threat – particularly if used against major administrative and industrial centers. In theory, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and other cities could fall within range. Reports also suggest that the administration may be reviewing the possibility of providing Tomahawk cruise missiles – most likely through the mobile Typhon launch systems, which Ukraine formally requested back in 2024. These subsonic, terrain-hugging missiles have a range of up to 2,000 km and have proven effective in US strikes against targets in Iran and Syria in recent years. Notably, Ukraine isn't the only country showing interest in such systems. Germany has also expressed a desire to acquire Typhon complexes as part of its long-term deterrence strategy. While the theoretical transfer of Tomahawks to Kiev cannot be ruled out, as with the JASSM, such a move would mark a significant policy shift. It would be, by any standard, a revolutionary step – and it is doubtful that President Trump is genuinely inclined to take it. For now, all indications are that discussions remain preliminary and behind closed doors. Should these proposals move forward, Russia's military will respond by adjusting its air defense posture. Denser deployments of surface-to-air systems around industrial centers, capitals, and the front line will be required. Air-based assets may be added to the mix. The threat is being monitored, but it will not go unanswered. Russia not only possesses a sophisticated anti-missile defense network but also extensive combat experience intercepting a wide range of Western weapons. Engagements with Storm Shadow, SCALP EG, and ATACMS missiles have already shown that even complex threats can be effectively countered. While no system offers full immunity, and some missiles may slip through, the idea of 'wonder weapons' shifting the tide of the conflict is a myth. The success of the special military operation does not depend on technological supremacy alone. It is rooted in the integrated use of diverse forces, sustained strategic initiative, and resilience under pressure. No cruise missile – however advanced – can break that foundation.
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump's ultimatum isn't an ultimatum – and Moscow knows it
US President Donald Trump has finally issued his much-anticipated 'important statement' on Russia. For days, speculation swirled, particularly among pro-Ukrainian circles, that the long-awaited U-turn was coming. Trump, they hoped, would finally get tough – perhaps inspired by the increasingly hawkish rhetoric of Senator Lindsey Graham (who, incidentally, is designated a terrorist and extremist in Russia). Even sceptics began to believe that Trump was gearing up to show Moscow 'Kuzka's mother,' a famous idiomatic expression of aggression used by Nikita Khrushchev during the Cold War But in classic Trump fashion, expectations were dashed. The supposedly 'extremely tough ultimatum' turned out to be something else entirely. Trump threatened tariff sanctions against Russia and its trading partners – but scrapped Graham's extreme proposal of 500% duties. Instead, he floated the idea of 100% tariffs that would only take effect after 50 days, if he chooses to enforce them, and if Russia fails to strike a deal. Trump also announced new arms deliveries to Ukraine. But these aren't gifts – they'll be sold, not given, and passed through European intermediaries. Supposedly, Ukraine will receive 17 Patriot systems. Yet we soon learned the first of these deliveries won't arrive for at least two months – again, 50 days. And even now, basic questions remain unanswered. What exactly did Trump mean by '17 Patriots'? Seventeen batteries? Launchers? Missiles? If he meant 17 batteries, that's simply not plausible. The US itself only operates around 30 active batteries. Germany and Israel combined don't have anywhere near that many available systems. Such a figure would significantly boost Ukraine's air defences – but it's almost certainly exaggerated. Seventeen missiles? That would be laughable – but not unthinkable. Washington recently sent just 10 Patriot missiles in a 'military aid' package so modest it wouldn't suffice for a single battle. Seventeen launchers? That seems more realistic. A typical battery consists of six to eight launchers, so this would amount to two or three batteries – more than what Germany and Norway have promised to purchase for Ukraine. Yet even the Pentagon can't confirm the details. And one suspects Trump himself may be fuzzy on the specifics. His role, after all, is to make the pronouncements; others are left to clean up the mess. The so-called '14 July ultimatum' has already become a textbook example of Trump's diplomatic approach. In fact, a new phrase has emerged in American political slang: 'Trump Always Chickens Out' or TACO. The acronym speaks for itself. It refers to the president's habit in trade and security talks of making grandiose threats, only to backtrack or delay implementation. This appears to be another case in point. The negotiations are at an impasse. Trump still craves a Nobel Peace Prize. And he's reluctant to become too entangled in the Ukrainian conflict. So he's reached for the oldest trick in his playbook: the non-ultimatum ultimatum. This allows him to sound tough while giving Moscow space – and perhaps even time – to act. It also offers cover with his MAGA base, many of whom are frustrated by distractions like Iran or the Epstein scandal and aren't eager to see America dragged further into Ukraine. The genius of it, from Trump's perspective, is that it promises everything and nothing at once. No clear strategy. No detailed demands. Just an open-ended threat backed by ambiguous timelines. It's pressure without posture. Leverage without leadership. What's striking is that the White House didn't even ask Russia to de-escalate. There were no appeals to halt the almost daily strikes on Ukraine or curb battlefield activity. In effect, Russia has been handed a 50-day window – intentionally or not – to do as it sees fit. A quiet concession to the Kremlin? Perhaps. A careless side effect? Possibly. Either way, Moscow gains. America, too, comes out ahead – at least financially. Under the new arrangement, Western Europe picks up the tab for Ukraine's defence, while US companies get paid to offload ageing equipment. Trump's famed 'art of the deal' may amount to little more than selling junk with a smile. But if so, he's done it masterfully. Still, as a political manoeuvre, the outcome is more uncertain. Trump may believe he's found the sweet spot between hawks and doves, between NATO allies and nationalist critics. But trying to be all things to all people rarely ends well. Appeasement disguised as firmness satisfies no one for long. And while Trump plays for time, Russia holds the initiative. That's the real story article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
14 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump arms Ukraine. Russia doesn't care
On Monday, July 14, US President Donald Trump announced that he had decided to supply Patriot missile systems to Kiev, with the first deliveries expected in the coming days. The key element of this move lies not just in the type of weapons, but in the logistics behind them. While the deliveries will be formally carried out by Washington, the funding will come from NATO allies. The first batteries will be transferred from Germany, which will later be compensated by new shipments from the United States. In essence, a new mechanism is taking shape: American weapons, paid for with European money. But what does this actually mean in practical terms? Is this a major escalation, a political gesture, or simply a reshuffling of existing commitments? And more importantly, how will this affect the battlefield itself? According to Trump, Ukraine will receive 17 Patriot systems – a statement that immediately raises questions. Most importantly, it's unclear exactly what the administration considers a 'system.' If he meant 17 launchers, that would translate into just three or four full batteries, since each battery includes a radar, command post, and between four and eight launchers. This would not represent a dramatic escalation, but rather allow the Ukrainian Armed Forces to replenish and rotate previously supplied batteries. A more ambitious interpretation would assume that Trump meant 17 full batteries. That would be the single largest delivery of air defense systems to Ukraine to date – several times more than what the country currently fields. While the US has the industrial capacity and inventory to provide this quantity, such a generous transfer would be uncharacteristic of Trump's approach. His goal is to make a visible impact, not to set records. The more plausible scenario is that this is a European-funded replacement for earlier systems that have been damaged or expended. In parallel with the Patriot announcement, details began to emerge about long-range missiles. According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration is considering removing all restrictions on Ukraine's use of ATACMS missiles to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. It's worth clarifying that Ukraine already possesses such missiles. Since 2023, its forces have deployed ATACMS variants with a range of up to 190 km, and since spring of 2024, longer-range versions capable of reaching 300 km. The change lies not in the hardware itself, but in the potential shift in how it can be used. Up until now, Washington has forbidden Kiev from using these weapons to strike internationally recognized Russian territory. According to American press reports, those limits may now be dropped. While this move would entail risks, it doesn't represent a strategic game-changer. Russia's layered air defense network, including the S-300, S-400, and S-500 systems, was designed with threats like ATACMS in mind. While a 100% interception rate is unrealistic, operational experience shows a high level of effectiveness. The threat is real, but hardly decisive. As weapons deliveries ramp up, discussion has turned to heavier strike assets. Military Watch Magazine reported that its sources say the Trump administration is exploring the possibility of transferring US air-launched cruise missiles – specifically JASSM models – to Ukraine, primarily for use with F-16 fighters already in Kiev's possession. The JASSM is a stealthy cruise missile designed to strike heavily defended targets. Early variants have a range of up to 340 km, while the extended-range JASSM-ER versions are capable of flying 740–1000 km. With a 450 kg warhead and low observability, these missiles pose a serious threat – particularly if used against major administrative and industrial centers. In theory, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and other cities could fall within range. Reports also suggest that the administration may be reviewing the possibility of providing Tomahawk cruise missiles – most likely through the mobile Typhon launch systems, which Ukraine formally requested back in 2024. These subsonic, terrain-hugging missiles have a range of up to 2,000 km and have proven effective in US strikes against targets in Iran and Syria in recent years. Notably, Ukraine isn't the only country showing interest in such systems. Germany has also expressed a desire to acquire Typhon complexes as part of its long-term deterrence strategy. While the theoretical transfer of Tomahawks to Kiev cannot be ruled out, as with the JASSM, such a move would mark a significant policy shift. It would be, by any standard, a revolutionary step – and it is doubtful that President Trump is genuinely inclined to take it. For now, all indications are that discussions remain preliminary and behind closed doors. Should these proposals move forward, Russia's military will respond by adjusting its air defense posture. Denser deployments of surface-to-air systems around industrial centers, capitals, and the front line will be required. Air-based assets may be added to the mix. The threat is being monitored, but it will not go unanswered. Russia not only possesses a sophisticated anti-missile defense network but also extensive combat experience intercepting a wide range of Western weapons. Engagements with Storm Shadow, SCALP EG, and ATACMS missiles have already shown that even complex threats can be effectively countered. While no system offers full immunity, and some missiles may slip through, the idea of 'wonder weapons' shifting the tide of the conflict is a myth. The success of the special military operation does not depend on technological supremacy alone. It is rooted in the integrated use of diverse forces, sustained strategic initiative, and resilience under pressure. No cruise missile – however advanced – can break that foundation.
