The new French revolutionaries. Credit: Jean Sebastien Evrard/AFP/Getty

The scene is a womenswear shop in the centre of Bordeaux at the end of last month. Shoppers — young women, teenagers, mothers and children — are enjoying the easing of France’s second Covid-19 lockdown.
A demonstration passes on the street outside. It is protesting against police violence and a proposed new security law. Two young women break away from the demo and scrawl on the shop window with marker pens. One, who tries unsuccesfully to hide her face, writes: “Je vomis sur vos normes.” (I vomit on your standards).
A young man, whole face masked, approaches and smashes the window with a blunt object. Another young man, tall, blonde, unmasked, aristocratic-looking but with hair in an anti-establishment ponytail, gazes through the window and gives a gesture of contempt to shoppers and staff.
Someone, or possibly more than one person, kicks in the whole shop front. There is flying glass, screaming, crying, panic, nervous laughter…
The video has gone viral — but this outbreak of pointless violence isn’t an isolated one. Many Saturday afternoons in many big cities in France have been punctuated by such episodes — ever since the beginning of the Gilets Jaunes movement two years ago. And even before.
Police are stoned or attacked with Molotov cocktails; cars are burned or turned over; bank and shop windows are smashed; bus-shelters are destroyed. The perpetrators claim that they target only “symbols of capitalism” but seem to have a particular animus against capitalist bus shelters, which are mostly used by older and poorer members of the population.
The Covid pandemic did force a brief hiatus in this French anti-capitalist Saturday Afternoon Fever. But since the easing of the second lockdown, they’ve resumed.
Groups of hooded people — mostly in their 20’s or 30’s, mostly male and mostly white — are again invading organised protests. Some are full-time revolutionaries. Others are weekend hobbyists, indulging in a kind of political football hooliganism. Some — but not all — are highly-educated young people from relatively well-off backgrounds.
It is customary to refer to them as “les Black Blocs”, after an anarchist movement which began in Germany. But it’s a misleading name. “Black Bloc was a method, not a movement,” explains Professor Olivier Cahn, a French criminologist. “The original idea was to create a block of black-clad, anti-state protesters in the street who would symbolically, and sometimes violently, dispute the right of the state to control the street or the whole of society.”
“It started with a German anarchist movement in the 1970s and the approach has been adopted and adapted in many countries, from Italy to the United States. But there was no organised movement and no one thinking head behind it.” Much of the activity in France that has been attributed to the Black Blocs is something rather different: “They’re disparate groups of the ultra-Left who copy some of the Black Bloc methods but also go far beyond them”.
It has similarities to the Antifa movement in the States. But it flourishes more in France than any other European country. That’s because Black Blocs, and those who imitate them, are political cuckoos. They always infiltrate the protests of others. Since France is a country where politics goes to the street more readily and more often than any other democratic country in the world, there’s more habitat here for them than anywhere else. As Grégory Joron, a French police union official, told the television documentary Police attitude: “If you rally 20,000 people for the cause of frozen beans in France today, you will get Black Blocs…They are professional rioters.”
They are, in their own terms, a very successful phenomenon — arguably the most successful political movement in France at the present time.
They accuse capitalism, the state and especially the police of being violent. Through violence, they oblige or trap the state and police into acting violently. They kindle the impression — both in France and abroad — that France is a “repressive” state, ungovernable, spinning out of control. (France has many problems but it is not spinning out of control.)
The many Gilet Jaunes protests were frequently invaded by Black Blocs or people who copied their methods. I was in the crowd on the Champs Elysées on 16 March 2019 when a group of 150 or so self-satisfied, black-clad young men appeared from nowhere and started smashing and burning restaurants and news kiosks.
Some of the more peaceful, rural or outer suburban Yellow Vests were disgusted. Others applauded or joined in. The police were criticised for not stopping the violence that day. On other weekends, police were criticised (sometimes justifiably) for being too violent and too indiscriminate in their response.
Many of the original, disparate, apolitical rural or outer suburban yellow-clad protesters became disgusted by Black Bloc and Gilet Jaune violence, and by the violent police response. After the spring of last year, the original, rural Yellow Vests mostly melted away.
But here is a paradox. The violence also, briefly, made the Yellow Vest movement more powerful than it would otherwise have been; more reported abroad; more worrying to the government; more damaging to President Macron’s reputation.
The same has been true of the marches against the new security law in the last few weeks. The demos would have received little publicity in France — and none abroad — if they had remained as peaceful as their organisers intended. When cars burned and banks were attacked in Paris on December 5, radio and newspaper headlines often gave the impression that this was “anti-Macron” violence or violence provoked by police violence.
Organisers complained that the government and police had deliberately allowed the Black Blocs to rampage in order to discredit the demos. The hard left, La France Insoumise party, one of the organisers claimed that the Black Blocs were the “objective allies of Macron”. Far-Right commentators, including senior officials of Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National, hinted that they believed “les black blocs” were largely government-inspired agents provocateurs.
Last weekend, police in Paris waded in to a successor march from the beginning. They penned the marchers. They arrested anyone who looked as though they might be about to create a “black bloc”. Random violence was greatly reduced. Capitalist bus-shelters were left alone.
La France Insoumise, and part of the French media complained, without missing a beat, that the police had been over-aggressive and too violent. Here was proof, they said. that Macron’s France was become authoritarian, lurching to the Right…
In other words, the Black Blocs — whoever they might be — had won while seeming to lose. But who are they and what do they want?
Their methods and organisation are so deliberately opaque — or vacuous — it’s impossible to say. Just look at their slogans:
“Who we are is not so important as what we want. And we want everything, for everyone.”
Or
“Before the protest, there is no black block; after the protest the black block ceases to exist.”
Those members who do speak to the press tend to be relatively recent recruits on the fringes — people with specific grievances, not necessarily representative of the core anarcho-nihilist, black-bloc philosophy. One unnamed woman who was recently interviewed by The Local website said she had joined in violent Black Bloc protests in Paris for the first time this month. She complained that she had lost her restaurant work because of what she regarded as the unnecessary pandemic lockdown.
“So there you are, locked inside because of a ‘flu, having to wear a mask for no reason, and you aren’t allowed to say anything,” she said. “On top of that, you’re not getting paid and the bills start piling up. So anger begins to rise. Hatred rises. There is something within that needs to get out. I told myself that I need to get all that hatred out of my body, otherwise I would implode.”
The core Black Bloc activists, however, rarely speak to the press. They tend — like the 1970s German originals — to come from well-off, well-educated backgrounds. Many are students (which in France can cover ages 18 to 25). Some live in squats and live on casual work. Others have well-paid jobs. One 29-year-old man arrested in 2018 was a graduate of the prestigious Ecole Centrale and earned 50,000 euros a year as a business consultant.
They retain mystique partly because the most hardened of them seldom get arrested. There are, according to French intelligence, no more than 800 pure members. But the base is broadening.
“It now includes people of more working-class origin,” according to Cahn. “There are recruits from the left-leaning, anti-fascist football hooligans who have traditionally occupied one end of the Parc de Princes during Paris Saint-Germain matches.” (A hard-right, racist group occupies the other end.).
A clear pattern of motivation remains difficult to establish though. There are some people who have reasons to feel betrayed by the state and the “system”. There are others who believe in the pure, original anarchist philosophy of a “creative destruction” of the state to liberate the oppressed human spirit. There are also “wannabes” who belong to the many, mutually-hating tribes and sub-tribes of the French ultra-left.
One French academic, the sociologist Gaston Bouthol, has suggested that “blackblockery” is a post-modern plague, driven by surplus testosterone and mental or physical under-employment.
“Many active young males are unemployed or spend their lives passively in front of computer screens, not always sure whether their work is any use to anyone,” he said. “Of course, they could take up a sport or paint-balling … but that doesn’t have the smell of reality which makes the adrenaline flow… And so they become fanatics who constantly seek out the strong sensations of street protest.” This doesn’t explain the increasing presence of women among their ranks though.
We do know, though, that they are a self-fulfilling prophesy. They discredit mainstream politics; they discredit the state; they discredit the police; they also discredit the moderate or peaceful movements to which they parasitically attach themselves.
They are, for now a marginal phenomenon. But they are also a dangerous — and a growing — one. As disaffection increasing amid the economic rubble covid leaves behind, the ranks will doubtless grow further. And no one — not the government, not the media, not the legitimate peaceful forces of opposition — knows how to break the destructive spiral in which black-bloc violence appears to win even when it loses.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFrance appears to be in a similar if not worse position than we are. However the French public clearly care more about preserving their nation and are aware of the problems that immigrants cause and are less cowardly than the British in speaking for a desire to preserve their nation. This reflects their politics, socially liberal Macron makes statements that even the furthest right of the Conservative party would be too scared to state. Repatriation is not a drastic option it is the only mutually beneficial solution that will avoid destruction of two of the most important nations in world history.
‘Repatriation’? Please explain to where you repatriate a French citizen, born in France who holds no other nationality.
Algeria, where his parents came from despite their own parents fighting against foreign rule.
In this instance Algeria would have to agree to give them citizenship, which is possible, I suppose, but not likely – why would they?
I would suggest it would be more practical to properly enforce laws so that there are no two-state systems at play. There should not be sharia law in one area and French law in another.
But fixing this means a huge show of state force and a huge rise in prison populations, which I think is a price worth paying to establish the rule of law and public safety.
But the evidence from the US, which imprisons more of its own citizens than more or less any other country, shows that there is no correlation between a high prison population and lower levels of violent crime….this evidence even suggests the opposite to be true.
Prisons do tend to become grad schools for crime.
Perhaps not. But we have ample evidence that NOT incarcerating violent people causes increases in violent crime. In recent years, we have seen a series of District Attorneys in many cities (often referred to Soros prosecutors) adopt bail reform rules that essentially put many criminals, both recently arrested and some already in prison back out on the street and there has definitely been a rise in violent crime in many of those cities. I’m not making a case for mass incarceration. But, there are just really bad people (usually young men) that do violent acts and there is ample evidence that they commit more violent crime. New York, Chicago, Baton Rouge, Philadelphia, etc. It seems rare to see a murder committed these days by someone who was NOT recently released from prison or who has a long rap sheet for previous violent crimes.
I’m not sure I necessarily believe this. What is correlation and what is causation? It could easily be the case that large numbers of prisons reflect the high level of crime, rather than cause it.
What we don’t know and cannot easily tell is what the crime in those areas would be without arresting people for crime.
Well this is something of a moot point because it is clear that in either case, just tossing people into prison doesn’t stop other people from committing violent crime (thus raising questions about imprisonment as a deterrent). Violent criminals may well deserve their comeuppance, but arguing for more prison sentences as a way of cutting violent crime makes no sense…it constitutes a reaction to the problem rather than a solution.
Unless you know what the level of violent crime *would* be, without incarceration, there’s not really a way to avoid the obvious conclusion that violent crime is the cause of incarceration, not the other way ’round.
It could well be that lowering incarceration rates would lead to a rise in crime.
Uh there is a correlation; they’ve let a lot of them out, Soros backed prosecutors don’t actually do their jobs and our city streets are exploding with crime. We are a 300 million country so it’s logical that we are going to have a lot of people in prison. Prison reform was a fail.
France and perhaps Italy and Spain may need to occupy parts of North Africa to deport them back to, if Algeria, Morocco and Libya will not take them people back.
Unthinkable? Yes, but a year ago a massive land war in Europe was unthinkable. If the situation is as bad as the author implies, France has no hope of maintaining domestic tranquility and its own national identify without such drastic action.
You cannot ‘deport’ someone to a country of which they are not a national, irrespective of where their father, mother, hamster etc was born. Former French president François Hollande tried to push through a policy of déchéance de nationalité for those thought to be involved in terrorism and was widely ridiculed when it proved to be unworkable for this reason.
Sounds like they don’t think of themselves as citizens so no reason for them to stay.
“You cannot ‘deport’ someone to a country of which they are not a national”
You can by forcing the country in question to take them back. France could occupy a part of the North African littoral with ease, and deport the element of its population that rejects French citizenship. Then return the occupied territory to the Algerian or Tunisian government at a later date, with their population returned.
DNA test to establish country of origin
This is a matter of mindset, not race. There are large numbers of law-abiding French citizens of North African origin. I agree with hayden eastwood: shari’a is incompatible with French law.
Wouldn’t work
DNA cannot determine country of origin. And how far back do you want to go. Because that means we are all headed to Africa. I am a US citizen of 100% Northern European stock (determined by DNA). Should I head back to Europe? And which one of many countries in Northern Europe my ancestors came from a couple of generations ago?
I like all of my options by the way. Although it is going to be pretty cold and dark most of the winters. Bummer. Too bad no one was from Greece.
I am of Italian and Irish parentage, born here.. Does that make me ” English”? no.. Merely being born in a stable does not make one a horse!
A spurious comparison; nationality is not the same as species. If one is of Indian origin (for example) but born and raised in England, has British nationality, and has loyalties to England/Britain, then one is English.
I am English, both my parents surnames are in the dooomsday book. If I had been born in China, spoke the language, and was also a Chinese citizen I still do not think that would make me Chinese. Nor would I expect the Chinese to see me as being one of them. I would label myself as being culturally Chinese of English heritage.
This is not meant to be an universal principle. France is facing a continuing domestic emergency. Mass deportation to resolve a specific emergency is what is being proposed here.
And then send 13% of the person back to Sweden, 58% to Germany . . .
This is what happens when citizenship replaces nationality. In other words, the law and the paperwork count for more than ancestry, language , history, tradition, ritual, religion and so on. Zemmour did not ‘capitalise’ on the existing situation; rather he pointed it out in all its dangerous detail and predicted where France is headed. Stuck with it now.
Many, if not most of the troublemakers, are far more likely to have arrived in France within the last 10 Years.
links and stats please i would be interested in reading that.
Wrong. This may be the case with some of the perpetrators of the more high profile terrorist attacks of recent years, but it is not true of the majority of hoodlums causing misery in the banlieues. This latter group is what the article is about.
Assimilate or b****r off and take your offspring with you. Simple.
Perhaps (as Americans used to say during the McCarthy era): “back to Russia?”
In South West USA I just watched an interview with some Border Sheriffs who say the Cartels 100% manage the literally millions of illegals the Biden regime has let stream across the fully open Border.
They went on to say Mexican Cartels are fully operational in every American city, even big towns. These Sheriffs who have been working Law on the border decades must know what they are talking of; it is very scary – what is Biden up to that he has opened the border to millions, all whom have to pay the Cartels, and many are part of the Cartels.
The Hispanic voters have always been Democrat voters till this upcoming Mid Term elections when they will be voting majority Republican, as they know how life under crime lords is.
FULLY OPEN border? Care to specify at all?
Would you care to explain what it is then?
yah probably about 2 million ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’ who wish to game the system will cross this year with almost no push back from this administration; some wearing ‘biden please let us in’ t shirts. this after getting it down to a 50 year level from trumps time in office. we had it solved and biden opened the flood gates.
“to the horrifyingly drastic — creating a ministry for “re-migration”. how much more horrifying than a teacher getting his head cut off or bombings for some perceived slight? you get what you put up with…
Vigilante beheading, or mass deportation: it’s your choice! (How one say in English: false dilemma?)
It’s a false dilemma in the sense that it doesn’t qualify as an argument either for or against such a ministry. What’s at issue are the criteria that would guide the ministry’s decision-making. I’m sure few would object to deporting an immigrant guilty of such a horrific crime. Deporting his neighbour because he too is an immigrant (not a beheader) is a different story.
Kat was comparing which events get categorized as “horrifyingly drastic”. Making those horrific alternatives the only two options came from your own mind. You need to take responsibility for creating your false dilemma.
As you sow, so shall you reap! Instead of pouring money into these hellholes, send the ones creating them back from whence they came with no right to return to what was, once, a Belle France. This would be a far better use of French funds!
Are you saying they are not French citizens? Looks to me like legally speaking they are perfectly entitled to be there.
You have to come up with something better than wishing them away.
The problem your idea faces is that no country is likely to give a criminal passport and citizenship just because a great grandparent had citizenship in that country.
Lots of downvotes to people pointing out that these jihadis don’t have citizenship to other countries- but nobody is providing credible means by which Algeria, for example, could be coerced or incentivised to give French born jihadi criminals Algerian citizenship.
Islamists are waging war all round the globe… Our media are too frightened of the ” Islamophobia” fifth column.
The article shows how (apart from the drug issues) the French can take to the streets. I live in France and am both British and French (‘forced’ to be French by Brexit as I have a company in France, and I love both countries). France has difficulties, but not as much as the UK appears to be suffering. I seriously think that the UK would benefit from having some serious (French) demonstrations at present. We have just seen how millions can be mobilised by the death of the Queen. We now have a totally incompetent quasi-unelected government with no mandate at all for what they are doing and which can cause immense long-term harm. I recommend you read the ‘Shortest History of England’ to show the roots of the constitutional crisis we are facing, and the North-South divide. So I also recommend mass demonstrations (peaceful, as occurred three weeks ago?) and then the King can dissolve parliament! Of course, if nobody wants to demonstrate, then the entire idea of constitutional change cant take place, but if nobody wants to take action, then a society deserves what it gets from a government without mandate.
Michael, in which country are you now living, Britain or France, and since when? How does your place of residence influence your choice of media, and how widely do you read around issues? I’d appreciate a little more understanding in these areas before responding further to your post. Thanks, Jeff
Jeff, I live in France (36 years), with an appartment and honorary position in UK; I am a scientist (successful, well cited) and I read extensively, I have a worldwide position in research and before COVID travelled widely. I read LeMonde, Guardian, Times, Unherd among others, and scan other papers to see what they are saying. This is my first Unherd post. over to you! all the best Michael
Michael, many thanks for your prompt reply. One final question if I may, and then a request! In which part of France are you, and rather can conduct a correspondence in full view of other esteemed Unherd readers can you suggest a more private method? Perhaps making contact via something like LinkedIn thence to exchange email addresses, or can you think of an alternative? Cheers, Jeff
Would you feel the say way if you disagreed with the proposition?
I think you are being a bit hysterical Michael.
We have a perfectly good system to remove poor governments: the ballot box. I suspect Liz Truss will be replaced by her own side or by a general election. Either way, nothing good has ever come out of protests or direct action.
Yes, I dont normally like direct action. But the ballot box is <18 months away. It is just that we are in a very difficult situation, where Truss didnt want to tax the companies which had made >100bn£ worth of profits, proposed 60bn£ of loans so our children will pay for this etc etc. and none of this was voted for (except for a small number of party members). The financial situation is ‘rather poor’ and much worse than in Europe.
(Jeff , linked In!).
Thanks, Michael! My LinkedIn profile is totally anodyne, but hopefully yours will be easy to find and I’ll message you.
“…We now have a totally incompetent quasi-unelected government with no mandate at all for what they are doing and which can cause immense long-term harm”
Oh Dear Michel, you have gone native.
Tell me who you voted for in the €SSR Presidential elections?..230-ish votes got VDL elected to a position to implement laws and policies that 450 million subjects have utterly no say in formulating.
Who went to gaol for killing 100k people because of Dieselgate?
.
The reality is that you cannot police people into accepting your ways; you can only seduce them, by conclusively demonstrating your ways hold the promise of a better life for them than the ways you’re asking them to abandon. Evidently, secular France has not succeeded in persuading enough of its Muslim immigrants this is the case; but if a bifurcated state is to be avoided, there really is no alternative. The only effective and lasting way to neutralize enemies is to turn them into friends. Violence and repression, even centuries’ worth, simply harden the battle lines.
I love the humane idealism you promote, and I fully support that as the optimum course when it works.
How certain are you that it’s universally feasible, tho? Do you suggest that there be a Plan B if it doesn’t work, or just Plan A forever?
Remember, you don’t just need to seduce 80%, you need to seduce close to everybody, because the bomb-throwers are usually only a minority.
And what would you consider the most applicable and replicable historical examples of the approach you advocate?
Again, I like the idea, I’m just trying to understand the scope and boundaries of it, the pragmatics.
The problem is as far as I see, French, and really Western way of living seems to be dying. People don’t set up families and raise children, therefore the native population is shrinking. Granted this is a Western only problem, but is dominant in the West. The question then is why would someone assimilate to a dying way of life? When that question can be answered, the rest isn’t hard.
It’s a good question. But why would someone emigrate to a dying way of life? I would think it’s because it has something they haven’t had, or lost. But why would someone then attack that way of life, or want to change it? Possibly because they’ve never had anything good enough to value, that their culture, and religion, never gave them anything but pain. Maybe they’re like those children from dysfunctional homes who won’t be helped and damage everything given to them in the hope of helping. It takes a lot of work to help those types, with a big failure rate. But this destruction is clearly a sign of dysfunction.
I’ve been asked this question in different forums/threads: “But why would someone emigrate to a dying way of life?”
I don’t think it’s that hard to imagine why. Firstly, it’s easy to see France has wealth. It’s also not hard to see some of this wealth goes back to activities like slave trading or colonisation of Africa. Regardless of where you stand in the political spectrum, I think anyone can understand the reasoning behind following the money. Furthermore given the above, you may see why there would be a lack of respect for the people who have the money when it’s thought the money is ill-gotten. So, I think it takes a bit of empathy to understand the mindset here, but it’s not contradictory. Your example about children probably does have merit though – in the same way abandoned or poor children don’t tend accept the legitimacy of the system that put them where they ended up.
“I don’t think it’s that hard to imagine why.”
“I think anyone can understand the reasoning behind following the money.”
If that’s the reason then it’s bound to end in disappointment, then frustration, then anger. If it was for living in a more democratic society, less war-torn, and a better future for their children then that would make sense. Which is, I imagine, the hopes of most emigrants. So lack of respect for where the money came from doesn’t add up to much, especially if that country offers you things you never had.
“People don’t set up families and raise children, therefore the native population is shrinking”
What?? I have a family and children, so does everyone I know. The schools are full and you have to beg for a place in a public creche.
Please explain what you mean by the ‘native population’.
I have enough income these days, and so do most of my friends. So, it must mean there’s no poverty in UK, good to have solved poverty.
Moving on. Native population is the group of people who aren’t immigrants – or descendants of immigrants. Usually there’s a cut off time when the descendants are more attached to the country they live in, or are accepted in it, at which point they become native. For example, Germans and Irish were seen as non-native in America for a while before they were all accepted as white. But you knew all of that didn’t you?
It’s been in the news quite a bit lately that the 1st world countries are not reproducing to replaceable rates. We are headed for a heap of trouble.
The only banlieue I know at all well is Ivry, which lies just outside the Paris Peripherique an hour’s walk from the Latin Quarter. It’s not downright dangerous like the hell holes described in the article, but it is very down at heel and prompted a sonnet:-
XXIV
Sonnet Concerning a Banlieue
Ivry-sur-Seine is difficult to love.
The revolution’s curdled here; St Just
has loaned his name to the tabac. Above,
the chimneys belch their Promethean dust
into the cold hard blank November sky.
The matchstick men from Mali and Algiers
trudge past the concrete cake mix, and the pie
of unfinished apartment blocks. No tears
were shed for beauty, no Lautréamont
has milked this abscess for its clotted crème.
La France Soumise spunked dry for Mélenchon’s
bijou apartment in the 10ième:
Versailles’ most elegantly velvet fist
replaced the Marquis with a communist.
The film does make clear who the villains are and they are neither the cops nor the gang members. I won’t give it away in case anyone here plans on watching the film.