21 April 2002 was a watershed date in post-war French politics. Turning on their televisions that evening, the French public heard the startling news that Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the Front National — a party boasting a former member of the Waffen SS among its founders — had qualified for the second round of France’s presidential election with 18% of the vote. After a political career spanning 46 years, Le Pen had erupted from the fringes into the mainstream of French life.
Le Pen was born on 20 June 1928, in the Breton fishing village of La-Trinité-sur-Mer. He was christened “Jean”, but later affixed his middle name “Marie” to his first, hoping that the reference to the Virgin would attract Catholic voters. The family origins were modest: his father was a fisherman, his mother a seamstress. Nicknamed the “Menhir” — the Celtic term for a prehistoric stone monolith — Le Pen made much of his Breton origins. Who, after all, could be more “French” than someone rooted in the soil of ancient France?
Le Pen’s father died in 1942, when his fishing boat hit a mine. Though an accident, he was accorded the statute of someone who had “died for France” and so his son became a “pupille” (ward) of the nation. A clever but undisciplined schoolboy, Jean-Marie was educated at both state and Catholic schools, and ultimately expelled from two. In 1946, he left Brittany to study at the law faculty in Paris, financing his studies by taking on small jobs. He soon discovered his taste for politics as a student activist at the head of the “Corpo” — the union of law students. At a time when French politics was dominated by the Left, the Corpo was ferociously anti-communist and committed to the defence of empire. From the start, then, Le Pen was firmly on the nationalist Right, sceptical of Resistance worship and sympathetic to the disgraced Vichy regime.
Handsome and dashing, the young Le Pen entered a bohemian world of hard drinking, womanising and partying. In 1958 he was a second in a duel — one of the last to ever happen in France — between the Marquis de Cuevas, a flamboyant ballet impresario, and the dancer Serge Lifar. With Le Pen, violence was never far away. Political meetings at this time frequently degenerated into violence, and Jean-Marie was always in the thick of it. When Jacques Isorni, Marshal Pétain’s former defence lawyer, stood for parliament in 1951, Le Pen’s Corpo formed part of his bodyguard, ready to rough up political opponents. Le Pen never fully abandoned this style of politics, even after entering the mainstream. In 1997, when supporting the candidature of one of his daughters at an election, the 70-year-old Le Pen plunged into a crowd of demonstrators, physically attacking the Socialist candidate. “Run away you red-headed faggot!” he shouted to one demonstrator. In the Sixties, when he first entered politics, Le Pen acquired an air of romantic menace by wearing a black eyepatch. For many years, he let it be known that he had lost his eye in a political brawl. The more mundane reality was that he’d suffered an accident while erecting a tent for a political meeting. Later, the eye patch was replaced by a less intimidating glass eye.
Instead of setting up as a lawyer after graduating, Le Pen enlisted in the army in order to serve in French Indochina, where his country was battling a communist-backed nationalist insurgency. This satisfied both his political convictions and his predilection for violence and adventure. But Le Pen arrived in Saigon just after the disastrous French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, in May 1954, and which effectively ended French hopes of holding on to its possessions in Southeast Asia. Le Pen returned to France a year later, bitter about those politicians who had been ready to sell out his beloved empire. He now joined Pierre Poujade and his anti-establishment movement. It had emerged as a popular protest against taxes — but soon became an expression of wider discontents about economic modernisation and perceived national decline.
Le Pen showed himself to be a brilliant campaigner and an exceptionally gifted orator. In January 1956, 53 Poujadists were elected to parliament, among them the 25-year-old Jean-Marie. In one characteristic early intervention in parliament, he attacked the Left-wing politician Pierre Mendes France: “Monsieur Mendes France you crystalise in your person a certain number of repulsions that are patriotic and almost physical”. Mendes France, a Gaullist during the war, had been the prime minister who’d ended the French presence in Indochina. Yet Le Pen’s mention of “physical” repulsion was widely assumed to be an antisemitic innuendo. Certainly, provocations and insults of this kind were the stock in trade of Le Pen’s style throughout his career.
I see. What happened to live and let live? Not agreeing with someone should not make them a criminal
A hit piece on a man the day he died before his funeral is even conducted strikes me as very poor taste. Further, this is a lengthy article. I wonder if it wasn’t already written well before and the author was just waiting for Le Pen to kick the bucket so he could maximize its impact and be as disrespectful as possible. This seems to go beyond reasonable criticism of a man who probably deserved quite a lot and into the realm of the vindictive. Guilt by association is not something I particularly appreciate and this author can’t seem to write more than about two sentences without mentioning some thread that connects Le Pen to Vichy France or the Nazis. Everything that was built or happened in Germany from 1932-1945 is not automatically evil because Nazis. Should we have bulldozed every building and burned every book, song, or piece of art produced in Germany from 1932-1945? I’m not entirely sure why the Vichy connections should even matter. It was a puppet government controlled by the Nazis and I doubt Hitler gave them much autonomy. The hard reality is there are consequences to losing wars, and someone was going to have to do the administrative work of running what was left of France and it strikes me as unfair to blame them for basically doing what they were told so the Gestapo didn’t show up at their doorstep. A man who kills someone because another man has a gun to his head and tells him to wouldn’t be held responsible in most places.
I finally understood where this author’s anger is coming from when I read the last couple paragraphs and then reread the subtitle. He describes Le Pen as the “precursor to populist and nationalist racism that has become the common currency of democratic politics”. Now it makes sense. He’s blaming Jean Marie Le Pen for the rise of populist parties, like that of Le Pen’s daughter, while simultaneously implying that they’re all Nazis and racist nationalists. That’s the real target of his anger, but it’s a lot easier to scapegoat a very recently dead man and run through a list of disreputable people and activities associated with him than it is to seriously argue in favor of open borders and more of the same globalist policy. One man in France cannot be the scapegoat for populist movements emerging basically everywhere in the Western World at approximately the same time. Neither can Donald Trump or Geert Wilders or Victor Orban or any of the other boogeymen of the political establishment. The men and women are incidental. They don’t elect themselves. Angry people elect them, and most of them are angry because neoliberal globalism has failed to maintain standards of living across all social classes while simultaneously pushing an ideology that marginalizes their legitimate concerns, undermines the cultures they value, and then calls them racists for daring to disagree. The reality is that populism is a consequence of neoliberal failures and little else. After all, they’re the ones whose policies got us where we are now. They’re the ones who had the power to do something to forestall populist uprisings. They held power. Neither Le Pen ever has. It’s distasteful to blame others for your own failures. This attitude, not the political activities of a dead man who was run out of politics by his own daughter a decade ago is what’s poisoning politics, and this is a big part of the reason establishment politicians are losing. Surely somebody can do better than this.
Hear hear.
The irony, Le Pen and his party being portrayed as being on the far right of politics, when in reality they were /are socialists.
Nationalisation by the State of the big corps and institutions was always their ambition,
The FN is simply a reactionary conservative movement. Its economic policies are famously flexible – look at its attitude to France and the EU – and designed around gaining power. Similar to Reform whose practical prescriptions are designed to peel off distinct voting blocks, rather than being a priori statement of principle. The only overriding objective is a vague idea of turning back the clock to an imagined past. Both look heavily to win over traditional left wing voters who are socially conservative, and alienated by their parties.
The left itself was much more likely to have a distinct economic philosophy as its roots are grounded in an economic analysis of society. The only far right groups with a distinct a priori economic theory were the fascists and the Nazis themselves. Mussolini was famously a leading socialist who broke with his movement over Italy’s entry into WW1, and Hitler detested both capitalism and socialism.
Despite all the labels thrown around, the modern far right are almost all just reactionary conservatives.
Can’t speak for others, but I’d rather not have politicians be limited by an economic ideology. I’d rather they be flexible, open to new ideas, and listening to the people. I’d prefer they focused on defending the nation and its people and solving whatever problems pragmatically using whatever method happens to produce the desired results with as few as possible side effects. Nothing more and nothing less. If that’s actually what the establishment is trying to do, then they’re failing and we may as well let somebody else have a go. If they’re simply tied to their ideology, that’s actually a worse problem to have and I hope they keep losing elections until they’ve discarded their ideological hangups and gotten back to a more sensible and practical attitude that listens to the people’s actual concerns.
Is everyone just a socialist in your book?
Socialism is being dumped on its backside ,,, it is increasingly found out ,,, none more so than this Starmer Govt will be also ‘dumped’ before the end of 2025
Le Pen had many faults, but the greatest of them was that he was a Vichyist, which is probably the worst thing a Frenchman can be.
I don’t get it. France lost the war. The people in the Vichy government basically had a gun to their heads. They had to do what the Nazis told them or the Gestapo might show up and kill them and their whole families. Are they really guilty of something because they did administrative work or collected taxes or shoveled snow or built roads or did whatever other civic job they were assigned so they wouldn’t be murdered in the night? We didn’t even prosecute or blame people who were actual Nazis for being Nazis unless they directly participated in the Holocaust or other proven crimes.
Still convinced that people who don’t agree with you are poisoning politics? Remember when we had to fear a certain “existential threat to democracy” ?
I’d advise the author of this article to open a newspaper… and smell the roses.