by Han Barkmeyer
According to Le Monde, one of the “most important and widely respected” newspapers in the world, all the talk about “Voter Fraud” and a “Stolen Election” was caused by “a technical bug” on France 2 TV: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2022/04/27/presidential-election-2022-the-ongoing-fantasy-of-electoral-fraud_5981737_7.html
On Monday, the video of a technical bug on France 2 during the election night spread like wildfire. Contrary to the results announced since 20 p.m., and in contradiction with the score of 58.5% for Mr. Macron displayed at the same time by the network, the far-right candidate appeared fleetingly in the lead in total votes cast. This technical error, acknowledged by the network to Le Monde, was then quickly rectified, but the damage was done.
At 21.10 p.m. Le Pen had 13,899,494 votes.
At 22:45 p.m. Le Pen had 11,558,051 votes.
Where did the 2,341,443 votes go? asked the user “Patriote Info,” one of many suspicious posts.
This was the “proof” that so many activists had been waiting for to accuse the Macron camp of fraud. Already in mid-afternoon, a poll in the conspiratorial Telegram channel “Stay Free!” (11,000 subscribers) indicated that 81% of the 2,500 participants predicted that “the power will cheat to force a Macron victory.” Between sarcasm and triumphalism, many have since convinced themselves that they were right.
This link shows the actual footage of France 2 TV at 9.15 PM Le Pen with 14,432,396 votes ahead of Macron with 14,214,825 votes.
French Presidential Election Second Round Results
Figures in this chart are based on official results
Emmanuel Macron Republic on the Move
Marine Le Pen National Rally
Blank + invalid votes 3,018,999
These results are based on a total of 32,077,539 valid votes. All expected votes have been reported.
Data as of: April 25, 2022, 6:48 AM GMT+7
Yes, what happened to the 1,134,668 votes for Le Pen? “A technical bug”? Yeah, sure.
Of course, Klaus Schwab and his Tribe had to keep the World Economic Forum Young Global Leader, former Rothschild Banker and pro-EU President Macron in power.
“Those who vote decide nothing, those who count the vote decide everything.” – Comrade Joseph Stalin
Éric Zemmour, La France n’a pas dit son dernier mot, Rubempré, 2021, 352 pp. (in French only)
French-Jewish pundit and presidential candidate Éric Zemmour’s latest book, France Has Not Said Her Last Word, is part political diary, part campaign manifesto, and part sociology of the French elite. The book sheds light on Mr. Zemmour’s personality and his brand of French nationalism, but the most illuminating insights are about the social reality of top French political and media figures. We get a powerful sense of why French leaders, especially on the center-right, accept the dissolution of their nation.
When it was published in mid-September 2021, this book became the launch pad for Mr. Zemmour’s presidential crypto-campaign (he officially announced his candidacy by video [English subtitles] only at the end of November). YouTube has “age-restricted” the video, so unlike most YouTube videos, it cannot be embedded:
The case for Mr. Zemmour’s candidacy boils down to two issues:
- Opposition to The Great Replacement.
- Opposition to the media-political elite that permits The Great Replacement.
One could claim that Mr. Zemmour’s successful career as a pundit shows that nationalist voices are not shut down in France, but this discounts how rare it is for right-wing/nationalist journalists to survive professionally and the many obstacles Mr. Zemmour has had to overcome. This book describes the tremendous social, economic, and media pressure nationalists face in France: media demonization, boycott campaigns by advertisers and entertainers, editorial colleagues who try to get one fired, ethnic activist and “anti-racist” NGOs that bring suits for “hate speech,” and the simple desire not to be shunned by one’s social circle.
Mr. Zemmour provides many examples, both in his own life — he has been fired by all media he has worked for, with the exception of Le Figaro newspaper and the TV station CNews — and among French conservatives. His personal success owes much to his ability to appeal to deep, untapped yearnings among the French.
The story of the book itself is interesting. Mr. Zemmour’s usual editor Albin Michel refused to publish it, even though many of his previous books were bestsellers. The editor explained that Mr. Zemmour “is engaged in a personal ideological battle which simply does not correspond with the editorial line of a generalist publishing house like Albin Michel.” Mr. Zemmour had to self-publish via Rubempré, his own imprint, named for one of Balzac’s characters. Unlike most self-published titles, the book is available in bookstores.
The cover illustration almost conveys the idea that Mr. Zemmour is a “French patriot, already president.” Even so, in just a few weeks, the book had reportedly sold 165,000 copies. Albin Michel lost out, but Mr. Zemmour is doing very well, however a disadvantage of self-publishing is embarrassing typos.
The book’s introduction makes the most explicit arguments for Mr. Zemmour’s decision to run: “Not a day goes by without a provocation, without a deconstruction, without a mockery, without a destruction.” (p. 8) There follows a long list: attacks on the police, the spread of wokisme in academia (new PhD theses on “gender theory in 17th century Limousin”), cancellation of classic films and culture, removal of statues of Napoleon and other heroes, violent Muslim gangs (North-African, Chechen, Kosovar), no-go areas, and grisly terrorism. The most fundamental issue, however, is immigration. Mr. Zemmour says of The Great Replacement:
This vital identitarian question renders all other questions subsidiary, even the most essential such as education, industry, social protection, or the place of France in the world. I am sure that no candidate — not even Marine Le Pen — will dare to evoke this identitarian and civilizational quarrel in the campaign. (p. 24)
While Marine Le Pen is a staunch opponent of non-European immigration, she accepts the line on The Great Replacement. In 2014, she agreed that it is a “conspiracy theory,” and in 2019 she claimed she “didn’t know about” the concept. The Great Replacement is a standard idea in nationalist circles and Miss Le Pen has shared the stage with Renaud Camus, who coined the term.
Mr. Zemmour thought that his success as a journalist would change French politics. His 2014 Le Suicide français — a chilling description of French decay since the 1960s — had sold over 200,000 copies but seemed to have little political effect. To Mr. Zemmour’s surprise, no conventional politician adopted his ideas. He amusingly calls his naïveté “Gramscism for dummies.” Many people — his son, opponents to gay marriage, French Trump supporters — urged him to run for office. He hesitated, fearing that politics would ruin his career but, at age 63, it is now or never.
The book’s introduction recounts Mr. Zemmour’s meetings with the two other then-plausible anti-immigration candidates: conservative party leader Xavier Bertrand (who since has failed to win his party’s nomination for the presidency, losing to the moderate “conservative” Valérie Pécresse) and Marine Le Pen. Mr. Bertrand listened attentively to Mr. Zemmour’s proposed policies on immigration, and did nothing.
To Miss Le Pen, Mr. Zemmour argued that “the System” — a dissident term he uses several times — wanted her to reach the second round in the presidential election in order for her to lose again to Emmanuel Macron. She seemed almost self-pitying: “Look at me. I am alone, I no longer have a personal life.” (p. 23)
Readers have complained that Mr. Zemmour’s book is in large part a diary of his many dinners with various media-political personalities. There is a common pattern:
- Mr. Zemmour meets so-and-so.
- He and so-and-so don’t agree, get into an argument, but remain cordial.
- Before leaving, so-and-so privately concedes that Mr. Zemmour is right about France’s racial-religious problem or otherwise reveals his hypocrisy.
Mr. Zemmour also writes of a meeting with left-wing university professor Pascal Blanchard, who has profited as a communications consultant developing “de-colonial” and “anti-racist” advertising for large corporations. After losing a debate with Mr. Zemmour, Mr. Blanchard reportedly said, “You can say what you like. We don’t give a damn. We’ll win. We control the school programs.” (p. 120)
Whatever the limits of his anecdotal approach, Mr. Zemmour’s strength is as a journalist and pundit, and a general picture emerges: a real sense of the social world in which right-wing politicians and journalists operate, and how this limits them, especially on immigration. As individuals and as members of families or wider social circles, they fear stigma.
The most compelling example is that of Nicolas Sarkozy (president of France, 2007–2012). Mr. Zemmour faults Mr. Sarkozy for not campaigning on immigration. He could have promised a referendum on the issue, as his advisor Patrick Buisson suggested. Polls indicated, as they do today, that this was a winning issue. Mr. Zemmour believes that a major part of Sarkozy’s weakness on immigration was the influence of his wife Carla Bruni, a left-wing Italian singer. Mr. Sarkozy married her after his first wife Cécilia left him during the 2007 presidential campaign. Another important factor was Mr. Sarkozy’s relationships with rich Arabs. Mr. Zemmour writes:
[In not campaigning on immigration,] Sarkozy thinks no doubt of Carla, and of her bien-pensants [well-thinking] friends; of his trips to Morocco, in the lavish setting of La Mamounia, as a guest of the king; of his well-remunerated lectures which his friend, the prince of Qatar, has promised him. . . . Sarkozy already sees the newspaper headlines calling him a racist, a xenophobe, or, worse, a politician prepared to do anything to stay in power . . . . Sarkozy was not able to give up what he was, the image that he had of himself, in the eyes of his social circles, of those close to him, and of the media, to do what his interest and the national interest called for. (p. 157)
Mr. Zemmour believes the fear of stigma, financial loss, and hostile media coverage kept Mr. Sarkozy from doing what was both in his political interest and the national interest.
It is impossible to listen to Mr. Zemmour’s speeches without learning something about history, and he peppers his talks with quotations from great Frenchmen. He is a romantic who reads widely and takes the inspiring stories of history and politics at face value. This makes his encounters with real politicians, bureaucrats, and “influencers” in their day-to-day shabbiness all the more shocking to him.
Mr. Zemmour once dined with Daniel Keller, the head of the Grand Orient Masonic lodge, an organization of legendary influence, and was flabbergasted by the man’s politically correct platitudes:
Our host’s conversation was as mediocre and insipid as the food we were served. . . . I thought I would be locking steel with Jules Ferry [an important 19th century politician] but I was sparring rubber with Daniel Keller. Once again, my historical imagination had played a trick on me. (pp. 181–82)
Mediocrity of this kind is no doubt the norm in the West.
Western decline . . . and renewal?
Mr. Zemmour thinks France and the West are reaching the end of a long cycle, as individualism approaches a climax of selfishness. He rejects those who think “politics” means ever-greater emancipation from social constraints:
I have always thought on the contrary that politics means trying to preserve what our ancestors have built: this masterpiece called France, to pass it on to those who will follow us on this earth. (p. 183)
Mr. Zemmour argues that just as the printing press broke the spiritual monopoly of the Catholic Church and led to the Protestant Reformation, the internet has broken the monopoly of the media and heralds a new age of populist politics whose ultimate results remain uncertain.
Mr. Zemmour’s vision is a return to the French tradition of statecraft, respect for the nation-state, charismatic and plebiscitary executive power, and a cross-fertilization between literature and politics. This would be a synthesis of French monarchic, Napoleonic, and Republican traditions.
Some may say that Mr. Zemmour’s outlook overlooks the vitality and diversity of France’s regions and neglects the pan-European heritage of our civilization. Nevertheless, I agree with de Gaulle, that Europe has shined brightest when each nation expressed its unique vitality to the fullest.
But what about Mr. Zemmour’s ability to get things done? He believes in firm control of the state and being able to move a nation with appeals to its most powerful myths, often unconscious. In practice, Mr. Zemmour hopes, through a presidency empowered by direct appeals to the people, to battle the special interests that are paralyzing and in some cases destroying France.
What are Mr. Zemmour’s prospects? There is an advantage in our rulers’ mediocrity: They are unprepared for anything that contradicts their shallow and intolerant ideology. Even an articulate bookworm may therefore become king.
About Guillaume DurocherView all posts by Guillaume Durocher
Revolution got rid of kings and Queens,, Christianity, milleclass cast, induce equilly for all , got red of the nobity during the revolution in France 1770?
Did you know how the parisian people nicknamed the Guillotine ? " The widow" and you know why ? because just after consuming the mariage the bride became a widow. POetic and horrible !
Jakobinic dictatore than, communist later.
Just as the Rothschilds caused the French revolution by creating an artificial Famine among other things, they also installed Napoleon and financed him up until Napoleon wanted to go his own way and do what he thought was best for his people, they lost control of him and then they bought him down. This is exactly what Happen also to Hitler, infact the Rothschild's and the Illuminists latter referred to Hitler as a Bonapartist for just this reason. The French revolution was particularly bloody as the intelligentsia were eliminated, the Rothschild's and the Illuminists did exactly the same thing in Russia (the Russian IQ dropped several points by the end of the Judeo Bolshevik reign of terror) and China and when they bring in the "New World Order" we will all experience the same thing and its closer than you might think, the browning of Europe is part of this, less educated lower IQ people are easier to control.
I see parallels between the French aristocracy and today's establishment politicians and false narrative media cabal in most western countries. People are waking up and challenging the status quo.
i've watched many "documentaries" on the french revolution but i can't recall a single one even mentioning the illuminati and their jacobin counterpart that actually orchestrated and controlled the revolution.
'Only terror will save the revolution', so said so many would-be and actual dictators: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. And then they kill their perceived rivals and enemies and innocents and finally cow the majority of self-servers into quiet submission.
Notice how they use a guy who wrote, "In the Defense of Marxism" as a valid source????? FUUUUCCCKKK!!!! History Channel is the DEVIL!!!!
Benjamin Franklin doesn't get enough credit for his impact on the French Revolution. He was the first US Ambassador to France from 1776-85. In those nine years, he had a great direct and indirect influence on those who would lead their Revolution and the Storming of the Bastille on 7/14/1789 - 13 years after 7/4/1776. Are those numbers a 'coincidence'? Not if you're a Freemason like Franklin. GOD=7_4 whereas G is the 7th letter, a circle is either 15, zero, or ---, and D=4 France=47=F6+R18+A1+N14+C3+E5 Mason=47=M13+A1+S19+O+N14 lodges=47=L12+O+D4+G7+E5+S19 gavel=47=G7+A1+V22+E5+L12 This alphanumeric code is called 'Simple6,74 English7,74 Gematria8,74' - it uses 'the key'74 of A=1, B2, C3...O15 or zero...Z26.
Modern leftists still lie about the French Revolution. They love crimes, downplay the crimes committed by Soviets, Maoists and other criminals. The French revolutionaries brought terror and blood bath to France, by all means it was no "democracy for the masses!"
So the people rose up against the King to have "self-government". My question is, who were the powers and money behind the rise of the people? The answer is Adam Wieshapt and the same group that started the American Revolution 20 years earlier. That part of history seldom is mentioned or dots connected. They destroyed Monarchies and Religion while gaining control of money and governments. It began in America in 1776 and continued through WW2. The people believed they won their Freedom and Liberty. It's only smoke and mirrors.
The Jacobins remind me of today's Democrats.
A bunch of monsters which turned the idea of democracy into anarchy, bloodbath and chaos
Since when French revolution got rid of the Catholic Church?
French revolution in 1789 in Franch
https://www.therebel.media/rebel-medi... Martina Markota of The Rebel.media reports on the filthy conditions migrants have brought to French markets and lawbreaking on Paris public transit.
The French Politicians sold out a once proud country with a once very proud culture. And what a mess they made of the country with no benefits to the country or its people!
Reina Rose I'm Jewish and I strongly support Britain First and will until I have factual reason not to trust their stated position. Jews have to stop clinging to the old politics. Times are changing. I cannot even fathom the stupidity of Jews who defend Islam. Western nations are being colonized by Islam.
The Jewish community has been a part of the England for close to a thousand years.
Muslims and the rest? Not so much.
These are thoughts of the far right groups in Europe. I'm a Jew from Israel and I also would strongly support them if I could be sure that they don't hate Jews but unfortunately many of them are
The French constitution
The French constitution gives no racial rights to white French Europeans and gives racial rights to non French to hide their total birth-rate and population
I don't believe the word French "citizen" was used accurately in this video. There may be something politically skewed about this channel, with a possibility of twisting statistics, the numbers given are correct but the categories to which the numbers belong being fudged. For example, the population of France is 66 million today however not all these people are citizens and THEREFORE Article 1. of the Constitution does not apply to all residents, only to those who are citizens.
"Race is a bad word", but it is ok for non-whites to celebrate their own racial pride. White people are being attacked and they're biting back. This is what the establishment at the EU does not want. They are committing ethnic genocide against Europeans.
France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis.
Statutes shall promote equal access by women and men to elective offices and posts as well as to position of professional and social responsibility.
The language of the Republic shall be French.
The national emblem shall be the blue, white and red tricolour flag.
The national anthem shall be La Marseillaise.
The maxim of the Republic shall be “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”.
The principle of the Republic shall be: government of the people, by the people and for the people.
National sovereignty shall vest in the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum.
No section of the people nor any individual may arrogate to itself, or to himself, the exercise thereof.
Suffrage may be direct or indirect as provided for by the Constitution. It shall always be universal, equal and secret.
All French citizens of either sex who have reached their majority and are in possession of their civil and political rights may vote as provided for by statute.
In the whole world White are the real minority. Europe is the land of White people and it is being stolen from us through forced mass migration. It must stop. Reverse migration must start.
The ban on statistics on ethnicity is astonishingly stupid French peculiarity. No reason for that.
The French have always been a level more stupid than the average for Europe.
All do respect but there is no such thing as color blind. an less you are suffer from daltonism. Funny thing about the leftists they bragging they are color blind but I can hear all the time people of color or multiculturalism.
We need reverse migration. France is not a multicultural-multiracial country but an invaded country. I was born in France a White country and I have seen my country vanish slowly before my eyes because politics have sold France to the Muslim world. War is already started in France, poor people and working class are at the front line of this war.
What about discrimination against whites? No one ever talks about that.
French culture will not survive without the ethnic French people. Prohibiting collection of statistics on this simply means that people aren't able to tell that they're getting replaced, they can't tell that they are having to pay for things so that invaders can use them and they can't tell that non natives have crime rates several times what they have. The French Revolution was a mistake as well.
I'll bet you they know how many CHILDREN they have.... How many men of military age.... They just want hide SPECIFICALLY how many muslims and africans they have... This is EXACTLY WHY so many people HATE the migrants... Any group you need to LIE and COVER for, is a terrible group.... People KNOW this....
That Article 1 says nothing about prohibiting the collection of information, any excuse not to try to identify problems and deal with them, typical wussy France.
France will be in 30 years...and Islamic Republic....but with nuclear weapons (like Paquistan) !!!
France and Europe is for White People!!! This is our home.......we Europeans need to stop the invasion!Richard Spencer: Whites Need IDENTITY POLITICS to Survive
French schools are set to replace the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ with ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2’ following an amendment to a law which passed through French Parliament this week
French schools are set to replace the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ with ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2’ following an amendment to a law which passed through French Parliament this week:
The new naming convention is ostensibly aimed at ending discrimination against same sex parents but critics argue that it “dehumanises” parenthood and may lead to rows over who gets classified as ‘Parent 1.’
The amendment, passed Tuesday as part of a wider plan to build a so-called “school of trust,” will also enforce mandatory school attendance for all three-year-olds.
“This amendment aims to root in law children’s family diversity in administrative forms submitted in school,” said Valérie Petit, MP for the majority REM party of President Emmanuel Macron.
“We have families who find themselves faced with tick boxes stuck in rather old-fashioned social and family models. For us, this article is a measurement of social equality.”
“I have already written that I’m particularly shocked and surprised at the ‘controversy’ around the parent/mother/Father forms,” Israeli-French former journalist Julien Bahloul, himself a same-sex parent, tweeted. “The mother and father are parents, nothing insulting to that. In #TelAviv the forms were changed a long time ago without any worries.”
The proposal to eliminate the terms “mother” and “father” in favor of more inclusive, gender non-specific language has been around since the 2013 debates held prior to the legalisation of same sex marriage.
“When I hear people say this is an old-fashioned model, I would remind people that today among unions celebrated, civil or marital, some 95 per cent are man-woman couples,” Conservative MP Xavier Breton said of the latest amendment, while fellow Conservative Fabien Di Filippo denounced the move as a “frightening ideology.”
However, it is not just conservatives who question the effectiveness of the new legislation. Alexandre Urwicz president of the AFDH, the French association for same sex parents, worries that the legislation could create a “parental hierarchy.”
“Who is ‘parent number 1’ and who is ‘parent number 2’?” he asks, adding that perhaps the less controversial “father, mother and legal representative,” be used instead.
Yes, of course, there are Jews behind this move, and they aren’t pushing this agenda just to be “inclusive”, but rather it is also meant to demoralize us. The Jews mock us when we silently accept these absurd attacks on our traditional family roles and don’t fight back. And they will continue to promote even more absurd policies until White people get a backbone and stand up for themselves. They want our children to see the State as the only authority in their lives, certainly not their mothers and fathers.
Children will grow up with “fluid identities” where they will be encouraged to “explore different gender roles” throughout different stages of the “spiritual path” toward their New Age enlightenment. Biological mothers and fathers are to become relics of the past which will be cast aside along with national borders and racial identity, unless you are a Jew. Your new parents will be the genderless State, which will punish anyone with prison who dares to insist that you still have a mother or father.
The Jewish journalist, Éric Zemmour, has finally thrown his hat into the ring and announced his candidacy for the French presidency.
The Jewish journalist, Éric Zemmour, has finally thrown his hat into the ring and announced his candidacy for the French presidency.
A so-called “far” right wing journalist who has been convicted of “hate speech” for his unapologetic anti-Muslim sentiments, Zemmour has never spent a day in jail in a country where state-mandated political correctness has stifled any and all opposition to the bolshevization of France through draconian prosecutions of political dissidents.
Zemmour is not naive — he knows very well “who?” is behind this relentless dismantling of Christian France — as the retired French General Dominique Delawarde pointedly observed when — on national television — he asked the sensational question “Qui?“
Zemmour claims he wants to “save” France from “minorities that oppress the majority” — but don’t think for a second he could be referring to Jews despite being the most powerful and disliked minority in France — that needs armed military guards to protect them.
During the “yellow vest” protests, it became abundantly clear that it was common knowledge on the streets that Rothschild-employee President Macron is a “whore to the Jews” — and flatly stated that he’s unwilling to compromise on continuing the flood of Third World immigration.
Zemmour is on record as cynically blaming “Christian universalism” for this violent Third World immigration tsunami — he clearly has no problem playing the role of gatekeeper for the kosher elite who demand that the native French race mix with these invaders if France is to “survive.”
So the question remains — Pourquoi? — Why is this French-Algerian Jew allowed to say what no native Frenchman is allowed to say? What game is being played on the demoralized people of France who yearn to take their country back and reestablish their French identity without daring to mention the word “race.”
For the Rothschild Syndicate, “Les jeux sont fait” — meaning that this process has reached an irreversible point, and there’s no turning back.
Why are the native French being allowed to hope that “Les Jeux ne sont pas fait” — that the Titanic’s fatal course can be reversed?
Zemmour’s campaign video is with a doubt compelling from this perspective — YouTube is already censoring it by requiring age-restricted sign-in to view it. You can also view it on Zemmour’s Twitter page.
Jews run France
|President of France|
16 May 2007 – 15 May 2012
|Prime Minister||François Fillon|
|Preceded by||Jacques Chirac|
|Succeeded by||François Hollande|
Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa
28 January 1955
|Political party||The Republicans (since 2015)|
|Union for a Popular Movement (2002–2015)
Rally for the Republic (1976–2002)
Union of Democrats for the Republic (1974–1976)
(m. 1982; div. 1996)
(m. 1996; div. 2007)
|Alma mater||Paris West University Nanterre La Défense (MA, DEA)
Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa (//; French: [nikɔla pɔl stefan saʁkɔzi də naʒi bɔksa] (listen); born 28 January 1955) is a French politician who served as President of France and ex officio Co-Prince of Andorra from 16 May 2007 until 15 May 2012.
Born in Paris, he is of one half Hungarian, one quarter Greek Jewish, and one quarter French origin. Mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine from 1983 to 2002, he was Minister of the Budget under Prime Minister Édouard Balladur (1993–1995) during François Mitterrand's second term. During Jacques Chirac's second presidential term he served as Minister of the Interior and as Minister of Finances. He was the leader of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party from 2004 to 2007.
Yellow Vest demonstrators aren’t letting a ban on mass gatherings or fears of coronavirus stop them from expressing their opposition to the French government, and are staging their weekly protests in Paris.
France’s Interior Minister Christophe Castaner on Friday banned all gatherings of more than 100 people but hundreds of demonstrators are continuing the weekly Yellow Vest vigil and are protesting at Paris landmarks.
Thousands of French security forces personnel hit the streets of the capital in a bid to clamp down on the movement, which has now been running for 70 consecutive weeks.
Eyewitness footage shows riot police firing tear gas in a bid to subdue the activists as the protests spiralled towards violence.
‘Yellow Vest’ protesters take to the streets for a new round of demonstrations. Organizers are moving the demonstration from it’s traditional central route to the other areas of the city. Tens of thousands have taken part in the protests across France since last November. The demonstrations, which gave birth to the ‘Yellow Vest’ movement, were sparked by government plans to hike fuel taxes. RT LIVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFAcq...