Marine Le Pen, former President of the National Rally (NR) Party and Deputy of the French National Assembly, was found guilty of embezzling EU funds. She received a four-year prison sentence. Half of it was suspended, and the other half was to be spent under house arrest. Most importantly, she is barred from standing for public office for five years, banning her from running in the presidential election in 2027.
Whether Le Pen is guilty or not is irrelevant here.  Corruption is very much present in French and European Union politics. What matters is that, embarrassingly for the globalist ruling class, her NR party gained the highest share of votes in the first round of the 2024 legislative elections. A panic-stricken Macron had to cobble together an improbable coalition to prevent her from winning, and then spent months trying to find a Prime Minister he could accept. He finally chose Michel Barnier, the embodiment of the globalist establishment and former Brexit negotiator for the EU, whose Republican Party won less than 7% of the vote. Presidential elections are coming up in 2027, and the NR has been leading the polls on voting intentions. Against this background, it is hard not to see that Marine Le Pen’s real crime is her popularity in the eyes of many a disillusioned French voter.
Globalists have always known that the majority of “ordinary” people do not support globalism, which involves Big Business’ elimination of nation-states and national identity, mass migration, and governments. This inconvenient reality was driven home rudely in 2016 when Trump was elected President of the United States, and Brexit won the referendum in the UK, despite the overwhelming counter-propaganda campaign driven by the state, mainstream media and big business. The unexpected results triggered the acceleration of the long-planned project of establishing the New World Order, which could be endangered if large swathes of society wake up to what is being planned for them and decide to do something about it.
There are two ways to avoid this uncomfortable eventuality. One is the radical, speedy, and bloody implementation of a full dictatorship, the kind that was forced on Central and Eastern Europe, called the “Eastern Bloc” by the West, after World War II. The Yalta Agreement authorised the Soviet occupation of this “no man’s land”, where puppet governments put in power by the occupying forces quickly eliminated any trace of democracy and freedom. Mass nationalisation of private property, the forced implementation of unrealistic economic models, total state control over every aspect of life, censorship and surveillance, and a brutal, bloody crackdown on all attempts to resist or even mitigate the disaster became the “new reality”. It was quite the great reset for these unfortunate colonised countries. Total dictatorship lasted for 45 years, until the withdrawal of the occupying Soviet troops in 1990.
This type of solution is quick and effective, but it would be more difficult to implement in Western societies after 80 years of relative prosperity than it was in the countries of the East, crushed by the withdrawing German and invading Russian armies in a devastating war. Let’s not forget the psychological aspects, either; a society beaten (literally) into slavery is more difficult to control long-term than a society sliding into it unconsciously.
The better solution seems to be, at least for now, the accelerated implementation of the New World Order while maintaining a semblance of democracy. This has largely been curtailed anyway and a nonplussed population hard-pressed by economic woes, the disappearance of their culture, and the constant menace of diseases, wars, and thoughtcrimes, may find it more difficult to fight back.
One way to make sure that the project proceeds is the neutralisation of political forces that may turn against or slow down The Great Reset. There are several methods for this, from colour revolutions to generating internal strife in the opposition, to co-opting parties and to lawfare, i.e., the weaponisation of the law for political purposes. The latter has been a longstanding practice and has gained popularity in recent years. It suffices to think of the innumerable lawsuits against President Donald Trump, the accusations against Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, or the recent case of Calin Georgescu in Romania, who won the first round of presidential elections last year, but his results were annulled, and he was barred by the court from standing again in the May rerun of the election. Thierry Breton, former EU Commissioner, proudly announced in January that “We did it in Romania, and obviously we will do it in Germany” if necessary, referring to the German elections in February this year.
Marine Le Pen has now been wiped off the political map, think the powers that be. This has the double benefits of getting rid of a dangerous opposition figure and potentially even the institution of direct presidential elections if the population is disenchanted enough to abstain from voting. The political class opposed the introduction of the direct popular vote for president in 1962.  In the National Assembly debate on 4th October 1962, Raymond Réthoré Gaullist MP gave a concise summary of their reasons:
I want to say out loud what some people do not want to admit in public, but they admit it among themselves. They do not believe that the people are educated enough, confident enough of their judgment, or even intelligent enough to elect the President of the Republic.
Nevertheless, the long-term repercussions of Le Pen’s elimination are far from clear.  She is going to appeal and there are also calls for a presidential pardon. There may just be enough domestic outrage and international condemnation to force a change in her legal status. Globalist thought leaders show a growing realisation that her conviction may actually reinforce the European “far right” and populism. Even if she is barred from political life, the verdict has generated a great deal of sympathy for her and the resulting backlash could help RN’s young president, Jordan Bardella, to strengthen his position or even win the next election.
This is the point where the situation becomes really interesting. One way of keeping the establishment in power, especially when its position is vulnerable, is to co-opt dangerously popular opposition parties. For decades now, Marine Le Pen has been working on making her party “acceptable” by distancing herself from her father and getting rid of the “far-right” and “xenophobe” epithets attached to it. She has softened her stance on a number of economic and political issues, from dropping the euro and demanding a referendum on Frexit, to immigration and same-sex marriage. She has moderated her language referring to France’s sizeable Muslim population. Furthermore, she has moved closer to the reigning neoliberal economic order, seeking advice from and the approval of Big Business. This has helped her solidify the party’s position and make it somewhat more acceptable, even for liberals, at a time when large swathes of voters disenchanted with mainstream parties turn towards “outsider” parties unburdened by a disappointing record.
The international context is favourable, as Trump’s presidency has given a lift to most right-wing political forces. RN leaders may also try to adapt more to Trump’s priorities to gain prominence.
They have already taken some steps. In March, Bardella travelled to Jerusalem to attend Israel’s International Conference on Combating Antisemitism. The conference itself became controversial as several Jewish invitees cancelled their participation in protest against the invitation of politicians considered “hard right” by liberal political circles. Bardella’s presence certainly sparked some animosity, but his statements may make him more welcome in the future. He said:
In the face of the disturbing resurgence of anti-Jewish hatred throughout Europe and the world, and in the face of terrorism that intends to destroy our lives and our values, we French believe more than ever that our nations must unite their voices and join forces in the fight … I am aware of the symbolic importance of my invitation here, and the responsibility of my party … in the war against barbarism, which is also our war.
A former “far-right” party keeping its narrative but in practice turning much more moderate and accepting the axioms of the ruling order may well become an attractive alternative, even for the establishment, especially in turbulent times. Society’s “deplorables”, as Hillary Clinton likes to call patriotic “ordinary” citizens, want to stop immigration, revitalise their national economy, and regain sovereignty, and are willing to follow leaders offering such a programme. President Trump, who was seen to be dragged through courts, exposed to calumnies, attacks, and unimaginable hostility by his political opponents, has garnered so much sympathy and support that he now has almost a free hand to carry out his policies without much scrutiny or opposition. Marine Le Pen’s ordeal may just gain her party enough popularity to be able to do the same.
It will be fascinating to watch which way NR is turning.