Regarding France. I'll add a very quick note on the author at the end of the translated text. In parentheses I occasionally place alternatives or synonyms to a preceeding term.
[Text by J. PRETO from 3 days ago] 👇 _______

TO CLARIFY THINGS

Marine Le Pen has finally revealed herself as being who she is: Marine Le Pen.

She affirms that - in the name of democracy, of course - France cannot be caught between violence and impotence (helplessness).

There was no impotence (helplessness) whatsoever. The contestation was precisely the abandonment of impotency (of being helpless) by the population. Against the violence, evidently, which there aimed to amputate education, i.e. to deprive of training the generations to whom it is incumbent to ensure the permanence of the national project.

In protest, violence is frowned upon, because it is mainly police violence. Is gassing an orchestra a security requirement? Is attacking children with grenades (a kid lost a hand because of it) a security requirement? Is storming a university, in complete disregard for the academic authorities, to prevent a student meeting, a security requirement? Had a state of siege been declared? Was the exercise of Fundamental Rights suspended?

Stoning such a police force’s old bangers (jalopies), put in those terms, is a security requirement — that it is. Self-defence, by all indications.

(It is important to understand that exacerbating the sense of revolt in boys aged fifteen to twenty is a singularly dangerous thing, precisely because adolescents cannot gauge risk, that being one of the characteristics of that stage in life.)

I wonder whether the damage to shops and cars might not be provocations orchestrated by the police themselves, so that people can cry out about the “violence” of the demonstrators. Even the fire at Limoges city hall (a former red city) leaves me with many doubts, especially because the invocation of such a thing in political debate, without any clarification of the facts, leaves much to be desired, as always. Who set it on fire? Who let it burn? Were the firefighters on strike?

And the appearance of furious Maghrebis is an excellent pretext for railing (ranting) against immigration, and a plausible instrument of retaliation over Algerian policy towards France, which has really been explosive (extraordinary/spectacular).

As for the impotence of the state, there are thousands of secondary-school pupils — most of them minors — in custody. Bring the detainees before the judges, or release the kids. Full stop. End of story.

Impotence? Do you want firing squads? In Lisbon, a mentally retarded man has already said yes; well then, that being so (and were that possible), perhaps one could start with him. Exactly him.

Marine’s intervention returned her to the ghetto from which she had managed to escape.

It is under pressure that men and women reveal themselves.

And here everything became completely clear.

Revealing, in this case and in short, not only the nature of its objectives, but the deficiencies in its capacity for decision-making under pressure.

She lost more than she gained.

Macron, for his part, has nothing left to lose. And it is doubtful whether he will ever win anything again.

*The author.
He knows France well.
Background:
a lawyer / counsellor and academic of high standing, he is, if definable, a conservative and fiercely independent (has no political party since I've known him in close to twenty years now, and possesses a highly critical mind.
Politically non-partisan, those of us fortunate to know him well get highly amused when some attempt to define his political standing. Nevertheless, he himself agrees that he's conservative. So there is that.

I leave this terribly brief introduction after the translated text above so as to not colour how it is read. Although he is fluent in other languages and through the years he's been published in other tongues, I've translated his text written a day or two ago because that's the idiom he wrote it in.*

[Original Text & Link]

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19ctND2q41/

CLARIFICAÇÃO

Marine Le Pen, enfim, veio mostrar-se Marine Le Pen.

Afirma que - em nome da democracia, claro - a França não pode estar prisioneira entre a violência e a impotência.

Não houve impotência nenhuma. A contestação foi exactamente o abandono da impotência pela população. Contra a violência, evidentemente, que ali visava amputar a educação, i.e. privar de formação as gerações a quem incumbe assegurar a permanência do projecto nacional.

No protesto, a violência está mal olhada, porque é sobretudo policial. Gasear uma orquestra é uma exigência de segurança? Atacar crianças à granada (um miúdo perdeu uma mão por isso) é uma exigência de segurança? Invadir uma universidade, com absoluta indiferença pelas autoridades académicas, para impedir uma reunião de estudantes, é um exigência de segurança? Tinha sido decretado o estado de sítio? Estava suspenso o exercício dos Direitos Fundamentais?

Apedrejar as carripanas de tal polícia, postas as coisas em tais termos, é uma exigência de segurança, isso sim. Legítima defesa, segundo tudo indica.

(Importa entender que exacerbar o sentimento de revolta de garotos de quinze a vinte anos é coisa singularmente perigosa, porque, justamente, os adolescentes não conseguem medir riscos, sendo essa uma das características da fase).

Pergunto-me se os danos em estabelecimentos comerciais e automóveis não serão provocações orquestradas pela própria polícia, para se poder gritar a "violência" dos manifestantes. Mesmo o incêndio da sede do Município de Limoges (antiga cidade vermelhaI wonder whether the damage to shops and cars might not be provocations orchestrated by the police themselves, so that people can cry out about the “violence” of the demonstrators. Even the fire at Limoges city hall (a former red city) leaves me with many doubts, especially because the invocation of such a thing in political debate, without any clarification of the facts, leaves much to be desired, as always. Who set it on fire? Who let it burn? Were the firefighters on strike?)) me deixa muitas dúvidas, sobretudo porque a invocação de tal coisa em debate político, sem esclarecimento dos factos, deixa, como sempre, muito a desejar. Quem incendiou? Quem deixou arder? Estavam de greve, os bombeiros?

E a aparição de magrebinos em fúria é óptimo pretexto para berrar contra a imigração e plausível instrumento de retaliação sobre a política argelina face a França, que tem sido de escacha, realmente.

Quanto à impotência do estado, há milhares de alunos de liceu - a maior parte dos quais menores - sob detenção. Apresentem os detidos aos juízes, ou libertem os garotos. Ponto.

Impotência? Querem fuzilamentos? Em Lisboa, já um atrasado mental disse que sim, ora, assim sendo (e sendo isso possível) talvez se possa começar por ele. Exactamente por ele.

A intervenção de Marine devolveu-a ao ghetto de onde tinha logrado sair.

É sob pressão que os homens e mulheres se revelam.

E aqui ficou tudo completamente claro.

Sob o pretexto da violência - suscitada por violência maior - a direita exponencia aquilo de que se queixa.

Revelando, no caso e enfim, não apenas a natureza dos seus objectivos, mas as deficiências da sua capacidade de decisão sob pressão.

Perdeu mais do que ganhou.

Macron, esse, já nada tem a perder. E é duvidoso que volte a ganhar alguma coisa, alguma vez.