From Horst Wessel to Charlie Kirk: the Far Right and the Manufacture of Martyrs
Fascism has always understood something essential about power: blood, when narrativized, becomes architecture. It becomes a cathedral in which rage kneels, a banner under which violence marches with the blessing of grief.
Since the 1930s, the strategy has remained chillingly consistent: create a martyr — or seize upon a death — to obscure one’s own brutality and sanctify the annihilation of opponents. The corpse becomes a shield; the funeral, a rally; the wound, a weapon.
Let us begin with facts, because poetry without truth risks becoming decoration. Between 1986 and 2021 in France, of the fifty-three “ideologically motivated murders” recorded, 90 percent were committed by the far right — a statistic established by researcher Isabelle Sommier and curiously absent from most public debates. Earlier still, in the 1950s and 1960s, far-right networks such as the OAS and La Main Rouge carried out assassinations of anti-colonial activists, executing dozens. In southern France, numerous murders targeted men of North African descent. Revolutionary militants were killed.
In the United States, so-called “extremist” crimes are even more numerous, yet the proportion remains strikingly similar: approximately 93 percent are attributable to the far right.
And yet, when Quentin Deranque died in Lyon on February 14, 2026 — the first death of a far-right activist in a political confrontation in France since 1945 — the outcry was immediate, thunderous, disproportionate. More noise, more indignation, more sanctimony than has ever accompanied the litany of victims claimed by far-right violence.
Fascist martyrs are exceedingly rare. But for that camp, they are indispensable.
The far right cultivates a powerful imaginary around its dead, transforming them into sacred emblems. Through them, it recasts itself as persecuted, as besieged, as righteous — and thereby justifies violence on a vastly greater scale.
Horst Wessel
In January 1930, in Berlin, a brawl erupted between Horst Wessel — a young member of the SA, the Nazi Party’s paramilitary wing — and activists of the German Communist Party. The altercation was rooted less in ideology than in sordid disputes involving money and prostitution. It was not a grand clash of political titans; it was a petty confrontation in the underbelly of a turbulent city.
Wessel was shot and died a month later. He was nearly twenty-three.
He had been an early and active Nazi, deeply involved in the SA’s campaign to “conquer Berlin” for the NSDAP — a conquest carried out through street violence, intimidation, attacks on socialist and communist offices, parades in uniform, armed demonstrations, mutilations, and killings. The SA institutionalized paramilitary terror across Germany.
Yet the Nazi Party immediately grasped the political utility of his death. Wessel was recast as an innocent victim of communist barbarity. Massive funerals were orchestrated. A song, the “Horst-Wessel-Lied,” was composed and later became a national anthem once Hitler seized power. The German Communist Party was repressed, then outlawed.
Thus a trivial altercation was elevated into founding myth.
A street thug became a saint. A local skirmish became a cosmic struggle.
His death provided moral alibi for mass repression. It transmuted aggression into self-defense, persecution into destiny. Wessel’s corpse became a cornerstone in the edifice of Nazi mythology.
Charlie Kirk
Nearly a century later, the pattern resurfaces in a different language, under different flags, yet animated by the same grammar of martyrdom.
On September 10, during a conference on a Utah campus, far-right influencer Charlie Kirk was shot and killed by an individual whose motives remained unclear — himself reportedly from a far-right family background. In a country where mass shootings occur with numbing regularity, where political assassinations of Democratic figures or left-wing activists often pass without seismic national reaction, this death was swiftly elevated to sacred status.
For Trumpism, a martyr had arrived.
On September 21 in Arizona, a stadium was filled to capacity for a vast commemoration. Giant portraits of Kirk loomed over the crowd. Religious fervor saturated the ceremony; a large wooden cross presided over the spectacle. Stephen Miller echoed rhetoric uncannily reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels. The Secretary of Defense proclaimed: “This is not a political war nor a cultural war, but a spiritual war.”
The next day, antifascism — “the antifa movement,” as they termed it — was designated a terrorist organization. The classification facilitated intensified repression and police violence against political opponents.
Deaths such as those of Renee Good, a mother killed by ICE in January, and Alex Pretti, executed in the street, were subsequently framed as the neutralization of “antifa terrorists,” their humanity dissolved into accusation.
Once again, a body became policy.
Once again, grief became legislation.
Sébastien Deyzieux
In France, the far right has long struggled to secure a martyr untarnished by history. The last figures of that lineage who met violent ends did so at the hands of antifascist Resistance fighters or during the Liberation — executed for collaboration with the Nazis and for crimes against humanity. Such an inheritance is politically cumbersome. It is difficult to canonize those whose memory is inseparable from treason and atrocity, though certain neo-fascist fringes persist in commemorating Philippe Pétain and his collaborators, as if nostalgia could bleach the stain of history.
In 1994, however, circumstance offered an opportunity. Sébastien Deyzieux, a neo-Nazi militant, died accidentally in Paris on the margins of a nationalist demonstration. Pursued by police, he fell from a rooftop. No grand ideological duel, no dramatic assassination — merely a tragic fall. Yet within that fall, a narrative was constructed.
At last, a martyr who could be rendered “presentable.” A victim not of antifascist Resistance, but of the State itself.
Over the years, Deyzieux’s death was sculpted into a cornerstone of radical far-right memory, in France and across parts of Europe. His name became a pretext for annual paramilitary marches through Paris — choreographed processions of uniformed young men, their steps echoing like rehearsals for another century. The accident was elevated into allegory; the fall into persecution; the man into symbol.
In this alchemy, tragedy is refined into ritual. The street becomes a stage. The past is rearranged until it yields a usable myth.
Quentin Deranque
Then came Lyon.
Following the death of Quentin Deranque, a new script unfolded with unsettling familiarity. On CNews, commentator Kévin Bossuet declared with fervent conviction: “Quentin was our Charlie Kirk.” The comparison was deliberate — an act of narrative transplantation. A local tragedy was grafted onto a global martyr template.
Across various media outlets, calls multiplied to designate antifascism as a terrorist movement, and even to dissolve La France Insoumise — though it bore no connection to the events. The method mirrors that seen elsewhere: expand the circle of culpability, criminalize dissent, blur the line between opposition and enemy.
The same reactionary spheres that once justified deaths at the hands of police, minimized the most brutal crackdowns, or maintained silence in the face of racist violence now proclaim the sanctity of their fallen. They, too, possess their Horst Wessel, their American equivalent — a French iteration of the mythic victim.
And yet, even here, an ambiguity persists. There is a tendency to obscure Deranque’s ideas, to soften his ideological affiliations, even to withhold his image and identity. In their place emerges a more malleable portrait: a “young Christian killed by antifa.” The complexity of a life is pared down to a devotional icon. The biography is trimmed; the narrative is burnished.
It is not the individual who matters most, but the utility of his memory.
What unites these episodes is not merely ideology, but dramaturgy. The far right does not simply react to death; it curates it. It arranges grief into architecture. It builds monuments from ambiguity and scaffolds from sorrow.
A martyr, in this framework, is less a person than a prism. Through him, violence is refracted and made to appear defensive. Through him, repression is presented as necessity. The state’s heavy hand becomes righteous. The opponent becomes existential threat.
In this theatre, indignation is selective. Silence can last decades — until a death becomes narratively profitable. Then, suddenly, urgency erupts. Emergency measures are demanded. Freedoms are negotiable.
It is a politics of inversion. Those who have long minimized or justified violence discover, overnight, the language of sanctity. Those who once dismissed the suffering of others now invoke sacred outrage.
The martyr is invoked not to mourn the fragility of life, but to consolidate power.
To recognize this pattern is not to deny tragedy. It is to refuse its instrumentalization. It is to insist that grief must not be conscripted into hatred, that memory must not be weaponized into repression.
For when a death is stripped of complexity and forged into emblem, it ceases to be a human story. It becomes a banner. And beneath that banner, history has shown, the march toward greater violence often begins anew.
Fascist martyrdom functions like alchemy: it transmutes isolated death into collective absolution. It rewrites chronology so that violence appears reactive rather than initiatory. The narrative always follows the same arc: We are under attack; therefore, we must purge.
The martyr is not mourned so much as weaponized. He becomes an icon before he is buried. His image circulates faster than his biography. Complexity is erased; ambiguity is intolerable. In his name, opponents are stripped of rights, dissent is criminalized, repression is sanctified.
The paradox is stark. Statistical reality reveals a movement overwhelmingly responsible for ideological violence. Yet through the careful cultivation of rare deaths within its own ranks, it recasts itself as the eternal victim.
It is a theatre of inversion. The aggressor dons the mask of the persecuted. The instigator claims self-defense.
History teaches that fascism does not merely repress; it narrates. It understands that control over memory is control over meaning. And meaning, once seized, becomes mandate.
To resist such strategies requires vigilance not only against violence itself, but against the stories that make violence appear inevitable, even holy. It requires refusing to let tragedy be monopolized, refusing to let grief be conscripted into hatred.
Because when death becomes myth, myth becomes mobilization.
And mobilization, unchallenged, becomes catastrophe.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Quentin Deranque died in Lyon, France, on February 14, 2026, two days after sustaining a traumatic brain injury during a street confrontation with antifascist militants. He was twenty-three. Within hours, the French government had called for a national moment of silence in his honor, the kind of formal parliamentary tribute normally reserved for heads of state or victims of terrorism. Within forty-eight hours, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, a conservative appointed by President Emmanuel Macron, publicly demanded that the democratic socialist party La France Insoumise "clean up its statements, its ideas, and its ranks," placing the blame for Deranque's death on the largest opposition party in the French National Assembly. Within a week, the leadership of the Socialist Party had declared their alliance with LFI effectively over.
La France Insoumise is a left-populist formation built around the charismatic and polarizing figure of Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Its coalition partners in its left-wing alliance, the New Popular Front, included the Socialists, the Greens, and the Communist Party. That coalition, hastily assembled in 2022 to block the far right from winning a parliamentary majority, has been the primary obstacle to the anti-immigrant National Rally (the party of Marine Le Pen and her successor, Jordan Bardella) consolidating its path to power ahead of the 2027 presidential election. What LFI actually represents programmatically (a green economic transition, proportional representation, re-nationalization of energy infrastructure, a foreign policy opposed to the arms trade) is less important here than what it represents structurally: the only electoral vehicle capable of turning out voters who would otherwise not vote, and without whom the National Rally wins in 2027. By the end of February 2026, that vehicle was fracturing in real time, and Deranque's death was the stated reason.
Five weeks later, on March 22 and 23, the consequences of that fracture became measurable. The 2026 municipal elections, held across all of France, produced results that confirmed in numbers what the weeks after February 14 had accomplished in narrative. In Paris, the Socialist candidate Emmanuel Grégoire, running at the head of an alliance with the Greens and the Communists but explicitly excluding LFI, won the mayoralty with 50.52% of the vote. The LFI candidate Sophia Chikirou, who had been refused a second-round alliance by Grégoire and whose list was treated by the PS campaign as a spoiler, finished with 7.96%. Nationwide, the Rassemblement National tripled the number of municipalities it controls, from seventeen to sixty-two. It gained 3,121 municipal councillors where it had held 827 in 2020. The left lost bastions it had held for decades: Clermont-Ferrand fell to the right after eighty years of Socialist governance, and Tulle, the political home base of François Hollande, followed. The morning after the second round, Olivier Faure, the first secretary of the Socialist Party, went on television and called Mélenchon "the ball and chain of the left." Boris Vallaud, the head of the PS parliamentary group, said on RTL that "LFI cost us victories." Raphaël Glucksmann, the likely PS-aligned presidential candidate, declared on France Inter that "LFI is not the left."
Manuel Bompard, the national coordinator of LFI, responded that same morning with a statement that would have been unthinkable two months earlier: "In 2027, there is no alliance, there is no list negotiation." The New Popular Front, which had been the left's only viable path to blocking the far right in a presidential run-off, was dead. It had not died of natural causes.
The speed and coordination of that fracture demand explanation. Politicians exploit tragedies for advantage as a matter of course. But the specific shape of what happened between February 14 and March 23 (the parliamentary tribute, the ministerial statements, the sudden willingness of centrist and center-left figures to treat LFI as beyond the pale, the municipal campaigns fought on the premise that association with LFI was itself disqualifying, and then the post-election recriminations that hardened a tactical calculation into a permanent rupture) suggests something more systematic than opportunism. It suggests a political environment in which the machinery for this move was already in place, waiting for the right moment.
The French term for what is happening is trumpisation, borrowed from the U.S. experience and used with a specific meaning: not simply the rise of a far-right demagogue, but the deliberate deformation of political reality through repetition and emotional amplification until cause and effect are reversed, victims become perpetrators, and the resulting confusion benefits those with the most to gain from it. Dominique de Villepin, the former conservative Prime Minister and no ally of the left, put it plainly in a February 20 interview: "The demonization of LFI has only one meaning, which is to legitimize an identitarian seizure of power."
That is the tipping point. Not the death of a young man, but the uses to which it has been put, and the electoral consequences those uses have now produced.
II. Le Martyr Fabriqué
The day after Deranque died, Le Figaro published a portrait describing him as a "devoted Catholic" and "passionate mathematics student" from Bourgoin-Jallieu. CNews ran similar coverage. Within the conservative media ecosystem that dominates French television and print, a coherent image took shape rapidly: a quiet young man, religious, studious, with no particular politics beyond a vague patriotism, killed by violent left-wing extremists for the crime of being in the wrong place.
The falseness was not a matter of interpretation or political spin. Mediapart and StreetPress, both of which published detailed investigative pieces in the days following his death, documented Deranque's political history through photographs, organizational records, and witness accounts. He had co-founded Allobroges Bourgoin in May 2025, a "groupuscule" operating in the tradition of nationalisme révolutionnaire, a current of European far-right thought that blends ethnonationalism with anti-capitalist rhetoric and has historically served as a recruiting pipeline toward more explicitly violent formations. That same month, he was photographed at a march organized by the Comité du 9 Mai, a gathering point for the French neo-Nazi milieu, organized around the anniversary of the death of Rudolf Hess and characterized by Celtic cross insignia, military formation marching, and participants mid-salute in gestures requiring no elaborate interpretation. He was also connected to Action Française, the oldest surviving royalist-nationalist organization in France with an unbroken lineage through the Vichy period, and to Audace Lyon, a formation that emerged after the state dissolved its predecessor, Bastion Social, following the latter's involvement in a series of violent incidents in the Lyon area.
None of this appeared in Le Figaro's portrait. The question worth asking is not simply why it was omitted, but how that omission was sustained in the face of available evidence. Mediapart's reporting was published quickly. The photographs from the Comité du 9 Mai march were not obscure documents requiring investigative excavation. They were circulating on social media within hours of Deranque's death, shared in many cases by the same far-right networks organizing the memorial march in his honor. Conservative outlets that employ experienced political journalists must have been aware of this material. The only conclusion is that they collectively and consistently chose not to include it.
That choice reflects something important about how French conservative media currently functions, but it also reflects the specific narrative pressures of the moment. A "peaceful Catholic student" killed by antifascists is a story with a clear moral architecture. A neo-fascist militant killed during a brawl that his own armed group helped to provoke is a story with a much messier one, and messier stories are harder to weaponize.
The question of provocation is where the video evidence becomes important. Footage analyzed by Contre-Attaque and Révolution Permanente shows the contingent that Deranque was part of arriving near Sciences Po Lyon equipped with motorcycle helmets, smoke grenades, and at least one metal crutch used as a weapon. The group, numbering between fifteen and twenty individuals, had positioned itself outside the venue where Palestinian activist and French MP Rima Hassan was scheduled to speak, with the apparent purpose of unfurling a banner for Collectif Némésis, an identitarian organization that uses the language of feminism to obscure its nativist politics. This was not a spontaneous gathering. It was an organized action by people who came prepared for physical confrontation.
The brawl that followed, in which Deranque was ultimately isolated and attacked by multiple assailants, occurred roughly four hundred meters from the venue. The attackers who kicked him while he was on the ground bear criminal responsibility for what happened to him, and six of them are now charged with intentional homicide. That legal and moral reality is not in question. What is in question is the causal story that conservative media constructed afterward, one in which an armed and organized far-right contingent that initiated a confrontation disappears from the frame entirely, leaving only the image of an innocent young man set upon by political violence.
When Mediapart published its documentation of Deranque's neo-fascist connections, the response from the right was not a rebuttal. It was outrage at the act of reporting itself. This is a tactic with a history: to pre-emptively define any contextualization as disrespect for the dead, thereby placing inconvenient facts beyond the reach of legitimate discourse. The hagiography served that function. It was not primarily about Deranque. It was about establishing narrative terrain on which the left could be held responsible for his death, and then holding that terrain by treating accurate journalism as a moral transgression.
III. Le Laboratoire de la Violence
Lyon did not become a center of far-right organizing after Deranque's death. It was one long before it. The historical roots are not incidental. Lyon was a significant base for the Parti Populaire Français, Jacques Doriot's fascist organization, during the 1930s. Under the Vichy regime, the city's police prefecture collaborated extensively with the German occupation, a history that Klaus Barbie's postwar trial in 1987 brought back into painful public focus. In 1968, the Groupement de Recherche et d'Études pour la Civilisation Européenne (GRECE), the intellectual hub of what became the French New Right, was founded there. The University of Lyon III became notorious through the 1990s for harboring Holocaust deniers on its faculty, a scandal that eventually produced a formal parliamentary inquiry.
None of this makes Lyon unique in Europe. What it does establish is a continuity of infrastructure: networks, institutions, and social relationships that have sustained far-right organizing across generations in ways that more episodic movements elsewhere have not. French intelligence estimates from 2019, reported by Rue89 Lyon, put the number of active far-right militants in the Lyon metropolitan area at approximately four hundred, a figure that almost certainly understates the current reality given subsequent growth in identitarian and nationalist organizing across France. The organizational landscape includes Action Française, the GUD (Groupe Union Défense, a university-based street-fighting organization with a history dating back to the 1960s), and Audace Lyon, which continues to operate in the same physical spaces as its predecessor, Bastion Social, with many of the same people under a different name. Active Clubs, the decentralized network of far-right fitness and combat sports groups that originated in the United States and has spread rapidly through Europe, has established a presence in the region as well.
A Rue89 Lyon investigation published in October 2025 put numbers to what activists in the city had been documenting for years. Researchers identified 102 violent far-right actions in the Lyon area between 2010 and 2025. Seventy percent of those actions resulted in no legal consequence whatsoever. Forty percent of the documented attacks were directed at racial, religious, or sexual minorities, with the remainder split between leftist activists, union organizers, and journalists. The pattern is not one of isolated incidents accumulating by chance. It is a consistent practice of territorial intimidation that the police and judiciary have, with notable regularity, declined to treat as a priority.
That impunity gap is the essential context for understanding the Young Guard, the antifascist group involved in the Lyon brawl. Founded in Lyon in January 2018 by Raphaël Arnault, Jacques-Élie Favrot, and others, the Young Guard was not, at its origin, an organization looking for fights. Bastion Social, at the height of its activity, was running what it called a "social restaurant" in Lyon that in practice served as a base for recruiting and street operations, and the state was doing nothing about it. Residents of affected neighborhoods, students, and activists who had been targeted by Bastion Social violence found themselves in a straightforward situation: they were being physically intimidated by an organized group, they had reported this to the police, and the police had not acted. The Young Guard organized to fill that vacuum.
This matters because the government's framing since February 2026 has inverted the causal sequence entirely. Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau and Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin have spoken about antifascist violence as though it were an autonomous pathology, a radicalism that emerged from the fever swamps of the left independently of any external stimulus. The historical record in Lyon does not support that account. Bastion Social was convicted in 2019 by a Lyon court of provoking discrimination and violence. The state dissolved it precisely because its activities were found to constitute a threat to public order. The Young Guard was founded a year before that conviction by people who had not waited for the state to act because experience taught them the state would not act in time.
The government dissolved the Young Guard itself in June 2025, alongside Lyon Populaire, under legislation targeting organizations deemed to constitute or reconstitute a dissolved group. The Conseil d'État, France's highest administrative court, was scheduled to hear the Young Guard's appeal of that dissolution on February 11, 2026, one day before the confrontation in which Deranque was injured. The hearing was postponed indefinitely in the aftermath of his death.
The deeper argument here is one about what states produce when they systematically fail to protect some of their citizens from organized violence. When a state fails to maintain its monopoly on legitimate force within a given community, other actors fill the gap. In Lyon, for over fifteen years, the far right filled that gap with violence, and the state filled it with indifference. The emergence of organized antifascist self-defense was the predictable result of that combination, not its cause. The government that is now prosecuting that self-defense is the same government that, for fifteen years, chose not to prosecute what made it necessary.
That the municipal elections confirmed Grégory Doucet, the Green Party mayor of Lyon, in his position by the narrowest of margins (50.67% against Jean-Michel Aulas's 49.33%) only underscores the stakes. LFI's endorsement of Doucet's candidacy between the two rounds may have provided the margin of victory. That he won despite years of far-right organizing in his city, despite Deranque's death becoming a national crisis centered on his municipality, and despite the right's furious attempt to make Lyon an emblem of leftist violence, deserves more attention than it has received. Lyon's voters, who have more direct knowledge of the far-right threat than any commentator in a Paris studio, chose to keep a left-wing mayor. Meanwhile, the right took the Lyon Metropolitan Council, with LR candidate Véronique Sarselli defeating the Green incumbent Bruno Bernard. The significance of this split (the symbolic mayoralty stays left while the real administrative power shifts right) will take years to fully register.
IV. La Compassion Différentielle
On February 17, 2026, the National Assembly observed a minute of silence for Quentin Deranque. It was a striking gesture, and its strangeness lies not in honoring a young person who died but in the selectivity the choice reveals when placed against comparable cases.
Federico Martín Arambúrú was a South African rugby player shot dead outside a Paris bar in October 2022. His killers, members of the GUD, shot him after an altercation in which they believed he had made a gesture of support for LGBTQ rights. The National Assembly observed no minute of silence. The case received substantial initial press coverage, then faded. The killing did not become an inflection point, did not produce ministerial statements about the organizations that had formed the killers, and did not prompt demands that any political party "clean up its ranks."
Mahamadou Cissé was twenty-one years old when he was shot by a neighbor in Lyon in 2022. The prosecutor publicly described the killing as a crime born of frustration, implying the victim's behavior had contributed to the circumstances of his own death. The suspect was released under judicial supervision. Three years later, no trial date had been set. No parliamentary tribute was held.
Aboubakar Cissé was twenty-two years old when he was stabbed fifty-seven times inside a mosque in La Grand-Combe, in the Gard department, in April 2025. The attack was captured on security camera footage. When his family requested a parliamentary minute of silence, they were initially refused. After sustained public pressure from Muslim organizations and several left-wing MPs, the Assembly relented and held a tribute, weeks after the killing.
The pattern these cases form is not subtle. What exists in the National Assembly is a discretionary culture, a set of unstated assumptions about whose death registers as a political event requiring institutional acknowledgment and whose death registers as a tragedy to be handled through ordinary judicial channels. Deranque's death triggered the former response faster than any comparable case in recent memory. The deaths above triggered the latter, if they triggered any institutional response at all.
The statistical context comes primarily from Isabelle Sommier, a sociologist at the Sorbonne who has produced the most systematic study of lethal political violence in France over the postwar period. Her research, covering deaths attributable to organized political groups between 1986 and 2017, identified fifty-seven such deaths in total. Actors from the far right caused all but five. Historian Frédéric Riceputi extended the count to the present and arrived at fifty-nine deaths caused by the far right since 1986 (before Deranque), with no equivalent toll attributable to the organized left, and no minute of silence had ever been held in the National Assembly for any of those fifty-nine victims. The minute held for Deranque was the first of its kind.
It is worth being careful about what this statistic does and does not establish. Sommier's methodology focuses on deaths attributable to organized political groups, which excludes a significant category of racially and politically motivated killings by individuals without clear organizational affiliation. The figure of fifty-nine is a floor, not a ceiling. What it does establish, within its defined parameters, is a decades-long pattern in which the preponderance of organized political killing in France has come from the right, and in which that preponderance has generated no institutional response comparable to the one mobilized within hours of Deranque's death.
An Odoxa poll conducted in the aftermath found that 76% of French respondents, including 81% of Socialist sympathizers, believed the Socialist Party should not ally with LFI going forward. Some have read this as evidence of genuine public sentiment against LFI, and perhaps it is. But the poll's design cannot distinguish between a pre-existing disposition and the effect of two weeks of saturation media coverage presenting LFI as morally responsible for a young man's death. That is not a small methodological caveat. It is the central question. The municipal election results themselves may appear to resolve it: Grégoire's comfortable victory in Paris without LFI, the collapse of PS-LFI alliances in Toulouse and Limoges and Clermont-Ferrand. But it is worth asking whether the municipal results demonstrate an independent political judgment or whether they demonstrate the successful completion of a manufactured one. When voters are told for six consecutive weeks that one party is responsible for a death it did not cause, and when they vote six weeks later, what exactly has been measured?
V. La Stratégie d'Élimination
Gérald Darmanin, who served as Interior Minister under Macron before moving to the Justice Ministry, has a well-documented instinct for the theatrical political statement. But what he said in the days following Deranque's death was not merely theatrical. "In the beginning was the word," he declared, invoking the Gospel of John, "but words can kill." The target was explicit: LFI's rhetoric, its culture of confrontation, its refusal to condemn antifascist organizing in the terms the government demanded, had created the conditions for a young man's death. The claim was not accompanied by any evidence linking LFI's public statements to the specific individuals charged with homicide. It did not need to be. The accusation was not a legal matter but a political climate argument: LFI had poisoned the air, and an innocent individual had died breathing it.
Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez turned the rhetoric into bureaucratic action. In the days following February 14, his ministry formally reclassified LFI as "extreme left" in its official documentation, placing the largest opposition party in parliament in the same categorical framework used to monitor and surveil radical organizations. Classification decisions of this kind affect intelligence priorities, the legal thresholds for surveillance, and the political legitimacy of targeting a party's structures and associates for investigation. The reclassification was announced without a formal process, without parliamentary debate, and without any stated evidentiary basis beyond the government's assertion that LFI's "rhetorical violence" made it qualitatively different from other parliamentary parties.
That reclassification turned out to have a direct bearing on the municipal elections. The ministerial circular governing the attribution of political labels to candidates in the March 2026 municipal vote, published in February, placed LFI for the first time in the "extreme left" bloc alongside parties like Lutte Ouvrière and the NPA. The Conseil d'État validated this circular on February 27, just two weeks before the first round. The practical effect was that every municipal candidate running under or alongside an LFI banner carried a government-assigned label equating them with extra-parliamentary revolutionary organizations. For any PS or Green mayor weighing whether to accept an LFI alliance in the second round, the official state classification made the cost of that choice significantly higher. The bureaucratic act of reclassification, presented as a neutral administrative measure, functioned as a campaign intervention.
Raphaël Arnault is the figure around whom the legal pressure has most visibly concentrated. Arnault, elected as LFI's deputy for Vaucluse in June 2024 with just over sixty percent of the vote, was a co-founder of the Young Guard and remains the person most publicly associated with its history. After Deranque's death, calls for his resignation came not only from the right but from figures within the left coalition, including the Greens' David Dossus. More concretely, prosecutors began examining whether his public statements constituted incitement, and whether LFI figures associated with the Young Guard could face charges of participating in the reconstitution of a dissolved organization. The investigation into Jacques-Élie Favrot, Arnault's parliamentary assistant and a Young Guard co-founder, on charges of complicity by instigation in Deranque's death, created a direct legal thread connecting LFI's parliamentary staff to the homicide case.
Beyond Arnault, the pressure has extended to people with neither parliamentary immunity nor a public profile. In the week after Deranque's death, the personal information of several antifascist activists in Lyon was published on far-right social media channels, including home addresses and workplaces. Doxxing is illegal under French law. At the time of writing, no prosecutions for it had been announced.
What makes the strategy coherent, rather than merely opportunistic, is its relationship to the 2027 electoral calendar. The New Popular Front was always an uncomfortable alliance. LFI's position as the dominant partner, by virtue of its size, created persistent tensions with the Socialist Party, whose leadership never reconciled itself to operating in a coalition it does not lead. The crisis surrounding Deranque's death provided an opportunity to exploit those tensions openly. The municipal elections provided the occasion to make the rupture operative.
On February 18, François Hollande announced that his relationship with LFI was over. Glucksmann framed continued association with LFI as an "ethical fault and political suicide." LFI's leadership declined to provide the rupture their opponents wanted. Mélenchon and Bompard refused to exclude Arnault, defended the Young Guard's origins as a legitimate act of self-defense, and framed the 2027 election as a binary choice between what Mélenchon called "fascists and the people."
Then came the municipal campaigns. In Paris, Grégoire refused Chikirou's offer of a second-round alliance. "I made the choice in Paris not to ally with" her, he said on France Inter. "She spent her time attacking us." In Toulouse, the PS fused with LFI behind the Insoumis candidate François Piquemal, and lost to the center-right incumbent Jean-Luc Moudenc (53.87% to 46.13%). In Limoges, LFI's Damien Maudet ran with PS support and lost to the LR candidate by more than ten points. In Clermont-Ferrand, the left lost after eighty years. In Brest, in Avignon, in Poitiers, in Strasbourg, in Besançon, alliances that included LFI went down to defeat.
The narrative that emerged was simple: LFI is toxic. Association with LFI costs votes. The proof is in the results. But the narrative obscures a crucial fact about the sequence. The defeats happened in the context of a six-week campaign to delegitimize LFI that began not with the municipal campaigns but with a brawl in Lyon and a government that saw in a young man's death a political opportunity. Whether LFI alliances would have fared differently absent that campaign is unknowable. What is knowable is that the campaign happened, and that it shaped the conditions under which voters evaluated those alliances. The defeats are real. The conclusion that they prove LFI is inherently toxic, independent of the media and government environment in which the elections were conducted, is not.
The political logic of the strategy, from the perspective of those executing it, is not complicated. A fragmented left in 2027 produces another presidential run-off between the centrist bloc and the National Rally, a scenario in which the National Rally's path to the presidency is shorter, and the left's capacity to block it is minimal. Jordan Bardella is polling between thirty-five and thirty-seven percent in first-round scenarios and winning every tested second-round matchup. Le Figaro noted, with unconcealed satisfaction, that a "landslide" had occurred: for the first time in decades, LFI had replaced the National Rally as the party most criticized across the political spectrum. For Bardella's party, which had occupied that position for most of its existence, the inversion was, as the paper put it, "a boon."
VI. L'Épreuve des Urnes
The municipal election results of March 15 and 22, 2026, deserve a closer reading than either the triumphalist PS narrative or the defiant LFI counter-narrative has provided. Both accounts flatten a more complicated picture.
Start with the victories that did not require LFI. In Paris, Grégoire's 50.52% was decisive. He benefited from a reformed electoral system that for the first time allowed Parisians to vote on a single citywide list for the Council of Paris, rather than through the arrondissement-level system that had governed previous elections. Chikirou's 7.96% in the second round, down from 11.72% in the first, indicates that much of her electorate voted tactically for Grégoire in the final round. The left held Paris, but it held it through a mechanism of vote utile (tactical voting) that itself depended on LFI voters choosing to support a candidate who had publicly refused their alliance. In Marseille, Benoît Payan won comfortably with 54.34% against the RN's Franck Allisio (40.3%), in a configuration where LFI's candidate Sébastien Delogu had withdrawn and endorsed the left. In Lyon, Doucet's razor-thin victory came after LFI endorsed him between rounds.
The story the PS told on the morning of March 23, the story of a left that wins when it distances itself from LFI, is therefore only half true. The three biggest cities stayed left. But in two of three cases (Lyon and Marseille), LFI support or endorsement was a contributing factor in the margin. The Paris result, the cleanest test of the "without LFI" thesis, involved a progressive electorate in one of the most left-leaning cities in France, an electoral reform that benefited the leading list, and an LFI candidate whose voters overwhelmingly voted tactically for the PS anyway. Extrapolating from Paris to a national presidential election, in which the dynamics of first-round fragmentation and second-round run-offs are entirely different, requires a leap of logic that the data does not support.
Now consider the defeats. Alliances with LFI failed in Toulouse, Limoges, Clermont-Ferrand, Brest, and several other cities. The PS interpretation is that LFI was the problem. But Clermont-Ferrand had been drifting rightward for a decade, and the outgoing socialist mayor's retirement left a vacuum that no candidate filled effectively. In Toulouse, LFI's Piquemal ran against a well-established center-right incumbent in a city where the left's internal divisions predate the Deranque affair by years. In Limoges, the configuration was one in which LFI led the list. "When LFI is at the top and we follow, we lose," a PS official told franceinfo, as though the mere presence of the LFI label were the causal variable, rather than the specific local conditions of each race. The PS's own performance tells a different story: it lost Brest to the right without LFI involvement, suggesting that the party's erosion in mid-sized cities reflects structural factors beyond the question of alliances.
The places where LFI advanced tell yet another story. In Saint-Denis, the historic Communist stronghold in the northern Paris suburbs, an LFI candidate won the mayoralty against the rest of the left. In Roubaix, the same. LFI's gains were concentrated in communities with large working-class and immigrant-origin populations, places where the party's uncompromising rhetoric on Palestine, police violence, and economic inequality resonates with voters who have not been served by the PS's governance in those cities. "When they won some cities, they won them against the left," Faure complained. That is true, but it is not the indictment he believes it is. If LFI's electorate is winning in some places and losing in others, the determining variable is not LFI's abstract toxicity but the specific relationship between each electorate and the candidates on offer.
The most important number in the municipal results, however, belongs to neither the PS nor LFI. The Rassemblement National went from controlling nine municipalities of more than 3,500 inhabitants in 2020 to fifty-seven in 2026. It gained Carcassonne, Menton, Vierzon (a communist stronghold since the end of World War II), Liévin (a mining town in the Pas-de-Calais that had been continuously left-wing), and dozens of smaller towns across the south, the northeast, and the center of the country. Its ally, Éric Ciotti's UDR, took Nice. Jordan Bardella claimed "the greatest breakthrough in the history" of his party. The RN's municipal councillors went from 827 to 3,121. It failed in Marseille, Toulon, and Nîmes, and its presence in cities over 100,000 inhabitants remains marginal outside of Perpignan. But its territorial expansion in small and mid-sized towns represents a qualitative change in its capacity to build local power, train candidates, and establish the infrastructure for a presidential run in 2027.
This is the number that the morning-after recriminations on the left entirely ignored. Faure spent his television appearances blaming Mélenchon. Vallaud blamed LFI's alliances. Glucksmann said LFI is not the left. Bompard said the PS dragged LFI down. None of them discussed the fact that while they were arguing about each other, the far right added forty-eight municipalities to its column. The argument between the PS and LFI about who lost Toulouse is real and has real implications for 2027. But the argument is being conducted as though the only question is which faction of the left is responsible for the other faction's failures, when the more urgent question is whether the left in any configuration can prevent what the municipal results show is happening: the territorial normalization of the far right at a pace that the left's internal quarrels are doing nothing to stop and arguably everything to accelerate.
VII. Les Parallèles Mondiaux
On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, shot from a rooftop while speaking at a campus event organized by Turning Point USA. The alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, was a twenty-two-year-old who had written, in texts recovered by investigators, "I had enough of his hatred." Within forty-eight hours, the Trump administration's State Department had issued a statement declaring that "violent radical leftism" represented a rising threat to democratic stability. Congressional Republicans introduced legislation designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, a designation with no clear legal definition of who it actually covered, and whose breadth was almost certainly the point. On September 25, Trump signed a national security memorandum directing the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force to focus on anti-fascist political violence, citing as indicators not just violence but "anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views."
The French version closely tracks this sequence, so the comparison is structural rather than incidental. In both cases, a death involving political violence becomes not a criminal matter to be investigated but a political event to be interpreted. The interpretation runs in one direction regardless of what the evidence shows about specific circumstances. The institutional response arrives faster than any investigation could justify and establishes a narrative framework that subsequent facts must struggle to dislodge. And the primary beneficiary is not any individual politician but a broader political realignment: in France, the acceleration of a process by which the National Rally is normalized while LFI is criminalized.
The 180 French intellectuals and writers who signed an open letter in February 2026, including Nobel laureate Annie Ernaux and historian Johann Chapoutot, made this parallel explicit. Chapoutot, whose scholarly work on Nazi legal culture includes his 2020 book The Law of Blood, described the instrumentalization of Deranque's death as operating by the same logic as the Kirk moment: find a death that can be emotionally charged, strip it of its specific context, and use the resulting moral panic to accomplish political objectives that the normal pace of democratic contestation would not permit.
The historical analogy requires some care. Chapoutot's own scholarship is characteristically more precise in its causal claims than the open letter's polemical register. The Law of Blood traces how Nazi law encoded a specific biologized conception of the community. This project required decades of institutional transformation and could not be reduced to a single propaganda technique. What the open letter borrows from Chapoutot's framework is the observation that a politics organized around categories of friend and enemy does not capture power through a single dramatic gesture but through a patient process of making these categories legible to the mainstream. You do not need to make people fascists. You need to make them comfortable with the fascists' categories until those categories are shared. The analytical claim being made in the French case is not that Lecornu or Nuñez are Nazis but that the technique they are deploying (find the emotionally compelling death, invert its moral valence, use it to expand the definition of the illegitimate) belongs to a recognizable family of political moves. The Kirk parallel shows that the family is operating across two national contexts in the same eighteen-month window.
What is being constructed, across both cases, is a redefinition of what counts as legitimate opposition. In that redefinition, the right sets the boundaries, the center enforces them, and the left is offered a choice: either accept those boundaries or be cast outside them. This echoes patterns from the 1920s and 1930s, when in several European countries centrist liberal parties allied with fascist and proto-fascist movements against their socialist rivals, not out of ideological sympathy but out of a calculation that the left was the more immediate threat. That calculation was wrong then. There is no obvious reason to think it is right now.
VIII. Le Devoir de Résistance
Taken together, the documented record makes a specific claim. It is not that antifascist militants bear no responsibility for Deranque's death. Six of them are charged with intentional homicide, and that charge should be prosecuted. It is not that LFI is above criticism. Its internal culture of loyalty to Mélenchon, its handling of antisemitism allegations, and its rhetorical excesses all deserve scrutiny. A polemic that protects its subject from all criticism is not honest, and this one has no interest in being otherwise.
The specific claim is this: the governmental and media response to Deranque's death was not proportionate to what the evidence shows happened. It was not consistent with how comparable deaths have been treated. It was not applied symmetrically to the political formations the evidence actually implicates. Its primary effect, now visible in the results of the March 2026 municipal elections, has been to dismantle the only electoral coalition capable of blocking a far-right party whose stated policy program would, if enacted, strip French citizenship of its substantive content for a significant portion of the French population.
Consider the asymmetries more precisely. The state that reclassified LFI as "extreme left" by ministerial fiat is the same state that spent fifteen years treating Bastion Social's documented violence as a public order nuisance rather than a political threat. The media that ran wall-to-wall coverage of LFI's alleged moral responsibility for Deranque's death is the same media that gave Arambúrú's killing a news cycle and a verdict. The politicians who demanded that LFI "clean up its ranks" within forty-eight hours of Deranque's death are the same politicians who, after Federico Martín Arambúrú was shot dead by GUD members in 2022, made no comparable demand of any organization connected to his killers.
Those asymmetries are not accidental. They reflect a consistent pattern in which political violence from the right registers as the behavior of individuals, while political violence from the left registers as the behavior of a movement, specifically of whatever organized left formation the government finds most inconvenient at the time. It is a pattern that dates at least to the 1970s in France, and arguably much further. What is new is its intensity, its coordination, and its clarity of target.
Marine Le Pen spent years on what French commentators call dédiabolisation: the effort to make the National Rally appear compatible with republican norms by distancing it rhetorically from its most overtly racist history, changing its name from the National Front, and marginalizing figures whose public statements were too explicitly reminiscent of the party's origins. The party's actual policy on immigration and civil liberties has not changed in ways that would justify treating it as an ordinary conservative formation, and its connections to European neo-fascist networks have not been severed. But the comparative framework has shifted. If LFI can be successfully positioned as the party that falls outside the boundaries of acceptable politics, the National Rally moves inside those boundaries by default. The municipal results show this mechanism at work: the RN's "greatest breakthrough in history" was not treated by the PS or the center as a crisis. It was treated as a secondary story, subordinate to the question of whether the PS had been right to refuse LFI alliances.
Retailleau, the LR leader who as Interior Minister helped orchestrate the reclassification of LFI, used his election-night statement to position himself for the 2027 presidential race. His framing was revealing. He described LR's performance as evidence of "another path" between LFI's "ideologues" and the RN's "demagogues." That formulation, which treats the organized left and the organized far right as equivalent threats to be triangulated against, is the end product of the strategy this piece has described. The false equivalence that began as a tactic of narrative control after Deranque's death has been laundered through a municipal election cycle and re-emerged as the official positioning of the French right for 2027. The far right gained forty-eight new municipal governments, and the man who helped make that possible described himself as the alternative to extremism.
The press has largely accepted this reframing without appearing to notice what it has accepted. BFM TV's coverage in the weeks after February 14 devoted substantially more airtime to LFI's alleged moral responsibility for Deranque's death than to the documented affiliations of Deranque's political network or to the charges faced by Favrot, who was at the time of his arrest serving as a sitting MP's parliamentary assistant. That disproportion reflects an editorial environment shaped in significant part by the Bolloré media ecosystem, which owns or exercises documented editorial influence over CNews, Le JDD, and several other major outlets. On the morning after the municipal second round, the same media ecosystem covered the PS-LFI blame game as the lead story. The RN's territorial expansion was a secondary item. The framing was sustained.
There is a version of political maturity that counsels restraint in moments like this: avoid the inflammatory comparison, resist the temptation to see a coordinated strategy where there may be only convergent opportunism, and trust that institutions will self-correct. It is a posture with understandable appeal, particularly for those who have watched previous cycles of left-wing urgency collapse into sectarian recrimination. But studied restraint is only a virtue when the situation it responds to is genuinely ambiguous. The situation documented above is not ambiguous. It is a state reclassifying its largest opposition party by ministerial decree. It is a media infrastructure constructing a martyr from a neo-fascist militant while ignoring the deaths of people who were actually innocent. It is the deliberate fragmentation of the only coalition that stands between the National Rally and the Élysée in 2027, a fragmentation that the municipal elections have now rendered nearly complete.
Frédéric Lordon has written about what he calls the "soul-destroying comfort" of collaboration: the way in which accommodation to a shifting political reality presents itself as reasonableness, as responsibility, as the avoidance of extremism, while in practice functioning as the normalization of something that should not be normalized. The Socialist Party figures who declared LFI beyond the pale in the weeks since February 14, and who on March 23 cited the municipal results as vindication, believe or say they believe that they are defending republican values. What they are doing, concretely, is removing the left's best electoral weapon in a presidential election cycle in which the stakes are not metaphorical. A fragmented left does not produce a more moderate France. It produces a France in which Jordan Bardella is president.
The tipping point is real. A brawl in Lyon did not cause it, though it was its occasion. It was produced by fifteen years of rising inequality, political alienation, a media infrastructure that has systematically amplified one side of every conflict, and a government willing to use the death of a young man as a pretext for dismantling the opposition that threatens it most. The municipal elections of March 2026 did not resolve it. They deepened it. On the morning after, with the RN holding sixty-two municipalities and the PS and LFI trading accusations instead of confronting what that number means, the task of putting change back on the agenda falls to anyone on the left willing to see the documented record clearly and refuse the comfort of looking away. That is not a radical act. It is the minimum that honest analysis requires.
