How a Certain Strain of French State Philosophy Became the Most Dangerous Ideology in the Modern World

By John Mappin — for IF Magazine

@RealCandaceO @Nero

There are countries whose power is measured in divisions, fleets, or GDP. And then there are countries—more precisely, state traditions—whose danger lies not in their armies but in their ideas. France, for all its breathtaking beauty, architectural splendour, and aesthetic self-confidence, has long exported not only wine and couture but something far more potent: a worldview. A worldview that marries intellectual hauteur, moral exhibitionism, and a distinctly psychiatric philosophy of control, perfumed in such elegance that one barely notices its corrosive effects until it has already crossed national borders and ideological frontiers.

To call France the “most lethal country in the world” is, of course, not to impugn the French people—many of whom are as baffled by their own governing class as the rest of us. Rather, it is to point toward a deep historical pattern: the remarkable ability of the French state and its intellectual vanguard to generate world-shaping doctrines that mask coercion behind sophistication, and which have repeatedly unleashed devastation far beyond the boulevards of Paris.

From the eighteenth century to the present day, one can trace a continuous thread of state-sponsored ideology—part psychiatric, part aesthetic, part imperial—that has acted as a cover for interventions, manipulations, and, at times, civilisational vandalism.

And at the heart of this strange genealogy stands one unforgettable figure: the original theoretician of cruelty, the Marquis de Sade, whose name gave us the very word sadism.

I. De Sade and the Birth of the Aestheticised Cruelty

One does not need to read far into the writings of the Marquis de Sade to understand how his worldview would echo across centuries. In de Sade we find the fusion of three quintessentially French state impulses:

1The intellectualisation of cruelty
2The aestheticisation of vice
3The conviction that human beings are clay for the sculptor-ruler

De Sade’s philosophy was, in many ways, the first great modern manifesto of unrestrained domination disguised as liberation. It was also one of the earliest examples of an idea that would become central to the French governing and cultural elite: that if one describes tyranny in sufficiently elegant prose, one can pass it off as enlightenment.

It was no accident that psychiatry as a mechanism of state power—classification, coercion, “correction”—found such fertile soil in France. Nor was it accidental that the French colonial imagination adopted de Sade’s core principle: that power is justified by the pleasure of the one wielding it.

II. The Colonial Empire: Sadism in Bureaucratic Form

When France embarked on its colonial ventures across Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific, it did so with a paradoxical flourish: barbarism wearing perfume. The rhetoric was always the same—civilisation, enlightenment, culture—yet the methods were textbook Sadean: domination, possession, extraction, and control.

The Atlantic slave trade did not rely merely on economic incentives; it depended on a philosophical conviction that other human beings were objects. France’s brutality in places like Haiti and West Africa was carried out under the tricolour not by accident but by conviction—and then lacquered over with a thin sheen of Parisian refinement.

French colonial governors wrote treatises on virtue even as they ordered floggings. Parisian newspapers rhapsodised about the civilising mission while forced labour camps churned out rubber and sugar.

What distinguished France from other colonial powers was not the scale of its violence—horrific though it was—but its unmatched talent for disguising its excesses beneath couture, cuisine, and philosophy.

The British exported common law.

The French exported illusions and cruelty. III. The Perfume Bottle: Aesthetics as Political Camouflage

Where other empires eventually admitted their sins, France perfected the art of transforming guilt into a brand asset. The more catastrophes French policy unleashed, the more aggressively the French state—and its cultural machinery—produced beauty, fashion, and philosophical abstraction as a kind of moral deodorant.

Perfume for the nose, couture for the eye, existentialism for the mind—these were not merely cultural products but instruments of national absolution.

The scent of Chanel No. 5 was, in geopolitical terms, more than a fragrance; it was a fog machine.

The effect has been profound. Even today, many view France less as a state actor and more as a museum gift shop with nuclear weapons. This misperception has allowed a distinctly French moral arrogance—born of centuries of self-perception as civilisation’s curator—to operate unchecked.

⸻

IV. From Psychiatry to Ideology: The Modern Export

If France’s colonial era fused aesthetics with oppression, its post-war era fused psychiatric theory with social engineering. In Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, and their successors, we find the intellectual descendants of de Sade: thinkers who relativised truth, destabilised identity, and reduced human beings to mere constructs.

Their disciples exported these ideas across the Atlantic, where they blossomed—particularly in American universities—into today’s most volatile ideological fashions.

Which brings us to one of the strangest developments of the twenty-first century: the near-religious fervour with which certain French philosophical currents have amplified and exported the transgender ideology, not as a compassionate response to human suffering, but as a metaphysical assault on meaning itself.

France, ever the aesthete, gave the world the idea that identity could be sculpted like a marble bust. That the self was infinitely malleable. That categories—male, female, true, false—were oppressive inventions rather than descriptions of reality.

This was not liberation. It was the psychiatric worldview disguised as progressive theology.

And, as ever, it came wrapped in beauty, couture, and intellectual sophistication.

As we know Charlie, there are sane people in the world that want Peace @charliekirk11 @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @Scavino47 and there are insane people in the world that want war.

The war lovers are “Merchants of Chaos”.

They thrive and profit from the misery of others.

They work hard to destroy sane peace efforts and they are working hard now to destroy the positive future that President Trump and so many other peace loving people are also envisioning.

@kadmitriev @AndreyGGeorgiev

Peace is entirely more joyful profitable and pleasureable that the horrors of war and so it is worth investigating highlighting and educating ourselves and others as to exactly who it is that seeks to profit from conflict. They should be brought to Justice.

Who has a dog in the fight?

The recent phone call that was from both side’s account and viewpoint respectful and positive can indeed be the foundation for a peaceful and economic future beyond our wildest dreams.

I was recently reminded of a little known part of US / Russian history the other day.

The historical relationship between U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and Russian Tsar Alexander II during the American Civil War (1861–1865) is a fascinating episode of international diplomacy, marked by mutual interests, parallel reforms, and a strategic alignment that influenced the war’s outcome and the future of the United States. Their governments’ cooperation, including Russia’s deployment of naval flotillas to U.S. ports in 1863, played a significant role in supporting the Union and reinforcing the cause of emancipation.

Below is historical data addressing the role of the Russian flotillas, clarifying British and French positions, and evaluation of the impact on the U.S.’s future, while highlighting the nature of the Lincoln-Alexander connection.

Abraham Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II never met, but their leadership coincided during transformative periods in their nations.

Alexander II issued the Emancipation Manifesto on March 3, 1861, freeing over 20 million Russian serfs, a reform that resonated with American abolitionists and Lincoln’s own moral opposition to slavery. Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, aimed to end slavery in Confederate territories, aligning the Civil War with the cause of human freedom. Both leaders faced domestic resistance—Alexander from conservative nobles, Lincoln from pro-slavery factions and border states—and both were assassinated for their reforms (Lincoln in 1865, Alexander in 1881).
Their governments found common ground in geopolitical strategy. Russia, weakened after the Crimean War (1853–1856), sought to counter British and French influence, which often aligned with the Confederacy due to economic ties to Southern cotton. The U.S., fighting to preserve the Union, needed international support to deter European intervention. This convergence fostered a pragmatic partnership, described by some as a “friendship in spirit.” The Russian Flotillas: Strategic Support in 1863
In September and October 1863, Russia dispatched two naval squadrons—one to New York and another to San Francisco—during a critical phase of the Civil War. These flotillas, comprising ships like the Oslyabya and Alexander Nevsky, remained in U.S. ports for about seven months. The deployment is often cited as a show of support for Lincoln’s Union, but its motives and impact require careful analysis.

Russian Motives

• Geopolitical Strategy: Russia’s primary motive was to protect its navy from British and French threats amid the Polish Uprising of 1863. By stationing ships in neutral U.S. ports, Russia ensured its fleet could operate in case of a European war, potentially disrupting British and French commerce.

• Support for the Union: Russia explicitly backed the Union as the legitimate U.S. government. Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov wrote in 1862, “Russia desires above all the maintenance of the American Union as one indivisible nation.” This stance aligned with Alexander II’s anti-slavery reforms and Russia’s interest in countering Britain and France, who leaned toward the Confederacy.

• Response to Lincoln’s Appeal: Some accounts suggest Lincoln sent a personal appeal to Alexander II, to which the Tsar responded generously, though evidence is anecdotal. A post on X claims Alexander II said, “Before we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may contain,” before sending the fleets. While this story reflects Russian goodwill, primary sources like diplomatic correspondence don’t fully substantiate it.

Impact of the Flotillas

• Deterrence of European Intervention: The Russian presence in U.S. ports signaled to Britain and France that Russia might side with the Union in any escalation. This was critical in 1863, when Britain considered recognizing the Confederacy after Confederate victories like Chancellorsville. The flotillas, combined with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which galvanized British abolitionist sentiment, helped deter intervention.
• Moral and Diplomatic Boost: The Russian ships were warmly received in New York, with events like the “Soirée Russe” on November 5, 1863, attended by 2,000 elites. This public display strengthened Union morale and underscored Russia’s support, contrasting with Britain and France’s neutrality.
• Specific Role in San Francisco: In San Francisco, the Russian flotilla was seen as a safeguard against potential Confederate or secessionist threats in California, though no direct military action occurred.

——

British and French Positions
Contrary to some narratives, Britain and France did not openly support the Confederacy but maintained neutrality, driven by economic and political calculations:
• Britain: Reliant on Southern cotton for its textile industry, Britain considered recognizing the Confederacy but was swayed by abolitionist public opinion and the Union’s naval blockade, which disrupted cotton exports. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation made intervention on the Confederate side politically untenable.

• France: Under Napoleon III, France explored joint intervention with Britain, particularly during the Trent Affair (1861) and after Confederate battlefield successes. However, France hesitated without British commitment and faced domestic abolitionist pressure.
Both nations prioritized economic interests and geopolitical balance, and their neutrality frustrated the Confederacy more than the Union. The Russian flotillas, by contrast, tilted the diplomatic scales toward the Union.

——

🇨🇭ANNOUNCEMENT FROM SWITZERLAND 🇨🇭

One of the most brainwashed TV presenters in the UK media @JeremyVineOn5 @theJeremyVine has had a wild epiphany and now knows that he and the whole world has been subject to a psyop by the government.

#lockdownfiles

🚀 @IsabelOakeshott Justice is coming.

Those who deceived humanity are rapidly waking up.

🧵The Injection is Lethal.

It kills some instantly, some after a few weeks, some after a few months and some after a few years.

But it does kill and will kill many, perhaps not all, but many, of its recipients.

The cellular level damage is still not fully understood. The fact is, that anyone that has been exposed to mRNA or COVID injections should immediately DETOXIFY the body.

The sooner you get this poison out of your cells the better.

Now America I hope you see why you needed Trump to rebuild your infrastructure.

You trains derail because you transport system’s tracks and roads are broken.

You send money overseas for wars, to line the pockets of the Clinton and Biden families and your economy is on the brink of an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression seem mild.

We desperately tried to help you see that Trump held the key.

And a few remained loyal to him.

But my golly gosh what a disloyal lot some of the republicans are.

It is so sad to see from here.

🧵 It was @ImMappin’s and my pleasure to host Dr Robert Malone @RWMaloneMD and his wife in London with the Hon Andrew Bridgen MP. @ABridgen and other luminaries.

We held a private event at the Carlton Club in london @drcole12 @DrAseemMalhotra @EvaVlaar

rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-honorabl… The purpose of the event was “An evening to celebrate the importance of free speech outside and inside Parliament and our need to ensure Safety of Medical Protocols.”

So do vaccines harm?

Vaccine curious Victoria @VictoriaBH explains what happened when she met @RWMaloneMD @DrAseemMalhotra @drcole12 @EvaVlaar and @ABridgen at the Carlton Club this week.

@Nigel_Farage @RobertKennedyJr @elonmusk @JohnBoweActor

rumble.com/v29x24a-victor… Here is what her followers shared with her as feed back.

🧵I do think that @abiroberts has a point.

While Doctors can admit to having made a gross error in taking and promoting the vaccine - and MANY have admitted that, to their credit. We cannot allow the fake news narrative to amplify the narrative that we did not know and that there was not sufficient scientific evidence, at least by March 2020, to know that any emergency trial of an untested novel vaccine was not nessescary and was a very bad idea. After the data from the criuise ship emerged