@Cassiodorus
with that said, do you have any insight into who is behind the protests/riots in France?

In your opinion, are the protests/riots organic or are they astroturfed? If the protests/riots are organic, supposedly led by students, then why are they burning down the cities?

I understand the protestors/rioters are pissed, but who benefits from that?

Do you want my opinion about who's behind the protests/riots in France? The same people that are behind fomenting the hatred in this country, who also want this country to burn.

#2.1 Indoctrination? US media are owned by Zionist billionaires who are terrified that the public will rise up against them and their bought-and-paid-for political classes. Nobody around here, of course, noticed when, under Biden, the student protests against genocide were brutally crushed.

It was there all along? Yeah, that's what Hitler saw and praised. From Mein Kampf:

There are territories where the Aryan can establish fixed settlements by means of the technical skill which he has developed in the course of more than a thousand years, even though these territories would otherwise have to be abandoned, unless the Aryan were willing to wander about them in nomadic fashion; but his technical tradition and his age-long experience of the use of technical means would probably make the nomadic life unbearable for him. We ought to remember that during the first period of American colonization numerous Aryans earned their daily livelihood as trappers and hunters, etc., frequently wandering about in large groups with their women and children, their mode of existence very much resembling that of ordinary nomads. The moment, however, that they grew more numerous and were able to accumulate larger resources, they cleared the land and drove out the aborigines, at the same time establishing settlements which rapidly increased all over the country.

Sorry I don't have a page number; I'm grabbing it off the Internet. Maybe later I'll edit the comment to provide one. At any rate, the idiots on Quora who don't think that we were an example of what Hitler wanted can stop offering excuses for why they don't read, now.

At any rate, early 19th-century America was a bunch of pseudo-Christian alcoholics, Mayflower Pilgrims who couldn't even make it in Holland and who came to this continent so they could half starve to death before taking advantage of the generosity of the native populations, before eventually slaughtering them. Johnny Appleseed was about brewing fermented apple juice, to drink away the imposed guilt. American literature is about why we suck and about why booze is the answer. What did you expect from us? St. Jean de Crevecoeur tells wannabe French immigrants to the Colonies that after they come across the oceans they should get a slave or two. The US was, is, and will be a settler-colonial project

George Carlin had us figured out.

There is obviously a flaw in Carlin's reasoning. American politics is significantly a problem of 1) the reduction of politics to voting and 2) who is designing the ballots. Thus, from the glossary:

A UTOPIAN PROPOSAL FOR THE UNITED STATES: FORM YOUR OWN POLITICAL PARTY

“In Marx’s view, socialism would thus constitute a far more pluralistic order than the one we have now.” – Terry Eagleton

The example below is meant to provide one possibility among many of how the human imagination can be applied to the problem of focusing upon what we might actually achieve.

Political thinking in the US is stuck at the high-school level; it’s full of conformity and cliques. Historically, from the Federalist Papers onward, it can be shown that the Federal system in the US is a system to make it easier for established power to gain the public’s consent while at the same time any general public will that might form in the US is continually thwarted. So none of the conformity is of any consequence and the cliques decide things. Today, voting does not appear to matter because you vote to choose among two, and only two, preselected candidates as regards who will enact decisions which have already been made. In the US, then, you cannot be held responsible for your vote, because in nearly all cases election outcomes do not depend upon it. You do not vote your politics, nor (for the most part) is anything you want on the ballot.

A word needs to be said here about “lesser-evil” voting. Mass voting for the lesser evil, as it has occurred over decades here in the US, has completely debauched the political system. The historical worst-case scenario of “lesser-evil”voting was performed in the Spring 1932 German presidential elections, in which the primary choices were a) Hitler, and b) the man who eventually appointed Hitler. In the US of today, sometimes election choices are “lesser-evil” choices, other times they’re not. Ideally, all voters in the US would be given the choice of someone they approved of. But mostly what people get today are two choices, and sometimes the two choices appearing on any particular ballot are between greater and lesser evils, fifty years after what historians will call the Golden Age of Capitalism.

My proposal, in light of all this, will stand in opposition to conformity in political thought. The kernel of it is this: each of us should form her or his own political party, and for the individual political parties to merge according to what their creators think needs to happen. The notion, here, is to promote the idea that one’s political opinion and political actions should follow the same principles. It is the principle behind Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, in which he argued: “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it” (227).

The heavy lifting of this proposal could happen in conferences at festivals; people would organize politically according to their preferences there. We might, for instance, form a Peace on Earth Party, or a Medicare for All Party, or a Let’s Not Burn Everything to a Crisp Party, or a Make Sure Everyone Has a Place to Stay and can See a Doctor If They Need To Party. Readers are invited here to insert their own preferences. The kernel of this proposal is expressed by the name of the political party “Your Party” in the UK, though at some point it appears that the Your Party partisans decided, like everyone else, that “omigod we can’t let ordinary people decide on their own because that would be chaos.” This proposal invites the chaos. Could we do worse than what we’re doing now?

It's fair to assume, though, that we will be the last country on Earth to do this sort of thing.

Meanwhile, France: