Ethnic Apocalypse, page 20
What could occur in the United States, where the cohabitation of populations of different origins may well end up failing and turning into conflict, is a fragmentation or territorial partition. In almost every single state in the South, from California to Florida, the Hispanic population is already claiming majority status. In Mexico, there are even nationalist movements openly campaigning for the recovery of these states, which Mexico lost in the nineteenth century.
The following prospect is entirely credible: Following high-intensity turmoil, American states inhabited by a mostly Hispanic population could indeed embrace secession, thus amputating a part of the federal territory. In the process, relatively independent African-American enclaves could also be created, with cosmopolitan megacities such as New York or Los Angeles acquiring special status.
Such a development would, of course, mark the end of America as a superpower, whose comet-like, three-century existence would thus have been no more than a pie in the sky. Those who dismiss this hypothesis had better remember the fall of the ancient Roman Empire: the ‘controlled’ establishment of barbarian populations eventually led to its dismantling and to the slow dismemberment of the Roman identity in favour of independent kingdoms (during the fifth and sixth centuries).149 Wherever we look, history repeats itself through the ages, under different conditions, perhaps, but with the same ruthless logic.
The official position espoused by the mass media’s all-powerful leftists is obviously that the United States will peacefully become a multi-ethnic nation, one that is simultaneously Anglo-Saxon, Hispanic, Negro and whatever else, while somehow still managing to maintain its dynamism. A model for Europe to follow, basically. Such an assumption is overly optimistic, and I myself would not bet a single dollar on it.
Some Europeans will rejoice at the potential ethnic breakdown of America, but let them beware! For Europe is being threatened by this very same spectre, and our situation is bound to be much more serious than that of the United States.
Whereas the latter may well experience a secession of Hispanic states, what we are primarily faced with is both worse and more urgent: an expansive settlement of fundamentally hostile populations — with an animosity spanning fourteen whole centuries — across all of our territories, whose size is much less significant than that of the US. One can easily understand who I am referring to here. Our destinies are therefore both different and shared. And yet, whether here or in the US, the prospect of a victory is not to be excluded.
And What If We Suffer Defeat?
Let us now return to our country’s situation. In this gloomy book, I have considered the speculative postulate according to which our police forces would rebel against their official instructions to show moderation in the event of a war between African, Arab and native French populations, as our exasperated middle and low-class Whites take up arms and join the resistance against the aggressors, with the intention of claiming victory and organising themselves outside the framework of authorities that would undoubtedly prevaricate and negotiate with the enemy. I realise that this hypothesis does not correspond to any sort of certainty and is not in keeping with the times, and that a darker scenario remains perfectly possible. Indeed, the masses of young combatants and rioters (aggressors, stoners, looters, arsonists, etc.), all of whom are of immigrant descent and generally adhere to Islam, shall be highly vindictive and motivated against their enemy, France.
And what is crucial, moreover, is that their numbers will quickly reach impressive proportions, with several million aggressive individuals spread across most of our territory. Never in our entire history have we seen such a configuration before. This invasion from below and internal conquest have slowly been rendered possible, in an almost painless fashion, by forty years of uncontrolled immigration and regularisation, without the co-responsible rightist and leftist governments ever being troubled by such a development and anticipating the possible consequences. Are they cretins, accomplices or just indifferent? A mixture of the three. It no longer matters to us, for the result is the same.
These great insurrectional combatants are, of course, very undisciplined, imprudent and characterised by obvious tactical mediocrity. They could, however, be supervised by more seasoned superiors (especially those once active in the Middle East); and many of them are armed, which is not the case for our native French population. What is most important is that they are fanatical, violent and driven by a deep ethnic resentment which is very difficult for them to control. They are eager to fight ‘for real’, as seen in the numerous preparatory riots that erupt because of a mere ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even if the physical courage involved in a face-to-face confrontation is not their strong point, they develop their specialties with atavistic motivation — vandalisation and looting; surprise harassments and attacks; the staging of ambushes and gratuitous arson attacks (on private buildings, administrations, churches, synagogues, museums, historical monuments, and anything highly symbolic); the use of firearms against police officers or any unsuspecting targets; and so on. Still, one can assuredly say that no matter how many of them there are, these troops of aggressors can definitely be defeated by more intelligent minorities, i.e. by US!!!
Yes, but faced with such an infantry of brutal and versatile thugs that melt away like swarms of locusts, one cannot help worrying about the weakness of our French defence troops, even if some would occasionally organise themselves into self-defence militias whose sole role is to provide protection, without any retaliation or counter-attacks (which would be racist!). What one deplores across our whole territory is a lack of young people and an excessive number of demotivated and emasculated individuals with a wait-and-see attitude and no intrinsic pugnacity (except when it comes to playing video games). As a result of being subjected to years of neutralising propaganda, the latter are often anaesthetised and guilt-ridden.
The possible consequence is too terrible to contemplate: indeed, faced with the powerlessness of our police forces and popular resistance groups to contain and stop an insurrection taking on dramatic and devastating proportions, especially with regard to essential infrastructures, the French state may well choose to implement its usual retreat policy and, horrified at the thought of firing its weapons of war (so as to avoid having blood on its hands, especially Muslim blood, which would constitute an unforgivable crime), simply decide to yield. With France terrified and ready to surrender on all levels so as to avoid the conflagration, what does one do? One negotiates and signs an armistice, i.e. a capitulation in disguise. Such a development would embody our most humiliating defeat against the Muslims.
Remaining as aggressive or cautious as usual, a wide range of Muslim religious or associative bodies shall approach the state with a proposal to diffuse the tensions and put an end to the waves of insurrectional uprisings and the countless (and often deadly) attacks afflicting our entire territory. They will then impose an exorbitant list of ‘just claims’ upon the state. This blackmail will include various demands of participation in local authorities; the creation of a ministry dedicated to immigration, Islam, and their housing estates; the abolition of all provisions prohibiting the veiling of women; a series of measures intended to further foster Muslim immigration, regularisation and naturalisation; the establishment of a plethora of Islamic facilities (schools, hospitals, prisons, businesses); a zealous financing of new mosques; the relinquishment of any and all struggle against Salafism; the introduction of quotas for the hiring of Muslims in various public offices, the police and the army; the permission to bring sharia law and Qur’anic judges to all areas with an overwhelming Muslim majority or already Muslim municipalities; the passing of stricter laws punishing Islamophobia (involving an expansion of the latter’s definition); and a general amnesty for all arrested rioters, etc. The state will obviously yield to these demands in order to buy fragile and short-term civil peace, as the gangs of criminal rioters temporarily return to their housing estates and await the opportune moment to unleash their riots once again.
Following this humiliating defeat suffered by our paralysed state, we may witness the creation of ghettos and what can basically be described as refuge areas, inhabited by our French natives and other Europeans (whose unity will have been brought about by the enemy). These zones will, however, be very quickly neutralised by the authorities, who shall then impose the arrival and establishment of allogeneous populations so as to avoid the dangerous and intolerable formation of a white fortress.
As for the members of the techno-economic and scientific elites in charge of our country, they would opt for an even more pronounced form of expatriation than the one they espouse today — they would remain in other, safer and less Islamised climates, abandoning a France which has been left underdeveloped and, having lost all of its previous capabilities and become a hell to live in, increasingly resembles an African country. This may well come to pass in the very near future… Oh, the death of France will not come about, you say? Are you absolutely certain of that? Let us sincerely hope so, although in history, the worst is never out of the picture.
The Conditions for a Possible Victory
Everything will depend on the shock caused by ethnic uprising and on the destruction and disorganisation that it will generate. If the shock is strong and traumatic enough and can reverse mentalities, a victory is possible; but obviously only at the price of a choice between the logic of war and the dogmatism of human rights, which are completely incompatible with one another. The essential criterion for a mental change on the part of the French people, be it our authorities or ordinary citizens, would be their readiness to shed blood. As for our police forces, they would have to acknowledge the fact that it is no longer a question of ‘policing’, as was the case in May 1968, but of a civil war, which is not quite the same thing.
To paraphrase Clausewitz, I would say that ‘what characterises war is one’s acceptance to receive death but also give it, without being confused with a murderer’. Who knows if, following our potential victory in this racial civil war, any and all immigrational invasions will not be rendered impossible (and even unthinkable in the eyes of those who would launch them), with de-migration a self-evident fact one shamelessly and assertively demands? For nowhere is the future written. There are many who lament, saying that ‘the damage is done, it is too late’. When one considers the horrid migrational invasion; the (mostly African) demographic explosion, which has gone hand in hand with rampant Islamisation; the emasculation of our ageing French population; the brain drain of our young people (as the ‘bac -6’ replaces the ‘bac +6’);150 and the hateful aggressiveness of millions of non-integrable and unassimilable immigrants, there is indeed a great deal for us to deal with and to make us dizzy.
Pessimists predict that we are destined to vanish off the face of history, in favour of an inferior civilisation. And it is precisely in order to prove these predictions wrong that we must enter the arena and give battle.
Conclusion:
The De-Migration of the Afterwar
As it unleashes its fury and grows, the coming racial civil war shall, through its unique violence, turn into an unprecedented collective trauma whose memory will echo across the centuries. By means of its uncontrolled and uncontrollable aspects, this wave of violence shall make possible many human reactions and solutions which, today, seem unimaginable.
Moreover, the question is not whether de-migration, i.e. the massive repatriation of African and oriental populations to their countries of origin, is possible or not. It must be made possible, and must take place and commence very soon, because it is both necessary and vital.
It is humanly, politically and historically necessary for us, the white men and women of Europe, to have these people return home. Let me state things clearly: whether willingly or by force, they shall indeed leave. This is not only my promise, but also my prognosis.
The Mental Swing of Ethnic Europeans
The French state will soon find itself overwhelmed. In case of riots comprising a large number of bloody and incendiary attacks, as well as numerous murders and racial clashes occurring everywhere, it shall be left dismayed and completely taken aback. From that point on, all solutions shall come into consideration, and an unexpected sun shall, once again, ascend and shine upon Europe.
The phenomenon is easy to understand — it was analysed by Carl Schmitt as part of his ‘emergency case’ (Ernstfall) theory. Whenever a severe crisis erupts, bringing with it a risk of death and systemic collapse (as is inevitably the case with any interethnic civil war characterised by a high level of violence), attitudes shift and opinions change completely. That is when one witnesses an astonishing metamorphosis, perhaps even an utter reversal of people’s behaviour and moral judgments, i.e. what Nietzsche once termed an Umwertung.
The French State, whose members are all collaborationists at heart, will espouse an attitude of great severity towards all of our native people who shall resist more than others; which also means that, in the event of a civil war involving major blunders, a part of the statal apparatus and its accomplices will be overcome with disgust and openly switch sides to support the Resistance, i.e. the France of genuine Frenchmen.
As Long as They Remain Here…
Just like many other opponents of the Islamic religion, Catholics were horrified by the July 2016 slaughtering of one of their priests in the name of Islam and have drawn a comparison between radical Islam and communism, both of which inhibit people’s freedom. In this regard, their comparison is misplaced. In addition to the fact that communism was an ephemeral movement, whereas Islam is an age-old religion and culture, there is yet another, more fundamental difference: the communist threat was, just like many other sources of danger, ideological in essence. What makes Islam dangerous, by contrast, is that it is based on these people’s staggeringly high demographic numbers — blind and excessively fast immigration and extremely high Afro-Maghrebian birth rates within a saturated country. The two problems are thus not of the same nature. In order to neutralise communism, it was necessary to eradicate an ideology. Nowadays, when dealing with Islam and all that accompanies it, i.e. the ethnic replacement of entire populations and the abrupt destruction of people’s way of life, what we must contend with are no longer mere ideas but, instead, the immigrational inpouring and vigorous birth rates of organised people whose numbers are constantly growing; which is much harder, of course.
Although cultural education and struggle are necessary in this respect, they remain insufficient, because they only produce long-term results, and we already have our backs to the wall and are facing an emergency. What we must do is take physically tangible measures to protect our land and sea borders through effective, assertive and, if necessary, deadly repression. Our victory in the coming civil war may well end up serving as an example, thus discouraging and drying up the immigrational inpouring151 and enabling the discontinuation of the suction pump of various aids and benefits. By putting an end to the right of soil and the countless naturalisations, it would additionally encourage the actual expulsion of illegal immigrants and all those who are denied the right of asylum, with the termination of all regularisations of illegal immigrants; the reinstatement of legal liability in cases of illegal residence and double jeopardy offences; the abolition of family reunification; and, above all, the implementation of a clear policy of de-migration, i.e. those people’s voluntary or forced departures, in parallel to a complete suspension of further arrivals. All of this as a symmetrical response to their invasive settlement colonisation. In short, no more beautiful words, ‘de-radicalisation’ (pure monkey-farting), inclusion, integration, assimilation, insertion and other ludicrously meaningless words, all of which are but pathetic attempts to ease tensions. We must block all entrances to our territories and initiate the mass departure of all these problematic populations, whose only acceptable fate lies, from our perspective, in having them cross the Mediterranean in the opposite direction from whence they originally came.
As in my previous book, which was entirely devoted to it, I have once again placed great emphasis on the role of Islam in A Racial Civil War. I would especially like to avoid giving the impression that I am somehow minimising the gravity of the excessive birth rates in black Africa, which embody a genuine danger for our future. I am simply trying to be pragmatic and focus on the greatest threat in the next ten to fifteen years, which I think will continue to be epitomised by the Islamic radicalisation, through Salafism, of millions of Maghrebians and Arabs already present on French soil.
Bernard Lugan152 has brilliantly analysed African psychology and these populations’ desire for unlimited births. If you wish to delve deeper into the subject and know what to expect, it is advised that you read a recently published book written by Jean-Claude Rolinat and entitled La bombe africaine et ses fragmentations.153 I highly recommend reading it. The insane increase in the number of people inhabiting the great continent located to the south of the civilised world shall be exponential and terrifying. According to a UN report, in 2050, Nigeria alone will have a population of approximately 400 million ‘souls’ — if one can actually call them that. There will thus be as many Nigerians as there are Americans, but they will be concentrated in a much smaller country.
I am quite unsure whether people genuinely understand the gravity of the situation. Even if the problem were only numerical, there would already be enough cause for concern. The issue, however, reaches much further than that. In a chart released in 2014, the INSEE154 states that 44% of all immigrants come from Africa (i.e. from both the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa), a figure that will only grow, since their birth rates are much higher than ours. There is an old idea that drives all those who specialise in both everything and nothing to claim that the integration of extra-Europeans has failed because our French society has mismanaged their establishment in mainland France. I would honestly love to believe this, but nothing could be further from the truth.
