In the event of insurrectional riots involving massive, bloody and arsonist attacks and followed by an outbreak of uncontrollable racial clashes, the state, mistakenly believed to be invincible, could indeed lose its footing.
The phenomenon is easy to understand and has been analysed by Carl Schmitt in his theory of the emergency case (Ernstfall), which I first mentioned above. Whenever a serious crisis erupts, bringing with it a risk of death and systemic collapse, as would inevitably be the case with an interethnic civil war entailing a high level of violence, mentalities topple and opinions undergo radical change, even within the authorities themselves. One then witnesses an astonishing metamorphosis or perhaps even a complete reversal in people’s behaviour and value judgements.
As stated previously, the government will most likely resort to terrible harshness when dealing with the natives who choose to resist; which also implies that a part of the central and local state apparatus, as well as that of its accomplices, will experience a shock and openly switch to the ‘bad’ camp, i.e. that of the Resistance. The official state will then erect an uncompromising wall around its collaboration with the invaders, especially if Macron is still in charge at the Élysée.
Insulting several democratically elected European governments in passing, whose members are against the grave migrational invasion systematically played down by our elites, the latter spoke of ‘populist leprosy’, thus stupidly contrasting one’s service to ‘the people’ with ugly and villainous ‘populism’. Who does this young president, catapulted to power through globalist support and Jewish funding, think he is?
In this regard, Ivan Rioufol writes that ‘in the eyes of the state, those who mention the threat of a civil war are lepers that remain ignorant of their own affliction’. He goes on to add: ‘No offence intended to the salesmen of this “living-together”, but the threat of a domestic war is not a figment of one’s imagination’ (Le Figaro, 29/06/2018).
Following a wave of jihadist attacks (230 fatal casualties in France from 2015 to 2016 is no small number), General Pierre de Villiers, the Chief of Staff of the French Armed Forces, declared that we had ‘entered a different age’ and that ‘peace’ was ‘no longer to be taken for granted’. In other words, what he stated was that a war is brewing on our soil, right? The very idea was considered so politically incorrect that he was humiliated and forced to resign by Emmanuel Macron’s statal apparatus, all under yet another false pretence.
The French state, furthermore, never ceases to butter up these allogeneic populations and Islam with them while persevering in its incessant repression of native Frenchmen who could attempt to resist and, through legitimate provocations, initiate a racial civil war. Here is an example of such cowardly, ridiculous and ineffective behaviour: believing themselves to be part of an S.A.S.[60] novel, our valiant and highly professional DGSI (our intelligence services and so-called internal security) arrested a group of extreme-right Pieds Nickelés[61] in October 2017, suspecting them of wanting to respond to Islamisation through violence.
Presented as terrorists, these losers wanted to spray graffiti on mosques or leave some pork in front of the entrance. Rather unintelligent symbolism, of course, yet devoid of any homicidal, criminal or heinous intention, and therefore not a source of danger in any way. Who is the enemy, then? To the authorities, the answer is the Islamophobic far-Right, whose adherents are in a minority, and not the terrorists and plethoric invaders who share the same ethnic origin and are, more often than not, co-religionists.
In the eyes of the state and the prevailing ideology, which are one and the same, Islam is sacred and Islamophobia represents the supreme moral crime (on an equal footing with racism), despite the fact that most acts of violence are perpetrated in the name of this demonic religion. What we are faced with here is an inversion of reality. In the name of anti-racism, Islam is thus absolved of all wrongdoings and ends up being literally sanctified. Weary and pitiful, the French state believes that the fight against the aggressors present on its soil is an impossible — and unimaginable — task. Instead, it chooses to surrender or attack perfectly harmless resisters, all of whom are demonised under the ubiquitous term ‘ultra-right’. I therefore ask you: were those who perpetrated the Bataclan slaughter ultra-Muslim?
Ethnic partition, i.e. a clear and geographical divide separating two populations that are culturally, racially and biologically different (with the last two adverbs considered horrendous by the dominant ideology, which denies the reality that everyone observes and experiences), is the main scourge gnawing away at our society. Never before has such a situation afflicted France.
In his deep-rooted imbecility, his diseased cynicism and his paradoxical lucidity, our irresponsible former president François Hollande has denied his own ideology and his entire socialist policy in a wordy book discussion with two journalists, stating that France faced a serious ethnic divide between two heterogeneous populations: ‘How can one avoid partition? For that is precisely what we are witnessing — a partition’. In other words, the man who has greatly contributed to aggravating the disease is now cynically establishing the diagnosis, without offering any solutions to remedy the situation.
From the weak Right — including the worthless and Islamophilic Jacques Toubon, the famous anti-racist and ‘defender of human rights’ (and we all know whose rights those are) — to the insane and pro-immigration Left of scoundrels such as Mélenchon, the official discourse claims that illegal arrivals are not an issue at all and that populists are fostering ‘unfounded fears’. This denial of reality in the face of all the evidence that points to a migrational invasion and growing Islamisation obviously coincides with complicity and collaboration at the highest levels of power. Our leaders are thus both preparing and enabling the birth of a future Muslim France.
With regard to invasion and Islamisation, the state, led by Emmanuel Macron (alongside the indefatigable Angela Merkel in Germany), acts as its creator, accomplice and collaborator and has thus become the primary enemy of the peoples of Western Europe. Its implicit — and often even explicit — discourse asserts that any resistance to invasion resembles the xenophobic populism inherited from Nazism, when, in actual fact, it is the state itself which, similarly to the Vichy regime, collaborates with the invaders (under the banner of Nazism back then, and under the Islamic one today).
Sanctioned by the state apparatus and the government, the official ideology reiterates that the migrational invasion and cultural Arabisation of our country are but fantasies. What is right before your eyes does not exist; it is all an illusion. Among our elites, including the media, this deceitful speech of total submission is passed on like a letter to the post office and is thus widely relayed in order to lay blame upon, neutralise and then punish any popular reaction whatsoever, any resistance to the deadly threat.
60
TN: S.A.S., i.e.
61
TN: