Just like a baby viper that breaks its egg shell, the coming racial civil war is only in its humble beginnings. ‘We are at war’, some politicians and journalists keep telling us. What they mean by that, especially after the January and November 2015 attacks, which truly left their mark upon people’s minds, is that we are at war against Daesh and a handful of Islamist fanatics (who have nothing to do with Islam, so no amalgamation please!).
No, our situation is much more serious than that. For what is happening on our French territory — and will soon impact the European and American territories as well — is a commencing ethnic clash between extra-European populations marching under the banner of Islam and the French Nation and its people.[144] The successful and foiled terrorist attacks are but the tip of the iceberg.
The responsibility for this ethno-racial civil war, which has already been kindled, will be borne by our political, intellectual and mediatic elites and a statal apparatus that have conjointly been tolerating and enabling this colonising immigrational flooding for a period of forty years. But remember — he who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
A very symbolic event and provocative challenge: a few days after the victory of the local pro-independence nationalists in the regional elections of Corsica, a group of young Maghrebians chose to commit, for the very first time, a violent act on the island. They started several fires in a housing estate located at the gates of Ajaccio and ambushed the intervening firefighters, assaulting them and leaving a few of them severely wounded. Hurling insults at them, they called them ‘dirty Corsicans’ (a fact that was, of course, censored by our national media)! The very next day, hundreds of Corsican protesters flooded the housing estate, chanting jubilantly racist slogans such as ‘Arabi, fora!’ (Arabs, get out!). They then proceeded to devastate a hallal restaurant and began ransacking a Muslim prayer room, where they burnt many Qur’ans in retaliation.
Up until then, the native populations of Europe had laid low in the face of these Islamic bandits, shutting themselves away in their homes or quietly moving out. Such an action-reaction scenario or aggression-retaliation situation embodies one of the main sociological criteria for triggering civil wars, and was the very first of its kind in France. The event shall undoubtedly be a historical milestone.
To begin with, never before had the ‘young people’ inhabiting the housing estates of Corsica ambushed a fire brigade, whose members are, just like police officers, symbols of the hated French authorities (even though this practice is quite usual on the European continent, where 1,600 firemen were assaulted during that same year). It was also the first time in France that we had ever witnessed an act of retaliation on the part of ethnic populations that were not only fed up with the behaviour of young Muslims, but also sick and tired of the laxity of a state that no longer offers them sufficient protection. The Corsicans seem more hot-tempered and responsive than the ‘continent’s’ zombies, as they themselves say. And I, for one, can only rejoice at this.
The fact remains that what we have before us is an indicator of civil war: when a part of the population feels abandoned by the state and proceeds to take on the latter’s role, rejecting its law enforcement monopoly, taking justice into its own hands and ensuring its own defence, the disorder of the civile bellum has been unleashed. In political sociology, the very specific signal pointing to a transition from typical rioting to civil war is the fact that the confrontation no longer involves clashes between rioting population A and the police, but a conflict between population A and population B, ‘over the police’s head’. The state thus finds itself deprived of its peace-making role.
During a boring C dans l’air[145] show (France 5), one of the invited intellectuals gullibly declared himself pleased with ‘the absence of reprisals and ratonnades’[146] after ‘all that had happened’ — a state of affairs which he ascribed to the sublime restraint and high moral standing of our native French population. Well, the situation has just changed and may yet trigger a ripple effect.
The presidency of the mulatto Barack Obama was a complete catastrophe. Obama did everything he could to further divide the GOP (‘Great Old Party’), whose members were already split on the issue of immigration, between those strongly opposed to it and those looking for a conservative Latino electorate that had also been destabilised by the Tea Party[147] movement. This fact turned out to have an unexpectedly positive effect, since it allowed Donald Trump, hitherto a stranger to the political world, to play his cards right and claim victory.
Whether at the time when he was still in office or today, the West’s very first black president has never attempted to conceal his sympathy for a model that would no longer be that of a white America but, instead, that of a completely multiracial and multicultural country. Historically speaking, at no point has the American melting pot been synonymous with intercontinental multi-raciality, but has remained a precise synthesis of immigrants of different European descent within a single ‘nation’. The United States perceives itself as a new Europe, i.e. as a country that is still generally homogeneous from an ethnocultural point of view.[148]
We are witnessing, however, a major changeover: for demographic and immigrational reasons, the United States has seen its Whites (a legal term on the other side of the Atlantic) drop below the 50% mark during the early twenty-first century. Obama himself sought to accelerate the movement leading America’s WASP population towards a minority status, on the very soil that it has conquered at great cost. In so doing, he followed his own essential aim — that of de-Europeanising America. Being of dual (Kenyan and Anglo-Saxon) descent himself, he chose to project his personal situation and psychology onto his political conceptions. A predominantly white America, one of European ethnic origin, does not seem acceptable to him. In this regard, his views coincide perfectly with those of the dominant ideology across the entire West, from Saint-Germain-des-Prés to Yale. America’s low middle class, i.e. the one which, in a desire to save its own skin, voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 elections, does not share this perspective.
Since identical causes produce identical effects all over the world, and multiracial and multicultural countries tend to plummet into instability, division and, ultimately, endemic conflict (as already remarked by Aristotle), there is a risk that the United States will experience severe turmoil, perhaps even partitions, in the course of the current century.
144
AN: With the aggressors once again claiming to be victimised and aggressed, of course, as part of their usual heart-rending performance.
147
TN: The Tea Party movement is a fiscally conservative political movement within the Republican Party whose members advocate reduced taxes and a lower national debt and federal budget deficit through cutbacks in governmental expenditure. The movement has been described as a popular constitutional movement comprising a mixture of libertarian, right-wing populist and conservative activism.
148
AN: The advocation of America’s European identity, which is said to be consubstantial with its nature, is espoused by the American Renaissance think tank, presided over by Jared Taylor.