Dreams of peaceful fusion and miscegenation could only subsist in the minds of utopian individuals or film fans, especially in the case of America, defined as an immense continental area where interbreeding is rarely practised and where all separations remain possible.
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.
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.
149
AN: See Michel De Jaeghere’s