In France, The Crown Lies In The Gutter

Is it safe to say that the proverbial ball is now in the military’s court?

French troops patrol the area around the Eiffel Tower under Opération Sentinelle. Source

Stunning poll results out of France:

Due to France’s drug trafficking crisis, a large majority of French are in favor of the army being deployed into disadvantaged neighborhoods in problematic neighborhoods in France, including 80 percent of women.

According to a CSA poll conducted for CNews, Europe 1 and JDD, 76 percent of French people overall want the army called in to battle drug trafficking in “disadvantaged neighborhoods.”

76 percent. That’s a landslide. That’s a political mandate. Will French leadership fulfill that mandate? Probably not. In Western liberal managed democracy, there’s no such thing. Elite preferences are what are supposed to prevail; voting is merely a way to placate the populace. So long as liberal technocrat Emmanuel Macron remains in charge, there’s next to no chance the French state will satisfy the will of the people.

What makes this an even bigger story is the fact that French women are most in favor of taking military action to deal with the threat posed by crime and the foreign-origin population:

In fact, women are more supportive of troops being deployed than men, with 80 percent of women saying yes to the question: “Should the army be called in to combat drug trafficking in troubled neighborhoods?” In turn, only 72 percent of men supported such an action.

This may have to do with the fact that French women feel increasingly unsafe in their own country. As Remix News has reported, France has seen an incredible 86 percent increase in sexual violence in the last 10 years, with mass immigration fueling this trend.

The article notes that this sentiment goes against the overall trend in the West, which sees women are more supportive of immigration, along with harboring more liberal attitudes towards crime and greater sympathy for racial minorities:

French women have shown themselves to be more restrictive of immigration in past surveys as well, which also runs counter to polling in most other Western European countries. The polling shows 64 percent of French want more restrictions on non-EU immigration, with more women favoring restriction than men.

What’s going on here? Why are French women so overwhelmingly in favor of greater limits on immigration, as well as taking the fight to criminals and the foreign population within its borders? It’s also worth noting that France doesn’t have a gender-driven political divide (i.e., men more right-wing, women more left-wing). At least, according to last year’s election results, men and women voted for each part in equal proportions. That must be nice to have.

I’m open to any explanation (except for “racism,” maybe) for why French women are so different from other Western women. But the simplest one is that the French have been forced to live under an increasingly anarchic, chaotic, and disorderly existence for so long, there’s just no escaping it now. Women are disproportionately the beneficiaries of civilization, but civilization, which is supposed to provide a safe, predictable existence, is breaking down in France. It was inevitable that women would eventually demand redress, by any means necessary, since they’re uniquely vulnerable to the predatory nature of violent, savage, uncivilized men of foreign origin.

Simply put, France is on the brink. It’s just a question of what’s going to push it over the edge. There’s just no other explanation for why so many French and almost all their women want a military solution to a domestic problem, no other explanation why the sentiment has only grown over the last several years.

Just as French women are outliers in overall trends throughout the West, so are young French adults:

In this latest CSA poll, opinions on the issue of sending in troops did not differ much by age either. For example, 70 percent of French people under 35 want the army to be sent in, which includes 73 percent of those aged 18 to 24 and 68 percent of those 25 to 34.

In this regard, the French youth also buck the trends seen in other Western European countries, with a desire for law and order, even if it is through military force. The youth, in turn, voted for Marine Le Pen in higher numbers than older voters (65+) during the last election national election.

Is there something different about the French that’s driving these sentiments? Or is the situation just really that bad? Again, I think the simplest explanation is the answer, but it could be any number of factors also. I do think that in other Western countries, including the United States, crime and problems caused by immigrants or racial minorities is still something which is containable, and there are ways to escape the increasing civilizational breakdown. The problem is that you can’t run forever and the number of safe havens will eventually dwindle to the point there’s nowhere left to run to. I feel as though that’s where France is today: there’s just no escaping it. Once all escape routes have been cut off, the only alternatives are surrender or war.

Even more astounding is that the partisan split, while it exists, isn’t as pronounced as one would imagine, again suggesting a level of political consensus amounting to a mandate:

National Rally voters are the most supportive, with 90 percent in favor, however, even supporters of Macron’s party, Renaissance, want the military deployed at 81 percent. For left-wing voters, a majority still supports such a move, at 54 percent. The poll finds that 67 percent of Socialist voters want the army deployed, however, the real shocker is that 52 percent of the far-left La France Insoumise (LFI) also want the army deployed to these neighborhoods.

There’s a tragic irony here: France is now at a point where the state taking such drastic measures is politically viable, but not only is it disinclined to do so because of the nature of liberal managed democracy, the fact that conditions have deteriorated to the point the citizenry is demanding military intervention suggests it really might be too late.

None of this happened overnight. Despite proclamations from many that a backlash was coming “any day now,” it really did take a long time to get here. Consider this comprehensive thread about the situation in Europe from back in February. On France, it said:

2) France has it the worst when it comes to Islamist colonization and jihadism.

“Within the European Union, France was the country most affected by Islamist terrorism, with 85 attacks committed on its soil between 1979 and April 2024. At least 334 people were killed in these attacks.”

334 dead over a 45-year period doesn’t seem like much, paling in comparison to the almost 2,000 killed on 9/11. However, many of these deaths occurred during the last 10 years. More significantly, it doesn’t include the lives lost to crime during the same time-frame, a death toll which will likely never be known.

Several essays ago, I cited an article from 2002 discussing the situation in France. Read these three paragraphs from it:

A kind of anti-society has grown up in them—a population that derives the meaning of its life from the hatred it bears for the other, “official,” society in France. This alienation, this gulf of mistrust—greater than any I have encountered anywhere else in the world, including in the black townships of South Africa during the apartheid years—is written on the faces of the young men, most of them permanently unemployed, who hang out in the pocked and potholed open spaces between their logements. When you approach to speak to them, their immobile faces betray not a flicker of recognition of your shared humanity; they make no gesture to smooth social intercourse. If you are not one of them, you are against them.

Their hatred of official France manifests itself in many ways that scar everything around them. Young men risk life and limb to adorn the most inaccessible surfaces of concrete with graffiti—BAISE LA POLICE, fuck the police, being the favorite theme. The iconography of the cités is that of uncompromising hatred and aggression: a burned-out and destroyed community-meeting place in the Les Tarterets project, for example, has a picture of a science-fiction humanoid, his fist clenched as if to spring at the person who looks at him, while to his right is an admiring portrait of a huge slavering pit bull, a dog by temperament and training capable of tearing out a man’s throat—the only breed of dog I saw in the cités, paraded with menacing swagger by their owners.

There are burned-out and eviscerated carcasses of cars everywhere. Fire is now fashionable in the cités: in Les Tarterets, residents had torched and looted every store—with the exceptions of one government-subsidized supermarket and a pharmacy. The underground parking lot, charred and blackened by smoke like a vault in an urban hell, is permanently closed.

Again, that was 22 years ago. If that’s how bad things were then, how bad must they be today, for the French to be calling on the military to save them? The further implication is that there are at least one to two generations of Frenchmen and women who’ve never known a time when their land was a peaceful place to live.

We can’t talk about any of this without mentioning the infamous letter written by retired French military officers back in 2021 warning of civil war. It caused great controversy in France at the time, with critics saying it wasn’t the place of retired officers to opine on the precarious state of the country (though I’m certain they would’ve welcomed any remarks on the sanctity of democracy, LGBTQ+ rights, and the need for more immigration).

Here are two paragraphs from that letter, translated directly into English:

“Delightly, which, through a certain anti-racism, is displayed for a single purpose: to create on our soil a malaise, even a hatred between communities. Today, some people talk about racialism, indigenism, and decolonial theories, but in these words it is the racial war that these hateful and fanatical supporters want. They despise our country, its traditions, its culture, and want it to dissolve by tearing away its past and history. Thus, by means of statues, they attack old military and civil glories by analyzing centuries-old words.

“Delightly which, with Islamism and the suburban hordes, leads to the detachment of multiple plots of the nation from a transformation into territories subject to dogmas contrary to our constitution. Now, every Frenchman, whatever his belief or his disbelief, is everywhere in his home in the Hexagon; there can and must not exist any city, no neighborhood where the laws of the Republic do not apply.

It’s those neighborhoods which are nexuses of France’s destabilization. It’s those neighborhoods and their “suburban hordes” which the French are demanding the military bring to heel.

Days after the letter was published, along came another one, this time signed by thousands of active-duty members of the military. Among many things, it said:

It may not be for the military to say that, you will argue. Quite the contrary: because we are apolitical in our situational assessments, it is a professional observation that we are delivering. For this decay, we have seen in many countries in crisis. It precedes the collapse. It heralds chaos and violence, and contrary to what you say here where this chaos and violence will not come from a “military pronunciamento” but from a civil insurgency.

And [bold mine]:

Yes, if a civil war breaks out, the army will maintain order on its own soil, because it will be asked. It is even the definition of civil war. No one can want such a terrible situation, our elders no more than us, but yes, again, the civil war is simmering in France and you know it perfectly well.

Well, the army is now being asked. Will it respond? Only time will tell. The modern world operates off election cycles and the next French presidential election is in 2027. Macron won’t be running due to term limits. This means the proverbial crown will be lying in the gutter by then. Will the French people opt, once again, for normalcy? Or will their votes finally reflect their stated concerns?

There’s also no way to talk about any of this without bringing into the conversation the active-duty French Army officer who was interviewed anonymously in 2021 shortly after both letters were released. The entire interview is a must-read, but these passages are the ones which came foremost to mind in light of the latest poll results.

The officer said:

It is very likely that one day, for one reason or another, the French population will start moving on more or less clear grounds. And it is very likely that at that moment, once the window of opportunity is open, the army will take advantage of it and put all its weight on one side or the other.

And:

I know it's hard to wait, we would like to think that somewhere wise and fatherly old men would watch over us. But for the moment, these soldiers who signed the letter have played their role: they have spoken in the name of the active soldiers, they have alerted the French. Their role ends there. Now the ball is in the court of the French. The main actor of the next act will not be the army, it will be the French people. It will be you. The most powerful army in France is you, a coalition of 67 million civilians.

The soldier is making the point that whatever happens, the military will follow the French people, not the other way around. Talk of overthrowing the government is unfounded. Again, the problem is that now over three-quarters of the French people are demanding military intervention. They may not expect the armed forces to step in unilaterally, but they clearly see a major role for troops to play. Is it safe to say that the proverbial ball is now in the military’s court?

There was also this revelation by the soldier:

It exists. That is a certainty. I am not saying that the CEMA (General Staff) has a box with a detailed "Operation Ronces" [Ronces means brambles] file in it. But it is obvious that the General Staff has thought about these questions, that the Elysée [Presidential Office] has thought about these questions. Our leaders may be hypocrites but they are not ignorant. The French intelligence network is very efficient. The Prefets [Governors], successive ministers and presidents are aware of absolutely everything that is going on. They know very well that the war situation we are talking about is realistic. And they have necessarily prepared it, no matter what the name of this plan is or what form it will take.

Remember: French troops have already been patrolling the streets of their country under Opération Sentinelle for a decade now. It would come as a great surprise if the French military also didn’t have a plan for actually going into problem areas and establishing order. France doesn’t have a big taboo against using the military on domestic soil like the U.S. does, so it wouldn’t be some violation of precious “norms.” Even if it were, the idea that the military should just stand by as idle observers as the nation they’ve sworn to protect disintegrates is ludicrous. Their duty to be obedient to civilian authorities doesn’t suggest passivity.

I recently began reading the book The French Intifada: The Long War Between France and It’s Arabs, authored by Andrew Hussey and published in 2014. The term “intifada” is Arabic, referring to resistance. It’s most prominently used to describe the fight the Palestinians are waging against the Israelis. Apparently, Arabs in France see themselves as waging intifada against their French oppressor, even decades after the collapse of the colonial empire.

I’m still getting through the early pages of the book, but what I’ve read so far is compelling. Against the backdrop of a major riot which occurred in the heart of Paris in March 2007, Hussey explained the extent to which France’s foreign policy was at odds with the country:

But the problem was that none of these accounts was true. The kids I saw didn’t give a fuck about the state or the ‘bosses’. Most of them didn’t have jobs anyway. And although they did hate the police, they would never have used an old-fashioned slang word like flics, which belongs to the Parisian equivalent of the Krays’ generation. For the rioters, the police were either keufs or schmitts. The chanting I heard was mostly in French: ‘Nik les schmitts' (‘Fuck the cops’), and sometimes in English: ‘Fuck the police!’ But there was another slogan, chanted in colloquial Arabic, which seemed to hit hardest of all: Na’al abouk la France!’ (‘Fuck France!’). This slogan - it is in fact more of a curse - has nothing to do with any French tradition of revolt.

And:

The rioters at the Gare du Nord or in the banlieues also often describe themselves as soldiers in a ‘long war’ against France and Europe. To this extent, they are fighting against the very concept of ‘civilization’, which they see as a European invention. The so-called ‘French intifada’, the guerrilla war with police at the edges and in the heart of French cities, is only the latest and most dramatic form of engagement with the enemy.

If the French civil war still has yet to kick off, there’s no mistake that the Africans, Arabs, and Muslims of France believe themselves to have been waging an undeclared war against the country for years. It appears now the French are beginning to wake up to the reality their enemies within have been living with their entire lives.

We’ll close on this story sent to me by a close relation. I’m not sure where they got it from, but it describes day-to-day life in Paris today:

Decathlon, a sports goods shop with affordable prices, has restricted access except for the checkout area where there are several guards due to the long panel walls. At the entrance of the luxury shop, there is a sign stating that only a maximum of 2 teams can shop at a time, so please wait outside. On holidays, the shops all have their display windows closed with iron doors, making it impossible to even look at the goods, giving a feeling of passing On holidays, the shops have all their windows closed with iron shutters, making it impossible to even glance at the items, giving off a feeling as if one is passing through a dangerous area.

Indeed, there was an attempt to kidnap a family that made money with coins in Paris a few days ago, and my in-laws who live there are also uncomfortable as pickpocketing and theft are serious problems. Honestly, as I walk the streets, I can distinctly see the gap between the rich and the poor in people's appearances, and I feel a heightened sense of tension in their facial expressions compared to before. In Australia, even if you don't know someone, it's common to smile, greet, and start a conversation in the streets, but here, such interactions are completely absent, and I can see people being wary of those approaching. When you go to buy something, you can feel the watchful eyes following you, and if you try on clothes, it doesn't seem like the staff waiting outside is simply acting out of kindness. through a dangerous area (?)

This is France’s reality. Unpleasant as it may be, it’s at least a rational response to an increasingly chaotic and disorderly social order. I’d argue that America, though not quite where France is today, has increasingly been going down the same path. You see it in the way consumer goods are locked up in stores due to mass theft. Little by little, Americans are waking up to reality. Meanwhile, most other Western countries are in complete denial about the danger they’re in, having totally bought into the idea that they’re multicultural paradises hindered only by racism.

What’s It Say About Us?

France is, without a doubt, the canary in the coal mine. Dr. David Betz has been sounding the alarm about how Britain is at greatest risk of civil war today, but France has always been on the bleeding edge.

Something I’ve never stopped believing once I started to has been that things don’t really pop off until a critical mass of a given population recognizes the fact they’re in trouble. Most people in the West would probably scoff at the notion of civil war coming to their lands, and an equal number would probably think multiculturalism works because nothing bad has happened. The reality is, bad things are happening, but they’ve become so normalized as to become part of the landscape. We’ve also been indoctrinated into thinking multiculturalism can only ever be good, so whatever bad comes from it is simply a price worth paying, or it has nothing to do with multiculturalism at all.

What I’m getting to is this: imagine if a similar poll was conducted in the U.S. or any other Western country. What do you think the responses would be? I’m hoping readers will share any such polls they’re aware of, but I think they’d be more favorable towards immigration and multiculturalism, even if the results are skewed towards those with a more skeptical attitude. I’d also expect to see significant, if not vast, demographic gaps - Whites and males will be more against, non-Whites and women more in favor. At the very least, we wouldn’t see 80 percent of American women, to say nothing of British, German, or Swedish women, calling for the military to be deployed to suppress crime and bring order to immigrant communities.

In fact, at least one poll bears my assumptions out. In a joint The Economist/YouGov poll conducted from May 16 to 19, Americans were surveyed on a range of current events, including immigration. For immigration restrictionists, the results were sure to be disappointing.

On their approval of the Trump administration’s handling of immigration:

Source

The partisan split makes it tough to take the results too seriously, but that only underscores the extent to which there exists no consensus on immigration in America.

Worse, Americans polled are roughly split in resolving the immigration issue by simply legalizing all illegals or forcing them to leave:

Source

Though forcing them to leave holds a slim majority, it’s not an actionable majority. You can also see disparities in gender and race, once again.

Polling never, ever, tells the whole story. However, they do provide a useful summary of how the public generally feels about an issue at a given point in time, so they cannot be dismissed as “fake.” The fact is, Americans are living in two different worlds when it comes to immigration. Around half the country simply doesn’t share the view of restrictionists that immigration is having a deleterious impact on their communities or the country as a whole.

There’s good reason for this: the immigration problem in America simply isn’t anywhere near as bad as the situation in Europe. Here on our side of the Atlantic, immigration is primarily a matter of how much anarchy and disorder we should tolerate as a country, a question whose answer is ideologically determined, along with questions about culture and quality of life. Perhaps Americans aren’t being fully honest in their responses, but we can’t draw conclusions based off unknowns.

Across the Atlantic, you have cultural clashes turning violent, a collision between civilizations, and much less to go around, whether it be government benefits, jobs, land, or prosperity. America really is the land of plenty; nothing papers over cracks and fissures in the social fabric better than having lots of everything. As long as America remains the land of plenty, as long as there’s places to escape to from where immigrants and racial minorities can be admired from a position of safety as though they were zoo animals, and as long as immigrants aren’t disproportionately the source of crime as they are throughout Europe, there just won’t be the same kind of backlash in America. For the talk of it, a backlash is far from occurring, we’re just seeing a more vocal reaction than we’ve been accustomed to in the past.

The fact that France is literally alone in its sentiment proves just how bad things need to get and for how long before public sentiment reflects reality. I will say, though, that when it does finally shift, it’ll shift quite dramatically, though partisanship will still reign supreme.

The U.S. is also a big country. In some ways, it needs to be viewed as a country of countries - we are a union, after all. How Americans feel across the board doesn’t really tell us what we need to know, because the way immigration affects us differs on an area-by-area basis. Consider this poll conducted by Emerson College in New Jersey:

Source

I inspected the raw data - though a partisan split exists, there’s also less of a racial divergence, though the gender split remains. American women simply don’t see or refuse to see the downsides of illegal immigration, suggesting they either feel as though they benefit from it, see no harm from it, are easily blackmailed emotionally, or, at worst, find illegal immigration useful as a weapon against Americans they harbor ill will towards.

The only conclusion we can draw from the data is that we’ve still got a ways to go before we’re at the brink. Liberal attitudes still prevail in America, even as an increasingly assertive countervailing force exists. Perhaps it’s a good thing that we’re not close to the edge, which begs the question: how much worse do things need to get before it’s American women calling for troops in our streets?

The British Surrender Monkeys

While French women are calling for the military to save the country, British women are calling for knives to be made “safer” by “blunting” them. Yes, really.

From Sky News:

Ms [Leanne] Lucas says “since the attack in the summer,” she has never “cooked with a pointed kitchen knife again” and that using a blunt-tipped knife makes her feel “safer”.

“Obviously, people can hurt people in many ways,” she says. “It’s about reducing that opportunity to cause life-damaging, life-threatening injuries that can take people’s lives.”

To understand what’s being proposed, here’s is what a “blunted” knife looks like:

Source

Sure, it’s a little less intimidating, but it’s still a knife: it’s blade can be used to slash and slice, which is just as frightening as a pointy end being thrust into you. Don’t underestimate that blunt end, either: there’s a reason why the term “blunt-force trauma” exists. It’s not the working end of a baseball bat, no, but that’s just it - if knives won’t suffice, other items will do the job. Screwdrivers are a common substitute for knives, and screwdrivers are useless as tools when blunted.

It’s probably not fair of me to use this story to generalize on attitudes held by British women. However, I do know that Britain is a super-liberal, dare I say far-left, society, and progressive views prevail on almost all issues to where it puts America to shame. Britons have long outsourced personal safety to the state, so the idea of being able to defend oneself from attack rarely enters the discussion of how to make a society safer. It’s devotion to anti-racism, diversity, and multiculturalism means that you don’t go after the problem, which is people. You instead go after “socioeconomic factors” or the tools with which violence is carried out, since a tool can’t fight back. The only time you go after people is when they’re White and that say or think the wrong things.

More from the story:

The attacker used a kitchen knife with a 20cm blade, purchased via the online retailer, Amazon.

“I don’t want this pain and this trauma that any of us have felt, I don’t want that to happen to another family,” Ms Lucas says.

Her new campaign, launched today, is called Let’s Be Blunt and aims to “raise social awareness” of safer-tipped knives.

“A safer option is to go for curved or blunt-tip knives... that reduces that risk of the kitchen knife being used ever as a weapon,” she says.

It’s an issue about which Ms Lucas feels “passionate”.

“[I] will not let evil win. I need to know that I’m doing this for the girls, for myself and for future generations,” she says.

What’s absolutely fair of me to say is that the woman featured in the story, Leanne Lucas, is either suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or she really believes the nonsense she’s spewing. Either way, she’s channeling her emotions in the worst way imaginable. French women wanting troops to deal with bad neighborhoods is at least a tacit admission that the people committing crime are the problem. There’s no such recognition in the story that Lucas harbors any such concerns about the people who carry out attacks like the one she survived last year.

By the way, look at what the savage who tried to kill her has been up to lately:

A probe is now underway into how Axel Rudakubana got hold of boiling water to hurl over a prison officer.

The 18-year-old triple murderer launched a horrific pre-planned attack on a landing.

He is on the same unit as terrorist Hashem Abedi, who stabbed and burned guards last month.

Rudakubana, serving 52 years for murdering three young girls, poured scalding water over a guard at HMP Belmarsh in South East London on Thursday.

Does Ms. Lucas believed someone like Axel Rudakubana would be deterred just because kitchen knives lack pointy ends? Violent people will pull out their own hair and try strangling their victims with it, because their entire existence comes down to causing death and pain to others.

More wisdom from Ms. Lucas:

“We don’t need to wait for government or the police to tell us what to do,” Ms Lucas adds, as she calls on the public to “do an inventory” of their kitchen knives.

Since the attack, Ms Lucas says she feels “like I’ve just had my eyes opened” to how “domestic tools can be weaponised”.

“I personally feel that knife crime has got out of control,” she adds.

“Knife crime” is to Britain what “gun crime” is to the U.S. In both countries, a tremendous amount of focus is paid to the means of violence, rather than those who commit the violence. The thinking is that people are motivated to violence entirely by the weapons available to them, or that the level of violence is commensurate with the means of violence being employed. Sure, a bomb kills more people than a wrench would, but nobody disputes that. We’re talking about the belief that taking away the weapons eliminates violence or makes it more tolerable.

This line of argumentation can be dispelled by bringing up the fact that Britons, for years, claimed they lived in a safer society than the U.S. due to the lack of private gun ownership. Meanwhile, the U.S. is a killing field because of the Second Amendment. Yet here we are - “knife crime has got out of control” in Britain. Time to disarm the public even more! You keep following this kind of thinking to its logical conclusion, and someone might start arguing for people to have their hands cut off, since almost all violence involves the usage of hands.

I often mention that it’s not up to me to be outraged on behalf of others. Most of the time, I also manage to laugh off the sort of stupidity displayed in comments from people like Leanne Lucas. But I have to confess, what she said and what she’s doing boils my blood. In our victim-worshiping Western society, she has an opportunity to share her experience and leverage it towards some much-needed course corrections in British society. The fact that even far-left Prime Minister Keir Starmer appears to be alert to the danger immigration poses to Britain tells me the country has an opportunity right now like no other to change the national narrative, to shift the Overton window.

Instead, this is what she does. It makes me wonder how Britain could be on the precipice of civil war, as Dr. David Betz claims, when you have a population this delusional and demoralized. Again, I don’t want to generalize, but the way Leanne Lucas thinks is consistent with attitudes I’ve seen expressed by Britons in the past. The French seem awake (as opposed to “woke”) and motivated to save their country, which ironically makes civil war more likely to occur.

Without ruling out the prospect of war, I personally find it more likely total surrender will occur in Britain, instead. We’re talking about a country which jails mothers for 31 months over social media posts, and the public doesn’t come to her defense. This isn’t a society capable of putting up any meaningful resistance.

So much for their longtime mantra of “No Surrender!”.

Germany, Built On Lies

In Germany, the attempt to ban the Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) Party appears to not only have stalled, but to be in danger of falling apart:

In recent months, a ban of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) appeared to be inching closer and closer, but now a key voice has clearly spoken out against such a move.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz has now said that voting on an AfD ban in the Bundestag is not the right path, saying it “smacks too much of the elimination of political rivals.” He said he does not believe the current evidence is sufficient.

He has even gone a step farther, stating that former Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, an SPD politician with far-left sympathies who wrote for Antifa Magazine, was wrong to classify the AfD as “confirmed” right-wing extremist in the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) report. Critics indicate that she rushed the report out at the last minute of her tenure, despite the BfV having no president and despite a lack of any expert review, which she had previously promised would happen.

It’s a reminder that the bad guys might be evil, but they’re not stupid. It’d be quite a move on their part to ban AfD while not being cognizant of the hypocrisy in doing so while worshiping at the altar of democracy. Also, as the article notes, the attempt at banning the party was not only driven by partisanship, there isn’t any evidence the AfD is guilty of anything it’s being accused of.

This is good news, because AfD is the only party even remotely interested in immigration, which becomes a hotter topic by the day in Germany. Like in Britain, “knife crime” has reached epidemic levels. Like I said before, this fixation on the weapon is stupid, but if knife or gun crime is high, you can rest assured that violence in all its forms is highly prevalent as well.

From Remix News [bold mine]:

Another wave of knife attacks has hit Germany, showing that not much has changed despite the many lost lives and Germans maimed in knife attacks. In fact, the statistics show that these crimes are even getting worse, with 79 knife attacks per day now recorded. A German criminal lawyer warns that Germany has “imported knife violence,” in response to growing blade crimes.

In the last few days, headlines include Kosovar man arrested after knife attack in Germany injures three, including 12-year-old girl” “Man stabbed half to death on basketball court,” “Manhunt continues after Syrian asylum seeker stabs 5 outside student bar in Bielefeld,” and “Rioter injures police officer with knife.”

However, thousands of such headlines have run in the German press in recent years, with Remix News reporting on many of them. The overwhelming number of perpetrators are foreigners or those with a foreign background, yet despite promises to crack down and enact deportations of migrant criminals, the bloodshed not only continues but appears to be getting worse.

“We have imported knife violence. In other cultures, the knife is a kind of status symbol. This is changing the social climate here in the country,” stated criminal attorney Udo Vetter. He further notes that “knives have become an everyday companion for many people. And the barrier to using them is low.”

Notably, he warns that due to the rise of knives and knife crimes, it is creating a problem that is expected to only grow exponentially, with more and more people arming themselves with knives out of fear.

This is what happens when the social contract breaks down. Western governments have long operated under the assumption that no matter what happens, the domestic native population will remain pliant like sheep. But even sheep eventually realize when they’re being led to slaughter.

One of the reasons why disarming the population doesn’t work is because people will always default to available weaponry, of which there are many, and many of these supposedly less lethal weapons actually make violence even more likely to occur:

The head of the German Police Union, Rainer Wendt, also spoke out about the knife crime problem, saying: “The threshold for violence is getting lower and lower. And the fuse is getting shorter. Knives are being drawn even for trivial reasons and seemingly harmless disputes.”

Imagine if the only means of violence legally available to us were our own hands and feet. Do you think people, violent people especially, would be any less motivated to hurt other people? On the other hand, if otherwise well-meaning people felt empowered because the risk of getting shot or stabbed in response was lower, why wouldn’t they be more willing to kick and punch people, especially if they also believe the risk of killing or being killed was lower?

Re-focusing on Germany, the extent of the problem is difficult to understate:

As Remix News previously reported, violent crime reached a record high in Germany last year, with foreigners responsible for nearly half of crimes. There were 29,014 cases in total involving a crime where a knife was used, of which, 15,741 were knife attacks. Serious and dangerous bodily harm with a knife increased by 10.8 percent in 2024 compared to 2023.

Children are unfortunately victims of this wave of violence, too. Germans are in no position to talk to Americans about the prevalence of school shootings in our country when they have this to deal with:

In Berlin’s multicultural Spandau neighborhood, a 13-year-old Arab student stabbed his German classmate yesterday and remains on the run.

Identified as Alan-Said Ibrahim, the youth stabbed his victim with a kitchen knife multiple times at around 11;30 a.m. at the Weinmeisterhorn elementary school, after they became engaged in an argument in the school’s locker room, according to Berlin Kurier.

As if that wasn’t enough:

That was not the only school stabbing attack in Germany yesterday. In downtown Remscheid, an 11-year-old Iraqi child stabbed a 13-year-old German boy with a kitchen knife after they argued in school.

The two had earlier argued and arranged a fight after school. The migrant, however, did not use fists, After the 13-year-old punched him, the Iraqi pulled out a kitchen knife. He stabbed his opponent twice in the leg with full force and then fled the scene.

We can lie to ourselves all we want: this goes well beyond youthful immaturity. Liberal Westerners can tell themselves there’s nothing unique about this crisis, or find a way to blame it on Western culture itself. But until we quit lying to ourselves as a civilization, Westerners will go as far as to sacrifice their own children at the altar of diversity and multicultural democracy

Germany is a relative newcomer to a crisis which has long afflicted its next-door neighbor France. The Germans are also a different kind of people - nobody does what they’re told better than the Germans do. This means that unless something occurs which shakes the very foundations of German politics and society, things are likely to get worse and worse for years to come and it’ll be a long time before German women are the ones calling for troops in the streets. For now, German women are content to attribute all the violence to “toxic masculinity,” a completely false narrative, to defend the honor of immigrants and racial minorities. Likewise, leaders are responding with absurd solutions like “knife-free zones,” all so they don’t need to confront the frightening reality they’re charged with doing so on society’s behalf.

As a result, like Britain, Germany is gradually surrendering their country. May their fate be merciful.

Des Troupes Dans La Rue ? Oh, Oui, Oui! Allons-y!

This has been a long essay, but there’s just so much to talk about. Europe as a whole is on the front end of Western civilization’s decline, and our country will have its own reckoning the same as Europe. It won’t be quite the same and hopefully not as bad, but a lot of this is wishful thinking on my part. Like I said in my last column, people have a tendency to ignore problems until they become emergencies. By the time the emergency strikes, it’s too late.

We talk about the U.S., Britain, France, and Germany the most because they collectively form the core Western civilization is built around. But every country in the West is afflicted with this disease, and Sweden is yet another country we need to be talking more about.

It’s really the same story everywhere:

Source

I don’t know what public sentiment in Sweden concerning immigration is, but from what I’ve seen, most Swedes, women especially, are committed to diversity and multiculturalism as ever, at least among those willing to talk. They also blame Swedish society more for failing to “integrate” migrants, though it’s never made clear what successful integration would entail.

I’m singling out women because in today’s world, they are the single most sought-after voting bloc. They’re a big part of the reason the Left has become so powerful in the West. Women are also notoriously pro-status quo - they’re not the radicals they like to fashion themselves as - so if women start expressing dissatisfaction with the state of affairs, it’s past time to start listening. I’d go as far as to say that if women aren’t worried about crime or immigration, then we’re nowhere close to a backlash or breaking point.

In closing, based on recent events, I’m going to revise my list of countries in the West at greatest risk of civil war, from highest risk on down:

1. France

2. Britain

3. United States

4. Germany

5. Sweden

A few qualifiers: the level of risk between France and Britain is large, and so is that of the gap between Britain and the U.S. Likewise, Germany and Sweden are also at much, much, lower levels of risk. They’re still far behind on the timeline compared to the other three. But get there, they will.

It really is just a matter of time: eventually, every Western country needs to decide whether this is all really worth diversity, which is entirely cosmetic. Are you really going to mutilate yourself to look better? Would you even look better? Diversity is like plastic surgery - trying to artificially make yourself look better often makes you look even more hideous.

So let’s talk - what do you think about the results of the French poll? Do you think the military will answer the call? What about the situations in Britain, Germany, or any other European country? How close or far are any of these countries to the brink?

Let’s talk about it in the comments section.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!