"Civil war is inevitable" says a French officer

"Civil war is inevitable" says a French officer


A few days ago, a group of about 40 generals and more than 20,000 French soldiers and officers signed an open letter that caused a stir in France

In this alarmist text, they call on the government to react to the perils that threaten France, particularly the risk of civil war. This letter has caused a lot of ink to flow, some see it as an attempt of coup d'état, others as a chance to restore order...

But most observers are aware that in some way France is at a turning point in its history, as is Europe. And this letter is consciously or unconsciously part of that dynamic.

That is why Gallia Daily met with a French officer to discuss these issues.

Commandant François* started his military career as a private in a parachute regiment. In total, he made 6 mission departures (OPEX). After several years as a GCP (commando-paratroopers), he then joined the EMIA in Brittany to become an officer. Today he commands an infantry company of around 150 soldiers with a rank corresponding to Major (NATO code OF-3).

We met with him 3 times and recorded nearly 7 hours of discussion. We were able to ask him our questions and also yours. He accepted to answer honestly and without filter. This article is a corrected transcription of these recorded exchanges.

  • I) On the letter from the Generals
  • II) On the "Great Replacement"
  • III) On the French Civil War

Disclaimer : These comments do not express the views of Gallia Daily or of the French Army.



Gallia Daily : Mon Commandant, thank you for having us. To begin, can you tell us why you think the generals felt the need to write this letter, and why now specifically?

I believe that in some ways the military has carried the burden of silence for too long. We are bound by a duty of reserve, of neutrality. We are not allowed to express our opinion on the situation, but that does not mean that we do not have an opinion.

I would even say that, on the contrary, a French military man (and even more so an officer) has an infinitely clearer and more realistic view of the country's situation than many civilians. The military see very well the slope on which our country is going. And the letter sums it up very well: we are heading straight for a violent break-up of the country. Any honest military man can see this; but no military man is allowed to say so.

When you are the guardian of a country and you are in charge of protecting its tranquility and its future, it is a real torture not to have the right to raise the alarm. By asking us to keep silent, the Republic asks us to keep silent like a father who would see his children swallowing a deadly poison... It had been a few years (a few decades) that the military kept silent, but now I think it was too much, "it had to come out".

Why now precisely? Is it because of a profound change in society that would necessitate speaking out? Good question. I don't think so. I believe that it is precisely because everything should change but nothing changes that it was necessary to speak out. We are at the edge of the abyss and nothing changes.

GD: Does the content of this letter seem too alarmist to you? Extremist? Exaggerated? What do you think of the substance of their words?

In a word? Prophetic. This letter is cold and prophetic. And that's why it is disturbing. This is my personal analysis, but I believe that the part of the letter where our Elders [Anciens] talk about the "war that is coming" and the "thousands of victims" that will accumulate, is the most striking. And the most disturbing.

Because in a way, this letter invites us to leap into the future, to form this vision: imagine the street of your village or town, with burned and overturned cars, a smell of corpses, a neighbor hanging from the lamppost or dead on the sidewalk, his face shattered. Imagine your town square transformed into a UN tented field to welcome war refugees. Imagine the chapel of your hamlet transformed into a weapons cache, a tower for a TP [sniper] or a makeshift hospital... Imagine the park where your children play transformed into a cantonment for a combat section in transit... Imagine the tears in your family, in your friends, when everyone will have to choose his camp...

This letter is not just a letter. It is a mental image of our near future, an image of our homeland destroyed by war. And nobody wants to have this vision. So some people swear to destroy those who, by writing this letter, have brought this vision into their lives.

Is this letter extreme? I don't think so. On the contrary, I think it is very lukewarm. With all due respect to our Elders, it seems to me that age has made them gentle and wise, perhaps too much so. The situation is, I think, infinitely more serious than our Elders let on.

GD : It is known that this letter was written and signed half by retired soldiers, and half by officers in their second section and reservists. One can therefore ask oneself if the content of this letter represents an isolated vision of a few old soldiers, or if this vision is shared within the active army?

In the military, there are those who have no opinion on anything, and who also have no opinion on this letter. And there are those who have an opinion on everything. Of those, I would say that the vast majority of military personnel agree with the statement in this letter. From soldiers, to NCOs, to officers, I think everyone agrees.

There are inevitably debates on the substance, some are more radical, others less so, others find that it was clumsy to write a public letter. But on the whole, all the soldiers share the observation that France is falling apart.

There is no survey, so you will have to take my word for it. But to give you an example: we discussed this letter a lot with some of my former classmates at EMIA, and the entirety of my classmates agree with this letter. Not 51%, or 60%. 100 %. 100%... Same thing at Cyr. The same is true of the last graduating class at Saint Maix [NCO school].

What I am trying to make you understand is that almost all the young cadres of our army, the future sergeants, lieutenants, colonels and generals, are aware that France is certainly falling apart. But above all, they are aware that it is heading for war. This is a subject that we talk about very freely among ourselves, that we talk about very often.

A few days before this interview I was in my regiment and I went to my company's popote [mess hall]. The TV was on and they were talking about the letter. A young corporal from my company was laughing and saying to his sergeant: "Damn, our families think we're going to fight against [ISIS] in the desert, but in fact we're going to end up in a VBCI [APC] in the Yvelines, the battle of our lives is going to be the battle of France...". It's anecdotal, but I think it represents well the feeling of a large part of the French soldiers: the battle of our life, it will be the battle of France...

You are bound to find people, soldiers and officers who disagree with this letter. In an army of 300,000 men, it is statistically obvious. But I repeat my point: for the vast majority of soldiers in our armies, the question of France's decline does not even arise. The decline of our country is obvious to almost all of us.

GD : Are the generals who signed this letter influential and listened to? Do they have a hold or influence on french soldiers ?

No, absolutely not. Most military personnel are already unable to name their corps commander or chief BOI... The military does not know most of the generals and officers who signed this letter. That makes sense and that's fine.

As I said, the purpose of this letter is certainly not a call to action directed at the soldiers. Except for a few dishonest MPs, I don't think anyone believes that. This letter is a call to action directed at the politicians. It is also a call to awareness directed at the French people.

From there, the status of these generals does not matter anyway. It doesn't matter if they are respectable, respected, influential, media-savvy... In any case their vocation is not to act, and I believe that it never was.

Their role was to write, and they did. They were the messengers of an important and urgent message. Today, everyone is targeting the messenger. They seek to punish them, to have them dismissed, they look for their backgrounds... Or on the contrary, some people start hoping that these generals will act, that they will do something, they blissfully wait for the army to act...

Both positions are silly. They focus on the messenger, in one case with hatred and in the other with hope. But in both cases, these positions obscure the main thing: what matters here is the message that is addressed to us. The rest is of no importance.

GD : So you don't think the signatories are prepraring "something" ?

As I said, nobody in the army believes for a second that these generals will do anything. Nobody. And I don't think the generals themselves ever planned to do anything.

So I say it both to the "worried anti-militarist republicans" and to the "enthusiastic Caesarist providentialists" : don't expect anything from these generals, and don't expect anything from the army in general. Nothing will happen on this side. This letter was an alert, nothing more, there is no plot of patriotic military men who, in the shadow, are preparing a coup to save France.

I saw in the list of questions you sent me from your American readers that many refer to the Qanon movement. I am not an expert on American domestic politics, but from what I understand the Qanon movement is a movement of conspiracy-minded Americans who believe that, in the face of a malevolent international elite, there would be a hidden and positive elite at the head of our countries who would act in the shadows on behalf of the people, so to speak.

Regardless of whether this theory is true or false, I consider all theories that encourage passivity to be harmful. If tomorrow a rumor tries to make you believe that there are people on your side and that they are going to liberate the country for you and change things while you are sitting on your couch, then it is a lie.

I say this for the French and for most other peoples: there is no group in the shadows working to defend your interests; there is no conspiracy of generals, billionaires or politicians to change things on behalf of the people. There is no such thing.

If tomorrow some generals tell you: "stay at home, we have control, we take care of everything, the country will soon be free", they are lying to you. Do exactly the opposite of what they tell you, act, do not be passive. Freedom is necessarily active, passivity is slavery. The passive man is always subjected to the will of men who act.

GD : So according to you, the generals or the army have no role to play?

This is not exactly what I am saying. In my opinion, the army, the charismatic figures, the movements, are always content to accompany and structure the great anthropological dynamics.

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.

But I sincerely doubt that the army can have any leadership role. No more so then than now. The army will have a role to play, perhaps even a decisive role. But you should not expect anything from the army, you should not expect anything from these generals for the moment.

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.

CPA-10 Operators


GD : In their letter, the generals half-heartedly mention the problem of immigration, lawlessness, and the aggressive anti-racism of a part of the Left. What do you think of this analysis ?

Their analysis is both very accurate and very wrong, because it is fragmented. It is correct in the sense that the problems cited [Islam, immigration, anti-racism] do represent a threat. But it is wrong in the sense that the generals have not identified what is threatened in the end.

What is threatened is not "our republican values", or our laws, or our parliamentary system, or our "living-all-together". What is threatened is France. It's the right of the French to have a territory to live in. Or to rephrase in terms that are certainly polemical but more precise: what is threatened in the medium and long term is the native French.

The threats of which the generals speak are the very concrete expressions of an absolutely unprecedented shift in the history of our country: a strong and dominating nation, undefeated and invincible, finds itself tired of its overpowering status and decides to invent problems to keep itself busy. Thus, it soon finds itself weakened and made to feel guilty to the point of committing demographic suicide. France is not under attack, she is not dying killed by a stronger enemy. She is committing suicide.

But the suicidal nature of our current situation does not take away the responsibility of the elites or the newly arrived populations. Someone who hits a man in the back deserves the rope. Someone who hits a man already on the ground deserves the rope. The elites and the lobbies are guilty of betraying and striking France in the back ; the colonizing populations are guilty of beating down a country already on the ground.

It is this debate that should be at the center of the public arena, and it is this taboo debate that is not evoked by the generals: that of the racial tension that is beginning and that will reach a paroxysmal peak.

The question that arises in the 21st century is that of knowing if the native French will still have a country at the end of the century. That is all. All the other debates are convolutions to talk about this subject without giving the impression of doing so.

GD : At Gallia Daily we have tried to create a simplistic definition of the "Great Replacement" theory claimed by the far right.

"Great Replacement: the idea that, since the founding of France, the inhabitants of the end of a century were always the descendants of the inhabitants of the beginning of that century ; a demographic balance that will change during the 21st century, the inhabitants of the year 2099 not being, for many, the descendants of those who lived in France in 2000, 1900, 1800..."

What do you think of this theory according to this definition?

This definition has the merit of being simple and exhaustive. But it is absolutely useless, forgive me. What you describe is obviously obvious. No need for a 100 words definition to realize it... Simply calling this observation a "theory" is nonsense. It is not a theory, demographic replacement is a basic empirical observation.

One can be happy about it, deplore it, want to accelerate it, slow it down, manage it, stop it, reverse it... It doesn't matter in the end. This fact exists, all the statistics show it: I no longer have in mind the figures of sickle cell anemia [note : 40% of non European births in 2016], but they are, it seems to me, an undeniable proof that the ethnic structure of our country is changing. The babies who populate our maternity wards are not the great-grandchildren of the French of the 16th century. The one who dares to say the contrary is a negationist.

Share of non-european babies in France (2016 - AFDPHE)

In reality, everyone is aware that demographic replacement is a reality. Those who deny the existence of this phenomenon are also aware of it; if they deny it, it is only in order to prolong it. Whoever says "the great replacement does not exist" is saying, in fact, "I know it exists, I want it to continue, so for that I need to deny that it exists in order not to shock and awaken the population".

You can imagine that if tomorrow the MPs of LFI [far left party] were to say "We are the candidates of the Great Replacement, the fact that the native French are disappearing is a chance for our country!" it would look bad. It is however exactly their political line. An LFI MPs knows very well that the ethnic French exist, and that they are disappearing.

The denial of reality is therefore always a means for them to protect the status quo, that is to say, to prolong the extinction of our people.

GD : So for you the "Great Replacement" is a reality?

This is obvious, no matter what you call it. The fact is that a French couple who gives birth to a child in 2021 must be aware that this child will grow up in a country where he or she will be in a minority, where racial tensions will be exacerbated. I am not saying "the child will be in the minority tomorrow", I am saying "our children are already condemned to be in the minority at home". I know this all the better because I have 4 children.

A military man is lucky to be able to go home at night and take off his Haix and Felin [uniforms]. We can take off our uniform and live a normal life after all. Our children will not be so lucky, they will wear their uniforms all their lives: their white skin is their uniform in this atrocious war that is already being waged on them, a war that will increase in intensity. I hope that the parents who are reading this are aware of this: the world you know no longer exists for your children. It no longer exists. Their world is Brazil mixed with Lebanon, not the Trente Glorieuses or the Gullie cartoons [Gold Age of France, the 1970's].

So yes, not only is the phenomenon of demographic change a reality. But it is even the main political divide in the country. In the end, everyone is structuring around this topic or its satellites. The Left finds that 400,000 immigrants per year is not enough, that [40 %] of African births is not enough. The Right thinks it's a bit too much, but that if Mokhtar was called [Pierre], converted to LGBT atheism and got his French identity card, everything would be better for our country.

For the moment these debates are childish and hypocritical. But the discussion will become more tense and radical as the French understand that this is not just a theoretical debate, when they understand that it is their lives, as individuals and as a people, that are at stake.

GD: Do you think that the French understand the seriousness of the situation of their country? Can you give your vision of France in 5 years ? 10 years ? 20 years ? Do you think things will get worse, or are you optimistic?

Do the French understand the gravity of the situation? Absolutely not. I mean it. I have a lot of respect for civilians and I know that some of them understand very well what is going on, because they suffer from it every day. But sincerely, most of the French people do not understand at all what is being played out.

The French live their lives quietly, they don't understand that on a daily basis, their elites are negotiating their future. The left-wing bloc is trying to obtain the total erasure of Whites in order to satisfy their sick need for forgiveness and their feeling of wounded injustice. And the right-wing bloc is trying to negotiate the terms of surrender, based on "yes, whites are a just minority among others that must be protected to some extent, please".

For both blocks, as I said, the evidence is already there: France has disappeared, the native French are vestiges. The only difference is that on the one hand, they want to bulldoze the vestiges definitively, and on the other hand, they want to place the vestiges in a museum.

The various elite forces in our country have signed the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact 2.0. If you remember, this pact was a secret agreement between Russians and Germans to divide Poland. In spite of the pact, Poles kept living a normal life, not suspecting that their fate was already sealed.

It is exactly the current situation of the French: they still have the illusion to live in a more or less normal country, to have a normal life. Because the inertia of the previous system and of the previous era allows to maintain the forms. For some more time. But in reality, the fate of the native French is already liquidated. Whether you are of the left or the right, if you read me, know that in all cases the scenario of the film is already written, and you are not part of the casting.

And to use the historical metaphor, believe me, even if I sympathize with the suffering of the Poles and their wounded history, I envy their fate infinitely compared to what awaits the French: the German troops had much more respect for the Poles they occupied, than the French elites have for their country, the country they are betraying.

For the moment the situation in France is holding up quite artificially. Everything seems very solid. The republican system is still putting on the forms. But it is a Potemkin Republic, with plaster institutions, like an old Western set. It is a house of cards. It will take only a little (and this little will happen), to definitively complete the changeover to a post-French France. A France where the native French will be a minority majority, then a majority to be shot, then a minority to be fought, then a minority to be shot, then a minority shot. Then a disappeared minority.

I am not talking about a science fiction scenario. I'm talking about France in 2050, the country in which your children will live when they are 25. In 2050, this is the year your son or daughter will have their first child. This child will be born in a France where more than 65% of the other children will be of African origin. This is an inescapable dynamic, because demography is inescapable and the tribal or racial instincts that demography awakens are violent.

So am I optimistic? In the long term, yes. In the short to medium term, no. The military say "sweat spares the blood". That is to say that you have to face all situations beforehand, in training, to be able to advance later on without losses.

"Sweat spares blood", the French have refused for several years to truly and definitively confront the problem, so they will have the blood.

GD : So in your opinion the generals are right to point out that the current situation will get worse until, perhaps, leading to a war?

The "war" we are talking about can take a million different forms. It can last 4 days, 4 weeks, 4 decades or 4 centuries... But it will definitely happen. And that is logical. We can be moved by it, but we cannot be surprised by it.

As I pointed out earlier, the situation in France can be summarized easily: there is a first people (the native French) who, under the impulse of an elite of traitors, are in a demographic power struggle with foreign populations in order to obtain the control of the territory and the political initiative in the country's institutions.

Nature abhors a vacuum, but it also abhors an overflow. Two kings cannot sit on one throne. At the beginning, this balance of power between french and foreigners remained purely demographic (i.e. mathematical, passive). But as time went by, it became cultural, with each population trying to assert its (sub)culture and/or religion.

Today this balance of power is shifting to the political arena, this is the crucial phase, the penultimate phase. When politics will fail to solve the problem, we will enter the military phase.

I say "When politics will fail to solve the problem" in the future tense, because believe me, politics will fail. Look at Yugoslavia, Lebanon, South Africa, Palestine... The political phase will necessarily fail to pacify the situation, because at the end of the political phase, no matter what agreement is reached, there will inevitably be one side that feels aggrieved: either the minority-majority, disappointed at not obtaining more power; or the majority-minority, furious at having been dispossessed.

If one side wins, the other loses, and vice versa. So war will naturally impose itself as the only possibility for the loser to get what he wants. For war is only the extension of politics by other means, as Clausewitz said better than I.

GD : In the letter, the generals call for action to avoid this war. How much time do you think we have before it is too late to react? What is the time window of opportunity to act?

The time window was 1990-2000. It has already passed. Now it is too late. Some speak of "Remigration", others dream of "reversing migration flows"... The truth that no one dares to affirm is that we can no longer deal with the problem peacefully.

The foreign mass on our soil is too deeply implanted; the crazy ideas of guilt are too deeply rooted in the brain of our abused people. It is too late. Much too late. I was 5 years old when it was already too late to act upstream. Our current situation is only the logical extension of these choices (or non choices). Today, it is too late to make the choices we should have made 30 years ago.

So the question is no longer "how can we act to avoid the breakup of the country / the division / the partition / the civil war?". The only question is, "When will this breakup come and how will we triumph?"

I must point out that this is my biggest disagreement with the generals: they think that civil war must be avoided. I do not, as the vast majority of my fellow soldiers.

If there were a way to avoid war AND to solve the problem peacefully without concessions, I would of course support it. But I have explained why, in my eyes, the solution can no longer have a peaceful solution [ too many, for too long, with the help of too many 'traitors'].

From there, wanting to avoid civil war at all costs, even though there is no peaceful solution, is de facto a capitulation a priori. That is to say that we are going to ask the French people to submit to the demands of the other side in order to try to satisfy our antagonists and avoid war...

Contrary to what your Anglo-Saxon readers may think, no Frenchman can accept to capitulate without fighting. The traitor is worse than the enemy, and the coward is worse than the traitor. The coward is the most foul creature that God could have put on this earth. Cowardice is the most terrible inclination of the soul, it is that which, in the face of the ardor of the task and the brutality of life, makes men fall even before the fight.

The French, those who remain French, are not cowards. I am not a coward. My wife is not a coward. Our children are not cowards. My men are not cowards. My leaders are not cowards.

The generals who wrote this letter are not cowards either, they are utopians and think that debates in the Palais Bourbon [Parliament] can magically get us out of the impasse. This is not true. And I know that they know it, or that they will soon understand it.

So, not only should we not try to avoid civil war. But ironically, it is rather virtuous that it should happen. If it did not happen, it would mean that the French have definitively abandoned all ideals and that they have accepted to capitulate in order to preserve the peace, even if it means enjoying this peace as a slave.

But he is a fool who is ready to sacrifice his freedom as an offering in the hope of a sweet and quiet peace. The only thing he will get is the contempt of the eyes that look at him, the blow of the hand that feeds him and the spit of the mouth that has straddled him.

Freedom cannot be negotiated, our genocide does not deserve to be "arranged" or "adapted". The French have an inalienable and exclusive right to the land of their ancestors and as long as they carry this certainty like a flame in their hearts, they will be invincible.

"How far is the French population ready to go to guarantee its survival and the future of its children?"


GD : So you are convinced that there will be a violent conflict in France. Some speak of "civil war", others of "racial war". Where do you stand?

I think that the term "civil war" is very problematic. It certainly covers part of the problem, since ethnic French will necessarily be opposed to other ethnic French, for example the left to the right. But this term blurs the lines, since this conflict, when it takes place, will not only see ethnic French opposed to each other. As I have explained at length, they will also and above all be fighting forces foreign to our country, regardless of whether they have French nationality or not. I am thinking, of course, primarily of the communities originating from Africa and established on our territory. As such, it is inappropriate to speak of a "civil war" when a people rises up and fights the invader.

The term "race war" is inappropriate for the same reasons. First, because it focuses on the racial (or ethnic) aspect of the conflict. This term implies that Whites will be all united against the blacks who will themselves be all united against Whites. This term ignores the tribal, religious and cultural dimensions. On the side of foreign forces, Malians and Congolese will probably not get along well... Neither will Moroccans and Algerians... And conversely, this term implies that all "whites" will be united in the struggle, which is another imbecility: Turkish, Kabyle or Jewish populations are sometimes considered as "white", but these people are still foreigners in France and in Europe... In the same way, within the native French, we will see internal struggles, struggles between factions, between native French of the left and of the right, of the extreme right and of the right, between religious and secular French, etc etc.

Neither of the two terms suits me. The war that we will know will be halfway between these two things. But if I had to choose, I would still choose to call it a "race war" for the simple reason that, as I said earlier, the war goal of this conflict will be the control of the territory by one "race" (the French) or another (the foreigners). It is truly a tribal conflict, of two groups for the control of a territory. It is the very definition of a race war, with both groups fighting for their respective interests as a population.

But having said that, if I push the reflection even further, I think that we should not talk about "war" at all. I use this word for ease. But in itself, we won't be facing a war in the sense that we understand it. We won't find 100,000 soldiers with tanks and helicopters on each side. We will be in something extremely asymmetrical, para-state, informational. This does not mean that physical combat is excluded. But the new wars, of the 4th or 5th generation as they say, leave much less importance to the physical control of the territory, that is to say to war in the traditional sense.

Today, physical control appears to be a sine qua non condition for securing your position, but it is not what wins the war. The war will be won elsewhere than on the front line, even if military superiority is a necessity. To put it more clearly: it seems obvious to me that the native French will de facto control the vast majority of the territory, with a disconcerting ease. But this does not mean that the war will be won... In this kind of war, controlling one's territory is necessary, but victory is obtained in another way: by mobilizing its population and international opinion in order to find the legitimacy to definitively remove the pebble in its shoe, to purge its institutions and to normalize its new regime by forging links with foreign countries.

The big challenge will be this one, and it is not a military challenge. The military challenge will be won in a few days. If the army had a free hand, the entire country would be "liberated" in ten days. If the army had its hands free, the entire country and its institutions would be purged in a month. Literally. It takes a company of infantry to hold a no-go-zone ; it takes 15 sailors to man a container ship; it takes only 3 judges to judge a thousand traitors. This great historical cleaning would be very easy to set up, even if one is attached to the forms of legality. The difficulty lies elsewhere.

The question that will arise is indeed the following: how far is the French population ready to go to guarantee its survival and the future of its children? This is where the country will be divided, between those who are ready for anything, and those who want to set more or less strict limits. It is this debate that will drag out the conflict.

GD : In concrete terms then, if this conflict were to take place on French soil, can we try to imagine what it would be like, precisely?

It's a difficult exercise but one that we engage in regularly with some of my comrades and subordinates. Since the 2016 attacks, we have forged a small, friendly, informal foresight group on this topic. Our goal is to try to use our military background and adapt our analytical tools to the French situation to see what scenarios would be realistic. I know that other officers in other regiments are doing the same thing and whenever possible we share RETEX [debriefing], we try to exchange our conclusions and thoughts.

Quite honestly, it is difficult to imagine what this conflict would look like. There are an infinite number of possibilities: depending on whether this conflict starts now or in 20 years, depending on the geopolitical alignment, the interventions of other countries, the economic situation of the country at that time, the response of the EU... This is a set of parameters that are quite mind-boggling to master, and in any case these are assumptions. A single mistake can change the whole scenario... Without even mentioning the fact that it is indeed possible that the French fall asleep and go into the night without any war at all.

But after more than 5 years of reflection on this subject, we have arrived at the scenario that we think is the most realistic, at least from our point of view. We experimented with it in the form of an accelerated wargame, over a dozen hours, with a blue team, a red team and observers. The "military" part of this scenario (the war itself) is of no interest since it is pure speculation. But on the other hand, the earlier part, the "triggering", seems to me important to share. I will try to summarize our thoughts simply. So how does it all begin?

PHASE 1 : TRIGGERING - Nation wide riots

In our scenario, France is in the middle of an election period, the debate is raging and copying the recent American election, racial tensions are at their peak, anti-police sentiment as well. A police check degenerates, the images are broadcasted on social networks like SnapChat, several cities are rioting, left-wing politicians indirectly encourage tensions trough their media relays, by organizing demonstrations, by calling high schools and university students to block their schools.

The situation degenerates into a nation-wide riot, the city centers are the scene of riots and exactions, the infrastructures (buses, metro, streetcar, ring roads) are regularly blocked, reducing the economic flows.

Groups of civilians organize to defend themselves against rioters.

Note: You will recognize here a scenario very similar to what the USA experienced in 2020-2021... Yet, it is a scenario that was written and played in November 2018... The French readers will be able to recognize here elements quite similar with what has been imagined by many authors of fiction too.

PHASE 2 : TRANSITION - political instability

Finally, in our scenario, after several weeks and many deaths, facing international pressure, calm returns. But the situation is never the same again. The violence has left its mark on the country, like a trauma on the scale of society, the red line is definitely drawn on the ground between the two sides. The self-defense groups formed by citizens during the unrest continue to exist informally and to grow stronger and more organized, because everyone has the feeling that these events could happen again...

As a result of these riots, the political situation is extremely complicated, with at least three distinct camps:

  • the "Left Bloc": representing racial minorities, those who want the riots to be only a beginning to bring down the old system and go even further; they use this argument to demand reforms with a speech that consists in saying "you have seen what we are capable of, if you don't give us what we want, it will start again".
  • the "Center Bloc", representing the status quo, whose political line consists essentially in saying "never again", in promoting even more the "living-all-together" diversity doctrine, in talking about renewing the 'social contract', in calming down the situation... The avowed goal being to avoid a new conflict.
  • the "Right Bloc" : which gathers the most radical French, who call for not giving in to the rioters or to the Left, which tries to lead the self-defense groups.

In the scenario we have studied, it is in this phase that the essence of our future will be played out. This is where the patriots will have the most crucial role to play, first to gain the most influence within the right-wing bloc itself, to ensure that the main narrative is warlike and militaristic. Second, to ensure that within the broader political game, the right-wing bloc is the strongest, the most enterprising, the most prepared.

PHASE 3 : WAR OR NOT ? - Three possible paths

At this moment, during this stage of political transition, everything is suspended, the ball can fall on both sides. At this point in the scenario, the opinions within our working group diverged into 3 groups :

  • NO WAR: Those who think that the right-wing bloc is losing its influence to the center bloc and that the situation is normalizing, without major conflict. France becomes a de facto community country, where the native French are one community among others.
  • DE FACTO SEPARATION: Those who think that the right-wing bloc will eventually gain enough weight to decide its own fate unilaterally and separate from the other two, in the political sense. That is, to create a de facto parallel state organization, with its solidarity funds, its police based on self-defense groups, its institutions... France would still exist as a unitary state, but de facto part of the population would be French AND a member of this sui generis creation.
  • TOTAL WAR: Those who think that the situation is insoluble between the three sides and that the situation will eventually degenerate into open warfare, in the true sense of the word, involving military combat. The army is then divided into 3 parts: (a) one part deserts with its equipment to the left-wing block or to armed gangs in the suburbs. (b) A part remains loyal to the center block, which represents the legal state with international support. (c) A significant part joined the right-wing bloc and joined the civilian self-defense groups. The outcome of this war is impossible to anticipate. But key aspect lie in the choice that the Center Bloc will make: either to end up joining the Left Bloc or to end up joining the Right Bloc. Since the Center Bloc is the one of the legalists, the rallying of the Center Bloc to one of the other two blocs will legitimize and "legalize" the struggle of this bloc.


I repeat that this is one scenario among others, a thousand different things can happen, the outcomes are also uncertain. But it doesn't matter, what matters in this little presentation is to understand the structure of our reasoning for the triggering: there will be 3 phases.

  • First the phase of riots or quasi war.
  • Then the transition phase.
  • Finally, the final phase, which corresponds either to a definitive appeasement, or to a political solution of apartheid, or to a total war.

In all the scenarios we have studied over the last 5 years, we have always found these different phases and this particular model: ultra-violent riots, a transition phase, a final phase. It is the transition phase that is the most crucial in this pattern, because it is during this phase that everything will be played out.

GD : So you seem to have thought about the problem. You also state that other military personnel are doing similar thinking. There is a rumor among the far right that the government or the General Staff has an "Operation RONCES" in the works, a plan to take over the no-go-zones in case of war or riots. Do you know if such a plan exists?

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.

You can imagine that if 30 or so officers and NCOs can think about these issues, as my comrades and I have, then the command does as well. I think they are not only thinking about it informally, but I think they are thinking about it formally and weekly. That's the view of most of the officers I talk to about these things as well. There is no doubt in their minds that our leaders are far less naïve and candid than one might think.

GD : If the conflict you're talking about breaks out, will the army be the only one fighting? Do you imagine that civilians could join the fight? Wandering bands, civilian volunteers, isolated survivalists? Do you think that foreign volunteers or French expatriates could join the fight?

I think that in people's imagination a war necessarily involves hundreds of thousands of soldiers. In my opinion, we will be very far from that in the French case. The total number of real combatants (professional soldiers) will probably be well below 100,000. But to this must be added armed civilians.

  • On the one hand, criminal or political gangs, disorganized, which will probably represent the largest number of armed civilians.
  • And on the other side, isolated armed civilians. Or civilians organized in the self-defense groups I was talking about. These groups will probably be supported directly by the army, or organized by former policemen and soldiers, perhaps on the model of the SAS in French Algeria, that is to say, for example, a professional soldier supervising 7 to 10 civilian 'auxiliaries' on a given territory. The civilians will then have the opportunity to help the regular army, at least to hold the territory.

Survivalism [preppers] is also a complicated subject, there are as many survivalisms as there are survivalists... It is a milieu with its codes, but where people are quite free with their opinions. It's hard to imagine what their role could be as a community. But I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that most survivalists have a strong patriotic bent and that it's likely that a small number of them could join or create the so-called vigilante groups.

Concerning European or expatriate volunteers, I am personally very much in favor of the establishment of foreign units supervised by French people in case of conflict. It is a logistical, legal and human challenge. But from what I have seen while studying other conflicts, it would be a worthwhile effort.

So yes, I am very much in favor of welcoming foreign volunteers. But I am also quite lucid, it will concern a very small number of people. I don't see why thousands of Germans, Americans or Spaniards would absolutely want to come and die in combat in France. In the same way, I don't see why French expatriates abroad, who have made the difficult choice of leaving their country, would decide to come back at a time when this country is probably the most unlivable...

GD : You have talked a lot about foreign volunteers who could join the French patriots' camp. But what about possible foreign volunteers and mercenaries? State interventions? From NATO or the EU?

This is what I mentioned earlier, it is very difficult to imagine what foreign reactions will be to a conflict in France. If all countries are facing similar conflicts, one can imagine that few people will care about France. It will all depend on the situation at that time.

But it seems obvious to me that if France is in the grip of internal unrest and other countries have the means, they will try to take advantage of the French situation. And they will all have different interests, interests in supporting different sides.

As for foreign volunteers coming to join racial minorities, I think that this phenomenon will exist de facto. But as for the patriots, I think it will be very isolated. I can't imagine thousands of Algerians or Senegalese getting on a boat and crossing the seas to have the honor of coming ashore in a war-torn country. To tell the truth, I think that we will see the opposite phenomenon, that is to say, racial minorities fleeing the national territory in the grip of fighting.

GD : Considering that you are right and that a civil war is indeed to be expected in France, in which time window do you see such a conflict? In your opinion, can the recent health crisis around COVID-19 aggravate the situation or contribute to cause the war?

The time range seems to me very difficult to evaluate, I prefer not to risk it. But let's say that it will necessarily be in our lifetime. The tension does not seem to me to be important enough to imagine a conflict before 2030. And if nothing has happened by 2050, it's probably too late and the situation is definitely lost. So that leaves us with 10 years to prepare for that 20-year window.

Regarding the health situation, this is obviously a very significant event that will certainly help to fuel the fire. It is not impossible that a national-populist movement similar to the Yellow Vests will appear as early as the end of 2021 or during 2022. This seems to me quite realistic and our friends in the Police Nationale can confirm that these scenarios are taken seriously at the moment.

Nevertheless, I doubt that such a movement can lead to a change in the situation. Still these events are always historically important because they contribute to the divorce between the French and their political elite.

GD : A word to conclude?

A word of advice: don't give up hope.

Nothing is lost yet, everything is just beginning. Be active, be lucid, be upright, be uncompromising, be proud to be French, be certain of your legitimacy on this land. It is your duty.

Keep a cool head, don't fall into the electoral traps or into the false polemics of the TV sets, into the fake opposition. Don't succumb to easy temptations, don't let yourself be convinced that it will be easy, that you just have to wait, that others will do the work for you...

The French people are faced with a heroic challenge, that of defying the direction of History and re-imposing the sovereignty of the people at the center of all things. The challenge of recalling what the people is: a thousand-year-old lineage to be protected like a treasure, not a mass of fungible and corruptible individuals.

It is an absolutely colossal challenge, that of answering the question asked since 1945, and to which we have refused to answer until now: "Does a people have the right to have a nation that is at its exclusive service?"

The sad events of the Second World War wanted to offer a negative answer to this question. Today, everything pushes us to offer a positive answer. In any case, it is a question that must be answered. And the answer will be definitive, totally definitive.

And History has decided that it will be the French people who will be the first to answer this question... Because we will be the first to be confronted with this existential questioning, that of choosing to be or not to be as a people.

I think any nation would tremble with fear at such a challenge. Any nation would tremble even before entering the arena. Other nations would tremble with fear: the fear of being alone against all, of being misjudged, unloved, ill-regarded... But France is different, we are not afraid of solitude, we are not afraid of fighting one against ten. Our entire history has prepared us to fulfill this task, to accomplish this role, to be the people through whom paradigm shifts come.

So don't despair. As this corporal of my unit said: "the fight of our life is the Battle of France". These words are harsh and chilling, I know. You have the right to be sad, you have the right to be angry, you even have the right to be afraid. It is normal, the time has chosen you for a difficult task, you would have probably liked a little peace... But be happy, because you are the generation in which one cycle will end and another will begin. These things happen only once in History. And not only will it happen in your lifetime, but you will have a role to play.

Prepare yourself, educate yourself, train yourself, toughen yourself, learn skills, marry someone, educate your children well, take care of your friends, act to become an example to the weakest and act to follow the example of the strongest.

Your blood boils with power, genius, glory and honor. And there is no greater honor for a man or a woman than to defend his or her blood by defending his or her territory. Be strong, be proud, be French.


Gallia Daily is a 100% independent, free and non-partisan media. We cover French news in English. Our media is based in Wilmington, DE and is protected under the 1st Amendment of the American Constitution.

This interview is free of rights and free for any translation, please only mention the source "Gallia Daily - Voice of France". To obtain the original text in French, contact us.

Report Page