What kind of happening woud it take for civil war to break out already?

What kind of happening woud it take for civil war to break out already?

Other urls found in this thread:

face.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/data_hunters-region_sept_2010.pdf),
digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=honors
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#Ancient_DNA.2C_rare_mutations_and_whole_genome_sequencing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_people#Genetics
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Economical collapse.

Le Pen wins and is stopped from becoming the President

This. It's always this. Terrorism is never enough.

A major, durable one. the kind that is unlikely to happen.

Just a Police brutality.

Does France fluoridate its drinking water?

Le Pen win

If she wins she will attack niggers a literally create civil war to take special powers.

Simply cut water and electricity.

>A major, durable one
Being in state of emergency for like 2 fucking years now doesn't count?

I guess if that happens the whole EU will be one big happening.

No, but our water is naturally rich in fluoride.

>Being in state of emergency for like 2 fucking years now doesn't count?

Kek, I forgot we were in a state of emergency. nobody cares about that anymore.

In fact, I'm pretty sure nobody cared 2 weeks after its implementation.

Are French people generally pretty mellow with healthy teeth?

>major category IX chimpout in Marseille/Paris
>military steps in to help the police keeping the hordes in check
>journalists who witnessed the chimpout killed by dindus in the crossfire
>when other journalists arrive they only see BTFO dindus
>'oy vey its anudda shoah'
>libcucks call for military to disband or something
>soldiers start autistically screeching and they begin the day of the rope

this is more likely than you think

according to statistics, there's room for improvement, especially in brushing time.

How probable is a military coup?

Nothing will ever happen. it's over

Every single soldier/policeman I know is voting Le Pen.

Most are saying she's not going far enough.

I'd wager a lot of them listen to Hitler speeches on youtube to unwind after work.

So it's as likely as it could ever be.

Remember to get the insides when you brush, user. Be sure to hold the toothbrush with a precision grip, like how you hold a pencil. Godspeed.

>Every single soldier/policeman I know is voting Le Pen.
>I know

Very useful statistics...

I don't have stats on elections that will take place in the future, faggot.

have you heard of polling

But wich sides would win ? They are both french .... ==)))))))))))))))

I'd rather use tea leaves.
Are you some sort of guardian cuck?

Sadly I agree, but France imploding would be the domino that could save Western Europe. If it just slowly disintegrates into a hellhole over time, they explain it away and we're all fucked.

A happening that really triggers your police and military could do it.

Napoleon shows up.
10% of the nation wants to Make France Great Again
10% of the nation wants to turn it into a caliphate
The other 80% is working with the latter 10% to kill Napoleon because he's an evil racist who did naughty things like kill people who tried to destroy France

Shootings, bombings, beheading of citizens, terrorist attacks.. oh wait..

It will take demographic shift I'm afraid. Once people realize we're yougoslavia v2.0, shit will probably hit the fan. It will be gradual.

France's Muslim population is real old, it is a different environment to places like Germany. The shit suburbs are a long thing ago.

France's native birthrate is actually quite high, it is not like Germany/Sweden where the native birth rate is low and immigrant is high. Maghrebs don't have massively high birth rates either like say pakistani.

Basically means that the situation in France is not new, it is not as much a ticking clock. It also means that France is not being "islamified" like a place such as Sweden/Germany. France has had a large minority presence for quite a time now and its not rapidly expanding.


Yes France is maybe highest muslim % in Europe right now, but in 10 years this will probably not hold true.

but Napoleon was black, you white cracka.

>Macron is elected
>muslims go in a very white/catholic school
>massacre children by dozens
>militias of conservative form themselves (with far right militants, hunters, farmers, ex-militaries, cops)
>retaliate on the local ghetto by going full ratonnade
>fire spread in every "hot" ghettos
>this time don't keep it to their own suburb but go full raid on middle/upper class residential districts
>police can't contain them
>after few days of chaos the government is overthrown by military and martial law is proclaimed

After that everything depends of how the United States will react, there is a huge risk of contagion to the rest of western Europe, notably the BeNeLux and russian involvement.
A nuclear state in a situation of civil war would be a first time in history too and I think the americans and english would send special forces to take control of the silos and ask all french submarines to stop in the nearest american NATO port.

Sorta like a few
Boring bored night tq (((0)))

The problem is that all statistics indicate that second generation muslims are both more radical and more criminal than the first generation. This story of "oh, the old banlieue are gone! Our Muslims are actually assimilated!" is constantly being repeated by the French government... against the facts.

France hides its ethnic/religious stats for a reason. To paraphrase Stephan Molyneux: if the news was good, the government wouldn't be hiding it. They'd be throwing it in your face at any given moment.

>militias of conservative
What do you think this is, America? The French that fought and died for liberty are gone, and replaced by a generation of spineless cowards. The transition from Chiraq to Sarkozy to Hollande to Macron perfectly resembles France in the past few decades. From a nostalgic nationalist who lives in the past and barks louder than he bites, to a corrupt and sniveling bootlicker, to a spineless slug to a literal cuck. I'm not using it as a buzzword, he's literally raising another man's children.

>but Napoleon was black, you white cracka.

So, what's next?

Hitler was black?

I like a french girl from morrocco origin ( she is not Muslim and eat pork ), am I a race traitor if I go more far with her ?

He dindu nuffin wrong.

Very unlikely under Fillon/Le Pen, not far from reality with a guy like Macron.
It would be a "soft" coup though, something like Napoleon did: forcing the conservatives to give the full power to a general in order to "restore the order".

Le Pen president would do that.

she's not french if she's from morrocan origin.

Arabs are an inferior status race from us whites. If the monarchy were restored all the republic's egalitarian non distinction of races would vanish and non gauls and celts would gtfo of France in due time.

>she's not french if she's from morrocan origin.
If she's at the very least culturally Catholic, respects the values of the constitution and genuinely loves France, she's French. If all Algerians became like this hypothetical model immigrant overnight, literally all problems France has with them would be gone.

The problem is that they're Muslims, Islam is incompatible with French values, Muslims value Sharia over the Constitution/Declaration and these muzzies hate France.

>If the monarchy were restored all the republic's egalitarian non distinction of races would vanish
Except it wouldn't. In fact, the idea of a French identity was the fruit of the revolution. Before that Frenchness was dictates purely by loyalty to the monarch and the French Basques and Spanish Basques were only different in whom they swore fealty to.

>non gauls and celts would gtfo of France in due time
And the entire South, North and Northeast would be depopulated.

Given your intermarriage rates it probably doesn't even matter anymore.

I gather riots and attacks are passe for you guys now, would it pretty much just be luck for a shitstorm provoking a coup to happen?

>What do you think this is, America? The French that fought and died for liberty are gone, and replaced by a generation of spineless cowards. The transition from Chiraq to Sarkozy to Hollande to Macron perfectly resembles France in the past few decades. From a nostalgic nationalist who lives in the past and barks louder than he bites, to a corrupt and sniveling bootlicker, to a spineless slug to a literal cuck. I'm not using it as a buzzword, he's literally raising another man's children.

Stop projecting, we aren't coward merchants and faggot flower pickers like you dutchcuck, in 60s and 70s we still had purges, the countryside is armed enough to push the shit out of these savages.
There is a strong shooting/hunting tradition here (face.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/data_hunters-region_sept_2010.pdf), it's not rare to have weapons from the war still burried in the back of the garden.

Every single kid that grew in my village despite being literally 15km away from the city

>in 60s and 70s we still had purges
In the 60s and 70s France died. That's an entire generation ago. That's when De Gaulle was ousted. Now the nation only pays lipservice to him but his infamous "oil and vinegar" quote will get you branded a nazi (ironically!).

That would be based. Imagine a roach style military coup in France. It would quickly red pill the entire population because the muslims would go chimping out

>If she's at the very least culturally Catholic, respects the values of the constitution and genuinely loves France, she's French
catholicism doesn't make france, neither does the republic or respecting the values of the constitution, neither does the love of france.

The only thing that makes on french is blood - ethnicity. An arab is an arab.

>the idea of a French identity was the fruit of the revolution
that's the most non factual dumbest thing i think i've read on Sup Forums in months. It has no bearing in reality.

>Before that Frenchness was dictates purely by loyalty to the monarch
no, frenchness was always the same, ethnicity. There are other peoples who live in the french realm than Gauls, for instance celtic bretons in brittany. But it doesn't change the fact they are bretons and could one day wish to have their own monarchy. There are nationalist movements in that region.

>And the entire South, North and Northeast would be depopulated.
It should, but those territories were taken during expantionist eras during the late monarchies in France and their populations were let on the territory. As with the bretons, there are nationalists in the alsace region who want to go back to germany. They aren't french. And they should be kicked out of the territory and the houses should be given to native Gauls.

Registration of metahumans

>The man of Steal

or like De Gaulle's coup

Unfortunately, I don't think any general is currently half as based as De Gaulle was.

>The only thing that makes on french is blood - ethnicity.
Then tell me what this French ethnicity is, without somehow excluding large swathes of the native French population. Other than "white" you can't really define it, and even then it's fine as long as a white majority is maintained. Furthermore this entirely goes against the French (and Roman inherited) tradition of civic nationalism (which isn't the same as saying the population should be displaced, before you start strawmanning).

>that's the most non factual dumbest thing i think i've read on Sup Forums
You must not be on speaking terms with reality then.
digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=honors
It's an academically mainstream opinion that modern nationalism has its origins in the French Revolution. Which makes sense if you stop and think about it logically for about five seconds: if you put the root of public power not in the sovereignity of the monarch but in the sovereignity of the people, what neccessary follows is the acknowledgement (or creation) of this "people".

>no, frenchness was always the same, ethnicity.
Explain Alsatians, Niçois, Corsicans, French Catalans, Basques, Bretons and the like. This is exactly why French nationalism is civic: if it were based on ethnicity (which would not arise until much later [even in his own time Gobineau was a fringe thinker at best]) then there would be no France. It would've collapsed, which is exactly what such measures as the Terror and the de facto creation/enforcing of the French identity (with its pinnacle under the Jules Ferry laws) sought to prevent.

>There are nationalist movements in that region.
That are in direct opposition to French nationalism. You're only proving my point.

>It should
So you're effectively opposed to France and the French identity?

this, economical collapse would mean no more handout, the hordes of nigger and muslim living from government money would lash out on middle class for a can of bean. After a few days of pillaging and rape africa style kebab removal would be on, full on race war

>Africa
>Kebab removal
You mean serbian?

Karadzic did nothing wrong

the Refugee situation worsens and the average Frenchie gets sick of them ruining French land.

We'll have to start killing jews

You mean the retard that released most of Africa? Fucking brilliant, the nig nogs are doing well on their own

1 of 2

>Then tell me what this French ethnicity is, without somehow excluding large swathes of the native French population

Very simple, just as the anglo saxons are angles and juntas mix, the german are allemanis, the French are Gauls. They've been living there for 4000 years as far as we can tell since after the flood of noah's ark and the division of nations after the tower of babel.

>Furthermore this entirely goes against the French (and Roman inherited) tradition of civic nationalism
Civic nationalism is non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. This stems from secularism, specifically the derived egalitarian value of secularism. A monarchy is a divine rights order, under which the king rules over a nation which is the multitude of people who share an ethnicity in a realm and others who he conquered living there. As such there are no civic nationalism in monarchies, this is a purely republican concept stemming from egalitarianism which as i wrote in turn stems from secularism.

>You must not be on speaking terms with reality then
forgive me i misread you which is why i wrote that, i somehow read it to mean that the revolutionaries revolted in part for this reason, which certainly wasn't the case for the people. Of course it's the fruit of the revolution because it was a secularist revolution.

>Explain Alsatians, Niçois, Corsicans, French Catalans, Basques, Bretons and the like.
already did, they are conquered territories which the french king has the right to rule over as its part of his realm. Notice i've spoken of an ideal, not of an actual case. 20% of the people living in france currently are non Gauls, these people would actually in most part be deported but in other cases, as it were for the historic regions you mentioned probably not changed.

2 of 2

>then there would be no France.
don't be silly. France just as every other country in europe and indeed the world except for Africa has been constructed by its native.

>That are in direct opposition to French nationalism.
they aren't french. French nationalism under the republic is egalitarian, under the monarchy it's ethnic. You know the italians, spaniards and celts living in France are still italians, spaniards and celts nevermind the regime under which they live? The monarchy could call them french, but in fact they are not by nature. It's just more taxpayers and war soldiers for which those people are accepted as french. If France took germany and annexed it under a monarchy would the french king then declare those to be french? If so would they be french? Absolutely not, they would be germans whether they live under their own government or whether they are living under a foreign government that's taken them over - much like the gauls were still gauls when they were taken over by the Romans and the Franks, whom even the name of France doesn't confer to them a change in identity, merely a conquerer's mark.

State of emergency is just a politician buzzword to show that's they are trying to do something about terrorism. It's like the vigipirate plan that had different level and each time there was a new attack, the level was rised. Since noboty wanted to be the politician that would lower the alert level and take the risk that a new attack happen just after, they just created new level of alertness.
Now, this level is called "state of emergency".
We have soldier patrolling around landmark and jewish area so tourist don't feel afraid.

Well. I'm sorry to disappoint, but France was for the last millenia a place where everyone in Europe came.

There is no such a thing as a Frenchman of Gauls descent. Ethnic French simply don't exist. That's why our conception of nationalism was based on ideas and that the notion of French is considered as universal.

As long as you share those ideals, you're supposed to be French.

That's why vietnamese, african, etc. that now live in France are considered as French. What bother most French people (ex-vietnamese, etc.) is foreigner that don't want to be French but live in France.

France is full of people of English, Portugese, Spanish, Italian, German, etc. descent. That's what France is.

The concept of nationalism didn't exist at the time of monarchy. French were the people that were subject of the King of France. So if a king invaded germany, german would have become French.

Only a significant economic downturn will spark the war.

>Very simple, just as the anglo saxons are angles and juntas mix
Those are a minority of Britons though with the most generous estimates being 40%, making it quite ironic that all Englishmen (and even some Scots, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen use that term to label themselves)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#Ancient_DNA.2C_rare_mutations_and_whole_genome_sequencing
This would mean about 60% of Englishmen aren't really "English" at the very least. (Also France is named after the Franks and not the Gauls).

>As such there are no civic nationalism in monarchies
I agree, mostly because there is no such thing as nationalism in monarchies. A monarchy is defined by a monarch, and his subjects defined by being ruled by the monarch. In cases like that of Austria the case of ethnicity is especially hard to make considering that throughout most of its history German Austrians were the minority.

>they are conquered territories which the french king has the right to rule over as its part of his realm.
I agree. It is the king's divine right that makes them part of France in that case, not any form of nationalism.

>under the monarchy it's ethnic.
Alright, I'm getting sick of this Name ONE source in favor of this argument. Monarchies concerned themselves with neither ethnicity nor nationalism. Name one fucking source claiming that the foundation of pre-revolutionary monarchies was ethnic nationalism. ONE.

You're right, the problem is people who don't want to assimilate. "Color nationalism" was never the priority and the basis of french patriotism. That's why we were the people racemixing the most with the people from our previous colonies in the 19th century.

De Gaulles only released Algeria and it was that or giving them citizenship or genocide them to the last (which would not have looked good after Nuremberg, especially for the country of the "human rights").

Also for the rest of the colonies:
>implying we could keep a grip on it with half of the country being commie and the KGB/CIA funding and training agitators
>implying France wasn't half destroyed by british, american and nazi carpet bombing and didn't loose a large part of its population for a second time in 40 years
>implying american gave us a choice

Both USA and USSR were strongly against colonization, from that point there was no possibility to continue it.
Would be interesting to see what would have happened with the british and french empire still there today.

You're a race traitor faggot and we're coming for people like you.

They sound like authoritarian scum then.

fpbp

you speak as a republican. So allow me to tell you back what you said: I'm sorry to disappoint you but France is Gaul. It doesn't matter if you flood it with an additional 50 million people from all over the world or if you did this with germany or elsewhere. The precedence of immigration doesn't change the nationality of a country. Just because France when under a monarchy is the greatest power in the world and the people want to move there doesn't make it universal. Lully even if the king of France made "french" wasn't french, because kings don't have the power to confer a nationality, nature does. It's purely genetic.

For instance a man who would be half gallic, half german would be half french in identity because that's what genetics made him. It's easier to speak of blood because it's the same thing anyways.

An asian will never be french, a jew will never be french, an african will never be french, this is a genetic fact. The fact many of them live in the country doesn't change french nationality.

Every ethnicity is recognized, if you go to china, nobody will say who's chinese. And if you are in France, despite its awesomeness which is responsible for many wanting to and indeed moving there doesn't make france a universal homosexual country, the origin of the people through time living in that country has been gallic for 4000 years.

Not false, not true.

You can't see a big difference between an italian and a french, or between an anglo or a french.

this

*between an anglo and a french

French aren't pure gallic since 1600 years leaf, there is something called the frankish migrations who settled in the Empire around 400 and then filled the power vaccum of the Rome collapse by passing an alliance with the gallo-romans (basically the frankish warrior class and the gallo roman catholic church).

As far as we know there was no subjuguation of gallo romans and they mixed pretty fast and by that time of Charlemagne evryone in the Gauls called himself "franks" from the records.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have ethnic nationalism based on our indo european ancestry but the concept of a "gallic" France is kind of stupid, we are quintessentielly mongrelized between germanic, italo celtic and gallic population, it's the same thing for the english.

"official" stats are something like 60% pro Le Pen

1 of 2

Scots are celts, just as the welsh and the irish. The English conquered them and subjugated them. The very act of the state calling someone english doesn't then make the ethnic celts english. Anymore than the people living across the english channel who are also celts who themselves are conquered by the gallic "french" now are french for the same reason. Those two people - the bretons in France, and the welch in the UK are not french and english, but are celts, because such is their blood and such is their genetics. Just as a bird isn't a french bird, but defined by nature to be its own species such is the nature of humans when it comes to the division of their distinction in ethnicities. I speak here of objective reality, notice well.

>I agree, mostly because there is no such thing as nationalism in monarchies.
Yes there is, under monarchies nationalism flourishes. The conquest of France by a foreign monarch during the anglo french wars was a war of rights of rulership but also the people fight because they don't want to be under the english. Charles Martel who fought the invaders didn't fight against a foreign rule as much as he fought against ethnic foreigners attacking their nations. They could have been iberians they would have resisted them the same. Nationalism is just the ethnic nation affirming itself, its sovereignty, its glory, who it actually is in the world that God created.

>I agree. It is the king's divine right that makes them part of France in that case, not any form of nationalism.
it's the king's divine right that make them part of France, and not any form of nationalism but that doesn't make them french. He merely has conquered them, they failed and now are under a foreign rule.

2 of 2

>Alright, I'm getting sick of this Name ONE source in favor of this argument. Monarchies concerned themselves with neither ethnicity nor nationalism.
I don't speak of mere concepts, i speak of objective reality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs

this is a list of french kings which ruled over France. Notice they were initially before liberalising called not king of the realm, but king of the ethnic nation. A king indeed has more to rule over than just his people, he can rule over the people whom precedent kings or himself conquered. But those don't change the nature of what nationalism is. When I speak of nationalism i mean striving for one's own people, you could invent a word for it that would make the point better and call it ethnicism: for one's own ethnicity. This is what nationalism is. The definition of words can change to include people who are conquered and now are called by the name of their conquerer's country which bears the name of its original ethnic group.

I'm Canadian and i don't give a shit about the anglos living here as far as wanting to build a nation with them. I care far more about my ethnic group, the french living in France and in parts of the united states than those who share a piece of land with me and call themselves Quebecois.

Just wait till there's enough angry Sunni muslims.

A giant shipment of guns across the country would do the trick i.e., worked for the IRA.

Considering the military and police will be on the shitskins' side (especially with the extremely high number of infiltrated muslims), and that shitskins are way more armed and violent than the majority of white people, I think things aren't going to go as you hope they will.

The Franks didn't repopulate Gaul, they merely took administration of it from the Romans when they conquered it. They didn't mix with the people any more than the Settlers in Canada did: meaning a few might have but the overall population didn't.

>germanic, italo celtic and gallic population
No we are not, because being under foreign administrative rule doesn't mean everybody is miscegenated out of its ethnicity in a national genocide. The gallic french living in Quebec are living under anglo rule, yet they haven't been bread as a mix of anglos and gauls, they are still gauls.

Yeah, I certainly have a republican bias, but I think it's not true to say that French are either Gauls, either gallo-roman with a touch of germanic people because 80% of french population would be out of this definition.

no they wouldn't be. Someone who'S 85% gaul and 15% something else is 85% gaul and 15% something else, he's basically 85% gaul.

And the immigration brought about foreign population in the country but it doesn't change the fact they are foreigners. They are accepted by the republic and were for many of them by the monarchs but they were and are by nature foreigners.

Most people living in France, are Gauls. As I said about 80% of the french are Gauls. Only a small percentage of the population of them is mixed.

>France has been influenced by the many different human migrations that wide-crossed Europe over time. Prehistoric and Neolithic population movements could have influenced the genetic diversity of this country. A study in 2009 analysed 555 French individuals from 7 different regions in mainland France and found the following Y-DNA Haplogroups. The five main haplogroups are R1 (63.41%), E (11.41%) (traced mostly in the Paris area), I (8.88%), J (7.97%) and G (5.16%). R1b (particularly R1b1b2) was found to be the most dominant Y chromosomal lineage in France, covering about 60% of the Y chromosomal lineages. The high frequency of this haplogroup is typical in all West European populations. Haplogroups I and G are also characteristic markers for many different West European populations. Haplogroups J and E1b1b (M35, M78, M81 and M34) consist of lineages with differential distribution within Middle East, North Africa and Europe. Only adults with French surnames were analyzed by the study.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_people#Genetics

R1's haplogroups dominant in North Europe, especially R1b which makes up about 60% of Y DNA haplogroups in France. This is distinctively West European. Other West European countries (of Celtic heritage) have high R1b levels.

Just because 20ish % of French citizens have J or E haplogroups, doesn't mean they are just as French.

no
no

What our intelligence service fears the most is a Police Coup d'État following an agression targetting law enforcement representents and/or their family.

This nearly happened when two cops were burned alive in a migrant suburb and when a terroriste assaulted the house of police officer killing his wife and traumatized his 9 years old son.

And it will happens again, and the government would not be able to do anything for the Police is 50% pro-Marine (actual stats) and they failed many times to stop their armed protests where they carry their weapons.

You just need the sparkle.

What we need to do is get rid of the sand monkeys and France will be fine

Under Macron, very probable.
We came pretty close to a full blown revolution during Hollande's presidency, so Macron would just be the last trigger.

Under Le Pen i'd say not at all, neither under Fillon (although he will have the same policies as Macron -> the Bruxelles ones).

maybe 5,000 dead french

Dude, French youth is arming itself pretty fast. The number of "hunt" (=allowed to have a weapon) permits is exploding, and the numbers of people erolling in the military/police are through the roof since 2015

Your mom, only willing to give BJs to half of the population?

...

...

>We came pretty close to a full blown revolution during Hollande's presidency
wat

>under foreign administrative rule
But it wasn't a foreign administrative rule, the franks actually passed the Rhine and settled there massively and they mixed.

>The gallic french living in Quebec are living under anglo rule, yet they haven't been bread as a mix of anglos and gauls, they are still gauls.

Québec is 3 times bigger than France and anglo settlement in Canada is 150 years old while frankis is 1500 years old, every single "ethnic" french has Charlemagne as ancestor because that's how genealogy works.
Also Trudeau is the living example that british canadians mix with quebecquois.

>LMPT
>Bonnets rouges
>Jour de colère
>Loi travail

Especially the bonnets rouges, they were supposed to go fuck shit up in Paris but were given what they wanted just the day before (some police-guy told me anyway)

>leaf flag trying to lecture french flags about french history
what is your obsession with the notion of who is french? you were screeching autistically about france and gaul heritage yesterday too.

please do tell us more about how all of the nicoise, provencals, basques, and occitans - basically all of south france - aren't really french and will be expelled in the coming race war.

>every single "ethnic" french has Charlemagne as ancestor because that's how genealogy works.
This is not an argument and even if true that doesn't mean much. Charlemagne (a single individual) doesn't contribute any autosomal genes to any Frenchmen today (see pedigree collapse). Gauls were a massive people in numbers. Their genetic contribution still likely exists in Frenchmen of today.

It's already on the way honestly, the "Identitaires" are the seed needed for right wing militias. They are even ditributed by geographical locations.

Piquemal is not bad at all.

That's comforting at least. Let's hope the shy tory factor is the same or more powerful than it was in the states

Agreed. Nationalism is a problem of ideas, not races.
Viets were never a problem, however muslims be they white or sand have been a problem since the muslim awakening in the 80s.

>Economical