France: Civil War By 2030?

A Terrifying Scenario From One Of The Country's Top Counterterrorism Advisers

I’m sending you an extra newsletter today because I’ve just read (in French) a stunning interview in Valeurs Actuelles, the Paris magazine. I reproduce it below in translation; the italics are in the original:

Is France on the verge of tipping over? “With 28 knife attacks per day, the country is no longer safe. We’re heading straight for disaster,” Jean-Louis Sanchet replies bluntly. This private security consultant created and commanded CRS No. 8, the national police’s specialized unit for combating urban violence from 2021 to 2023.

“France experienced its last situation of “civil war” in its history in 1871, during the Paris Commune,” introduces Jean-Louis Sanchet. “It was a situation mixing political chaos with social revolt.” However, “insurrectional epiphenomena have always been controlled, notably during May 68 or the Yellow Vests in 2018-19.” The former commander of CRS No. 8 warns of a climate of “increasingly growing violence across the country . “

For this private security consultant and crisis management specialist, one question arises: what high-risk security scenarios threaten France by 2030? “The factors that lead to a civil war are multiple. But what they all have in common is violence and a feeling of rejection on the part of the population of the laws of the Republic ,” comments Jean-Louis Sanchet.

The threat of “community shock”

The former police officer points out five criteria that can cause and be the triggers of a shift towards civil war: ethnic, religious, community, political, social and territorial.

The “ethnic factor” is linked to “tensions in neighborhoods between groups of individuals who do not share the same origin ,” he says. Clashes can begin over simple “claims for a country, a sense of belonging to another people . “

Commander Sanchet supports his argument by citing the example of the riots in Dijon in 2020: “This clash is linked to territorial claims in lawless areas between groups of young people with Chechen and Maghreb origins. Drug trafficking may also be at the origin of or associated with the outbreak of these hostilities. The police encountered great difficulty in defusing this situation, in which these “foreigners” no longer claimed their belonging to French nationality but to their religious denomination .” In this case, it was a meeting organized between imams from the two communities and their agreement that made it possible to put an end to this violence.

The “community clash” is one of its aspects that should not be underestimated. “It’s one of the consequences of the ethnic factor,” continues Jean-Louis Sanchet. “These are populations who put their culture forward, in order to withdraw into themselves.” Understand: clashes linked “to a certain hatred towards another community, which we will seek at all costs to dominate .”

This situation leads to violent community tensions, as in 2005, in Perpignan, in the very sensitive Saint-Jacques district: “The traveling community sought confrontation following the murder of one of their own by local youths. This clash took on proportions that were difficult to channel in the restoration of order.”

In the short term, it is “the war of territories” that could “tipping France into civil war . “ “We are witnessing a Mexicanization of France ,” he assures. That is to say, territories that from one day to the next would no longer be under the control of the laws and authority of the Republic. “You are in a situation where a territory can be claimed from one day to the next for community and/or criminal reasons. And then, you are faced with gangs who will do everything to seize it and impose their law.”

This situation already has precedents in history, notably in Kosovo, Lebanon and Brazil. “Each time, these lawless areas are controlled by criminal gangs who do not hesitate to loot, extort money and kill anyone who resists them ,” insists our police officer. And he warns: “62 neighborhoods of republican reconquest have currently been identified by the intelligence services, without omitting all the others classified as sensitive urban zones (751 ZUS), many of which are considered dangerous.”

Example: “The Saint-Denis fracture”

At the end of this analytical reflection, Commander Sanchet proposes a first fictional scenario of a crisis, involving ethnic and community factors, in a predetermined area: Seine-Saint-Denis. The intersection of these security parameters would notably generate urban violence and the application of a zonal state of emergency by the government.

In 2030, a government reform proposes to “dissolve certain associations deemed “communitarian” and to strengthen controls on foreign funding of places of worship ,” introduces Jean-Louis Sanchet. The reason? The suburbs are increasingly marginalized. Debates on secularism, national identity, and minority rights are becoming explosive. In response, “an informal coalition is forming” against this government decision.

Community groups denounce “an exclusionary republican universalism . “ Far-left groups “are joining forces with these demands .” Adding to this protest movement are “Islamo-left intellectuals and activists, supporting Muslim minorities and anti-capitalist movements .” This coalition of far-left activists, anti-racist groups, and religious groups “are organizing a “March of the Invisible” in Saint-Denis . “

Palestinian and anarchist flags fluttered side by side. Anti-capitalist and anti-Islamophobic slogans were chanted. The march turned violent when “counter-protesters joined in .” The overwhelmed police intervened brutally. The situation escalated and took on unexpected proportions: “An uncontrolled Islamo-leftist insurrection then broke out in the heart of Saint-Denis.” The government declared “a state of local emergency . “

The state is being forced to redefine its relationship with diversity, protest, and secularism. The debate on Islamo-leftism, long confined to television sets, “is becoming a constitutional issue .” This scenario illustrates how tensions surrounding communitarianism, the far left, and Islamo-leftism could “crystallize into a major confrontation . “ “This is not an immediate civil war ,” but a profound ideological clash that could redefine the foundations of the Republic.

Cross-cutting crises with multiple hotbeds of protest

After analyzing the factors, Commander Sanchet presents the cross-cutting nature of the crisis links, from a simple localized protest to the tipping point of civil war: the suburbs, the extreme right, and the social uprising. “They all have in common this ‘fight’ against injustice ,” our police officer recalls: “Under fallacious ideological and political pretexts, these hotbeds voluntarily secede from the laws of the Republic. These hotbeds are protean and complex threats for the police to grasp.”

In the case of the suburbs, “we are talking about links of opportunity between radical Islam, uncontrolled immigration, and drug trafficking .” The point of convergence of this protest is Islamism, “reinforced by the political reach of the Ummah , which will unite Salafists and Muslims under the same banner .” This destabilization “is reinforced” by “illegal immigration” and “money” from drug trafficking. Added to this is the ultra-left activism which, in the “name of its globalist struggle”, will contribute to this general “destabilization” .

The threat of a “far-right uprising” would be linked to “religious and violence-cult” criteria . We are talking here about “French citizens” who “would not be affiliated with any party and without a criminal record” , who could take up arms to “protect themselves from an external threat” and defend “a vision of a certain heritage of France” .

These profiles have the particularity of not being known to the police services and are in a “process of extreme self-protection” . These citizens will organize themselves to “defend their neighborhood, their homes against the suburbs in particular. They feel more able to defend themselves and no longer expect anything from the State and the police” . We are in a “militia phenomenon” , where only the supposed defense “of their property and their loved ones” counts . Jean-Louis Sanchet cites the example of the Caldoches groups in New Caledonia: “In a reflex of self-protection and in the absence of the police, some of our citizens have already taken up arms in the past to repel the Kanak separatists.”

Finally, the “social uprising” is the expression “of a people in disarray and decrepitude” . “All these transversal crises will converge, insists Jean-Louis Sanchet. These multiple hotbeds of protest will then seek to destabilize the Republic and the State. And this organized disorder will combine all these threats into a single, serious crisis.

Example: “Islamist insurrection”

To move from analysis to practical application, Jean-Louis Sanchet developed a second scenario: an Islamist insurrection, fueled by drug trafficking and uncontrolled immigration. The intersection of these security parameters would generate widespread chaos linked to insecurity, identity, and religion.

In 2030, police operations against drug networks intensified and caused “tensions in several cities, particularly in Île-de-France, Marseille and Lyon” . These interventions, sometimes forceful, were perceived as “aggressions by certain residents, fueling a feeling of injustice” .

Intelligence services are stepping up their surveillance in “areas identified as hotbeds of radicalization .” They are targeting mosques, associations, and schools linked to “Islamist movements .” In response, localized and sporadic “riots” will break out. This violence is therefore “exploited by extremist groups to stir up anger and recruit . “

The accumulation of tensions linked to insecurity, identity and religion creates “a climate of mistrust between the State and a section of the population in working-class neighborhoods .” The feeling of “state Islamophobia” is immediately exploited by certain groups to “justify radicalization and reinforce rejection of institutions . “

Faced with this major security threat, “intelligence services are warning of the risk of a shift towards coordinated violent actions .” The government is concerned about local infiltration and a threat to national cohesion. This social and security powder keg will therefore have as an “amplifier” “ drug trafficking and Islamic terrorism which will provoke these violent reactions in certain suburbs . “

“France 2030: the collapse of a society”

These scenarios should not “minimize the impacts and consequences in the event of a civil war .” The police officer now lists the “chronological unfolding of a society that is definitively falling into chaos...”

In 2030, France is in the grip of a “series of demonstrations and blockades” denouncing illegal immigration and its consequences for national cohesion. At the same time, the “suburbs are ablaze” against the backdrop of “the reaction of the inhabitants of these lawless areas . “ “Groups of migrants” then converge , denouncing their precarious conditions. Above all, they join “in brotherhood with the seditious Islamo-leftist movement.”

Large cities (Nantes, Metz, Dijon, etc.) are becoming “unmanageable and ungovernable .” Waves of “uninhibited violence” are hitting the country’s major cities. “Physical attacks” are rife. Buildings symbolizing the authority of the Republican government are being “vandalized . “ “Looting and theft” are increasing in city centers. At the same time, “energy infrastructure and road installations (stations, highways, etc.) are being sabotaged .”

As a result, significant “population displacements” will take place “towards non-exposed areas” . Two categories of people will then stand out: “Those who have the means to flee abroad and those who can avoid the consequences of this civil war by reaching their country homes.” For those who remain in exposed areas, they have no other choice but to “survive by their own means” .

But, the horrors of the civil war are sweeping over these “until then protected areas” . Indirectly, “the countryside that was protected until then will see the problems metastasize” . “Purchasing power collapses” with the civil war. A “significant food shortage” is raging throughout the country. “Bartering” is becoming commonplace to “feed oneself and therefore, survive” . Direct consequence: “Explosion of the black market.”

This situation is therefore increasing “social inequalities” and “disintegrating the social bond that was the foundation of the Nation” . To “survive” , “armed bands of looters” are emerging in all four corners of the country: “This phenomenon of ‘roadblockers’, as is currently the case in Mayotte, will take advantage of this period to increase the process of malicious and harmful actions in the countryside.”

The “territorial divide” is worsening. In a herd-like manner, “enclaves of self-protection” are established and “spread in response to the multiplication of no-go areas” . This autarky “reinforces the community withdrawal” of the entire French population. This causes “social disintegration” and, de facto, “the disintegration of society” .

Solutions to “get France out of chaos”

“Now that the worst has been exposed in a non-exhaustive manner, perhaps we should think about rebuilding,” remarks Jean-Louis Sanchet. A whole “security, political, diplomatic and social” plan must be put in place to “get France out of chaos .” To overcome this crisis, the officer proposes “concrete solutions” to calm the country and quickly control the consequences of a civil war.

The first priority is a “massive deployment of police and gendarmerie forces .” The objective is to “recapture lost territories. Law enforcement will have to patrol neighborhoods, search and arrest all troublemakers.” This police response, which could be carried out with “the combination of the army ,” is primarily aimed at “neutralizing the most dangerous armed groups . “

On the political side, the second priority is the “declaration of a state of emergency” with “the establishment of martial law” . It will also be necessary to “close and re-establish border controls, in order to avoid the escalation of problems to be managed” . The main issue is to “restore our policies and our institutions and to imperatively legitimize the return of the Republic” . This will notably involve “a revision of the Constitution” and “the creation of a provisional government of national unity, based on the model of the provisional government of the French Republic of 1944” .

This “political normalization” must be accompanied by “a reform of our education system and a new valorization of the concept of citizenship .” To “fight against the social divide ,” our leaders will have to make “the fight against inequalities a political imperative.” By acting in these areas, “our entire republican pact and our values ​​will be saved .” And thus, “bring our country back to life . “

Read the whole thing in French.

As I keep saying, senior figures in the French security apparatus say privately that the situation is so bad now that some scenario as above is inevitable. This is the David Betz warning for France, Britain, and all of Western Europe. I am seeing nothing about this in US media. As I’ve shared with you before, when I visit the US, even reasonably well informed American friends are utterly shocked when I talk to them about this. I’m sending this to all subscribers of this newsletter this morning, but if you want to stay informed, please consider taking out a paid subscription. I write daily, and often pay attention to this developing story.

Over the weekend, I heard Hungary’s PM Viktor Orban address members of his party. A Hungarian friend sent me this translation of his opening remarks:

If you think about the U.S. president, just consider this: only a year ago, they wanted to shoot him. His wealth was taken away, and in January he was still facing criminal charges for crimes allegedly committed against the United States. All this happened just 8–10 months ago. I’m telling you this because the fact that political debate in Hungary is sharp, sometimes brutal and relentless, is not unique — this is the reality across the entire Western world.

European politics has become like this too. One day, when we have time, we can discuss why that is. But for now, let me just note that if a system of governance is unable to provide answers to the questions that people consider most important, the inevitable result is crisis — and crisis breeds aggressiveness, fear of losing power, a desperate struggle to retain power. Our Western world is now experiencing this.

As the U.S. president rightly said, Hungary does not face the kind of problems other countries suffer from, so we don’t really feel the deep, civilizational challenges confronting the West — challenges to which Western governments and institutions have failed to find answers. And if they fail to do so, crisis follows. We might not feel it here, but for them, it’s a daily reality. We’ll have to end our talk today a few minutes before the hour because the German Chancellor is calling — and surely not because things are going well back home. They never call when that’s the case.

Migration, for example, is a civilizational issue. It comes with many problems: its economic burden, and the arrival of a Muslim civilization into a Christian European space. Remember, we were used to the opposite dynamic. Europe’s last great migration wave was the collapse of peoples centuries ago. Since then, no large influx of culturally different populations has occurred — largely because we stopped the Ottomans at Nándorfehérvár, later at Vienna. Since then, Europe hasn’t experienced the mass arrival of culturally alien populations. Now it has. Islamization, mixed societies — and governments cannot cope with the consequences. Meanwhile, this is the single most important issue for the people.

This means that beyond institutional capacity, the talent — or lack thereof — of leaders also matters if governments are to respond. The same applies to competitiveness. The fact that German car manufacturers are struggling, that brands once thought unshakable in their global positions are now faltering — these are entirely new phenomena. Europe’s inability to produce world-leading technological products at competitive prices and quality is another crisis, one that has persisted for years. And not only in Germany — even in Brussels — no adequate solutions have been found. The same is true of the war: this, too, is a challenge for democratic governance, and they cannot find answers to it either.

We are not here today to find solutions to their problems, but to understand why these problems do not exist for us. The Hungarian national community is capable of finding answers to these questions. The reason we have succeeded is that our parliamentary system, backed by a two-thirds majority, can produce governments that provide those answers. They are not complicated solutions — they are not Nobel Prize-level puzzles. Migration, for example, is not a complicated issue if you stop them at the border.

But when you must stop a mass of people and cannot do it peacefully, the question arises: what will you do? And if you want to stop them, you must make that decision in advance. Achieving political consensus on such a decision among competing parties is impossible — it is only possible with a strong, unified government supported by a large majority, like ours. So far, God has spared us. You remember Röszke [a violent migrant riot in 2015 at a border crossing — RD] — but Röszke was just a light afternoon tea compared to what would happen if they tried to break through our border not over 100 meters but over a two-kilometer stretch. There are all kinds of technical measures in place — which you don’t need to know about and which we are not using now — but since this is no trivial matter, we must be prepared to use them if necessary.

Hungary does not have these problems because the Orban government has always taken a tough line on migration. I’ve long thought that one reason the European Union officials demonize him is because he serves as a good foil to distract from their utter failures to manage their own deeply problematic societies, re: Islamization and migration.

When he spoke last month in Budapest, David Betz said that if all this kicks off, “millions will die,” and it will take Europe the better part of a century to recover. He predicted that there would be everywhere “forced remigration” — a sterile term that means governments rounding up foreigners from problematic ethnic groups, even naturalized citizens, and kicking them out. It’s important to remember that Betz is not recommending any of this, just saying what the data indicate to him.