to Afchine Davoudi and Francis Marche, with all my gratitude for correcting my English; the remaining mistakes are entirely mine—some were added at the last minute.
In the past man has been first; in the future the system must be first.
Frederick W. Taylor
The Principles of Scientific Management
Replacing is the central gesture of contemporary societies. For better or worse, everything is being replaced by something else: something simpler, more convenient, more practical, easier to produce, more at hand and, of course, cheaper. Las Vegas displays a fake Venice in Nevada, Spain establishes a mock Las Vegas in Castilla, China has its own Paris near Pekin — a much safer place than the real one for the traveller and for the local dweller alike.
Amusement parks, those temples of diversion, the shopping malls of substitution, epitomise fakeness itself, There, visitors will find medieval castles, complete with towers, dungeons, torture chambers, banquet rooms and ghosts ; but also Wild West saloons, New England Victorian mansions, Southern plantations, Eiffel towers to placate all tastes. All these fairground amusement devices have to look more or less like the original thing, though, at least to the unsophisticated eye. If anything, like all imitations, they have to display more signs of being what they imitate than the actual object they imitate, which, being the real thing, does not have to provide extra signs or confirming evidence of its identity. Identity, always, is already a way of mourning the thing or the being, a way of acknowledging their loss. Being identical is being exactly like something or somebody else: that is, not being it. Such is precisely the reason why, although I have much sympathy and admiration for them, I am not an “Identitarian” (Identitaire). The Poilus, the French soldiers of First World War I, were not identitarian. They just were French. If asked what it is to be French, I would answer:
“Not asking (oneself) the question (to oneself). Not wondering about it.”
Naturally, imitations are expected to yield a cash return for their investors, or, at least, spare them some expenditures.
As a consequence of mass tourism, the world itself is fast becoming just another amusement park, while the original thing itself, the original town, monument, site, keen as it is to look more like what the tourists expect to find than it would naturally, tends to imitate its imitations, to overact and over-signify its beingness, thus contributing to the covering of the world with eager signs of what is less and less — what I call oversignposting, the replacement of the thing by its name, by its designation, by an explanation about what it is, or was, or would like to be, is one of the major minor problems: it is one of the main causes of general landscape defacing, the disfiguration of the visible space, which is in the momentous process of changing into a universal suburb, the suburb of living.
Faux, simili, imitation, ersatz, simulacrum, copies, counterfeiting, fakes, forgeries, lures, mimics, are the key words of modern human experience. Stone masonry is being replaced by ferroconcrete, concrete by plaster, marble by chip aggregate, timber by PVC, town and countryside by the universal suburb, earth by cement and tar, seaside by seaside resorts, mountains by ski resorts and ski lifts, paths by hiking trails, nature by land-use planning in expectation of economic spinoffs, real people by B&B hosts, clients by friends, friends by clients, culture by entertainment and the leisure industry, exercise by sport, sport by the Olympic Games, the Olympic Games by big business, business by corruption, corruption by doping, literature by journalism, journalism by information, news by fake news, truth by fallacy, last name by first name, last name and first name by pseudonyms, intimacy by familiarity, hearts by artificial hearts, every part of the body by spare parts, history by ideology, the destiny of nations by plain politics, politics by economics, economics by finance, the experience of looking and living by sociology, sorrow by statistics, residents by tourists, natives by non-natives, Europeans by Africans, White Anglo-Saxons by Afro-Americans and Latinos, mothers by surrogate mothers, men by women, women by inflatable dolls, men and women by robots, robots by robot-like humans, peoples by other peoples and communities, humanity by post-humanity, humanism by transhumanism, man by Undifferentiated Human Matter (UHM).
Democratisation claims to give to everybody what once was the exclusive privilege of the few, and, all in all, one has to admit that it does so, be it travelling, education, or entertainment. To reach that aim, it has to provide and offer cheaper versions of everything — salmon, plane tickets, diplomas, hotel rooms. Hotels are particularly significant in this respect. All over the world there has been a bounty of newly-built, upper-range establishments, most of them displaying four if not five stars, and providing most of the services of a traditional four- if not five-star hotel. They are the real thing, except for the price. Unfortunately, it was the price which was the real real thing. What you pay is what you get. The price was the condition of the reality of a palace hotel, if only because a higher room rate carried the extra benefit of keeping at bay people like you. If you can afford it, it is not worth it; above all, if you and me can afford it, it is not the real thing. It can’t be. The famous statement by Groucho Marx is proven deeper and righter evert day, and its author almost as great an economist, philosopher and metaphysician as his more famous namesake:
“I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.”
This is exactly like Europe for Africans: what made it desirable for them was that they were not there. They envy an order, a prosperity, a sense of generosity in terms of social benefits and safety nets, the sound functioning of institutions which have been achieved through centuries of nurturing efforts, trials and tribulations, cultural transmission, inheritance, sacrifices and revolutions. What make countries, continents, cultures and civilisations what they are, what we admire or regret, are the people and the elites who have fashioned them and continue to embody their man-made essence. With other peoples, and other elites, these would be, and indeed are, different countries, different continents, other civilisations. Even though that is exactly what a lot of industrial and financial interests would like him to be, man is not, or not quite yet, fortunately, some undifferentiated matter that one can spread indiscriminately, like peanut-butter or Nutella, anywhere on the surface of the Earth. If and when populated with Africans, be they from North Africa or Black Africa, Europe would be just another Africa, with a few interesting ruins as added value. Under such prospect and in such an event, it springs to mind that there is not much point for Africans in undertaking the trip Nevertheless, they still do come. But the moment they reach their target, their reasons for aiming at it dissolve. They are like men who would feel desire for virgins only.
The poor have been fooled by democracy, and even more so by the so-called democratisation. They finally have had access to many of the things the rich had hitherto kept out of their reach, but the instant they grasp them those things turned into ashes, by the very fact that they grasped them. Thus the beauty of the natural world, generally spoilt by mass tourism: suffice is to think of the French Riviera, once so exquisite in the paintings of Renoir or Bonnard, and now so ugly, destroyed and defiled by overpopulation and popularity. But the most relevant case is education. Education is selection, heritage, and inequality — first of all to oneself. Providing college education to everybody is tantamount to not providing anything at all, since the very essence of that particular thing being provided is that it is not for everybody. A college degree granted to eighty per cent of the population implies ten times less knowledge and understanding of the world for each graduate than it did when granted to eight per cent only. Or, to turn it the other way, it implies the same degree of knowledge and cultural competency that eighty per cent of the population could claim when no one dreamt of considering it worth a diploma.
I have coined the phrase Great Replacement (in French Grand Remplacement) to denote the brutal change of population which has been taking place in France (and in Europe) since the beginning of the last quarter of the last century; and which has been gaining momentum ever since. The name came to me as I was travelling to write a sort of literary guidebook about the département of l’Hérault, in Languedoc, Southern France, when I discovered that thousand-year-old villages had their population largely transformed, with women wearing the Islamic veil gathering at the 18th-century fountain and other appearing at gothic twin windows. I was accustomed for long to the existence of large modern banlieues almost entirely populated by immigrants, but this was an altogether different experience. The name I gave it was probably dictated to me by more or less conscious historical memories of the Great Upeaval of the Acadians, in 18th-century Canada. There was nothing strictly deliberate in my choice of words. It is not absolutely apt, and never claimed to be so, because there is no immediate replacement, strictly speaking. The population submitted to mass migration and ethnic submersion is not being killed or expelled, save for some unfortunate exceptions, which are becoming more and more numerous. The fact remains that entire streets, districts, towns, regions, not to mention schools, which had had for centuries a given population, suddenly have an entirely different one. The face of the country has been transformed to an unimaginable extent. So has its body, and so has its mind, and soul. This brings us back to the immortal question of Georg Lichtenberg: is a knife whose handle has been changed, and then the blade, still the same knife?
Great Replacement, the choice of words proved handy, in any case, because replacement and to replace have, at least in French, a lot of very convenient derivatives, even if one may have to force them a little into an unheard of existence: replacers, replacists, replacees, replacism, antireplacism.
In Western Europe the situation could be described as having three protagonists: the replacists, who want the change of people and civilisation, which they are prone to call multiculturalism, or “vivre ensemble” (living together), and which they promote or impose with all the means they master (and those are enormous because replacists are and have the power, the government, all the big political parties, the judges and, for all practical purposes, the totality of the media); the replacers, mostly from Africa, and very often Muslims; and the replacees, the indigenous population, whose very existence is frequently denied, even in retrospect (not only do they not exist, but they have also never existed). Replacees do exist, though, even if they don’t see themselves as such. But they are divided into two groups, and that would make the number of the dramatis personnae rise to four: consenting replacees, either because they refuse to admit that any such thing as replacement is taking place, or because they don’t see any objection to it, or think it is an excellent thing; and unwilling replacees, the refractory ones, who think the said replacement is an absolute monstrosity, the epitome of what their ancestors had been willing to avoid for centuries, at the cost of any sacrifice.
Fortunately or unfortunately the nemesis of replacism is that replacists will be eaten, devoured, absorbed, replaced by their very replacers. Replacists replace lambs by wolfs. They replace docile replacees, well prepared to their own replacement by too much comfort, too much civilisation, too little culture and constant propaganda, by rather agressive replacers, younger, more numerous, testosteronically superior, well fed by their replacees and fiercely identitarian (especially the Muslims amongst them). Replacists will be gobbled up first. That is a meagre consolation. But the result of this quick survey is that, when all is said and done, there are only two types of characters on the stage; and that the only demarcation line which really matters is the one which separates remplacists, active or passive supporters of the Great Replacement, from antiremplacists, who would rather die than let the process, well advanced as it is, carry on to its full term.
The population stock of France had experienced little variations in time between what is termed the Great Invasions (by Huns, Goths, Wisigoths and the like), during the 6th and 7th centuries, and, at the other end of the timeline, the last decades of the 20th century. Indeed what is now referred to as immigration is a process that started in the close of the 19th century. But this was immigration of an entirely different character from the one we are now experiencing. For one thing it was entirely European, being composed of Belgians in the north of France, Poles, specially in the eastern and northern parts of the country, Italians in the South, later on Spaniards, Portuguese, Jews fleeing the pogroms of Poland, Ukraine or Russia and, of course, Nazi persecutions later on. Also, the number of newcomers bore no relation whatsoever with those brought in by present day immigration — which, incidentally, renders this term totally obsolete, although it is still very much in use: the flow of migrants has taken such proportions that immigration has become a misnomer for what it is: it is more akin to an invasion, a migratory tsunami, a submerging wave of ethnic substitution.
“Such numbers? What numbers?” you may ask, to which I could only answer: “I don’t know”, and further feel very much tempted to add: “And I don’t care”. I leave it to the reader to decide whether I do not know because I do not care or I do not care because I do not know.
In France, very conveniently for those who want and favour the Great Replacement, the State forbids the calculation and publishing of ethnic statistics. However, even if such statistics were generated and made public, I doubt I would make much use of them.
Firstly, because I do not believe it is for science and scientists to assess and declare what the circumstances are and what plight the people of a given nation is experiencing and suffering from at a given moment. It has never happened that way in history. When Joan of Arc came to Chinon to visit king Charles VII, in 1428, to tell him something had to be done about France being occupied by the English, how could one envision, by any stretch of imagination, the king’s retort to be something like this:
“Occupied by the English? What allows you to say so? Do you have the exact numbers? Without reliable stats we can’t do a damn thing…”?
Can one imagine Jean Moulin, when he became the head of the French Resistance to German occupation on French soil in 1942, requesting scientific evidence to decide whether German occupation was the appropriate phrase to describe the situation of France at that moment:
“German occupation ? Without reliable figures, how can you be sure…?”
It has never been for science to tell whether or not there was an actual Independence War taking place in America in 1776, a French Revolution in 1789, a First World War in 1914. Indeed here we are faced with one more case of generic substitution, i.e. science standing as a substitute for experience, as a replacement for facing evidence and coming to terms with it, as an ersatz and palliative for grief over the loss of one’s country and one’s people:
“Don’t cry! Don’t be sorry for what you think is happening. Science is telling you it is not happening. Do not trust your eyes, do not trust your heart, do not listen to your pain: have only faith in our figures ».
Of course anyone who will refer to Galileo at this stage will have a point, for that is more or less what he was telling the public, and he has been proven right. But I am afraid the disciplines which are being called upon, this time, to testify against our subjective experience, namely sociology, statistics, demography, are not scientific to the same extent as are astronomy and mathematics; what is more, they have been proven inaccurate on countless occasions. There is even some strong suspicion that they might have been not only wrong but also actually lying, with what degree of slyness or forthrightness is not for me to say. In France they have been claiming year after year, in reference to school education, that the general standard of education was continually on the rise, with the surprising result that the school system is nowadays generally acknowledged as being in total shambles, a crumbling ruin, as college professors have to try and do the teaching job not done in high-school and facing a majority of undergraduate students that are totally incapable of deriving the slightest benefit from higher education (while being totally capable of preventing their fellow students from deriving any).
For ages other sociologists, or the same ones, have been telling the French public there was no connexion whatsoever between immigration and growing crime rates; they even went so far as to pretending that crime rates were not growing at all, and that crime statistics were actually on a downward trend. If those experts were to be believed, rampant crime and delinquency only existed in the public’s mind, were a figment of our imagination, a biased point of view, the result of some prejudiced way of experiencing experience. Insecurity was a perception, a false impression, a wrong feeling (wrong in all possible senses of the word: false and evil-inducing, and awkward, and inappropriate, and bad, bad, bad…).
Not only has sociology not warned the French and other Europeans of the upcoming biggest commotion in their history, namely mass immigration, ethnic submersion, change of people, Great Replacement; it has also continually denied it was taking place during the precise and entire period it was actually being deployed right before their eyes.
The stance taken by the relevant sociologists harks back to Freud’s “kettle logic,” as quoted by Derrida: accused of having returned a borrowed kettle with a conspicuous hole in it, a man says, firstly, that the kettle was undamaged when he returned it; secondly, that it was already damaged when he borrowed it; and, thirdly, that he had never borrowed it in the first place. On the subject of immigration, sociology in France typically says, or has said, firstly, that there is less and less of it, that foreigners were much more numerous in the 1930s, and that it has almost come to an end (of course, millions of foreigners have been granted citizenship — the Great Replacement is complete when there are no foreigners left); second, that France has always been a land for immigration, that foreigners and immigrants have always flooded in, that there is absolutely nothing new happening here that would be worth mentioning; and, thirdly, that in any case it is too late now to do anything about it, that the change of people is an obvious and objective fact, that it has been too massive to reverse its course so late in the game and that the most sensible thing to do now is to try and love it, as the novel population, labelled and glorified as diversity, is obviously here to stay. If we are not pleased with this new state of affairs, according to which we, the indigenous crowd, are required to integrate into the newfangled multicultural and multiethnic society, well then, we have (so far) full license to leave and go elsewhere to see if we could adjust to a society that would suit us better.
And that, this sorry joke, is the “science” on which we should rely to decide whether we are an invaded country or not? Those are the scientific disciplines we should resort to know if we are or are not a colonised people? Is not experience, and the result of experiments, the supreme test for scientific truth? If that is so, then sociology, statistics and demography, or at least their courtly avatars, those which prosper in the immediate vicinity and under the close control of the two principal powers—present and future governments in the one hand, the media networks on the other hand—are the modern negationism. Conventional negationism is far from being extinct, unfortunately, but it has been totally superseded by its contemporary avatar, the one which claims that the Great Replacement is not taking place.
One is sorry to observe that this avatar goes about under the name and the mask of science. Such was the prestige of that name, science, that it has been usurped by many disciplines which were hardly more scientific than medicine in the time of Molière or astrology during Renaissance. It might very well be that “human sciences” were an aporia or an oxymoron from the start, and that man and humanity resist being reduced to numbers. The simultaneous collapse of the religious and literary conceptions of the world have left people with the wrong impression that science was the ultimate judge of truth, much more so than truth being the ultimate judge of science; and more than in anything else they have put their faith in numbers, which are precisely what has been mistaken or lying the most. They see science as the ultimate possessor and dispensator of truth. Unfortunately, scientific experts have shown on innumerable occasions that their science, at least, was incapable of holding reality in its arms.
I am not criticizing science per se, quite to the contrary I would wish most sciences, particularly “human sciences”, were much more scientific, and would constantly correct their numbers by numbers. Until then, if statistics prove that there is no Great Replacement, it is not the Great Replacement which is made ridiculous, it is statistics.
The narrative according to which France has always been a country of immigration (like, say, the United States) is of course false and preposterous: for about fifteen centuries, the French population has been remarkably stable, at least in its ethnical composition. Then came, as reminded above, immigration proper. But mass migration as it started in the mid-seventies is an entirely distinct phenomenon. There are striking differences between the two migratory trends, not only in their respective orders of magnitude, from thousands to millions of people, but also because immigrants in the late 19th century and during first two-thirds of the 20th century were in their huge majority sharing the Christian faith and more specifically the Roman Catholic denomination, i.e. the dominant religion, of the French, and practically all of them were of European stock; whilst late 20th-century and 21st-century immigrants have almost all been African and more often than not Muslim. Their African culture and Mahometanism make it a much stronger challenge for them to become integrated into French culture and civilisation, all the more so because most of them show no desire whatsoever to achieve any such integration, whether as individuals or communities.
Where integration is the matter, quantity, as always, is of the essence. France, in the course of its history, has always splendidly integrated individuals — Mazarin, Lully, Zola, Gambetta, Marie Curie, Beckett, Ionesco, Cioran and the like, who have played a prominent role in its politics and culture; and many others, less famous ones, who have become excellent Frenchmen and women and may have begotten equally excellent new generations of French nationals. It is a different matter altogether to integrate peoples, constituted peoples, with their own culture, civilisation, ways of life and Weltanschauung, which they have no wish to relinquish. And why should they, since they are numerous enough to create their own communities, use their own languages, pray their own gods, have their own manners of dressing, eating, loving, dwelling, working and behaving as citizens? The word integration has been abandoned, for all practical purposes. And for a good reason: if it were to apply to anyone these days, it should be to the indigenous population, the native French, summoned to join in a new multicultural and multiethnic society of which they are regarded only as one portion, not necessarily the dominant one.
Whichever way we look at the problem, the fact remains that one people had a country which it could call its own, and so it did; and now it has to share it with other peoples, not particularly friendly ones, and who look like they will in turn call it their own, as soon as they are able to muster enough strength and host enough force to put their claim on it. In any other country, and at any other time in history, those responsible for this loss and humiliation would be indicted as traitors. The word seems to have gone out of fashion — one would not know what to betray.
The claim that France has always been a land of immigration, along with the ancillary claim that French culture and French art are for the most part the creation of foreign artists — whilst in truth foreign artists flooded into France, especially at the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th century, because of the international prestige of its own art and culture—, is but one and the first of a series of very powerful historiographical myths which flourish as the change of people is accelerating, to make it easier to accept, or more difficult to refuse, by the French natives, its victims. The second of those myths, also a very popular one, and not only among immigrants and their descendants, propounds that France, during the Second World War, was liberated from the Germans by Northern and Central Africans soldiers coming from its then African Empire, and recruited by the Free French. A very popular film entitled Indigènes, one of many a motion pictures or television programmes incessantly produced to persuade the French to accept colonisation and ethnic substitution, was released with the ostentatious purpose to narrate that historical episode. Yet, as everyone knows, France was liberated mostly, and famously, by the American troops landing on the Normandy coast on June 6th, 1944 with a good number of Englishmen and some soldiers coming from every part of the British Empire. There was also, a few weeks later, a landing in Provence, with French troops coming from North Africa who had progressed along Italy with the Allies and liberated Corsica on their way. About one third of these forces was made up of soldiers from the regular French Army, another (big) third of Frenchmen from North Africa, later known as “Pieds Noirs” (Black Feet), and indeed one third of “indigenes” troops, also from North Africa, specially Morocco.
I have no intention whatsoever to minimise the contribution of the latter in that second military landing. These were valiant soldiers who had played a significant role in the liberation of Corsica and Provence. One should be very grateful to them, honour their memory and pay special respect to the graves of those who lost their lives in action. There is no lack of respect, however, in reminding the reader that the South-Eastern front, at that point of history, was, although important, relatively secondary; and that those “indigenes” troops (whose most conspicuous feature was precisely that they were not indigenous in Metropolitan France) were only a minority amongst the French troops progressing on that front, which themselves were not the essential part of the liberating forces. They can only be described as valuable auxiliaries to victory. Yet one cannot fail to recall, although many historians have been remarkably mute on the subject, that many of those brave sodiers, especially the Moroccans, have left behind themselves in Italy an infamous trail of barbarism and rape, the marocchinate —echoes of that terrible episode appear in the film by Vittorio De Sica, La Ciociaria, after the novel of Alberto Moravia, and also in the book of Malaparte, La Pelle, The Skin. But in France those atrocities perpetrated on the way, which have severely traumatised Italians to this day, and which, in an other, less favourable context, would have been listed amongst the worst war crimes in history, are hardly ever mentioned: first the people who committed them were on the right side of the giant fight between Good and Evil; and subsequently it would be considered racist, and very ungrateful, to investigate that matter or give it too much significance. There are tides of fashion and shifting favours, in matter of atrocities and genocides. The present-day sufferings of white South-Africans farmers are not, either, of the type which arouses compassion or interest from international opinion.
A third historiographical myth is that immigrants, especially those from North Africa, and more especially those from Algeria, “reconstructed” France after the disaster of the Second World War. This representation too, needless to say, is sheer fancy. Mass migration only started in the mid-seventies of 20th century. By then the “reconstructuion” of France had been achieved for some time. It had been formally declared completed by 1960. Of course a few early immigrants had taken part in the post-war reconstruction effort, but they were not numerous enough, far from that, to be the parents or grandparents of the millions of present-day immigrants. Besides those few workers did not work for free, they were paid, obviously, and it is certainly not common practice for labourers or artisans who have received a salary or a compensation as workers employed in the construction or reconstruction of a building, office tower in Niort or antique farmhouse in Normandy, to claim afterwards that the property is theirs, or partly theirs, on the dubious grounds that they have worked on it. If Algerians had been so efficient in rebuilding France, how could one explain that in independent Algeria they have performed so poorly and appear, even with high-level national oil-revenue, sorely incapable of managing their own country and maintaining the infrastructures that the hated coloniser had left behind with them?
Hated the former coloniser certainly is, but this hatred seems largely engineered, an artifact whose manifestation has long been delayed with regard to its assumed cause, and which is taking on a fiercer expression now than ever before. If this hatred were sincere and justified by tangible offences inflicted, how could one account for the millions of Africans, from both North and South of the Sahara Desert, who appear to nurture no plan more dearly and cherish no higher ambition than to come to France and live with the French? Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who is wont to conjure up the “genocide” supposedly committed by France in Algeria during the colonial era (a “genocide” which has multiplied the population by twenty…), rushes to French hospitals whenever he feels unwell or fancies himself the victim of a dreaded medical condition. Can one imagine the Jews deciding, after the Holocaust, that it was in Germany and with the Germans that they most wanted to live? Or families of Nazi concentration camps victims dashing to Brazil or Paraguay, after the war, firmly convinced that only doctor Mengele was good enough to take charge of their health?
Their real opinion of what French and European colonialism was about, Africans express it with their feet, as they run to France and to Europe to settle down here with the French and the Europeans as soon as they think an opportunity turns up. They think they are rushing to paradise, at least by comparison. They are running into a wall of illusions, as what made Europe so desirable for them was, as I mentioned before, the simple fact that they were not there. As soon as they are present in sufficient numbers, Europe is lost for Europeans, because they are being replaced, and lost for the Africans, because it becomes just another Africa, plagued with the same kinds of problems, be they religious, political, or connected with the general challenge brought about by disparate communities having to put up with each other in one place. For them the whole Europe continent is like one of those fabled alchemical treaties where the text on each page vanishes as soon as the book is opened at it.
When I say, and I say this very forthrightly and repeatedly, that France and Europe are much more colonised by Africa, these days, than they ever colonised it themselves, Europeans perfectly understand this notion, even when they happen to disagree with the assertion. Africans, on the other hand, and people of African descent, do not understand it at all. They are indignant, flabbergasted, doubtful of what they have just heard or read from me; but above all they do not grasp the meaning of it all. Their response seldom varies. It usually consists in drawing the long list of Europeans crimes allegedly committed in Africa during the colonial period and to put forward the question: how on earth can one compare such atrocities with Africans’ behaviour in Europe? As this is not the point I want to raise in the argument, I usually do not bother to dispute the contents of such list, but I would rather draw the reader’s attention here to the flawed logic of their rebuttal. When I say that Europe is much more colonised by Africa than it ever colonised it, I don’t mean for a second that Africans in Europe do commit more crimes than Europeans ever did in Africa. That is not my point at all. My point is that the African colonisation of Europe is worse and more severe than European colonisation of Africa as it involves demographic change, and because it proceeds by massive transfers of population whose aim is to settle down in the target continent — in short, African colonialism in Europe falls within the category of “Settler Colonialism”. Since the Antiquity, Greece and Magna Græcia, transfers of population have been the very essence of colonialism. Greek cities established population settlements in Sicily or Southern Italy by sending off a portion of their populations abroad, sometimes more than half of them, to gain a foothold on a distant land. In that classical sense of the word, France hardly ever colonised or settled any territories: it did so in Canada during the 17th and 18th centuries, in Algeria in the 19th. Everywhere else, in Indochina, intertropical Africa and even Morocco and Tunisia, it conquered territories more than it ever established communities of settlers.
Africans in France are at least ten times more numerous these days than were the French in Africa during the heyday of French imperialism. In the phrase Colonial Empire (l’Empire colonial), the key word is Empire. The conquest was military, administrative, political, cultural and economic by nature, but not implemented through any major influx of alien population. I am not focusing on this particular point to make the whole imperialist undertaking look more benign than it was. That is not at all the issue here: benign or innocent it was not. However, this type of colonialism, developed in a political framework, is much easier to end by either party than settler colonialism. A military conquest can be reversed overnight–all that is required is for the conqueror’s armies to withdraw. If a colonising power only keeps in its colony a few or many soldiers, some police force, civil servants, a handful of industrialists and shop-keepers, it can pack and leave the colony within a few weeks or days. The colonial period is then declared over, and over it is, even though remnants of colonial structures might persist for a while.
Population swamping or “demographic invasion” is a different matter entirely. It undermines the very identity of the nation or the people targeted by the swamping. The major threat associated with it is that it might very well be irreversible. The sole method emerging to put an end to the process and do away with settler colonialism is remigration, i.e. the departure of the occupying forces, made up of settler communities. The very same observers who view the remigration idea as an unfeasible programme and impossible feat to achieve argue that in the coming years Europe will need forty million newcomers, and they sometimes go as far as raising this figure to two hundred million. If such a huge number of people coming to Europe from Africa and Asia is regarded by them as a realistic proposal; if they see no practical and human issues with such mass migration, while believing this would be a good thing for all parties concerned, then this begs the question why a lesser migratory flow going in the opposite direction, conducted in an orderly way and facilitated not by smugglers but responsible governments, would have to be such a disaster.
There have been many remigrations throughout history, Zionism included, but the one most narrowly linked to French history is the forced remigration of the French population of Algeria after that country gained independence from France in 1962. The government of the newly independant Algeria believed—and the so-called “concert of nations” shared this view, and made no serious objection to it—that the country would not be as free as it should if it kept within its population ten per cent of people having an entirely different background, race, religion, culture and civilization in relation to the dominant profile of Algerian citizenry. The French had to go, although many of them had been there for five or six generations, since the beginning of the French conquest in 1830; and with them people from Spanish stock or Italian origin, and of course the Jews, although many of them had lived on the land for a much longer period of time than either the French or the Arabs.
As Europeans became unwanted citizens in Algeria, they were prompted to leave the country at very short notice; and they were shown the exit door, or rather the sea, with stupefying violence, a large number of them losing their lives in the process, as did thousands of doomed “harkis”, those Arab and Berberian soldiers who had made the mistake of taking sides with the French during the conflict, on the trusted promise their French counterparts would never leave the country but honour their commitment to provide protection against the enemy. Those 1962 massacres also belong to that category of mass crimes which do not seem to draw much interest either from historians or the general public. The victims could expect very little sympathy and the perpetrators did not have to worry much about any public outcry their action might raise either. Needless to say the peace convention, signed at Evian in March 1962, had made no provision for such hasty mass deportation, and certainly not for such bloodshed. What the treaty offered was a peaceful cohabitation between the different communities, namely the French (to which the Italians, Spaniards and local Jews were assimilated) and the Arabs (to which the Berbers were rather abusively assimilated). This was the very combination which, for better or worse, had functioned for one hundred and thirty years under French administration, albeit on a very unequal basis; and this finely-tuned arrangement tragically collapsed within a handful of weeks under new Arab rule.
To-date, people from Algeria, whether holding French nationality or not, have been by far the largest immigrant community in France. Algeria, on the other hand, stands out as a very telling model for its way to deal with immigration and land-settling alien communities. The Algerian State is extremely strict in its refusal to accept migrants on its own territory, and Sub-Saharians Africans who have succeeded in illegally crossing Algerian borders are famously driven back where they came from in a rather abrupt fashion. And, as we have just described, alien settlers in Algeria, even after a long stay, much longer indeed than the stay of their present day counterparts in France, were coerced most ruthlessly and effectively, in 1962, into getting back to their land of origin — France, as it was. Indeed the Algerian State is a world expert on its own right when it comes to implementing remigration policies. Which is just as well since a significant proportion of the people who will have to be remigrated from France, if our own liberation is ever to occur, as I certainly hope it will, are precisely from Algeria. Far from me to advocate, of course, that we should emulate the extreme brutality of the Algerian way to proceed, on such matters. A good opportunity it will be, quite to the contrary, to show the difference between civilisations.
Without remigration there will be no liberation. Liberation (of conquered land, occupied country, colonized people) and remigration (of the conqueror, occupying forces, colonialist settlers) are one and the same thing. There are four main types of precedents to the present-day situation of Western European countries and, as those four provide precious templates for resistance and struggle for independence, all four evidently imply that alien forces, inasmuch as they assert their own dominating power over a given national society, and, by definition, a foreign power, will have to leave if the land and its native folks are to live free and resume the course of their independent destiny.
The earliest and foremost type of foreign occupation template, and model for liberation struggle, is provided by those European countries which in the 19th century had to strive to regain their independence from imperial domination or conquering neighbour countries: Greece, Belgium, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and, of course, Ireland. If we were to transcend the limits of Europe and the 19th century we could add the United States to this short, incomplete list; however the case of the American War of Independence is slightly at odds with these since the English enemies of American Insurgents were not ethnically or culturally different: combatants from both sides were of the same population stock — this conflict was more like a civil war than a war to put an end to colonial oppression by a power entirely foreign to the oppressed.
The prospect of a full-blown civil war is increasingly conjured up as the most likely outcome from the current circumstances prevailing and unfolding in France and several other countries of Europe. Living together, the infamous vivre ensemble (“between living and together, one has to make a choice…”), is showing every day more clearly its totally illusory character.
There is no living together but permanent aggressiveness and repeated aggressions, violence, recurring massacres, terrorist acts, series of minor offenses and large-scale attacks which can be denoted by the encompassing term I have coined: nocence, i.e. the contrary of in-nocence, or, to be more specific, that to which in-nocence is the exact opposite. Obviously, in language, and probably in time, chronology, logic, psychology, nocence, nuisance, the action of doing harm, of being harmful, comes first, is the primeval concept, with in-nocence being its opposite, a way to oppose it, to gain control over it.
I was put in great trouble, and taken to court several times, after a 2010 lecture, or public speech, oddly entitled, I have to admit, “La nocence, instrument du Grand Remplacement” (“Nocence, the instrument of the Great Replacement”). In that speech I was answering those who claim there is no conquest, no colonisation, no subjection, because there have been no military aggression, no conquering army, no invading soldiers. But there have been — there are. Delinquents are the soldiers. Nocence is the ways and means of the present colonisation. By making life impossible or unbearable to the indigenous people, be it through what has been ridiculously called “incivilities”, aggressive gazes, aggressive ways of forcing one down from the sidewalk, aggressive and abusive occupation of building halls or staircases, noise, motorcyle or car rodeos, emphatic demonstrations of civic indifference and lack of concern for other people’s comfort and tranquillity, feet on train seats, the creation of a general feeling of fear, insecurity, dispossession; or through crimes that are easier to recognize and classify, such as stealing an old lady’s handbag, carjacking, bank attacks and the like, unprecedented forms of hyper-violence up to downright terrorism and massacres, the delinquents amongst the newcomers, of which they constitute a surprisingly high proportion, bring about the aptly called White Flight and gain more and more territory, for themselves and their blood brothers. There is no solution of continuity amongst them between common law offences and political or religious crimes. All terrorists, practically without exception, began their career in civil delinquency, drug trade or bank robberies. Today’s colonial conquest has indeed assumed unprecedented forms, but it is totally wrong to pretend it is not a conquest, and is not colonisation, because it is not aggressive. It is extremely aggressive. Its aggressiveness lies in the hundreds of daily agressions. And it is also more and more military-like in the more traditional meaning of the word. It has arms in considerable stocks. And many of its attacks against police stations, for instance, are of the type perpetrated during open wars, with heavy weapons.
Whoever initiates it, in any case, the impending conflict will have nothing to do with a civil war. A civil war is a struggle amongst members of a given people. In France today, as in most countries in Western Europe, there is not just one people. Pretending the contrary is just a “hermogenian” (see infra), nominalist, legalist, “republican” (in France) illusion. There are conquerors and conquered, colonisers ans colonised, occupiers and occupied. And whatever the number of traitors and collaborators (of the occupying forces), a liberation war, an anti-colonial war, will never be a civil war.
People who do not want the term colonisation to be used in respect to the present demographic submersion of France and Europe do not want the word occupation to be employed either. Occupation, granted, is an especially strong and evocative word in French because, used absolutely, without specific qualification, it refers to the German occupation of France between 1940 and 1945. People have been heavily sentenced for having dared to make comparisons between what I call the First Occupation (1940-1945) and the Second Occupation (1975-….). Les Trente Glorieuses, The Thirty Glorious (Years), after the title of a famous book by Jean Fourastié, is the name for the dynamic and prosperous period between the two.
Those who object to the word occupation, or to the phrase Second Occupation, raise the same objection as the one they raise to the word colonisation—the lack of military presence. We have just seen what to think of that. It is also very important to notice and remember that the occupying forces are forty to fifty times more numerous now than they were then, at the time of the First Occupation. And it is not tue that those forces do not wear a uniform — even though they tend to have it worn by their women, whose veils, niqabs and burqas are of the utmost importance in the current war of conquest, for they are a way of marking the territories already conquered, deploying outposts on the maps, and lowering the morale of the conquered population by confronting them on a daily basis with the distressing display of the fast progress of submission.
Of course there is no Gestapo, this time, no prisons or camps for the opponents to the foreign presence, no acts of torture in basements — although the young Jewish merchant Ilan Halimi was in fact tortured in a basement for weeks, and left for dead afterward because he was Jewish, hence rich, according to his tormentors; and basements have been known to be the habitual place for notorious gang rapes. Besides, although we have no Gestapo we have terrorism, which has already killed hundreds of citizens. But, to tell the truth, I have strong doubts as to whether the word terrorism is really adequate to describe the situation. Just as I think, as mentioned earlier, that mass delinquency of foreign origin is not to be treated as a purely criminal or judiciary phenomenon, a matter for police officers and judges, but has all the characters of a political, historical and military matter between peoples, nations and civilisations, with some of them engaged in the process of conquering one or several others (and precisely so by means of crime and civil law agressions), ditto I am convinced that calling regular mass murders terrorism is misleading (and often voluntarily so), as it gives the impression that mass murderers are just overexcited individuals who, if not isolated, are, at worst, members of small extremist groups which could be isolated from an overall historical process and from a general mass of people.
This is the famous stance, highly regarded and much used and overused in collaborationist circles, of the tiny minority (of “radicals”); or, its inevitable reverse, of the huge majority (of perfectly “integrated” good citizens). I do not doubt for a moment than there are “well integrated” foreigners, or ex-foreigners ; but I think that a clearer picture of the general situation would show that the so called “terrorists” are nothing but the ultra-agressive avant-garde of a conquering army and a conquering people, who are already occupying the land. In this way of thinking, which is very much mine, there are no terrorists. There is the occupying army of a conquering people, and, once in a while, when in the mood, it executes a few hostages, as all occupying and conquering armies have always done.
If there are, admittedly, many differences between the two recent occupations of France, the short German one in the forties and the long African one of the last forty years, on the other hand the two Collaborations (with the occupying forces) are perfect look-alikes. I must admit that I long resisted the word collaboration to describe the modern, recent and actual governments of France, precisely because the two occupations are so different. Putting side by side the two periods, and calling them by the same name, with just a different number, seemed to me in bad taste and grossly exaggerated. The present occupants are no Nazis, even though they frequently belong to Islam, a rather holistic, total if not totalitarian civilisation, not well disposed towards the Jews, and with a past of close friendship with Hitler and the Nazis. But soon enough the term collaboration, at least, appeared to be decidedly legitimate and appropriate to refer to the successive French governements which, like the Vichy government during the previous occupation, always seemed eager to anticipate the occupants’ wishes and always took sides with them against their own people, whenever there was some conflict between the occupying and the occupied, the conqueror and the conquered.
Collaboration, of course, does not apply to the governments only. The word could be used with just as much legitimacy when speaking of the media or the judicial system. Suffice it to consider, to be convinced of that, the enormous difference in media treatment given to the odd, symbolic attack on a mosque (such as lardons thrown on its threshold) and the innumerable profanations of Christian churches. Those who profane Catholic shrines are hardly ever mentioned, found, prosecuted or seriously sentenced; whereas the young men and women from the Identitarians who, in 2012, as a sign of protest, laid out a banner on the roof of the unfinished and not-yet-consecrated Great Mosque of Poitiers (a highly emblematic site since Poitiers is where the invading Muslims were stopped by Charles Martel in 732) have been very heavily sentenced. Non-Europeans youngsters by the thousands can write horrible things on Twitter or Facebook about European or White people in general, without the slightest menace to their account or their tranquillity; while opponents to mass migration, this author very much included, are the constant objects of the most finicky censure. The slightest “wrong” word, often misinterpreted, leads to the suspension or closure of their accounts on social networks, or their being taken to Court, where they are treated like dangerous criminals. Not only is Western Civilization the first one in history to ruin itself to make sure its own colonisation actually happens, it is also the first one to be all leniency for those who want it eradicated while it relentlessly persecutes those who try to defend and save it.
It is rather amusing, if one is in the mood, that present-day collaborationists — accessories, if not worse, to invasion, foreign occupation, ethnic substitution — tend to see and are prone to expose present-day resistance fighters, or dissidents, or the refractory ones, as the heirs of old days’ collaborationists, if not as the contemporary avatars of Nazism, while they fancy themselves, God only knows by what extraordinay alchemy, as the reincarnations of the members of the resistance to the First Occupation, and the defenders of their spirit. That, this audacious, x-shaped, double accusatory reversal in the form of an x, high on low and right on left, is what I call the chiasm : it is of course made much easier, for replacists, by the occasional and (from an anti-replacist point of view) disastrous presence, in anti-remplacist demonstrations, of actual neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, white supremacists and the like: those are indeed so precious, for replacists and their media, that they commonly exaggerate their presence in insane proportions, concentrate on it all their attention and cameras, and may have even, in a few cases, invented it.
Indeed, if the word collaboration, applied to our own rulers, has long seemed to me exaggerated, before seeming, alas, adequate, it seems to me, now, very insufficient. Collaboration is the proper term when the government of an invaded or occupied country admits defeat and tries to befriend the invader, usually with little success (because the invader despises him, as replacers despise replacists). But this is only very partially the case in France and Western Europe. Governments do try to befriend the invaders and are indeed despised by them; and while they do admit defeat, they do not call it so, and neither do they call the invaders invaders — they call them refugees, or migrants. Most importantly, and that is why they are not collaborators after all, or not only, they are not trying to make the best of a difficult situation, as former collaborationist governments used to. For this difficult situation, indeed this tragedy, they are mostly responsible, at least as much as the invaders themselves, who are just rushing through an open door into an open store, an open continent, an inviting Paradise, which they are promptly turning into Hell.
Governments —and not only governments: the Press, the media, intellectuals, judges—are not only coping with this state of affairs, as mere collaborators would. They have created it, either because they think it is right, because they think it is unavoidable, or because they think it is in their interest. And most likely they think it is right because they feel (wrongly, in the long run, as we shall probably see) that it is unavoidable and in their interest. They are not collaborators, they are perpetrators (of the crime of ethnic substitution). And such, and so tragic, is the conjuncture in Europe today, as it is given over to invasion, chaos, islamisation and that worst of all genetic manipulations, the change of people, that all the words which try and describe what is happening go through the same three phases as collaboration, occupation or colonisation went through : at first they seem grossly exaggerated, then they appear sadly adequate, and finally they prove amply understated, embarrassingly inferior to the reality of the horror and the guilt they endeavour to describe.
In any case, if the fighters for the independance of oppressed nations, United States of America, Venezuela, Columbia, Argentine, Greece, Poland, Hungary, etc., are, in chronological order, the first models for revolt against the present state of Europe and Northern America facing invasion from the rest of the world, the ones who come next to mind are the resistants to German and Nazi occupation and to domestic governments of collaboration with it, such as Vichy in France; they are closer to us, and more familiar. Resistance, be it the interior resistance of Jean Moulin or the all-over resistance of Charles de Gaulle — or that of Winston Churchill, for that matter, even though, for Churchill, and largely thanks to him, invasion was only a threat, albeit a deadly one —, resistance is indeed the central concept. And de Gaulle, at least for a Frenchman, is the central figure: not only because he was in 1940 the very incarnation of a big refusal, the refusal of a nation to lose its honour and disappear, but because his very conception of France remains a perfectly valid pole of resistance in the present situation of invasion, and ethnic substitution:
“It is all very good that there are French people who are yellow, French people who are black, French people who are brown. They show that France is open to all the races and that it has a universal vocation. But this is only as long as they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would not be France anymore. When all is said and done, we are a European people of white race, Greek and Latin culture, and Christian religion. One should not imagine things! The Muslims, have you gone and see them? Have you really looked at them, with their turbans and djellabas? It is easy to see than they are not French. Those who advocate integration, even if they are very knowledgeable, have the brains of a hummingbird. Just try and mix oil and vinegar. Shake the bottle. After a while they will separate again. Arabs are Arabs, French people are French people. Do you seriously believe that the French body can absorb ten million Muslims, who will be twenty million tomorrow and forty million the day after tomorrow? Were we to integrate them, if all the Arabs and Berbers in Algeria were to be considered as Frenchmen, how would we prevent them from coming and settling in the motherland, where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-the-Two-Churches but Colombey-the-Two-Mosques”_________
 Quoted in Alain Peyrefitte, That was de Gaulle, vol. 1, de Fallois / Fayard, 1994, p. 52.1!
It is highly ironical to observe that de Gaulle, the founder of the French Fifth Republic, which is still the official regime in France, with an originally Gaullist party as main political force of opposition to the present government, could not rise from the grave without being severely attacked, dragged to court and called a racist, if only for declarations such as the one I have just quoted. Just as I am writing this short essay in English, the French Parliament has decided to withdraw the word race from all official texts, and from the (Gaullist) Constitution to begin with. Meanwhile the same Parliament prohibits all legal distinctions based on gender. Indeed I have always thought that the abolition of races was just a prelude to the abolition of sexes — the principle at work in the process being the hatred of distinction, that formerly highly regarded social, moral and esthetical quality; and more precisely the hatred of discrimination.
It is remarkably significant that the word discrimination, which has been for centuries the name of the most desirable quality of the mind, the supreme philosophical virtue, has become that of the worst crime. If everything is to be exchanged and replaced, man himself very much included, it is essential that everything, every man, look as much as possible like the next thing, the next man, the next woman. Discrimination is the worst enemy of the replaceable man, who is the commercial and industrial ideal of global replacism—the ideology, and system, or trend, or trope, and phenomenon wich promotes replacement as the central gesture of Modern Times_________
 “L’homme remplaçable” (The Replaceable Man) is the title of a conference given in Paris on March 8th, 2012, for France Israel. It is included in the collection Le Grand Remplacement.2.
I am deeply convinced that the end of the concept of race, at least in France, in the mid-seventies of the 20th century, was the key moment which made everything that followed possible; and, even more decisively, made (almost) impossible any resistance to what was to happen — mass immigration, mass migration, invasion, colonization, ethnic substitution, in short the Great Replacement.
People often say that it is the horrors of Second World War—the genocide of the Jews, concentration and extermination camps—that have made any kind of reference to races impossible. This is not true, or, at least, not directly. There has been a thirty-year time lapse between the collapse of State racism in Europe and the advent of antiracism as the main political and ideological power on the continent. Something happened, roughly in the mid-seventies, which made it both urgent and indispensable to proclaim as a dogma that races do not exist. It seems to me, but I am no expert, that science has been extraordinary compliant in that respect, just as it was and would be compliant to deny the reality of the collapse of the educational system or the reality of mass immigration. The difference is that in both latter cases the sciences concerned were sciences with a rather low scientific status—weak sciences, soft sciences (sociology, statistics, demography)—whereas, with regard to races and their existence or non-existence, the science put to test was biology, the hard science almost par excellence. Nevertheless it seems that it was not a very difficult achievement to take the word race in such a limited and narrowly defined meaning that it would be child’s play, afterwards, to decide and proclaim that races (in that absurdly narrow sense) did not exist. Those who performed that sleight of hand may have been good scientists (I must admit that I have my doubts even on this point, and pure scientists do not seem so sure any more), but they were certainly not good linguists (and linguistic is also a science of sorts, after all). To decide and proclaim that races do not exist is about as intelligent as deciding and proclaiming that unicorns, or myths, or social classes do not exist. Those things may not have scientific existence, whatever that means, but they are social, or literary, or poetic, or taxinomic creations of such considerable impact that proclaiming they do not exist seriously puts to test the meaning of the verb to exist.
It is unfortunately very common practice in ideological rhetoric, and ideological or political repression, to claim that things or categories or concepts do not exist for the sole reason that they have imprecise limits or are hard to define. It has been maintained with similar arguments that Europe did not exist, that European civilisation did not exist, that there was no such thing as French culture, no such thing as French people—nothing else, that is, but people with a French passport. In industrial and post-industrial societies, especially those where the main industry is the industry of undifferentiated human matter, where man is the producer, product and consumer at the same time, there is no such thing as a genuine product. The product is what the industrialists say it is on the package. Name is all. And if the name disappears, then the thing is meant to disappear, too.
In fact one could argue quite as convincingly, contrary to all that, that things, concepts, phenomenona and realities exist all the more in proportion to the difficulty to define them, or to the number of definitions it takes to try and explain what they are. Definitions do not come first and things or concepts compell obediently to what their definition say they are. Except may be for neologisms, and even that does last for long, it is the other way round. Things are, and their definitions run after them and try to follow the best they can. The more difficult phenomenona and realities are to define, the more they are.
I remember a radio program where I had an hour-long discussion with Hervé Le Braz, a well-known French demographer, who, after being for years very adverse to the so called “theory” of the Great Replacement, now thinks that a kind of replacement is indeed taking place, and that it is of enormous proportions, but that it should not be called that way, Great Replacement, the phrase being overly dramatic. The general atmosphere between us was not especially warm. At ’59, when there was, of course, no time for me to answer him, professor Le Braz asked me :
“What is a people, for you?”
Naturally there was no way I could reply properly, that would have called for another one-hour program. People, peuple (but of course the translation is only partially correct, and very insufficient), is precisely one those highly complex and ancient words, deeply set in the rich texture of the language, which could satisfy twenty definitions without coinciding rigorously with any of them. All I was able to answer Mr Le Braz was, rather uncongrously:
“A deep murmur”.
More or less consciously I was thinking of one of the most beautiful sentences, at least to my mind, in French litterature, by Georges Bernanos — it probably loses a lot in translation:
“Alas, around French little boys together bent upon their exercise-books, pen in hand, attentive and pulling their tongue a little, like around young men inebriated by their first walk under the blossoming chestnut-trees, a fair young maid at their arm, there was once that vague and enchanted memory, that dream, that deep murmur with which the race rocks its children” (La Grande Peur des bien-pensants [The Great Fear of the do-gooders], introduction).
A deep murmur does seem to me one of the best possible definitions of what a people might be. Of course Bernanos uses the expression in connection with the word race, not the word people, but what I am trying to say is precisely that, that the two words, for an important part of their respective significations, are more or less exchangeable. Georges Pompidou, to my knowledge, is the last French president to have matter-of-factly used the word race in the traditionnal and highly unprecise, undefined, that is, profound, meaning of the word. As late as 1972, in a speech at the School of Political Sciences for its centennial anniversary, he declared, without having one eyebrow rise in the audience:
“The shock of defeat [in 1940], the extraordinary adventure of general de Gaulle and probably a deep-set reaction amongst our race, have given us back our vitality, a certain taste for risk and even ambitions”.
And further down:
“The second obstacle is probably the hardest to overcome. It comes, we know it only too much, from the very character of our race, from that versatility that Caesar had noticed in the Gauls and used against them, and which has the French people, a people partial if there is one to calmness, to peace and stability, feel periodically, and by crises, an unexpressed and uncontrolled need for change, and for a kind of change which sets everything into question, not only men but the principles themselves, as well as the institutions ”.
In a text which is part of a book of Memoirs he never wrote, and which has been published in a collection of essays untitled Le Désir et le Destin (Desire ans Destiny), he also writes, still with much geniality:
“My father and my mother deeply belonged to the French race. Hard workers, frugal, they believed in merit, in the virtues of the mind, in the qualities of the heart”.
A deep set reaction amongst our race? The very character of our race? The French race? Poor Georges Pompidou would have been much surprised to learn that, less than half a century later, with the very same words, he would be considered a criminal, taken to Court, and, who knows, impeached.
It might prove useful to note at this point that the very fact that one speaks of “our race” with regard to the French is proof enough that one is not a racist, in the traditional meaning of the term: the French, almost everyone agrees, have very little ethnic character to begin with. If they are a race, and I do believe very much they are, it is of the same order that the races of Sunday painters, of royal notaries, or of miserly people.
The thought of calling myself a racist would never have entered my mind because the word was very much already taken by something else entirely, something rather unpleasant. But if I were one, and I must admit the temptation gets stronger by the day, I would not be a racist like Chamberlain, Vacher de La Pouge or Rosenberg; but rather like Malherbe, Racine, Proust, Bernanos, de Gaulle or Georges Pompidou: people who were using the word with the utmost naturalness, who would have been quite incapable of giving it a precise definition, but could have offered twenty without problem. It is the racists, with their pseudo-scientific pretentions, who have limited race to an ineptly narrow signification, itself pseudo-scientifical, which covered hardly five per cent of its semantic bow, or fan. And the tragedy is that the antiracists, after their success against the racists in 1945, have, impatient as they were to get rid once and for all of their enemy, taken the word in exactly the same absurdly narrow sense they had, being content to invert the whole ideological atmosphere in every respect. That is, again, what I have called The Second Career of Adolf Hitler_________
 La Seconde Carrière d’Adolf Hitler, first published as Le Communisme du XXIe siècle, Xenia, Vevey, 2007. Chez l’auteur / Amazon, 2018.3. It is Hitler upside down. But it is still Hitler.
Marx (not Groucho, this time) says History comes back as a farce. He should have added that this farce may very well be a tragedy. The power of antiracism was founded on the debris of racism, and it owed its indisputable legitimacy to the obvious and irreproachable Never again! which had surged from the Death Camps. Antiracist movements existed before, of course, but antiracist societies, where antiracism is at the core of the State constitutive ideology, as well as the center of public and private education (to such an extent that public and private education, in their degeneracy, seem sometimes reduced to it), antiracist societies were born in horrified reaction to the genocide of the Jews. In return for which, in seventy years’ time, they have become societies where, by the very effect of antiracism, and of the mass immigration that only it could allow, and even require, in return for which, and after a complete circle inside the spiral of meaning, and the spiral of facts, the history of the Holocaust, in many a school, cannot be taught, because the pupils will have none of it and are convinced it is nothing but pure Zionist propaganda; whereas Jews have to flee the country by the thousands because they feel their children and themselves are not safe on its territory—and indeed they are not.
Racism had turned Europe into a field of ruins. Antiracism turns it into an hyper-violent shantytown.
The meaning of the word antiracism has itself taken such a sharp turn that it is almost as if it was totally reversed. It used to mean hostility towards racism; it has come to mean, as its name equally permitted, if not more, hostility towards (the existence of) races. Antiracism, after World War II, was the doctrine and the moral request after which certain races, notably the Jews, the Gypsies, the Indians and the Blacks, had to benefit from a sort of extra protection, because they were facing special dangers. Antiracism, after the proclamation of the dogma, c. 1975, was the doctrine sustaining at the same time two apparently incompatible assertions, first, that races did not exist, second, that they were all equal.
This doctrine, in my opinion, never fully recovered from that original logical flaw—never recovered logically, that is, intellectually—yet, as a power, and probably as the main ideological force in the West these days, it has, of course, never been stronger (apparently). But claiming that races did not exist was by far the most important point. Of course such dogma could only be maintained (against all real-life evidence) if one was to adhere to the racists’ narrow, scilly concept of what races are; but even then, one had to be strong enough to impose a definition of race specifically designed to be unable to stand on its own two feet against “science”. On such conditions only could races not exist. But the less they exist, officially, “scientifically”, the more they make their influence felt. Never have people sung so much from their genealogical tree, and been modelled by their origins, and by their cultural and ethnic sense of belonging, than since the day when races have been proclaimed not to exist anymore (and to have never existed, I suppose, for nothing is more retroactive as modern declarations of non-existence — native French people, native Britons, peoples, races, etc.); and yet never have races been more influential on people’s opinions and reactions to events, and on events themselves.
Still, the most influential event of all was the proclamation of the dogma — the official announcement that there was no such thing as races. When people know only one thing, which is more and more frequent, especially amongst students, they know that, that is what they know. And the more they know nothing else, the more they are convinced of that. The educational system has radically collapsed, cultural transmission is in ruins, but if there is only one thing that school has kept teaching it is that, that races do not exist (and that they are all equal). Without that conviction firmly rooted in everybody’s mind, mass migration could never have happened, ethnic substitution could never have happened, colonisation would have been impossible: contemporary colonisation, I mean, the colonisation of Europe by Africa. While the colonisation of Africa by Europe was most probably racist, the colonisation of Europe by Africa is without a doubt antiracist. It could never have occurred without these two fundamental (and contradictory) principles of antiracism: that races do not exist, and that they are all equal.
Antiracism has finally taken on the meaning that its name implied in the first place: that one is against (the existence of) races and wants them to disappear. It is a project with strong genocidal connotations, at least by substitution. But if the meaning of antiracism has changed radically, and it has, the meaning of racism should also change symmetrically. It should be the doctrine of people who love races, all of them, and pray for their equal preservation. Unfortunately, the old meaning is still too strong for the new sense to be understood, and few people will have the courage to call themselves as racist in the new sense I suggest, given the risk of being seen as racist in the classic, though relatively modern, meaning of the word.
The dogma of the inexistence of races, proclaimed in the mid-seventies of the 20th century, is the credo quia absurdum of both antiracism (in its second phase) and global replacism. It has much in common with the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception (of the Virgin Mary), which was also proclaimed at a rather late stage by Catholicism. Both make sense only in a rather far-fetched theological order of meaning and are an obvious challenge to common sense. But the more recent and more profane one has had vaster consequences than the older, purely theological one. I would not go so far as saying that it provoked the colonisation of Europe (and the impending Great Replacement in North America), but it certainly was a necessary condition for its advent. Paradoxically, without the non-existence of races, the change of race would not be possible. More accurately, it would not have been acceptable, and not accepted. On the other hand, if there were no races, as we were told, there was no change. It is as simple as that. Change was obvious, and rather unpleasant, but it was not taking place. How could it occur, since it was scientifically impossible?
This is not the place to discuss once again the relevance of the word colonisation in respect to what is currently happening in Europe. On the subject I have said, even in this small book, what I thought I had to say, and I will not elaborate on it again, except to repeat that, to my mind, Europe is infinitely more colonised by Africa, and in a much deeper and serious way, that it ever colonised it itself. This conviction obviously leads to a third, and, to some people, more unexpected model for resistance to the Great Replacement and to global replacism — after the diverse wars of Independence and Resistance against Nazism —, namely, all anticolonial and anticolonialist movements and heroes, starting with Gandhi, if not earlier. Time has come to put an end to both colonisation and counter-colonisation, to the colonialist era of the history of humanity. Between Europe and Africa the best place to stop the pendulum would be the Mediterranean.
French people amongst my readers are not always ready to consider the Algerian anticolonial Revolution, or men like Ahmed Ben Bella, as possible role models for action, or simply as references: those fights and fighters were fought and fighting against France and they have inflicted to the French wounds which even today are far from healed. Nevertheless there are, in the strange symetry between the two countries, Algeria around 1960, France today, many lessons to be taught and learnt, especially with regard to Remigration, even if it then went by other names, and with a not-to-be imitated brutality — “The Suitcase or the Coffin” was the rather dire motto of avant-la-lettre Algerian remigrationnists.
I am always surprised to observe to what extent classical texts of anticolonialist writers apply, with very little transposition needed, to the present situation of colonised Europe. This is particularly true of Frantz Fanon, for instance, the famous black theorist of Third-Worldism. Let us hear him on “Racism and Culture”, a lecture he gave to the Congress of Black Writers and Artists, in Paris, on September 20th, 1956:
“The enslavement, in the strictest sense of the word, of the native population is the first necessity. For this, its systems of reference have to be broken. Expropriation, spoliation, raids, objective murder — they work hand in hand with the sacking of cultural patterns, or at least they make such a sacking possible. The social panorama is destroyed; values are trampled on, crushed, emptied... ”.
And three years later, in Roma:
“A national culture under colonial domination is a contested culture whose destruction is pursued in a systematic fashion. It very quickly becomes a culture sentenced to clandestinity. This idea of a clandestine culture can immediately be seen in the reactions of the occupying power, which undersatands attachment to traditions as faithfulness to the spirit of the nation and as a refusal to submit. This persistence in following cultural habits which are already sentenced to extinction is already a demonstration of nationality; but it is a demonstration which is a throw-back to the laws of inertia. There is no taking of the offensive and no redefinition of relationships. There is simply a retreat into a hard core of culture which is becoming more and more shrunken, inert and empty ” (underlining mine).
Of course no two colonisations are the same, and the one to which Europe is submitted is a very special one, with a few unprecedented aspects. Its main characteristic is that is twofold. Is it possible to say in english, while still making sense, that the coloniser and the colonising are not the same people? Or shall I make myself clearer by writing that what we are dealing with here is a delegated form of colonisation, a colonisation by proxy, and that the forces that want it, and who organize it, are not the forces who actually accomplish it, even if the latter are very much willing, and did not have to be asked twice?
This, this twofold colonisation, simultaneously from the top and from the bottom, so to speak, by the very rich and by the very poor, is particularly easy to observe as regards culture, to keep to Fanon’s observation just quoted above. It is not the migrants from Africa, for instance, that have been destroying Western culture and civilisation, even though they seem more and more eager to pull down what’s left of them, to overthrow their ruins, or do it without even thinking of them, without even noticing those sad vestiges are, or were, Western culture and civilization.
Not only had the destruction started before the recent conquest, the present foreign occupation, the current colonisation: it was, along with the dogma of the inexistence of races, the very condition for them to happen. No people that knows its own classics would accept numbly and without balking to be thrown into the dustbins of history (if not worse). This numbness had to be created, organized — not necessarily by people with their mind set on reaching such an objective, more likely by powerful mechanisms generated by ideals, or by interests, or by a combination of both, the one serving as a dummy for the other. The principal ideal involved is equality. The principal interest at work is normalisation, standardisation, similarity, sameness — needless to say, equality is the condition to those.
If there was only one name to mention at this point it would be without doubt, especially of course in a French context, but not only, that of Pierre Bourdieu. Pierre Bourdieu, for the unlikely reader who would not be familiar with his name and work, is that French sociologist, philosopher, political thinker and theorist whose analyses resolve around the noticeable inequality in learning abilities amongst pupils receiving the same teaching in the same classroom, depending on their social, economical and cultural background: in short, pupils whose parents are financially at ease and culturally alert, read, travel with them, take them to museums, concerts and theatrical performances, such pupils have many more chances to take advantage of the education they are given in schools and high schools ; they are more likely to succeed in their studies and to go to better colleges and universities, than pupils from less privileged economic and cultural backrounds.
Of course that was hardly a discovery at all, and every family in France, in Europe, in the West and in the rest of the world as well, has known for ever that the best way to give a child a good education is to give him educated parents. That was one of the main reasons, if not the essential one, why people wanted to climb up socially. The social history of the Ancien Régime shows unequivocally the long and obstinate labour of families to improve their social status from one generation to the next, and to give their children a better education, which is both a means and an end, a process and an ideal. If one studies the ascendancies of great French cultural figures from the 17th and 18th centuries, one has a very serious chance to observe a social progression which is amazingly similar in many a case, and whose archetypal structure would be, from one generation to another: ploughman, shopkeeper, merchant, “royal notary” (the number of “royal notaries”, notaires royaux, among the ascendancy of French great cultural figures is absolutely stupefying), judge (or “prévôt des marchands”, merchant’s provost), member of (local) Parliament. Commonly, it took about seven generations to produce what we would call, very anachronistically, an intellectual, or a gentleman, or both. After the French Revolution the process is more or less the same but it seems to have become quicker — three generations, say: shopkeeper, (great) physician, (great) writer (I am thinking of the case of Marcel Proust).
No one likes bad news but modernity feels an absolute hatred for bad ideological news. It can withstand bad political news, bad economical news, even bad ecological news, although they are very unpleasant; but bad ideological news are beyond its capacity for suffering and acceptance. When faced with them, it immediately decides that they are false, and that those who bring them are criminals. These persons are not criminals because their news are false, their news are false, have to be, because the bearers are criminals, and so are their news. Those news are false and criminal because everything would have to be changed in the general (and ideological) system of perception and evaluation if they were true. They just can’t be. That would be too harsh on too many people.
Imagine, for example, and for the mere sake of discussion, that a young scientist would discover — and that very unlikely event would be one of the worst things which could happen — would discover, say, that women capacities of intellection are inferior by 17, 44 per cent to those of men. Do you think such discovery would have great success? Do you think prestigious scientific magazines would compete for the honour of presenting it to the world? Do you think the young doctor would be offered a better and larger laboratory, and more people to work under his guidance for a better knowledge of womens’s rights?
More likely he would be sent to some faraway laboratory, with a strong, if mute, invitation to keep quiet, if he could. Science, like history, and like information, is a matter of choice, a selection. There are probably a plethora of important discoveries of which no one has never heard. They were simply not in the spirit of the age. Lucien Febvre, the great historian of Renaissance, thought Erasmus could not be an atheist because the conceptual apparatus of the period simply did not allow for such a stand. There were not the words for it. The conceptual apparatus of our time do not allow, by chance, for the conviction that men and women are not equal, or, for that matter, that there is any statutory, or natural, inequality. It is impossible to think that, just as it is impossible to reach by car a fishermen village which is not linked to the hinterland by any road. Such an opinion is just not to be expressed, or even conceived. Neither is the statement stating that seven generations, or at least three, are necessary to produce a cultivated man, or a gentleman. No idea is more repellent to the present way of thinking. It can’t be true. Who wants gentlemen anyway?
Pierre Bourdieu found it extremely unfair that pupils coming from a culturally privileged milieu would have an advantage in the class-room over pupils who were not. And indeed it was. It is. It is typically what I have been calling “bad ideological news”, although it was hardly anything new. Criminal it was, as a state of affairs, but Bourdieu could not be called that because, as much as he was giving this rather unpleasant piece of information the veneer of (sociological) science, he was, of course, very much against the situation he was describing so aptly. He, at least, and, I imagine, most of the innumerable disciples he has had in France — where they have been running the educational system for forty years —, and in the world, wanted the privilege of chidren with educated parents put to an end, as a privilege, by being offered to all children.
This, as everybody knows, is not at all what happened. This is not what happened, and this could not happen, because the bad news of the advantage of children with educated parents are not only bad, they are true, which is even worse. They are even something like an perennial truth. This truth could be put in this very unpleasant way: the best way to give children a good education is to give them parents with a good education. Which is not even an infallible method, as it does not always work. And it is not, thank goodness, the unique possible method: there are exemples of success obtained with other ways of proceeding. But it is the best ans safest method, and this is a highly unsavoury truth. Cultural inheritors (Les Héritiers, after the title of the famous book by Bourdieu et Passeron, 1970) are the most precious parts of any society: they should be protected with great care, and their number, whenever possible, enlarged. Culture, to thrive, needs a cultivated class. Culture being for a very important part (but of course not exclusively) an inheritance, this cultivated class must be partly, but for a significant part, hereditary (that is: must be a class). Its privilege, namely culture, won’t always be transmitted: there will always be failures in transmission. For that reason it has to be partly renewed with each generation: lineages dropping out, lineages coming in. But it has to remain partly hereditary.
Bourdieusians and pedagogists in French and other educational systems, whatever they might have wanted to do, have in fact operated along exactly contrary lines. Since they could not insure that the ininheritors_________
 Les Inhéritiers (The Ininheritors), originally “Bourdieu upside down”, a lecture given in the Playfair Library Hall of Edimburgh University on April 13th, 2012, Chez l’auteur, 2013, new edition, 2018. This essay, along with five others, has been collected in the collection Le Petit Remplacement, Chez l’auteur, Amazon, 2018.4 would inherit, they made it sure that the inheritors would not. Dozens of examples could be given. The most significant one, and the one which will most help me be understood, I think, is that of “general culture”.
General culture, inasmuch as it is fairly independant from school or college syllabuses, as it cannot be taught as a specific discipline, as it can’t even be defined, has no precise borders and is, in a way, suspended (or not) in the air one breathes (or not), is seen by bourdieusians and pedagogists alike (they are often one and the same) as a privilege (as indeed it is, even though it can also be acquired by strength of the will), and, as such, unfair, unjust, antidemocratic. This being so, in their mind, it must go, or at least it must not be taken into consideration in the classroom, when marking papers, during examinations. A certain Richard Descoings, the once famous (in France) director of the once prestigious Institute of Political Sciences, in Paris (“Sciences Po”), was made even more famous by his decision to remove all “general culture” examinations at Science-Po. Significantly, he also designed special admission schemes for the pupils of a certain number of high schools in underprivileged (that is, largely populated by immigrated) parts of the (suburban) territory.
If you can’t bring people to culture, nor bring culture to them, the simplest thing to do is to call culture whatever they have. If there is no culture, culture will be the name of what there is. It all amounts to playing on words. The word music_________
 Le mot “musique”, Chez l’auteur / Amazon, 2018.5, for instance, has had its signification totally changed, if not reversed. It is a beautiful, if melancholy, tribute to the central place of music in the West’s cultural tradition that the word music has been the place where the complete reversal of cultural references first took place. Music, at least in cultivated language, was the name for the learned artistic tradition which ranges from Hildegarde von Bingen, say, to Eliot Carter, Ligeti, Pierre Boulez, Ferneyhough and beyond. No one has ever pretended that popular music, what the French call, or used to call, variétés, variety, was not music, or part of music; but it was emphatically not what cultured people meant when they were speaking about music, and using the word music. To-day the reversal is complete: what most people mean when they mention music is pop music, and if they want to say a word about music in the old sense they have to specify classical music, or “grande musique”. Qualification has changed side. To the couple music / popular music (or variety), has succeeded the pair music / classical music, the latter being but a dwindling specialization.
The change of meaning of the word music implies a massive change in geographical reference. Music in the new sense—pop music, rock, rap, etc.—is largely Anglo-Saxon in its origins and expression, and especially American. Even French or other continental European singers willingly sing in English on American rhythms. Those rhythms, generally binary, military, insistent and disquieting like the obstinate sound (boum-boum, boum-boum, boum-boum) of an artificial heart in the operation room of a hospital, are themselves largely inspired, if only through jazz, by African musical traditions. Those also manifest their influence directly, in Europe, without the detour by the United-States but unfortunately through commercial filters which are as many philistine adaptations, if not downright treasons, of what would be, all things being equal, African “classical” music. But here music is difficult to separate from dancing, contrary of what was the case in European tradition: few people ever thought or tried to dance on Beethoven’s or Bartok’s quartets, even when some movements were inspired by popular dances.
Music in the new sense, combined with dancing, can be seeen, through its huge success in all classes and all ages, as a rising back of Africa in the European body. Such ascent is obviously made much easier by the highly noticeable infantilisation which has been provoked by general deculturation_________
 La Grande Déculturation, Fayard, 2008, Chez l’auteur, 2018. This essay has been collected in Le Petit Remplacement, Chez l’auteur, 2018.6 and which so curiously coincide with the growth of violence and brutality in daily social relations. It seems the more people call themselves by their first names on their first encounter, use baby talk even in a political or official context (ministers or other officials speaking of moms and dads, les mamans et les papas, even in public speeches or official appearances), turn to a flabby and namby-pamby way of expressing themselves, replace manners by the expansive expression of a no less conventional good will—in short shorten if not abolish the distances between them (or so they think), the more the common space is becoming a place of constant aggressive and often criminal rivalries.
These days one currently sees people in their seventies, if not older, taking very seriously their dancing as part of group activities which to their parents or grand-parents would have been suitable for twelve-year-old children. But this, like the spread of tattoos or the taste for collective pleasures, trips, games, hikes, tai chi or samba lessons, all these gregariously fun activities, is also very representative of the tribalization or re-tribalization of existence, after the collapse of class frontiers, race partitions and national borders, under remplacist rule and petit-bourgeois dictatorship.
The said dictatorship and the Small Replacement (of high culture by popular culture) is never so evident as on the days when a pop star, even a minor one, dies: national programs on television are entirely dedicated to them, all other news disappear, and the general consensus is that the dead artist, who may very well have had no importance whatsoever in the life of his cultured contemporaries, was a life companion for the entire people. This never happens any more for great composers, nor, for that matter, great writers, poets, painters, philosophers and the like. “Culture” and show business have become more or less synonymous. When one of the greatest poets of French litterature, Yves Bonnefoy, died in 2016, the event did not even make the news, on television. Glory has been replaced by mere fame, aesthetic appreciation by mere evaluation of quantitative popularity. The death of Pierre Boulez has received a hundred times less attention that that of Charles Aznavour. When the great composer Henri Dutilleux had the misfortune (he probably would not have cared…) of dying the same day as the rather obscure pop singer Georges Moustaki, the French Minister of Culture chose to attend the funerals of the latter, probably considered more important or, at least, electorally more rewarding. When Paul Claudel died in 1955 he was given national funerals, and the ceremony was all over the news. Today he would get five minutes attention on “cultural” programs. What used to be seen as culture is now considered as the rather suspicious hobby of an extinct social class.
Music, in the old, classical sense, was the normal sound of culture, also in the old, classical sense of the word. The change of meaning of the word music (in cultivated language) is certainly not the cause but might be considered as the emblem, the symbol, the escutcheon within the escutcheon, of the change of meaning of the word culture. Culture used to be mostly an inheritance, the corpus of humanity’s best, and the cultivation of it, and the practise and production of what might be added to it. But inheritance was a wrong thing, it was unfair and undemocratic, since a minority of people received it and a majority did not, as Bourdieu had reminded everyone. Inheritance had to go, or at least had to be reduced, inside the realm of culture, as much as possible. Of course culture with less ans less inheritance in it would not really be culture, just entertainement, show business, the film industry, leisure and all the ways to fill one’s leisure time. But the name culture was kept, because it was somehow prestigious; and just as were kept, with music, concert, recital, or, even more unexpectedly, the very highbrow opus, which must be very surprised by its new environment. The worst changes are not the changes in names, the worst changes are the changes in contents when the old name is kept to create an illusion: culture, music, concert, opus, French…
Culture died, or at least was emptied of its meaning, because it was too bourgeois. And bourgeois indeed it was. Culture, as a concept, and as a name for the relationship to art, to thought, to the beauty of the world and to the sensitive space is fairly easily datable and very narrowly linked with the bourgeois period of the history of the Western world: roughly from the second half of the18th century to the second half of the 20th century. For France one could half-jokingly be even more precise, and suggest 1789 to 1968. People from Antiquity, from the Middle Ages, from the Renaissance or the Classical Period were not “cultured”, even when they were so by our standards. They would not have understood the word culture. Nobility in its heyday was not “cultured”. It was, in the best of cases, which were always, of course, a minority, well red, on intimate terms with the classics, much versed in the humanities, deeply attached to the arts and eager to possess works of art. Its ideal was the accomplished man, l’homme accompli, not the cultivated man, which would have been perceived as putting far too much emphasis to things of profane and secondary importance.
The bourgeois period changed all that. Culture was a weapon, for the bourgeois, in its rivalry with the aristocrat. The bourgeois had no ancestors, its relations with the past were much shorter than those of the nobleman, its manners had not been polished by the centuries; but he had money, which gave him the possibility to buy a lineage, castles, dignity, respectability, prestige. Aristocracy had been—ideally, of course, but that ideal was influencing the behaviour and the official values even of the individuals who were not up to it…—the class of honour: culture (very much in the same conditions) would be the honour of the upper-middle-class.
The class system of course varies from one society to the next, if only between Europe and America: boundaries are not the same, translations are never exactly faithful. The United States have not known aristocracy, officially, or at least nobility, the class which, if nothing else, has built that essential part of the European cultural heritage, castles, mansions, les châteaux, and has filled them with art — of course leftist, or Marxist or just popular opinion consider that les châteaux have been built essentially by the work force which has constructed them, if not with the money extracted or stolen from those same workers, or from the peasantry from which they came. The French bourgeoisie is not exactly the middle class, although the division haute bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie might coincide more or less exactly with upper-middle-class, middle-class, lower-middle-class. Petite bourgeoisie, rightly or wrongly, seems to me to be more characterised, to have more personality, at least more of an “image”, if only in literature, than the lower-middle-class. In any case it is my opinion (“et je la partage”, and I share it, in the words of Monsieur Prud’homme, a comic character in French 19th-century bourgeois drama) that, while the Soviet Union failed, notwithstanding a short century of terror and tyranny, to impose the dictatorship of the proletariat, France, Europe, the Western World and probably the world as a whole, gloriously succeeded, without terror, without visible constraint, without revolution, to impose the dictatorship of the lower-middle-class, la dictature de la petite bourgeoisie_________
 La Dictature de la petite bourgeoisie, Privat, 2005, Chez l’Auteur, 2014, new edition, Amazon, 2018. This essay, along with five other original books, has been collected in the collection Le Petit Remplacement, Chez l’auteur / Amazon, 2018.7.
In France and, to a lesser degree, elsewhere in the world, there has indeed been a kind of revolution, a symbolical revolution, but, in a characteristically petit bourgeois fashion, it was the imitation of a revolution, a mock revolution, a revolution for laughs, and sex: May 1968 — enough, though, to send to the antiques store the bourgeois national France that general de Gaulle and his dignified spouse had so vigorously been trying to restore.
The admirable idea — probably never formulated, evenby its unconscious conceivers — of the petite bourgeoisie, and the one which was to insure its universal success, if only because it was deeply in keeping with the nature of global replacism, and of mass migration, was to include everything and everybody instead of excluding them, like all the previous ruling classes had done. Nobility was very keen on trying to avoid at all cost that people from the bourgeoisie should become noble. Most of 19th-century drama and literature is about bourgeois parents doing everything they can to prevent seducers from the lower orders from marying into their families. Everything was done to avoid interclass social and sexual contact (prostitution excepted) so that the privileged orders would not have to share their privileges with too many newcomers. The petite-bourgeoisie is much more clever than that. Far from preventing people from the other classes from joining in, it makes it compulsory for them to do so. Thanks to the unified educational system, thanks to television which, for at least two generations, at the end of 20th-century, was practically the same for everybody, thanks to taxes and the rise of labour costs, which barred people from the ancient ruling classes to carry on with the way of life of their ancestors and of their parents (for instance by having servants, a characteristic trait of both the bourgeois and the aristocratic world; or by keeping their family homes, mansions, stately houses, which became too costly and too difficult to maintain, especially without servants), it became thoroughly impossible not to be a petit-bourgeois. Even parents from the bourgeoisie who would have resisted the process were forced to send their children off to schools belonging to the general system or operating on contract with the general system, and those bourgeois parents would necessarily find in their children, at the end if their educational process, perfect petits-bourgeois, in social habits, ways of dressing and, above all, language. People who would insist on having their children educated the traditional way, with the traditional syntax and the traditional words, as well as the social habits which go with them, would turn them into complete social pariahs. To raise a child is to make an outcast out of him.
Even if with some extraordinary chance or stubbornness one could escape during one’s entire life being a petit-bourgeois, the petite-bourgeoisie would still catch up with you, in all probability, in the last moment, at the hospital, where there is no way to escape nurses who speak to you in baby talk and want to know gently (in the best of cases) if our dear little grandpa has gone wee-wee to satisfaction. Death is relentlessly petit-bourgeois, and vice-versa.
All the other social classes have converged and merged with the enormous central class, the petite- bourgeoisie. Greatly helped by the ideal of equality, and by the all-inclusive policy I just mentioned, the petty bourgeoisie has become a dictatorial classe unique whose limits more or less coincide with the world itself; and which, as a consequence, knows practically no outside world. It cannot even imagine or conceive having one, nor admit that actual people might seriously use other words, have different social habits, see the world from quite another angle. There is no escaping it. Outside, it is still it. For that reason it cannot have opponents or adversaries, people like it who would just happen not to think or feel like it does. People who are not with it, part of it, have to be monsters, an aberration of nature, Brecht’s notorious “foul beast”. Meanwhile, in the words of Gorgio Agamben, the Italian philosopher, “Petite bourgeoisie is probably the shape under which humanity is presently heading towards its own destruction._________
 La Communità che viene, Giulio Einaudi, 1990, La Communauté qui vient, Seuil, p. 66.8”
This is probably all the more pertinent that ex-istence (the word itself shows it eloquently enough) is selection, discrimination, exclusion, border. Nothing can be created without those actions, without a distinction being made between what is going to be part of the thing created and what is not: and things that already exist are destroyed by the removal of those conditions. The lack of selection spells destruction for universities, peoples, nations and cultures alike. Of course the same could be said of equality, which is nothing but the lack of selection or discrimination setting itself up as a virtue, or of the French beloved secularism (laicity), which is, so to speak, equality in religious matters. Personnally, I have never been able to understand how equality was compatible with morals, to say nothing of aesthetics. What equality is there between Vaclav Havel and Mouammar Kadhafi? Between Beethoven and Hummel? Between Henri Dutilleux and Georges Moustaki? If those men are equals, then life is not worth being lived, nor any effort worth imposing upon oneself to make one a better person with a more interesting life. Men are equals only before the law, if this or that decides do, and in what is least unique in them. They are equals before death, illness, misery, humiliation, extreme suffering, before all-powerful gods and tyrants so high up and distant that the differences between the living dissolve making them all the same, hence interchangeable, replaceable. That is what makes equality, as well as antiracism, so precious to global replacism, to the universal petite-bourgeoisie, and to Davocracy; and that is what explains that it is so easy, for the hyper-class, to find arrangements, either secret or open ones, with the equalitarian left, and support it, financially or otherwise.
I believe in the equality of nothing—except by chance, or by a sometimes legitimate coup d’État of the law. Equality, as soon as it leaves its legal and political bed, destroys everything it touches — vessels, ramparts, cities, men — as Æschylus said Helen of Troy did. Equality between parents and children has destroyed the family, transmission, civilisation. Equality between teachers and pupils, or between good pupils and bad pupils, has destroyed schools, teaching, knowledge. Equality between high culture and entertainment has destroyed culture. Equality between citizens and non-citizens is destroying citizenship, states, nations. Equality between century-old local traditions and mores and imported ways of life and foreign traditions will let nothing standing, or worth standing, of any nation. In France and in Europe, equality between Christianity and Islam spells death for French culture and European civilisation.
An obvious objection to this description of a unique class is that, for most sociologists, inequalities are widening. We have learnt by now to consider sociologists’ claims with a certain level of scepticism. Wealth is much less obvious that it used to be : most big mansions and townhouses everywhere have been destroyed, divided into flats or sold off to banks; private parks in urban or suburban environments have disappeared or been converted into housing projects; except in much sought after tourist spots great hotels have closed for lack of practice; elegant women in expensive attire are practically nowhere to be seen any more in the streets of the cities to which they had given their reputation of sophistication and charm. The very rich may have become richer, that is very likely, but the “normal” rich as a class have suffered a severe cutback of their visible presence, and their impact on the geography and topography of the world has been considerably reduced, especially in large cities, where proletarisation is more striking, most of the time, than gentrification—a rather misleading term, anyway, because what it covers is more the spreading of triumphant petite-bourgeoisie than an unlikely return of gentry.
Of course the fact that formerly rich countries such as those of Western Europe import by the millions a new population from the poorest countries in the world may account for the increase in inequalities, at least between the once prosperous populations of Europe and their new fellow citizens, or those with whom they share some common space, or invaders, depending on the point of view; it also account for the growing poverty, which surprisingly and regularly seems to surprise economists, sociologists and do-gooders alike: if a country or a continent receives millions of very poor people, it can hardly come as a source of amazement that it should grow poorer and poorer, and that the medium level of personnal income should take a sharp turn to the bottom.
As for the other, upper, end of the economic and political spectrum, I think the media and the people did not pay enough attention to an innocuous remark of ex-president François Hollande about his much criticised successor Emmanuel Macron. Asked whether Macron was the president of the rich, Holland snapped:
“No, he is not the president of the rich [Long surprised silence]. He is the president of the very rich”.
Macron is indeed, in my opinion, the best local representative on earth of what I have called davocratie, the government of the planet by Davos, that Swiss ski resort where the Great Paymasters of the world, bankers and giants of finance, congregate once a year to decide how the planet should be run according to its best interest and theirs. Macron is even, again in my opinion, the best example of the reality of direct davocracy, the takeover by Davos of the management, without intermediaries, of the human park, to speak like Peter Sloterdijk. This implies the neutralisation of the political strata which used to be the interface between the peoples and high finance: now Davos feels strong enough do to without this in-between body, unreliable as it always was. And this neutralisation is exactly what Emmanuel Macron is doing, with the utmost détermination and consistency: he has defeated and send packing most of the popular figures, Holland, Sarkozy, Juppé, Villepin, Bayrou, even to some extant, Marine Le Pen, who had played a central part on the French political scene for the last thirty years; he has literally brought about the explosion of the three main political parties which had shared the favor of the electoral body during the same period litterally exploded; he has formed a government of nobodies who were totally unknown to the public a few weeks before; he made for the election to Parliament, under his personnal banner, of an incredible collection of the most distressed and incompetent people ever to grace a French Assembly, a crowd which owes everything to him and whose number, rights to intervene and allowances he immediately proceeded to reduce in considerable proportion; in the same time he passed a law which drastically reduced the financing of all local powers, at every level, to such an extent that mayors, now unable to run their city or village and do what they have been elected to do, resign by the hundreds; ministries are sent off to the banlieues where they will have opportunities to better experience what new France feels like, while their historical seats are given to migrants; many of the most prestigious or symbolical real estate properties of the State are auctioned off, including airports to the Chinese, while Parisian palaces are sold to the Saudis and football teams to the Qataris. Growing parts of the once beloved “public service” are handed over to private interests, and people, more and more frequently, have to pay for what used to be free. If townships organize festivals, for instance, they have to pay for their own security, a service the police is no longer willing or able to provide. Individuals, likewise, can no longer count on law-enforcement to ensure their day-to-day safety and quietness; unless you have had, at least, your throat cut open, which fortunately is more and more frequent, you are discouraged from lodging a complaint, which could bring you more trouble than satisfaction, should you incriminate a given group of people. Police officers and constables seem to be mostly used as auxiliary tax collectors, buzy banking the ever-increasing penalties inflicted on drivers, or trying without much success, on the ethnic front, to ensure a peaceful transmission of power from one people to another.
If you want to be left alone you had better be a delinquent. Police officers prefer to control honest citizens, who show them some respect, are afraid of them and will not shoot them at the first vexation. A very dangerous male criminal, having escaped from prison and first on the list of the most wanted runaways, was recently going quietly about his business in town wearing a burqa, a garment prohibited in France — as long as he was emphatically defying the law, he knew he would not be bothered.
Under such conditions, one is led to wonder why one should continue to abide by the codes and pay taxes. The social pact has been obviously broken. What allegiance do we owe to a power that not only does not protect us from invasion but calls for it, invite it and sends boats afloat to bring it faster; and that does not defend the individual citizen from the growing insecurity any more than it defends the country from foreign invasion? The problem is that, unconsciously, for atavistic reasons, people still believe, even when confronted with obvious proofs of the contrary, that their governments are there to protect them — those governments are in fact very determined to destroy them, to melt them in undifferentiated human matter. The French are like an old faithful dog who, notwithstanding the blows received and the big stone just being attached by a rope to his collar, simply cannot think of his master intending to drown him. It certainly looks like it, but it cannot possibly be true.
One could object here that the power or powers which want this state of affairs, the Great Replacement, global replacism, the industries of replaceable man, and who have chosen Macron to be their representative in France, the local governor for Davocracy, are probably the richest people in the world, and can hardly been called petit bourgeois. Nevertheless, this is what they are. It should have been specified earlier that the dictatorship of petite-bourgeoisie, an obvious reference to Lénine and to the Soviet Union, is cultural much more than military or economical. The petite-bourgeoisie has become so enormous and so total, so global, so narrowly coinciding with the world itself, that, inside it, all the old economic hierarchies have reestablished themselves and are now more ruthless than ever. But those are purely economical, financiary, peciuniary. In the immortal words of Nicolas Gomez Davila, today, between the rich and the poor, the only difference is money. The petite-bourgeoisie decides what you think, what you feel, what you say and, more than anything else, how you say it. The class differences in language have eroded faster than the glacier at la Mer de Glace, at Chamonix. And every time there has been a conflict between two ways of saying things, the bourgeois way and the petit-bourgeois one, the classical and the modern, it is the petit-bourgeois way which has won, and the former which has lost, and disappeared.
Putting people’s last name after Monsieur or Madame, for instance, when speaking to them directly, Monsieur Dumas, Madame Fouilloix, which was considered (except of course when individuals had to be distinguished from other persons in the room) either American or a parody of peasantry, and simply not to be done, unless one was a concierge in an hotel, who thinks people will be flattered to have their name remembered, has become general practice — with the important proviso that last names are being quickly replaced by first names, infinitely better suited to global replacism, which needs to cut people from the past, from history, from time and from anything inherited, family name included; and much more in keeping with petty bourgeoisie, which has no ancestors, does not know the maiden name of its grandmother and does not want other people to enjoy such patrician privileges as an old name. Unsurprisingly, banks, hotel chains, gafas, petitioners asking you to sign their petitions or commercial agents advising you to set up your funerals in due time or to follow a miracle treatment against prostate problems, all behave like over-familiar, uneducated youths using your first name on first exchange and assuming you are eager to do the same with them (“your account will be followed up by Éric”). In French this general trend in favour of first names_________
 La Civilisation des prénoms (The Civilisation of First Names), Chez l’auteur, 2014, new edition, 2018. This essay has been included in the collection Le Petit Remplacement (The Little Replacement), Chez l’auteur, 2018.9 goes hand in hand with the gradual abandonment of the traditional vous in favour of the familiar tu, which can be fairly agressive when not requested — the last time it was compulsory in French society was during the Terror, 1793-1794, the bloodiest phase of the French Revolution. But if men and women have to be prepared for general interchangeability, distances between them must be abolished as much as possible, and individuals must be deprived of all the social protections that étiquette, grammar, private property, race, sex or nationality could offer them against global replacement.
Likewise, bon appétit, once typically lower middle class, is now common verbal usage, partly thanks to foreigners who mistakenly thought it was typically French, and who would have felt offended by not hearing it, whereas it was considered an absolute no-no in long gone polite circles. One could give hundreds of such examples. Everywhere dictatorial and omnipresent petite-bourgeoisie has imposed its own language. If in France you don’t use it, and don’t start your letters or electronic messages by Bonjour, and end them by Cordially (which, back in the days, was reserved for writing to one’s servants, farmers or tradesmen) you are an outcast — I am an outcast anyway, so I don’t care.
The petite-bourgeoisie has been the sole class to come to power, cultural power, without a culture it could call its own, or at least considered as such by the other classes. Being the class of the ininheritance, it had nothing to offer in the way of inheritance, which it strongly disliked and regarded as unfair and humiliating to people who had none. But this mattered little. When there is no culture, suffice it to call culture whatever there is. And the petite-bourgeoisie, for lack of having a culture, or something that had previously been called culture when other classes were in power, had tastes, preferences, prejudices, social habits, favorite ways of spending its Saturday nights, Sundays and other leisure time. Nothing was easier for it than to call those habits culture, because, if you are in power, if you are the ruling class, be it only the cultural ruling class, if you are the world, if you occupy all the available space, you can pretty much call whatever you like whatever you please. Thus the petite-bourgeoisie has called culture the things that she liked, and specifically the things which, rightly or wrongly, were not called culture before this major terminological revisionism: minor genres, cartoons, detective stories, blockbusters; just as it calls music what was not meant by the word music in the previous, cultivated language.
Culture and music, in this new, petit bourgeois, sense—popular culture, popular music—have become universal, and they are the very essence of dictatorship, because there is no escaping them. The class for which they mean culture and music is the unique and only class, culturally, musically, because they are the culture and the music of the masses just as they are the culture and the music of the most rarefied social and economic elites. Kings, princes, bankers, multibillionaires, davocrats can be perfect petit bourgeois because that is what they are culturally. Princess Diana was the quintessence of the petite bourgeoisie, and so is the Monaco dynasty. The natural milieu of presidents, ministers and corporate managers alike is not poets or philosophers like that of Renaissance or 18th century sovereigns, but second rate comic actors, pop singers and night club owners : they congregate as often as their respective careers allow, and spend their holidays together. Individuals can still be very cultivated in the old, pre-petit-bourgeois, sense of the word, but they are not allowed to form a class, the cultivated class which is indispensable to culture (still in the old sense of the word); and they have to act and speak petit-bourgeois if they want to be understood and to be tolerated among the living, because there is no other language and no other accepted behavior. In any case they are not a problem because they are slowly disappearing, just like Western civilisation is slowly disappearing, or Europeans, or white people, who have been during a few centuries, for better or worse, the privileged class of the world, its aristocracy, its bourgeoisie. Now the petite- bourgeoisie rules.
That it governs a society devoted to general replacement is perfectly normal, or, should I say, natural—that is, of course, cultural. The petite bourgeoisie is par excellence the class of replacement. Substitution is of its essence. It is the only class not to have a name of its own. One says aristocracy, or nobility, bourgeoisie, proletariat: the petite bourgeoisie is a bourgeoisie which is not really one, a minor variation on one, a fake version of it. It might also well be, while buzy imitating the bourgeoisie, a proletariat that dares not speak its name, as it would certainly seem so, its ruling of the world obviously coinciding with the fast proletarisation of it. In any case imitation, substitution, mimicry, are at the core of its being, as they are the foundation of global replacism — those two were made for each other.
I have said time and again that Great Replacement was neither a theory nor a concept. I wish to God it had been that, and nothing else, instead of being an horrible tragedy, a monstrous crime against humanity, an ecological and biodiversitarian disaster, and a name for them. The Great Replacement is not a theory, it is a ghastly fact. Replacism, on the other hand, or more precisely global replacism, might be a theory, an attempt at interpreting a system and, by the same token, a name given to it by theory, as interpretation. Global replacism is, to my mind, one of the two totalitarian systems which are currently competing for the mastery of the West—the other one being of course islam. For the time being they are allies, and they are using each other to progress and score points, and to get rid of minor opponents. The unspoken pact between them is rather similar to Nazi-Soviet pact, from 1939 to 1941, between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Only it is lasting for much longer, just like the second occupation lasts for much longer than the first one. But the islamo-replacist pact cannot last for ever, because replacism and Islam are natural ennemies. Replacism is rather grossly materialistic and Islam, although it supplies to replacism its biggest replacing contingents, is not in the least replacist: quite the contrary, it is ardently identitarian (and that is precisely what makes it so strong).
I have tried on several occasions to sum up (through tweets) the genealogy of replacism and its present marital status. It could run more or less like this: Replacism, the son of Antiracism and High Finance (themselves, respectively son of Egalitarianism and Anti-facism, and daughter of Taylorisation and Ultraliberalism, granddaughter of Industrial Revolution and Capitalism) marries Petite-Bourgeoisie, daugter of Democratization and Welfare State, grand-daughter of French Revolution and Proletariat. Several of those names are names of dynasties, that have been running for several generations. It is notably the case of Industrial Revolution, whose dowry provides the opulence of the whole tribe. Central here to the family tree is Taylorisation, and, before that, plain Taylorism.
Frederick Winslow Taylor is the central figure of the history of replacism, or pre-replacism. Although he is certainly not a figure of comparable intellectual scope, he is to replacism what Marx is to communism. That, of course, is an enormous responsibility. As writes his more recent editor, “Frederick Taylor has blood upon his hands”. I certainly agree with that : not only blood but sweat, tears, UHM (Undifferentiated Human Matter), not to mention mad cows and deaths by drowning. And as he wrote himself, “In the past, the man has been first; in the future the machine must be first”. In other words, man will be replaced by machines (robots, electronics, computers, numbers, statistics). From a movie buff’s point of view, global replacism is Metropolis + Modern Times + Soylent Green.
Taylor’s central concept is that of normalization, or standardization. Products, objects, instruments, machine parts will cost less, in time and money, and will henceforth yield bigger profits, if they are the same and can be easily exchanged with one another. Taylorisation is always a process towards the same, the sameness of the world, its looking like itself (but, consequently, not being it). Standardisation is a similarisation, but this word as two meanings which, although very similar, must not be confused. Making things, objects, products similar to each other means that they will look and may be be the same, but it also means that they won’t be exactly what they were, that to look or be like other objects, instruments, piece of mechanics or products they will have to be similis, copies, imitations, same as others but, by this very fact, different from their original version. Imitation, reproduction, factitiousness, are at the very core of the Taylorian revolution, which amounts to nothing less than a second Industrial Revolution. Imitation for the sake of mass production, precipitating the era of mass reproduction so well observed and analyzed by Walter Benjamin (and so well exploited by Andy Warhol, Pop Art and Pop Music), is what made Taylorism particularly appropriate and suitable for the advent of the petite-bourgeoisie as the new ruling class, which it certainly helped.
Lack of authenticity, falseness, counterfeiting are central to global replacism as they are, although to a lesser degree, to both its close relatives, Taylorism and the petite-bourgeoisie. Petite-bourgeoisie had the signal luck to see its accession to power as the cultural ruling class coincide with a formidable and unprecedented development of the techniques of influence, suggestion and mind control. No other ruling class before it had had at its disposal even remotely comparable means to impose the narrative it wanted to impose. This narrative could be negative as well as positive. It could imprint upon the mind of the public the fiction that what was actually happening was not happening, as well as the no less fictitious conviction that what was not happening was happening. It could also lie about the reasons for what was happening, and even about the reasons of what it pretended was not happening.
The main field of lying in Europe and especially in France in the last three or four decades is of course the most important phenomenon to have taken place there during that period, and probably during the fifteen centuries of the history of the country: mass immigration, the ethnic submersion, the change of people and of civilization, namely The Great Replacement. It was entirely denied, and with great success, the very moment it was happening, and just as was denied the no less evident collapse of the French educationnal system, or the dramatic and obvious downfall, both in France and abroad, of French culture. Contemporary negationism is the negation of Great Replacement.
Immigration, which was bought long time ago as a decorative lizard, has become an enormous crocodile occupying half the drawing room, but the convention is to pretend not to notice and to mind noe‘s business as if he was not there. Once in a while, when he is in the mood, and that is more and more often, he tears off and devours a leg or a arm but people go on handling tea cups and discussing train timetables or changing the wallpaper over him as if he was some kind of disconstructed sofa, blood all over the chairs and the carpet notwithstanding. As a matter of fact all discussions on any subject, whether it is carceral overpopulation, insecurity, the balance of public deficits or the housing crisis are totally vain, empty and meaningless, an exercice in nothingness, hot air being blown, as long as they do not take into account, and they never do, the ethnic submersion, which is by far the main factor conditioning all of them, and compared to which, no matter how serious they might be — world financial crisis or unemployment — they are of secondary importance. The Great Replacement is entirely denied. The fictitious agreement is that no such thing is happening (and that to insist that it is is a “conspiracy theory”).
As for an example of positive fiction, it is no more difficult to find. On of the first to come to mind is the invention of the “refugee” figure. Power today is essentially the power to invent and impose stories. Hundreds of thousands of Africans are flooding the southern coasts of Europe, millions have already made their home there, and the word used to designate them is that of refugees. There are no wars presently going on in Africa, only minor local conflicts, and the huge majority of migrants are not fleeing them. In truth the huge majority of migrants are not refugees at all, but from the gross incompetence, carelessness and dishonety of most of their governments, and from their own reluctance to take in their own hands, collectively, as all other peoples have done before them, the historical destiny of their respective nations. They find it easier to go and take advantage of more comfortable civilisations, while not realising, apparently, that that well-being and that relative order they envy is the result of long collective efforts, constraints, self-denials, and will be reduced to naught by their mere arrival, since they are not part of that history and have not been taught for generations how to behave in order to make it last and thrive. The truth of what is going on is the decanting of one continent into another, and that has very little to do, if anything, with refugees or asylum. There are no common proportions between the major cataclysm of global replacement and the local humanitarian tragedies which create real refugees. Replacers are not refugees. Invaders are not asylum-seekers. Asylum is for individuals, not for entire peoples or, virtually, for the population of a whole continent. And if one needed further proof that the mass of migrants are not refugees or asylum seekers but imported human material, substitute population, there is the much proclaimed necessity, by those who make they come, that they learn the language, that they find a job, in short that they melt with the general population and be integrated. Never a word is said about their coming back where they came from, if only after a while. Is that not what being a refugee is all about, after all? Is that not what is implied by the very gesture of seeking asylum? Welcoming a refugee is offering him a place to rest for a given period, a chance to escape persecution, an opportunity to reconstitute his forces before going back to his fights for liberty, dignity and a normal life in his own country. There is never the slightest mention of such a process in the discourse of the diverse replacist powers. According to them, replacers are here to stay and congregate with us to form a new people, even a new kind of people. And if we are not pleased with that script, then it is for us to leave because we are bad, bad, bad; and certainly not for them, who are better Frenchmen, or Englishmen, or Germans than we are, anyway, because they are more open to change, especially the change of people.
Fiction, either negative and positive, either repressive, suppressive of reality or creative of myths, of lies, of fake-news, is so central to the remplacist society that I had to coin the word falseal (or fakeal?), le faussel, symmetrical and opposed to real, to describe and take into account the world of false reality, of the inverted real, of general falsehood we live in.
Fakeal is the non-stop creation of the Industries of Daze, a colossal conglomerate whichs operates in three principal fields: schools, and the educational system in general, buzy providing lessons in forgetfulness, the teaching of oblivion; mass dumbing down, operated by the media, the Press, television, the show business, advertising industry, keen to offer, as films and series do, permanent misrepresentations of everything, particularly of races relations, much more intense in their images than they are in reality, with crossbreeding given as an obsessive example, its omnipresence amounting, like all the rest, to uninterrupted propaganda; and, finally, drug, of which it is interesting to note that, if the other two departments are still largely in replacists hands, this one, at least as far as distribution goes, is already the replacers’ reserved domain.
We are living in a world where everything is false, fake, untrue : not only phrases and statements, facts, statistics, images, gestures, but objects themselves, materials, houses, food, substances, all affected by the universe of industrial reproduction and low-cost; with that precision to be given that low-cost for the producer does not necessarily mean low-cost for the consumer. Low cost first appears as a cheap variant for the poor, a substitute to the real thing for the needy ; but it fast becomes the norm, the norm of taylorian normalisation. At that point it only has, for the imitation to be complete, to get back to the price of the original—unless of course the producer finds it profitable to have low cost remain low cost, in order for him to have more customers. It any case proletariation of the world progresses, brought about, strangely enough, by the dictature of petite-bourgeoisie, as run economically, and politically (but politics are more and more replaced by mere management) by the petit- bourgeois hyper-rich, the petit-bourgeois hyperclass.
The worst cases in falseal, fakeal, fakreal, whatever, occur when the names are kept. Things, beings, feelings have totally changed or have been reversed into their contrary but they have kept their old names, the name of what they are no more, French, culture, information, but which someone, a person, a group, a State, a political party, a coalition of interests, has decided to give to the new entity, which will have to share it with the old, making thus for a lot of confusion and adding to the general daze. We are here at the center of my original political concern, of which I treated in a fat book called Du sens, On meaning, my central laboratoy for all ulterior personnal reflection.
My idea was, and still is, that the central debate in Plato Cratyle, which is essentially on languague, words, etymology, can be immensely enlarged and embrace the world, and describe our perception and interpretation of it.
Hermogene, Cratyle’s contender, thinks that words are just words. They have no signification of their own and no free will. They mean what their common users have decided they would mean, and nothing else; and if the same common users, or others, decide to change that meaning, signification will be changed, whether or not that will please the speakers. Meaning is pure convention, contract, deliberation, pact, agreement.
For Cratyle, to the contrary, words are just as many survivors of time, and their letters and syllables have much to say about their signification and their long course through centuries. What they are and what they mean do not depend of some arbitrary decision, but of their origin, and of the origin of that origin, and of their endless run uphill in the nervous stream of history, like a salmon swimming counter-current towards the singing spring. Do words like French or British refer to an inky stamp on some administrative document, or to ancestry, a long experience, common history, blood, race, love, culture, civilization?
Nouns and adjectives pertaining to nationalities are probably the best and simplest testimonies that for very given word exists a mute and ferocious rivalry between its hermogenian meaning — superficial, administrative, official, legal, scientific, triumphant, with its identity papers always in perfect order — and its cratylian meaning, real, deep, profond, hard to explain, poetic and literary.
Hermogene, champion of stamping, and who has easier, simpler, more authoritative (be it only the authority of the law, or of dictionnaries) ways of playing the game or running the war, always wins. It is very probable, though, that he has never won to such an extent than he is winning now, if only because a taylorian world of normalization, standardization, general substitition, badly needs the power to name things and people pretty much as he pleases. An industrially prepared lyophilized dish of truffle raviolis will have 0,2 % truffle in it, or no truffle at all, but will still be called truffle raviolis if commercial norms authorized it, and even, sometimes, if they do not. Nominalism is essential to the fakeal. It is most important to it that things, being not what they are, wear the name of what they are not. Language, this way, becomes totally corrupted. Quartiers populaires, in French, popular districts, refer to districts from which the original, indigeneous people, have been expelled:
“Moktar Ben Moktar, that will sound good on the [electoral] list. Such a name will draw votes from les quartiers populaires”.
Des jeunes, youngsters, is not supposed to mean that delinquants are young, although they are, but that they are not from European origin. If they were, but they never are, the paper would say de jeunes Européens, young Europeans. If people in Geneva have to complain about bands of hooligans from across the (French) border, French press will call them de jeunes Hauts-Savoyards, which is supposed to mean they are from the neibourghing département de Haute-Savoie, by which every reader will understand that they are not from Savoyard stock. Journalists even change the names and sides of criminals, by fear of creating racial prejudice; and by the much greater fear of being called racists. In any case readers and radio or television audiences in France and, I suppose, everywhere in Europe — except Eastern Europe, which does not live under the tyranny of inverted language—have all become, by force, formidable cryptologists. They all read, hear and understand the words under the words. But very often they are afraid to translate even in their heads, and refuse to understand what they understand.
Hermogene always wins, but Cratyle never loses completely. Moreover he always comes back, returns, goes up again from the grave. He has a lot in common withe Lazarus, whom Christ ressuscitated. In real Athens there was a philosopher by the name of Cratyle, at the time of Plato. Some seem to think he was from Jerusalem. As I have often said, I have a lazarean conception of fatherland. France, on at least two occasions in its history, at the time of Joan of Arc and that of Charles de Gaulle, could have been pronounced clinically extinct, and returned amongst the living. The Hebrew language has been restored to life after centuries. Who says the same could not be done with French culture and civilisation? We are not even dead.
The most famous and most successfull disciple of Frederick Taylor, the one who applied his views with the utmost rigor and efficiency, was of course Henry Ford. Ford had the brilliant idea of his own, though, of producing cars cheap enough — that is standardized enough — that the very workers who were producing them, for him, would buy them, from him. Producers and consumers were merging in one, producers were becoming consumers. Today global replacism has gone one step further, producer-consumer has become the product. As the popular saying goes, “If you are not paying for the product, you are the product”: but you might be the product even if paying for it.
It has much been said that mass immigration has been schemed and provoked by industrialists and other employers who wanted a cheap labor force and a way to control the wages demand of native workers and syndicates. That was largely true, and still is, in part, but for many years now it is not so much workers than consumers that global remplacism has been importing by the millions. Readers will object that those remplacers have no money: how could they be consumers? And indeed they have no money, even though they often seem very well equiped in technological gadgets and communication instruments. They have no money but they will need housing, roads, bridges, hospitals for their health, schools for their children, stadiums and theaters for their leisure, mosques for their faith and community affiliations, cars, domestic appliances, electronical apparatus and the like. They have no money but that is not a problem because they will have that of the remplacees, the indigenous population — by wich I do not mean that they will steal it from them, although that may happen, but that the so-called social transfers are in fact racial transfer, fom the colonized people to the the colonizing one, via the colonialists; from the remplacees to the remplacers, via the remplacists.
In France, very absurdly, only forty-eight per cent of citizens are submitted to income-tax, against fifty-two per cent who are not. It would be interesting to know what is the respective proportion ot replacers and remplacees in either group. One would probably discover than replacees are largely paying for their own replacement.
The economy of global remplacism, as a matter of fact, has a few original traits: just as the people who want and organize the Great Replacement are not the people who accomplish it, the consumers are not the payers. Social is another good example of those lying words, words of substitution, to which I was alluding earlier. Just as social transfer is in fact racial transfer, social housing is in fact racial housing. Davocracy always insist on the building of social housing, as if it were building for the poor and the needy amongst the original people. Townships which do not provide sufficient social housing are subjected to enormous fees. Some, if they can afford it, pay those fees rather than have their population transformed. They valliantly resist colonization, conquest, genocide by substitution. But they cannot resist long. The remplacist power wants multiculturalism, deculturation, ethnic submersion, and he wants them everywhere, down to the remotest villages. The new human Nutella paste must be spread evenly on the territory — forgotten corners, poles of resistance and gallic villages will not be tolerated.
Henry Ford was of course highly antisemitic and a great sympathizer of nazi ideas and ideals. This admiration was entirely reciprocated, and Adolf Hitler had a portrait of Ford in his office at the chancery. Chaplin’s sharply criticizing Ford and fordism in Modern Times, Hitler and hitlerism in The Dictator, is in fact fighting the same ennemy, under different guises. The Ford factories in Germany were adjacent to concentration camps, and there were exchanges of task forces and industrial methods between them. One always sees the concentrationnary universe as a major destructive attack againt the Jews, and one is of course perfectly right. But it is high time now to contemplate it also as a major attack against man, against the humanity of the human.
“The means to destroy are getting more perfectionnate every day, wrote Bernanos in 1948, and modern world, in its prodigious unconsciousness, is getting more and more vulnerable. That is because it wants to hear only about Technique, and Technique only knows high interest. Since concentration is good for high interest, modernworld, like it or not, will be concentrationnary_________
 Français, si vous saviez [Frenchmen, if you only knew…], Essais et écrits de combat II, bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Gallimard, p. 1209, 9 mars 1948).10.”
We are here at the core of a somber debate between my friend, or former friend, unfortunately, Alain Finkielkraut, and I about Death Camps and the Extermination of the Jews. Both positions seem to me to be perfectly honourable, and they should not, in my opinion, affect honorability and frienship. Neither of them, needless to say (I hope), reduces in the slightest the horror of the crime comitted, nor the responsibility of the executioner. For one, Finkielkraut’s, Death Camps are a unicum, a tragedy which must stay totally isolated in analysis, and not to be compared to anything else. For the other, mine, it is the epicenter, the Heart of darkness, the worst episode of a story inaugurated much before and which is far from being finished. Upstream: the Industrial Revolution, Taylor, Ford, Metropolis, Modern Times (and of course the racist heritage). Downstream: the Technological Revolution, The Cultural Revolution, Pol-Pot, The Small Replacement, Soylent Green (and of course the antiracist ideology).
The relation between concentration, replacement and space, especially space division, is also called to attention by the French philosopher and metaphysicien Georges Gusdorf, whose thought, ad times, reminds one of his contemporary Gunther Anders, the great theorician of The Obsolescence of Man, to whom my own reflexion is very much indebte :
“One could even say that one of the dramas of our times consists in the growing disqualification of human space. The natural milieu is more and more obliterated, scratched out by the settlement of the new milieu of technique. Spacial structures tend to become more and more homogeneous, the differences between the sites is blurred by the growing monotony and uniformity of the ways of living. All the cities tend to look alike, as all the houses do, all the flats, all the lives as well as all the political regimes. Modern uprooting makes men interchangeable. For that matter the value of individuals seems to go down together with that of places, and modern man is wondering with anguish if soon there will be only displaced people in a concentrationnary universe._________
 Mythe et Métaphysique, 1953, CNRS reprint, 2012, p. 238.11”
In Hong-Kong, workers from continental China live in boxes where they cannot stand up, and this in order to be near a job which brings them just enough money to pay for their cage. Everywhere, under pression from overpopulation and demographic growth, such as profit wants it, space is becoming ever more rare and more precious, and it is divided and divided again, not only spacially, as space, and that to an absurd degree, but also in time: people who shares an appartment divide its surface and its rooms between them, but they may also divide the time allocated to each of them: one may have a room or a bed from 8 P.M. to eight A.M., say, the other from eigth A.M. to eigth P.M. As mentionned before, with the migrants flocking all over the places, the most beautiful cities in the world are turning into slums, shantytowns, waste grounds, devastated by stupor and hyperviolence. The point is not to make comparisons, of course, between Hong-Kong boxes for human beings and Auschwitz bedsteads; it is only to remark that they belong to the same story: that of the deshumanization of man, its reduction to the status or non status of object—gold, skin for shades, Undifferentiated Human Matter.
Cities, great capitals, metropolis such as Babylon, Rome, Paris or London have been for millenaries the sites of refinement, delicacy of manners, intellectual life and culture, to such extent that the word civilisation comes from their name, as did the thing from their walls, streets, places, palaces, mansions, cafés, theatres and drawing-rooms; but the situation today seem to reverse. “Multicultural” metropolis seem to be the centers from which hyper violence spread over the world, they are becoming very dirty, dilapidated ans dangerous, and they inspire less and less desire to travellers and to their own inhabitants alike, excepts may be those who practice all the forms of nocence. Civilisation appear to have withdrawn to the depths of the ultimate forests and the ultimate books, and if that is so it should change name — ruralisation?
What makes remplacism so strong is its alliance with antiracism — that is, with goodness, with the empire of the Good. The experience of nazism, which it had observed from very close, and even from the inside, as the case of Ford just reminded us (but one could mention many other names), had shown it that a genocide, and a fortiori a specicide, to be entirely successfull, needs to be perpetrated not in the name of Evil, but in the name of goodness, virtue, human fraternity. A crime against humanity who does not win you a Nobel Prize for Peace has not been conducted according to modern standards.
High Finance was an old lady of practically unlimited means but execrable reputation. She was well aware of the obigation she had, in a pan-mediatic society, where “image” is eveything, to try and get a better one. Someone presented to her Antiracism, a popular young man of impeccable credentials (at that time), numerous relations, high ambitions and little money. Contrary to what one may have thought, those two soon discovered they had a lot in common, notably the hatred of segregation, discrimination, distinction, borders, frontiers and the like, everything that might lead to distinguish between human beings. They were also highly complementary. Antiracism provided the couple with a good name and with absolute protection against all criticism: how could one criticize virtue, goodness, generosity, equality, fraternity between people of all sorts? Finance provided it with money, power, total mastery of the media — all the more total that money and power, thanks to that unexpected union, had virtue on their side, which might one day come handy, and it did, to alleviate the scrupules of a few idealistic or extremely naive journalists.
That unique combination, money and virtue (or the image of), power and righteousness, traditionnal business interests of the right and no less traditional moral ideals of the left, is acording to me what make remplacism such a formidable enemy, so formidable indeed that one often wonders if there is any point in trying and fighting it, strong as it appears to be — as if the ruthless power, in the upper district of Metropolis, had, to top it all and make it worse, the capacity to project to the world the gentle image of the soft social order in the Alpine pastures of Sissi or The Sound of Music. The name I give it, replacism, global replacism, is of my own creation, and that makes an important difference with previous political totalitarianisms, communism, nazism, fascism, which had made the choice of their appellation. Nevertheless replacism seem to me an apt description, and well suited to show why and how that ideology, devoted to promote the replaceabilility of everyting, man emphatically included, is indeed a totalitarianism, whose only rival as such, for the mastery of the world, is islam.
Proposing a name and a description for a society not otherwise designated exposed me very much to the accusation of promoting a conspiracy theory. The theory of conspiracy theory is one of the most effective, catching and brilliant inventions of the ideological power and its executive clique, the medias, to discourage any reflection on its own mechanisms, on the nature of its power and on the crimes it might have commited. The theory, and the accusation of which it is the name, amalgamates all conspiracy theories into one, whose model are the most eccentric views about the attacks of September eleven on the Manhattan Towers or the Pentagon. But just as being paranoid does not mean you have no ennemy, as the overused but true saying goes, accusing everybody with views different from your own of being a complotist adept of some conspiracy theory does not mean there is no plot and no conspiracy.
Personnally I never imagined that a group of people with evil intentions congregated one day in some big luxurious exacutive room and decided that they would change the population of Europe for a cheaper one, with a faster growth in quantity. I think it is more evil than that. Some people incriminate the Jews, others incriminate the European Union, some think Wall Street or the FMI have entire responsability. There might be some truth in any of those hypotheses, but I rather think of some enormous, bizarre and complex mecanisms, so intricated that no one can understand perfectly how they work and why, and no one can master and stop them once they are started. They are very much started. It is for us to break the machines which produce men like other produce cookies, or Nutella. The problem, as I see it, is not so much the replacement of men by robots than the replacement of robots by men, dazed flesh machines covered of diplomas, extremely violent between themselves but fundamentally obedient to general plan.
It would be surprising that the Jews be the main responsible of a phenomenon, The Great Replacement, of which they are the first victims. Change of population in Europe has brought about a general and growing insecurity, which makes daily life very difficult, if not downright impossible, for a number of Jews who are a butt from very strong muslim agressivity, modern antisionism flourishing both as an exasperation and as an excuse, a more decent cover, for very classical arabic and mahometan antisemitism. As for classical occidental European antisemitism, it is like a derelict shop in the shabby historical downtown, put entirely out of business, and fashion, by the enormous commercial centers in the suburbs, ominously favoured by remplacist or “antiracist” power. A number of Jewish communities in Europe who had survived the Holocaust do not survive the Great Replacement. Thousands of French Jews are leaving the country each year, choosing to do their alya because they feel they have no choice. This, on top of personnal feelings, is one of the reasons why I was deeply shocked to learn that, during the notorious antiremplacist demonstration in Charlottesville, in 2017, adjacent to the people who were shouting You will not replace us!, which, of course, I thoroughly and enthusiastically approve, as the very cry of post-humanism refused, some, a minority, and I hope a very small minority — I am very much accustomed to the ways of mainstream press, and I know their delight in mentionning as capital, in the doings of their adversaries, what was in fact totally marginal — had been shouting Jews will not replace Us! It is not the Jews, who are replacing you. Taylor was not a Jew. Ford was not a Jew, and indeed, as we have seen, he was highly antisemitic. Soros is, admittedly, Jewish, and he does take an essential part in global replacism, as have done, on a smaller scale and with much more modest means, many a Jewish intellectual, journalist, chronicler or writer, red-hot promoters in their time of massive immigration, or mass migration. But this has perceptibly changed, fortunately (from my point of view); and the proportion of remplacist Jews and antiremplacist Jews is now almost reversed. In any case, Jews are very much divided on that issue, which makes them no different from any other community.
To that must be added that the belonging of Israel to the Jewish People, with Jerusalem as a capital, is the model and the essential reference, at least in Western culture and civilization, to all belonging. If those three did not belong to each other, it would be the end of all belonging. That precise link is so essential that it is, so to speak, the gold counterpart of all other links. If Jerusalem was not Jewish there would be no reason for Paris or Saint-Denis to be for ever French, for London or Winchester to be English, indeed for Washington or Concord to be American — at least not in a cratylian world, that is, to my way of thinking, that of art, literature, language, memory, culture, sense, order, in-nocence and civilisation.
As for the European Union it is of course largely responsible for the disastrous state of the continent, invaded and occupied by peoples foreign to it. It has, indeed, much betrayed. The question is to know whether is has betrayed and betrays because it spells structurally betrayal, and it would be the same with different people running it, or if betrayal is just the natural result of a certain kind of government, and a certain kind of people running it. After all, many people tend to think their own government, notably in France, has betrayed or sold them just as much: they would like to change it for another, but they don’t want, just for that reason, to suppress France, or its political organization. Why should one want to suppress the European Union? One should take power in it, and change radically its policies. Europe, one should take hold of it, not leave it. On should expell Africa from it, not exit it. I was personnally much saddened by Brexit, because I think an Europe without Britain, which is an essential component of its civilization, is no Europe at all. The continent is invaded, the nations which are part of it should stick together and resist, not try and find salvation in isolation. As the precise moment when I am writing this small book, Italy is refusing to take in more migrants, which I totally approve, but is fighting with other European countries for a just distribution of them. There is no “just disribution” of them. If invaders is what they are, and it is, they should not be distributed among European countries, but driven back to where they belong. This tend to show how the problem, being a matter of life and death for the continent and its civilization, cannot and will not be solved in one country only, or one by one. The scale is continental. So called “sovereignists” lose a lot of time and energy, not to mention elections, by concentating their attacks on Brussels and neglecting the invasion. They are like resistants, during the First Occupation in France, who would be so busy fighting Vichy that they would completely forget the Germans.
Of course Vichy should not have been forgotten, that is not at all what I mean — and neither does Brussels. In fact Brussels is the new Vichy, the Vichy of Europe, the Vichy of the Second Occupation: its name is so strongly associated with treason, collaboration, replacism, that I think it should be replaced, after the terrritory is liberared, and remigration achieved. I am personnally favorable to an Europe of Nations, a Condederacy, with a clear division of attributions between Nations States and Condeferal power and Vienna as a capital, with an elected president in Schoenbrunn. Vienna is an imperial city long deprived of an Empire, and it is ideally located at the center of the continent, exactly between North and South, Estern and Western Europe. It would be a magnificent symbol of the will of this part of the world to return into history.
When did it start leaving it? After the horrors of the Second World War — the famous Never Again again. As the main States on the continent, victors, vanquished, or in-betweens (most were in-betweens), were slowly fading into the status of second rate powers, Europe itself, which could have been a major one, was deciding against it and preferred, shameful and exhausted, being a ghost, a living non-entity, secure in the scilly and pretentious thought there would be no history as long as it would be taking no part in it_________
 Ørop, a lost tale by Hans Christian Andersen, Chez l’auteur, 2014. This political children’s story attributed to Andersen has been collected in the latest editions of Le Grand Remplacement, Chez l’auteur / Amazon.12. Eastern Europe was occupied by the Soviets. I admit at being shocked when a great writer like Pascal Quignard speaks, for France and Western Europe in general, of L’Occupation américaine, American Occupation. That is being unfair to our liberators. But it is true that we have been culturally colonized and that the americanization of life has been a major part of the setting up of La Dictature de la petite bourgeoisie — the United States, being, at least at the beginning, without history or cultural heritage, was very much from the start a petit bourgeois society, highly egalitarian; and most (but of course not all: Dickinson, Whitman, Ives, Faulkner, Twombly…) of its (enormous) contributions to European culture came under the chapter of popular culture, show business or entertainment. They were to such an extent that someone could say funnyly, when we started to be subjected to an other, more brutal and more direct colonization, that we were submitted to an islamization of our americanization. There was a lot of truth in that.
The American colonization, of Europe, although much less severe than the African one, because it is not demographical, is not only cultural: it is also military—but of that the United States are much less responsible than Europe itself which, out of avarice, cowardice, laziness and that will to escape history that I just mentionned, has abandonned to its American ally and protector the care of its own defence, giving up in the process the status and dignity of a fully independant continent, or Union of nations. I am not a very ardent Trumpist but there are a few points where I totally agree with Donald Trump, and one of the clearest of those is that the United States do not have to be eternally responsible for the security of Europe, whose different States should put up as fast as they could a new and competitive army.
The United States, specially under the presidency of Barack Obama, have shown themselves very favorable to the change of people and civilization in Europe, and almost impatient to see it made irreversible. In France the American Embassy has close contact with the so-called “quartiers populaires” and put up organizations such as Young Leaders, whose laureates have been almost exclusively of African descent, which shows who the United States consider as the most likely leaders of France to-morrow. But with Donald Trump America began to realize that it was itself just as menaced by the frightfull Great Remplacement than Europe was. Hence the shouts of You Will Not Replace Us at Charlottesville and elsewhere. The truth is that Europe and the Atlantic are being replaced in the heart, the eyes and the interests of Americans by Asia and the Pacific, and that is for a large part the result of the shift in population on the American territory. Replacists can be replaced, they are, and if they are not they will be. As far as replacement goes America is at least as much a victim than it is a culprit.
Other mention the U.N. and the I.M.F. and those are certainly remplacist organizations, quite openly in the case of the U.N., who make current use of the word replacement, with favorable connotations, and draw regularly attention to the necessity to replace ageing and dwindling population. The attitude of those institutions on that matter might be found strange, since the vast majority of members countries are not remplacist in the least, and would find it monstruous to have their own population replaced. But they don’t find it monstruous at all, quite to the contrary, to have their own population replacing that of other countries, which amounts for them to achieving a conquest or a colonization: Turkish blatant conquest of Germany, Algerian rampant colonization of France, etc. And the countries thus conquered and colonized, namely the European countries, principally, plus North-American countries, specially Canada, see no objection to it since they are ardently remplacist. Admirable combination: antiremplacist and remplacist countries are of the same mind to promote Great Replacement, and everybody is perfectly happy with it, except, possibly, the replaced populations, who should abominate the processs, since it amounts for them to servitude and genocide by substitution.
But a large majority of those do not even know it’s taking place, even though it is happening in perfect evidence right under their nose, and eyes. And, even when they start suspecting something, it is themselves they suspect first, in case they might be called a racist, or, even worse, be one. They’d rather go on being blind than face such awful risk, that would shatter their whole existence, and their relations with their soul, not to mention their relations with their entourage, wife, husband, lover, employer, employees, neighbours. Fakeal is stronger than facts. But, on the long run, Fakeal is not necessarily stronger than truth.
I have enumerated, along this short essay, three models that, in my opinion, should inspire us in our fight againt the African invasion, the islamic occupation, the change of people and civilization, in short the Great Replacement, and global replacism which is its matrix: the fight for independance of oppressed nations, mostly during the XIXth century, in the name of the right of peoples to self-dertmination; resistance to German and nazi occupation during World War II; the anticolonialist struggle of colonized peoples and countries, mostly during the XXth century. There is a fourth model, and is the one which gives the most hope, not only because it was successfull, like the other three in a large majority of cases (although not for Tibetans, for Kurds, for Berbers…), but because the situation to which it refers is by many aspects that which looks most like the one we are experiencing. I am thinking of dissidence and dissidents in their confrontations with the Soviet Union and other totalitarian communist countries, such as Czekoslovakia, Hungary or Poland. They were facing a formidable foe and they had only one weapon, besides their courage, intelligence and determination: truth. But that simple and primitive weapon proved all-powerful, because what they were facing was fakeness itself, a world where everything was fake, lies cemented by fallacy. Such a world can resist long. But every truth rocks him invisibly, and one ultimate truth makes it collapse all at once, like Jericho on the seventh day of the trumpets’ resounding.
There is, I must admit, one point that makes our situation worse than that of the antisoviet dissidents, it is that our present fakeal is much stronger, more sophisticated, more modern and better liked, than the general delusion of the Soviet period. In the words of our member at National Council of European Resistance, Vaclav Klaus, economist and former president of the Czech Republic, « in the last years of communist rule they were more people believing in communism on any American campus than in all Czechoslowakia ». People in the communist world were living and behaving as if the communist principles were the truth, but practically no one was actually believing they were right, nor did anyone think they were right.
We are, unfortunately, in a very different situation. A considerable number of people in Europe and North America believe that Great Replacement is not happening, that there is no colonization, no foreign conquest, no change of population; and many others, or the same, believe that if such things were actually happening it would be no problem at all, it would even be a good thing, both from an economical and moral point of view. The number of persons with such conviction seems to be slowly decreasing, as they are witnesses to the distressing reality of the phenomenon, or experiment it directly; but it stays amazingly high, specially in its electoral translation, which has stayed obstinately favorable, election after election, so far, at least in France and in other great European nations, either to political parties themselves favourable to mass migration, or to parties of which it is common knowledge, whatever their official program, that there will do nothing againt it. How can people accept, either with enthusiasm or resignation, what has been to their ancestors the worst conceivable horror, having not anymore a country they can call their own, being obliged to share it with other peoples not specially friendly and easy to live with, slowly or not so slowly being replaced by invaders from other races, other continents, other cultures, other civilizations, and with vevy different mores?
We are this very year celebrating in France, in the United Kingdom, in Belgium, the centenary of the 1918 Victory, which we de not even dare call Victory anymore. What would the soldiers of World War I think, after the horrible sacrifices they made, of their youth, their health, their comfort, their lives, if they could see France, or Belgium, or Great-Britain, such as they are to-day, violent, dirty, falling part, a battlefied for very uncough foreign peoples? Would they think thats is worthy of their efforts?
Acceptance of the unacceptable is a total mystery, unless one realizes that technological progress has made the indutry of illusion and the fabric of hebetude infinitely more performing than it was even in the relatively recent period of the Soviet dictatorship. Mind Control has improved in unimaginables proportions. Information is everywhere, it penetrates in our utmost intimacy, we even produce it ourselves, for each other, and in the dictatorship of petite bourgeoisie, as we have seen earlier, everyone is the dictator of all the others. And information at any time is selection, if not, invention, in any case influence, propaganda. What happens or does not happen is for the media a creation of every moment. A demonstraion of twelve people can be news if remplacist interests need them to be so, a demonstration of twelve thousand can very well have no existence whatsoever, even as it takes place, if it does not concur to the change of people, or might be dommageable to the process. The same is true for individuals: positive references to ethnic substitution an “diversity” will be enough to make their carreer, mention of what must not be mentionned, namely the Great Replacement, will precipitate them into nothingness and invisibility. In the words of Tocqueville, who seem to gave foreseen a tyranny exactly like ours:
« You will stay amongst men, but you will lose your rights to humanity. When you get closer to your fellow creatures, they will fly away as from an impure being; and those who will believe in your innocence, even those will desert you, because they would be deserted if they did not. Go in peace: life will not be taken away from you, but it will be worse than death »_________
 Democracy in America, I,II,vii.13.
The official political sympathies of the media, who are the principal intrument of ideological repression—journalists playing at once all the parts, informer, police officer, commissar, procurator, judge executioneer, of the police of thought—are of no significance: they all belong to the hyper-rich, and what the hyper-rich want is the uninterrupted mass production of the factories which bring forward Undifferentiated Human Matter (UHM). The rest in indifferent to them.
Still. The very perfection of the machines which produce the Fakeal, like those who produce film imitation of life on the island of Bioy Casares’ The Invention of Morel, might be a weakness, for them. Bernanos has already noticed and pointed out how the extreme technicity of the modern world, where man is progressively replaced by machines, was making it much more fragile, much more compromised by the slightest incident. We all have in mind recent exemples where a tiny disfunction has given rise to total chaos for days or weeks at a stretch, in train or plane transportation, for instance, hospitals, or the banking system. The dysfunction I suggest, promote and recommand is not tiny at all. Truth has a lightning effect, specially on an organism daily confronted for years, as the ideal of living together has been, to crushing and often bloodstained denials of its dearest convictions. When the child in his innocence says that the emperor is naked, in Andersen’s The Emperors’s New Clothes, everybody, after a second of stupor, admits seing what everybody sees, and has been denying seing for months or years: namely that the sovereign is naked. The reversal of opinion, in such a case, can be very fast. The enthusiastic crowds who acclaimed general de Gaulle upon is arrival in Paris with the allied liberating forces, in late August 1944, had been just as raptured a few weeks before when the eighty-eight years old marshall Pétain had paid them a short visit fom Vichy.
The truth is that between living and together, with the occupying forces, one has to make a choice; and that there is no other solution, if a change for peace is to be preserved, that their return where they came from. Admission as an established fact that the Great Replacement, ethnic substitution, the change of people and civilization, is by far the biggest and most urgent problem Western countries have to face, compared to which all the others, serious as they may be, are minor; and conviction that there can be no other way to solve this problem than remigration: those are the two points, and only two points, that one has to agree upon to be a member of the National Council of European Resistance. The council itself, of which I am president, is for party leaders, associations and movements’ presidents, leaders of opinion or opinion makers, independant personnalities. The support group is called “CNRE-Resistance” and is opened to all patriots, opponants to global replacism, adversaries of the colonization, resistants, dissidents. If people, and notably the readers of this book, were ready to give it their support, both financially and by their physical presence when needed, it could be the converging point of all patriots in Europe, North America and elsewhere — and reverse the course of history.
|Ce bouton permet de se déplacer rapidement dans le site de Renaud Camus.|
masquer les messages d’aide
|Ces boutons proposent diverses options de lecture et de navigation.|
Survolez-les avec la souris pour en savoir plus.
masquer les messages d’aide