Dans la langue à l’envers du remplacisme global davocratique, "antifasciste” = “antiraciste” = génocidaire.https://www.fdesouche.com/2025/04/23/le-conseil-communal-de-la-ville-de-bruxelles-adopte-a-lunanimite-une-motion-declarant-officiellement-la-capitale-belge-ville-antifasciste/

Who’s Afraid of Renaud Camus? by Dr Dominic Green, The Wall Street Journal

Renaud Camus may be the most important living thinker no one has heard of. He’s certainly the most misunderstood. Mr. Camus, 78, is author of “Le Grand Remplacement” (2011), which describes how decades of mass migration have altered his native France. He warns that Europe’s current trajectory will, within a couple of generations, lead to the eclipse of its native peoples, their cultures and even Christianity.

Last week Britain’s Home Office refused to allow Mr. Camus into the country because his presence wouldn’t be “conducive to the public good.” Add the Home Office to those who misunderstand Mr. Camus. Or do they understand him all too well?

We shouldn’t confuse Mr. Camus’s “Great Replacement” with the “Great Replacement Theory” publicized by Tucker Carlson and other tribunes of half-truth on the right. Mr. Camus doesn’t allude to shadowy elites in the paranoid style or claim that Europe’s left-liberal parties opened the gates to secure electoral dominance.

Mr. Camus is an erstwhile member of France’s Socialist Party. He sees mass immigration as a product of globalism and capitalism, which regard people as interchangeable cogs and ignore the salience of culture. Western Europe’s governments expected mass immigration to boost their economies. Instead, it produced welfare dependency, crime, terrorism and a sectarian power struggle that has permanently altered European life. The only conspiracy Mr. Camus sees in Europe’s tragedy is a conspiracy of silence about what he called the “disaster”—the mass immigration of Muslims, Arabs and Africans with adverse social consequences that no one wants to admit, let alone address.

Mr. Camus writes with expansive rhetoric and broad brush strokes. If he were entirely wrong, Europe’s voters wouldn’t be swinging sharply right, and Mr. Camus’s most significant translation into English would remain “Tricks,” a fictionalized account of gay tourism in the 1970s. “Le Grand Remplacement” and several other of his essays have been translated into English. Read “Enemy of the Disaster,” and it’s clear that banning him from England would be akin to the U.S. refusing entry to Roger Scruton (1944-2020), another philosophical essayist who was called a racist for being too quick to state the obvious.

Mr. Camus’s entry into England as a legal visitor is at the government’s discretion, which the Home Office uses politically—managing communal tensions by placating a restive minority and suppressing the majority’s dissent. While Islamist preachers come and go, in 2009 the Dutch politician Geert Wilders was refused entry because, the Home Office said, his presence would provoke “interfaith violence.” Mr. Camus seems to have received a similar proscription.

In February, Vice President JD Vance upbraided Prime Minister Keir Starmer for “infringements on free speech” in Britain. Mr. Starmer insisted he was “very proud” of the state of Britain’s free speech. Mr. Vance was right, and Mr. Starmer should be ashamed. The U.K. prime minister maligns critics of immigration and Islamism as “far right,” and his Labour government is committed to defining “Islamophobia” in law. Should Mr. Starmer get his way, England would effectively grant unique privileges to a minority religion and make the state the partner of antidemocratic activists seeking formal restrictions on lawful speech.

A similar, informal struggle is visible in Europe’s public spaces, where mass Muslim prayer in the streets upends a founding liberal principle, the division between private faith and the public sphere. This year, London’s Labour mayor, Sadiq Khan, lit up the city for Ramadan. A few weeks later came another novelty in the struggle for public precedence, marking Good Friday with a Passion Play in Trafalgar Square.

Meanwhile, attacks on Jews, synagogues and Jewish schools are at record levels, and even Labour no longer blames the far right. All this looks less like diversity in action than a symbolic—sometimes real—battle over public space and cultural norms. It is producing radical changes that override the values of the democratic majority.

Mr. Camus has committed the error of noticing all this. If that makes him an enemy of the British state, it is because the state created the disaster. Labour and the Conservatives discredited themselves by pursuing policies of mass immigration and multiculturalism for three decades. The Home Office managed, or rather mismanaged, the immigration system and generated chaos. While Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration, pro-law-and-order Reform UK Party now leads some polls, more-volatile nationalist impulses are rising. Mr. Camus was invited to Britain by the Homeland Party, a fringe party of neofascist origins which advocates mass deportations of illegal immigrants and foreign-born criminals.

The mood in England today is eerie. The government can’t govern. The police menace law-abiding people for speaking their minds. The borders are open. The country feels as if it is one Islamist bombing away from eruption. Mr. Camus is the least of the government’s problems, yet his presence would have exposed the greatest of them.

The British state survived Marx and Engels plotting world revolution in London for three decades. If Mr. Camus addressing a tiny party in a private room threatens the peace, then the peace, and the pact between government and people, is already broken.

Mr. Green is a Journal contributor and a fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

@DrDominicGreen wsj.com/opinion/whos-a… via @WSJopinion

« M. Camus est le moindre des problèmes du gouvernement [britannique], néanmoins sa présence aurait mis en lumière le plus grand d’entre eux », The Wall Street Journal.

Hilariously boring or boringly hilarious, I can’t decide. A splendid exercise in miscomprehension. Love the comments.

Debating Renaud Camus on remigration

https://youtu.be/R_t2M3YuI3s?si=i3VF6f8CI9SnFnht

Here is the the text of the speech that dear Mrs Yvette Cooper, my very efficient Publicity Manager, did not want you to hear. It is slightly on the longish side, but I will make it shorter when I have time, or will cut it into pieces.

1. Ladies & Gentlemen,

we are here to speak about remigration. And we have spoken about it quite a lot, already. I must admit I was utterly convinced before we started. But of course, I am even more so now. Remigration is the way. Only remigration can save our respective countries, and our continent, Europe. We are told every day that we have entered an era of general migrations, and that it would be absurd to try and oppose it. Very well, then. Let us stand by that. What has proved, to judge by the results, so easy in one direction, even when it is sometimes barely legal, and quite often when it is entirely illegal, will surely prove much easier in the other direction, when accomplished by the will of a state, with all the resources, comfort and dignity afforded by civilization. Of course, Remigration can be carried out only by a state, in a very legal and — unless it should meet with undue resistance — orderly manner.
But even for a state, which so far we are not, as you have probably noticed, there is the obstacle of the Law. The Law is not at all favorable to remigration. Even the British government found it quite difficult when it decided to dispatch a few dozen illegal migrants to some remote place in Africa, when he chose to do so. All the Courts in this fair island were up in arms against this project. The situation is the same in France. In that country, my own, there exists an administrative procedure known as “Obligation to Leave French Territory.” It has become a sad joke: for every hundred such decisions taken against illegal migrants or foreign criminals, less than ten are implemented. Illegal may be those people, but very legal and legalist is their defence. For the replacist system, that which promotes the Great Replacement, the fact of illegality matters very little when it serves the ends of migratory submersion. But should something go against it, it opens endless possibilities for countervailing legal action. And practically everything which goes against the change of people and civilization is illegal, of course, since the Law, be it national or international, has been carefully contrived ensure that such change is unavoidable. In a colonial state, the law is obviously colonialist, and so are the judges; they would not be judges otherwise. In a replacist society, one cannot be anything — judge, MP, minister, dancer, general, king, actor, journalist, theater director, writer, what have you — and have any career, if one is not replacist: that is, what they call antiracist. If one is not, one is dead. You are listening to a cadaver, a ghost, a banished one at that.
In any case, I do not think remigration should apply to illegal aliens, advocates of sharia, Muslim supremacists, or child rapists. I do not think that this is the right approach, even as a cautious first step. But have no fear: I of course think that illegal aliens, Muslim supremacists, and old lady beaters should be deported. But to only ask for that is a bit as if French Resistance fighters, during the First Occupation in France, the short one, the German one, had only asked that members of the Gestapo convicted of torturing Frenchmen in prison cellars be sent back to Germany. A very legitimate request, no doubt, but entirely devoid of meaning. If you’ll pardon my saying so, the problem was not Gestapo members torturing people in prison cellars. Oh, that was indeed a problem, and a most horrific one at that. But the real problem was the German Occupation as a whole, without which they would not have been Gestapo members torturing people in prison cellars.

If French resistance fighters had said, which of course they did not, that they solely desired the departure of criminals members of the Gestapo, they would have been implicitly acknowledging that they did not really mind the Wermacht, whose soldiers were so korrect, even if they did shot hostages by the hundreds; that they did not even mind the Waffen SS; that they did not mind the military Occupation of their country: no, what they minded was just the worst part of it, the people being tortured in prison cellars — which in fact was just the unavoidable consequence of the Nazi Occupation of France, its paramount expression.
Similarly, illegal aliens, child rapists and groomers for prostitution, Muslim supremacists, advocates of sharia and torturers of old ladies are nothing but the unavoidable consequence of the foreign occupation of Britain, of the African and Asian colonisation of the United Kingdom. Foreign colonization is everywhere in Western Europe. Europe is infinitely more colonized than it ever itself colonized. There has been colonization of all types. Most have been violent, some have brought order, health and progress, some bring only destruction, rape, murder, dirtiness, ugliness and misery. But colonisation, ever since the phenomenon began in Antiquity with the Phoenicians and Greeks settling in North Africa, in Sicily and Southern Italy, is essentially a matter of populations being transferred from one part of the world to another. France had a large colonial empire but it was more of an Empire — a military, commercial and administrative conquest — than a set of colonies in the true sense of the term. With the exception of Canada in the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries, and of Algeria in the XIXth, there were no population transfer. In Black Africa during the first colonial period, the North-South one, the French were probably one hundred times less numerous than are Black Africans in France today, at the time of second colonization, the South-North one. Even in Algeria, where there was a strong cohort of French people for six or seven generations, they were six or seven times fewer in number than are Algerians in France today, more of whom are French Citizens.
England and Great-Britain in general are of course an entirely different matter. The British were expatriates, pilgrims, colonists in the proper sense of the term, much more so than were the French, the Belgians or the Dutch. They were true settlers and colonists, who left this island to permanently establish themselves in North America, Australia, New Zealand, with the intention of building a life for themselves in those vast and, it should be noted, largely empty territories. But when the United Kingdom established its dominion over India, or Burma, or Egypt, all of which were already very densely populated places, especially India, there was very little in the way of population transfer: it was more like a military, or administrative, or diplomatic conquest, overseen by a rather small cadre of British residents. There were infinitely fewer English, Scots, Welshmen and Irishmen in India at the time of the Raj than there are Indians and Pakistanis in Great-Britain today. Indeed, though Queen Victoria was Empress of India, she had rather little personal power over her Indian subjects. But the situation is now completely reversed. You just had an Indian Prime Minister, with considerable power on the fate of this kingdom, and your capital city, where the native British are now a minority, has, as a consequence, a Pakistani and Mohammedan mayor. Obviously Mr Sunak and Mr Kahn are British, just as queen Victoria was Indian — she could not be more Indian, since she was Empress of India.
How the demographic colonization of Great-Britain was allowed to happen remains a total mystery to me.

I used to think that the contemporary colonization of France had something to do with the total collapse of the country in 1940, the subsequent occupation of her territory, the less than honorable attitude of the Vichy government and of a significant share of the people, the Collaboration with the occupier, the first one: taken together, this sorry episode had killed the soul of the nation and perhaps explained her otherwise unexplainable submission to a new and much more numerous invader. But that can’t be the explanation, for Great-Britain — a nation that, to the contrary, uniquely covered herself in glory during in those same years of struggle with Nazi Germany — is now even more occupied than France, even more colonized. How is it possible that a country that had, for months on end and entirely alone, so heroically resisted, those fearsome ennemies, the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe, now submit, without especial protest or objection, to millions upon millions of much more exotic — but hardly less ominous — occupiers ? In this respect the reign of your late monarch is surely the saddest in your history. When she acceded to the throne, she found a country that, though still impoverished by the war, basked in the unique prestige conferred upon it by its gallant fight and its victory, and that, to the envious admiration of the rest of the world, delighted in its Britishness. When she left it seventy years later her people had ben so deeply replaced that it was no longer a people but a amalgam of foreign communities, one that had totally transformed the aspect of so many streets in so many cities, where the indigenous population was soon to become a minority, if they were not one already.
The Great Replacement, or genocide by replacement, the change of people and civilization, is the crime against humanity of the 21st century. I know that the sovereign in your monarchy is not supposed to take any part in politics, but this, this drama, this horror, this tragedy, this crime, has nothing to do with politics. It is a matter of survival for one of the most prestigious peoples on Earth, now deprived by its own rulers of any territory that it could call its own. And if the Queen could do nothing about it, she could, at any moment, have spoken, even if that meant losing her throne for a while. Her silence is more inexcusable than that of Pope Pius XII during the Second World War. Pius XII, by keeping silent, was trying to protect his flock; whereas Elizabeth II, by keeping silent, allowed for the destruction of her people and the colonization of her kingdom to proceed. As for her successor, he is not silent at all. To the contrary, he is, like his current Prime Minister, a very enthusiastic supporter of the colonial occupier. He is certainly closer to Global Replacism and Islamism than his great-uncle Edward VIII was to Nazism.
As regards this colonial occupation that has been imposed everywhere in Europe, there is no difference in the fate of republics and monarchies: they are all invaded to the same degree. In France we tend to lay blame for our disaster on the so-called “values of the Republic,” but it looks like the values of the monarchies offer no added protection to the unfortunate natives, quite to the contrary. Nor does it matter much whether the presently colonized countries formerly possessed a colonial empire or not. The present South-North colonization cannot be seen as simple backlash for the earlier, North-South one. And even though the European Union plays a tremendous role in encouraging for migratory submersion, one cannot attribute full responsibility for the genocide by replacement to Brussels, since the same thing is taking place just as viciously in Switzerland or Norway, neither of which are part of the European Union, as it is in, say, Sweden and Austria, both of which are; and in the United Kingdom it has rather accelerated than decreased since the country, to my great regret, has left the Union — Brexit proved no remedy for the change of people and civilization.

If not the monarchies, if not the republics, if not the European Union — although they have all been very eager accomplices to the crime —, then who? There must be some higher force, of which these are but the instruments.
The United Nations ? They indeed take a great interest in replacement, especially the replacement of Europeans. There have been several official reports insisting on the aging process of the native population in Europe and its declining birth rate. This, according to UN, would make demographic replacement legitimate. But demographic replacement can never be legitimate. Men and women are not replaceable material, if only because they are not material. The idea that man is replaceable is the most impious that the human brain could have conceived, even if it was in fact conceived by a machine. And in any case Europeans do not need to be replaced. Even the purely indigenous Europeans have never been so numerous in Europe and, considering the state of the planet and that of the continent, a reasonable decrease in the overall population is the best thing that could happen to the world from the point of view of its air, water, flora and fauna, the beauty of landscapes. Earth has had enough of man. Other species are outraged by its invasive presence. And whether it’s Great Britain, France, Germany, or Italy, all these countries were much happier, more pleasant to live in, more beautiful and much more civilized when they had fifty million inhabitants. It is to this kind of figure that remigration will restore them.
A now classical move is to accuse the Jews, and indeed the Jews, after the Second World War and the Death Camps, had every reason to blame Europe for all the harm it had done them, whether through deliberate criminal intent or plain indifference. Jewish intellectuals, journalists, and statesmen have long played an undeniable part in the efforts to make massive immigration acceptable, if not popular. But things are changing fast, although not as fast as one might desire. For one thing international finance is now quite far from being as essentially Jewish as it might once have been, and is now just as much, if not more, Muslim, Chinese, Protestant, and even Catholic as it is Jewish. And people who accuse one of being antisemitic just because one thinks, as I do indeed, that financial interests are playing an essential part in the genocide by replacement, are showing nothing but their own antisemitism, since international finance and the Jews are for them two names for the same thing — an absurdity on its face. No, when I speak of Davos and of the Davocratic management of the human park by hedges funds, pension funds, the GAFAM, Big Tech and Big State, I certainly do not mean the Jews. And how could I, since, everywhere in Europe, rank and file Jews are, among the countless victims of the Great Replacement, the first and the most cruelly affected, to such extent that nowhere is safe for them ?
Antiracism was born after the Second World War and derived all its indisputable legitimacy from the ‘Never again’ of the Death Camps. And yet, over time, by way of mass immigration, it has created a society where the Holocaust can no longer be taught in many classrooms. For a time, one might have wondered why it was necessary to create separate concepts such to denote racism and antisemitism. But now the answer is quite clear: it was to allow the antiracists to be antisemites. I don’t know exactly what the situation is in this country but, in France, the party that most fiercely defends immigration — that is, the most antiracist, one might think, and certainly the most replacist party, seeing in the Great Replacement a marvelous opportunity for my country —, is also by far the most antisemitic. So, no, Davocracy does not mean “the Jews” and the Jews are not responsible for the genocide by replacement.

America, then, the United States? It too had very good reasons, after the Second World War, to be exasperated with Europe and the Europeans who, in less than a quarter of a century, it had been twice obliged to rescue from their own continental conflicts, at great cost to American lives, not to mention American money. I was amused to hear president Trump declare last month, in his unique style, that the European Union had been created to screw the United States. Of course, the European Union has not been created to screw the United States or for that matter do anything else to it. Indeed, the European Union was largely created by the United States to ensure that Europe would be a non-entity, with no army and no cultural or civilizational feeling of its own, to ensure, in other words, that it withdraw from history, which indeed it did.
The United States, which was itself founded on a genocide by replacement, and is very much itself a victim, as a result of its own crime of slavery, of so-called multiculturalism, a pompous code name for racial hatred and deculturation, saw no reason why Europe should be spare the same fate. As the Americans culturally colonized Europe through their movies and popular music, which was itself becoming more and more African or Black American, they went to great lengths to encourage its demographic colonization by the rest of the world, especially Africa and Asia. Many of the political and cultural leaders in France and probably other countries were greatly assisted in their rise to power and fame, if not preselected, by American money and American social, economic, financial and political network, in exchange for which they committed themselves to never oppose antiracism, the dominant ideology of the second half of the 20th century and necessary guarantor of mass migration, multiculturalism, and the Great Replacement.
The Great Replacement is not a theory, unfortunately: the Great Replacement is a crime. And it is committed by those who call it a theory. I do have a theory, in fact: it is called Global Replacism. It is based on the observation that replacement is the central gesture of modern societies: of the original by the copy, of the natural by the artificial, of the indigenous by the allogenous, of stone by concrete, of everything by plastic, of town and country by the universal suburb, of the universal suburb by the universal slum, of man by woman, of men and women by robots, of Europeans by Africans or Asians, you name it. Global Replacism is not to be confused with the United States, of course; but, just as Zeev Sternhell was able to show that Fascism had French origins, Replacism has clearly American origins. The first industrial revolution was English; the second took place in America. Frederick Winslow Taylor was its little God, having decided that, “In the past man had been first, in the future the System must be first.” Henry Ford was his Prophet, and the Ford Model T was its Idol: by replacing the many pieces of earlier cars with a very small number of them, and by replacing very expensive components with very cheap ones, Ford could produce a car so inexpensive that his workers could themselves afford it. The producer became the consumer. At a later stage, ours, the consumer also became the product. Man is but a spare part on an industrial and commercial circuit. To be that, he has to be entirely replaceable. No race, and then no sex.
One has no idea of the fascination exerted by America on the two totalitarianisms of the 20th century. Hitler was an ardent admirer of Ford, whose name appears in the first edition of Mein Kampf and whose portrait hung in Hitler’s office. Ford sold thousands of copies of his Memoirs in the USSR, where he was an household name. Before he came to power, Lenin violently criticized Taylor; once he found himself in a position to exercise it, however, he regarded Taylor and his system as the eighth wonder of the world, as did Stalin.

In the Twenties and the Thirties, a continuous flow of experts traveled to the gigantic Ford emporium at Detroit and Dearborn to learn the methods of mass production, while another flow of experts traveled in the opposite direction, from Detroit and Dearborn to Germany and Russia, to teach these methods. Taylor was adamant: his System does not merely apply to organization of work, but to every aspect of society. Ford, a staunch antisemite, had considerable interests in nazi Germany, which bestowed upon him its highest distinction. In both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the concentration camp universe was largely inspired by the Taylorian System and Fordian methods, what I call replacism, or Global Replacism. Man is but a spare part, as we have seen. If one fails, or falls, or dies, it can be replaced immediately.

The Great Replacement was not a Nazi or Neo-Nazi theory; it was a Nazi practice, Umvolkung. It was applied as early as 1938 in Czechoslovakia and afterwards in all the conquered territories of the East, the idea being to replace Jews, of course, but also Czechs, Slovakians, Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and even Russians, Slavs in general, by good Germans, as they were produced en masse in the Lebensborn, the Fordian production units for babies, admirably described by Huxley in Brave New World, where the name of the Lord is replaced by that of Ford, Our Ford, and where time is counted from the invention of the Ford Model T. Only their military defeat prevented the Nazis from Great Replacing the populations of the provinces or countries they had conquered in the first months or years of their war with the Soviet Union. But what they failed to impose in the East, Replacism seems to be just about to achieve in the West. “The Nazis were precursors,” said Jacques Lacan. Nazism was racist; Replacism is antiracist. Both are genocidal, but Replacism in a much subtler way. It does not have to kill, it needs merely replace (and have the replacements or replacers kill for him). Huxley had brilliantly announced that future totalitarianism would be playful. Show business, entertainment, publicity, sports, pop music, dance and drugs are an essential part of its process. It is very much one of stupor and infantilization, full of sport hysteria, mechanical intimacy, tribal dances, behavioral communism, open spaces and first names. If a Londoner of 1950 would return to present-day London, he would be of course flabbergasted by the vertiginous change of race, but almost as much by the change of class, the general proletarianization, be it in dress, language or behavior.
What I call Global Replacism is not quite as old as Communism but slightly older than Nazism. Its Das Kapital or Mein Kampf but Taylor’s more modest, 1913 book, Principles of Scientific Management. Of the three totalitarianisms that came to power in the 20th century, it is the only one that is alive and well in Europe today. It exerted great influence over both of the others, but it survived them and succeeded them: from Nazism, it inherited Umvolkung, the Great Replacement, a way to look upon man as a pure object, just like any other industrial product; from communism, it inherited Kommounalka, the communal apartment, forced cohabitation, but transposed to the dimensions of entire nations and an entire continent. Its only rival is Islamism. They are allies and rivals for the domination of Europe. Each of them thinks it is taking advantage of the other.
Global Replacism did not come to power before the mid-1970s of the last century, with the proclamation of the Dogma of the non-existence to races. Science never showed herself so servile than on this occasion, but it was an absolutely indispensable condition for mass replacement. If there were no races, how could one protest at the change of population in one’s country? It made genocide by replacement the perfect crime. The slightest objection made you a racist, which no one wanted to be. The only effective reply would be to accept one be called such, though with an entirely different meaning.

Since antiracism has become hatred of races, racism should become love of them and of their peaceful coexistence: that is, what it should always have been, as its very name suggests.

2. The political system of Global Replacism is Davocracy, its executive apparatus the Genocidal Bloc: rulers, juges, journalists. Democracy is perfectly compatible with Davocracy, it is even its favorite regime, the easiest to manipulate. If you control the schools, the universities and the media, you can easily have a people vote for its own genocide by replacement. Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, is the third figure of Global Replacism and Davocratic Rule, its Unholy Spirit, if you will. He showed that there was no real difference between commercial advertising and political propaganda. Of all the so-called “Human Sciences,” “Communication” is the one which has made the greatest strides since World War II. Thanks to communication and publicity, genocide, under such names as diversity and multiculturalism, has improved its image like no other crime. In European democracies, asking people to vote in such conditions of mind control is like asking Gisèle Pélicot — that woman from the French town of Mazan, in Provence, whom her husband used to drug before having her raped by volunteers all around, you may have heard of her — is like asking her for her opinions on the visitors ringing at her door. Gisèle Pélicot should be on European stamps, as an emblem for our continent: a woman given away to all and sundry for their enjoyment and abuse by those who were supposed to protect her.
Davocracy is the managerial gestion of the human park. It stands for global financial interest, a purely economic conception of the world. Big money, the hyperclass and multinational companies can adapt to Right or Left, but they have a marked preference for the Left, whose official values — equality and antiracism, and now transgenderism — better serve its ideal of general interchangeability. Together, they have triumphed over races. They are now busy eradicating sexes, those useless obstacles to commercial standardization. Class transition, race transition, sex transition, or defect: the trans is the king of the replacement world. His queen is the trance, whether brought about by drugs, religious hysteria or Afro-industrial music.
Global Replacism is no longer importing workers, Global Replacism is importing consumers. You object that those imported consumers have no money. Soon, they will have yours. Social transfers are nothing but racial transfers. The present colonization of Europe is the first in the history of the world to be accomplished entirely at the expense of the colonized people. It is also one of the few where the colonizers are poorer and less advanced in every respect than the colonized, whose richness and advance they destroy. Yet one must not think of consumption exclusively as an individual process: even when they are poor, the colonists will need lodgings, for which the omnipresent two-tier system, now official in your country, will give them precedence over the natives; they will need roads and highways to get to these lodgings, schools, hospitals, mosques, sports installations and cultural centers for them to burn. All this calls for land, agricultural land or empty spaces, more artificialization, more replacement of earth by concrete and more destruction of landscape. Along with being the only coherent antinazis, we antireplacists are the only consistent ecologists.
Some people say remigration is impossible because immigrants and other colonizers are more than half of the staff in hospitals, restaurants, public works, construction, transportation, and so on. That is mostly true. But anybody who has set foot or back in an hospital knows that, while so much of the medical and administrative staff hails from an immigrant or immigrant-origine background, so do the patients. Most people working on building sites are from African, Indian, Caribbean, Pakistani stock, but who are they building these tenements for, if not Pakistani, Caribbean, Indians or Africans of all sorts ? Immigration calls endlessly for more immigration, Replacement for more Replacement.

Remigration will immediately reduce the need for colonial occupation, if need there ever was.
At present, there is hardly a single problem that remigration will not solve, or at least significantly reduce: prison overcrowding, general insecurity, violence against women, the constant fear of terrorism, permanent reduction of civil liberties, the end of free speech, artificialization, Islamization, slumization, falling IQs, disloyalty to the flag, corruption, the pidginization of the language, historical revisionism, colonial and replacist negationism, and so on. We don’t want more prisons being built, more surveillance cameras, more police on every corner, more restrictions of free speech. We don’t want to secure hell. We want to return to civilization.
Like slavery in the 18th century, the colonization of Europe in the 21st century is a triangular trade. It does not have two protagonists, but three. Those or that who want it are not those who do it. The occupier is not the occuperator. The colonist is not the colonialist. The Great Replacement as three actors : the replacists, or those who want it, replacers, or those who do it, and the replacees, or those who are its victims, the indigenous peoples of Europe. No colonial situation can end without the departure of the colonist. No occupation can cease without the departure of the occupier. Those who speak of the danger of a civil war are mistaken. A civil war is between factions of the same people. If you speak of a civil war, you admit that the colonial occupier and you are part of the same people, and in that case there is no reason to revolt against colonial occupation, for there is no such thing, just slight differences of religion, eating habits, or run-of-the-mill ways of treating women or of behaving in public transportation. What we call for is nor a civil war but a decolonial revolt — even though, colonization being triangular, it would be necessary to deal with the collaborateurs of the occupier, the promotors of the occupation, the indigenous agents of the Great Replacement: the replacists, or Genocidal Bloc.
Not every decolonial revolt has to be violent. Black Africa was decolonized practically without a shot being fired. In India, thanks to Gandhi, who should be our principal model, decolonization was achieved by mutuel agreement. Protectorates like Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, all became independent peacefully. In Algeria, there was indeed a war, and a terrible one at that, but the country has offered one of the clearest examples of Remigration, even if not a very happy one. When Algeria became independent from France in 1962, it considered — opinion shared by the entire world — that it would not really be a free country if more than one tenth of its population, namely the French, who had been there for five or six generations, and the Jews, who had been there forever, was of another religion, another civilization, most of the time another language. Those populations had to leave. They were forced to do so with extreme violence, and those who did not do it fast enough were massacred — one of those massacres that are hardly ever mentioned, not being of the fashionable variety. I certainly do not recommend that way of proceeding, quite the contrary — it will be yet another good opportunity to demonstrate the difference in civilization. Rather, I see remigration as taking place mostly in some of those enormous luxury cruise ships, of which, as a good ecologist, I advocate confiscating once they set foot in territorial waters. We will put them to a much better use.
It seems that some Mohammedan authorities have threatened to leave the United Kingdom if halal butchering, the halal butchering of animals, that is, is prohibited. Well, in that case, the first thing to do, obviously, is to prohibit halal butchering. That way everybody will be happy and get his own country back.

The first step towards remigration is indeed to make the colonial presence of the colonizer not worth its while. A good beginning would be to abolish all pro-natalist laws. Ages ago, they were intended to boost the birth rates of the native population and strengthen the country, but they have had exactly the opposite effect. Populations in the rest of the world could not believe that countries such as ours existed, places where you were actually paid to produce children, and better paid the more you made, so that you could live quite comfortably with seven, ten or fifteen of them, all without working. That is one of the most striking exemples of what it means to pay for one’s own Great Replacement. But it is actually all laws which should be changed, or ignored in an act of massive Civil Disobedience. In colonial states such as present-day Europe, the Law is what assures and guarantees colonization. Decolonization and Remigration, which are one and the same thing, cannot happen without its replacement.

Ah non, ça c’est la goutte d’eau qui fait déborder le vase ! Le mois a été difficile, j’ai tout supporté stoïquement, mais là ça va trop loin : il n’y a plus de cordons bleus à la boucherie de Lectoure.

« C’est justement leur puissance de rémanence qui a présidé au choix des diverses pièces ici rassemblées : disons qu’elle se sont invitées d’elles-mêmes. Il s’en trouve trois cent soixante-six, une pour chaque jour d’une année bissextile. La langue étrangère apparaît une fois sur sept, le dimanche, et quelquefois les jours fériés. Chaque morceau se manifeste d’abord anonymement, afin d’être laissé un moment, devant l’œil, à sa propre énergie vibratoire, sans interférence érudite. Beaucoup sont d’autant plus facilement identifiables, ce nonobstant, qu’il s’agit de grands classiques, souvent de classiques scolaires, naguère familiers à presque tous les enfants de France. Le numéro de page permet d’accéder sans peine aux références, en fin de volume, et, le cas échéant, aux traductions, qui sont les miennes, à moins de précisions contraires. On pourrait parler d’un annuaire, au sens étymologique. D’ailleurs la pré-publication a eu lieu sur la Toile, et lesdits “réseaux sociaux”, du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 2024. »