The Great Replacement by Renaud Camus

To the two prophets,                                                                                                                     Enoch Powell and Jean Raspail

Chpt 6 Address to Marine Le Penn  p 128

People who knew their History will not allow themselves to be led into the dustbin of History. For the change to take place deculturation is essential, teaching oblivion, media imbecilisation from the industry of stupefication. The type of man and woman thus created, or rather produced, manufactured, industrially shaped by television and mass entertainment, this “replaceable man” who receives no rigorous teaching other than dogmatic anti-racism i.e. the doctrine of his own interchangeability this dis-originated, disaffiliated man, this son of nobody who no longer knows his mother’s or grandmothers maiden name.

Chpt 7 The Orange Speech p 142

The schools might be churning out zombies who could be delivered as they were for work completion, to the stupor industry – I’m thinking of the mind-numbing television, permanent sound, drugs, everything that shapes this replaceable, interchangeable, uprooted, deculturated man that the industry proper wants, and that the big international interests need, to continue their business, but at least the zombie would have learned one thing anti-racism doctrine this concentrate of history, this aleph of pain the Shoah. 

P 150

The truth is it true has been banished from our society. It has been replaced by another which seems infinitely less relevant do we have a right to say it?

To this last question the habitual answer is no, of course. And since the question of truth cannot and should not be addressed, nor is it even imagined that it could be, those who still manage to express themselves, after having given all the required tokens of docility to the media-political complex are not judged on what they have said – that would be too simple and too dangerous – but on what having said it, they may have implied, wanted to say, wished to be understood, expressed subliminally.

Truth is so  utterly banished; reality is so rigorously; excluded, we are so tightly encircled by what I have taken the liberty of calling the faussel, the falseal, the reign of the false, where the most glaring evidence is noted by no one, where the King’s invisible clothes of gold thread’ on the contrary , are meekly admired by all even though the king is naked, the prohibition on saying and first of all on seeing is so ingrained in people’s minds, that no one imagines for a second that anyone could be telling the truth.

Anyone who could do that and speak openly under his real name could only be a madman, a brainless person, an innocent, a suicidal man, a monster, the most nauseating of the nauseating.

Chpt 8 The Notre Dame Speech

P 173

That is why we didn’t feel that a strictly private funeral, in a closed room, however deeply respectable the family’s grief, and a gathering of close friends and good connoisseurs of the man and his work in a closed room would be quite enough to send a signal under the shy, however unfavourable, that this cry of warning and horror, this tragic incitement to say no, had been heard and understood; and that from now on , to use an expression dear to some of our friends, “we’re not backing down any more.”.

Dominique Venner did me the honour of naming me in his testamentary writings and above all he singled out the Great Replacement, the change of people and the change of civilization it necessarily implies, as the main reason for his action, and as the most serious, by far,of the threats hanging over us and over our history.

It is no longer a threat but an everyday reality.

A reality that pierces the blanket of lies, the reign of falsity – what I have called falseal, the inverted double of reality – that is almost universally imposed on us by radio, television and the speeches of politicians, with their string of young people, disadvantaged neighbourhoods, working class areas and victims of abandonment, an ’abandonment’. That is ruining us and bringing us to our knees.

The faseal, this reign of the false, is pierced, perforated, torn apart a little more every day by crime, by violence, bt the ethnic war in Sweden, by the ethnic war in France, by the murder of a sldier in Woolwich, by the murderous attack on a soldier at La Defence, by the increasingly frequent involvement of supposedly”French” people waging anti-French and anti-Western terrorism, by the suicide of a historian at the foot of the main altar of Notre Dame.

Suddenly reality cries out and tears the veil. And even television , radio and newspapers are sometimes forced to stop pretending they don’t hear it.

But the falseal resists, it continues to impose its fiction despite the quickly plugged tears and holes that are inflicted upon it by the brutality of the underlying reality.

This fiction, this central lie that controls all the others, is that by changing people we can still have the same history, the same culture, the same civilisation, the same country, the same country, the same eternal nation, the same France, the same Europe, the same identity.

That by changing the blade , then the handle, we can still have the same knife.

In fact, there is no conception of man that is lower and more unworthy than that which would have him, and which tries to produce him, a deracinated, de-originated, de-cultured, de-civilised, de-nationalised, de-no one, a pawn, in short a smooth robot, exchangeable at will, relocatable at Davos’s every whim.

This is what I call the replaceable man, the man of the Great Replacement.

Left-wing governments want the change of people because they hope that, thanks to the votes of newcomers, the replacements, the replacers, who need to be converted into voters as quickly as possible, their power will last forever – seemingly unaware, these governments and these men and women, that they too will be swept away by this force that they flatter and inflate and which will devour them like the others as soon as it can do without them.

Terra Nova, the notorious think tank that advises the Socialist Party, has simply taken Brecht’t famous quip seriously: “If the government isn’t happy with the people, all it has to do is change them”.                                                                                                                       That’s exactly what the Socialist government is doing: changing the people. When it tells us “Change is now”, we must obviously understand the change of people is now.

But the change of people is wanted just as much by the interests of the right, that is to say by the plain interests, which are clever enough to be on the left as well as the righ, that doesn’t matter to them any more, but who also have the greatest need of the replaceable man for their business.

And how could the media not also want to see this change of people, this Great  Replacement, since they are the masters and servants, alternately, the servant mistresses, the all-powerful servants, of conglomerates and parties?

This is how the Great Replacement, hated by the men and women who suffer it but deeply desired by the powers and intereststhat impose it, came to seem so unstoppable that a man like Dominique Venner, a thinker but also a soldier wanted to die out od horror of it, but also out of a spirit of sacrifice, to alert us, to wake us up, to pull us out before its too late, of the fabricated stupor in which we are lying.

The Great Replacement by Renaud Camus

To the two prophets,                                                                                                                        Enoch Powell and Jean Raspail

Chpt 8 The Notre Dame Speech

P 202

It is impossible here to summon again, in passing, the dialectic of colonisation and counter-colonisation. It is largely obsolete, because the change of people in Europe has long since affected not only countries that once had a colonial empire, such as France, Great Brirain, Belgium or the Netherlands, but also had an almost equally profound effect on states that had few colonies or none at all, such as Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and more recently, Italy. However, if the expression “counter-colonisation”, which the in-nocents and I used very early on, shocked people and was severely condemned – but what is not severely condemned, in this field where the main thing, for the ideological, media and political powers, is to prevent people from speaking, naming, seeing and showing? – it would be he, according to critics, that there is a fundamental difference (so profound as to preclude any comparison) between the often violent military conquest involved in colonisation and the peaceful, official arrival, which initially did not involve any claim to power or authority T(but the first phase is now in the process of being overtaken), and which constitutes the so-called counter-colonisation.

This objection is not unfounded. If, in both cases, there is indeed conquest, which I believe there is ( but conquest of very different type and depth …), it must be recognised that the progresses are very far apart: military subjugation of territories for colonisation on the one hand, constantly renewed influx of applicants and often miserable refugees for the symmetrical and opposite movement. It must have come as quite a surprise to the distant descendants of the Saracens and Barbary tribes, if History had any place in their thinking which is rather doubtful, that they obtained through humility, however superficial and temporary, through poverty, dereliction and despair, sometimes real, sometimes feigned, what violence, brutality, kidnappings, rape, and razzia have never been able to secure for their ancestors in the same regions.   

Twenty times, Europe stood up as one against the conquering Islam, and successfully barricaded itself against it, pushing it back victoriously, even if it took several centuries, to its first chosen lands, themselves often already conquered from Christianity: but the same Europe had nothing with which to oppose, and seemed not even to want to oppose, the disarmed and starving Islam of the post-colonial period, which is confidently allowed to enter its towns and countryside, even if it meant discovering a little too late that it was not quite as disarmed as it seemed, that violence and raids – I like to say nocence, as must have been noticed by now – were not as foreign to as it followers as one had been led to believe and that some of its most powerful figures, who have remained in their homelands, were perfectly capable, since poverty is to be discussed, of buying up big hotels, its big brands, its castles, its football teams and entire neighbours populated precisely by the advanced representatives of the Muslim cultural area: conquering it, in short, from above and from below, through wealth and through poverty, through princes and through the masses, through oil billionaires and through unemployed ‘young people’; but not through military power thus far, that is true unless we designate as such, as I have ventured to do to the grrat displeasure of the MRAF, the daily nocence of the most sensitive residents of the so-called sensitive neighbourhoods.

We must also be careful with the word colonisation. As I have already pointed out on several occasions, counter-colonisation is much more colonisation, in the sense that the word colony had in Antiquity, than colonisation ever was, at least French colonisation. A colony as understood by yhe Phoenicians or the Greeks. Implies a transfer of population from the metropolis to new territories. Magna Graecia was full of Greek colonies, whose populations came from the cities and islands of the primitive  Helladia. From this perspective, it could be said that France had never had colonies. Nor practised colonisation in this sense – with two exceptions; French Canada and to a lesser extent Louisiana, in the seventeenth and eighteenth on the one hand; and Algeria in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In both cases, north America and Algeria there was indeed a transfer of populations, and therefore colonisation in the strict sense, or at least in the ancient sense. It is worth noting in passing, with regard to the latter example, that at the time of decolonisation, the presence on Algerian territory, amongst the general population, of a large tenth of Europeans and Jews, the  former having often been established in the colony for several generations, and the latter since the dawn of time, seemed to the new power stemming from the F.I..N (Front de Liberation Nationale / Independent Algeria) to be incompatible with independence. This industrious an numerous minority was expelled in a fairly rough manner, to put it mildly ( “the suitcase or the coffin” was the choice they were offered), without international opinion being overly disturbed. The tacit view in New York and Jakarta, in Cairo and Moscow, was that Algeria would not be a truly free and independent country, indeed if it was to keep ten per cent of its population made of people foreign to its culture, to its tradition, to its race.

In other overseas territories where French authority was exerted i.e. the vast majority, population transfers from metropolitan France were insignificant. The French unlike most other European peoples, never emigrated much, with the exception of the Huguenots drive out by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the real or supposed opponents of the Revolution, the vast majority of whom returned home within a generation. The French colonial empire, with the exception of Casablanca (but Morocco was not a colony strict sensu), saw no cities created from scratch to accommodate large numbers of transplanted French. The towns that were built were essentially for the natives, even if there was segregation between the native quarters and those occupied by the colonial administrators, officers and their families, traders, entrepreneurs, businessmen and their dependents who were never very numerous: never enough in any case to constitute a significant portion of the overall population. Insofar as it did not involve any transfer of population, the French colonial empire – and this is not meant to diminish its historical weight, or lessen the responsibility of those who created, animated and exploited it – was more imperial than colonial: it was more a matter of conquest than (demographic) colonisation.

Counter-colonisation, on the other hand – the movement of populations fro formerly colonised countries towards their former metropolis – is much more colonisation than colonisation ever was,  In demographic terms (which are the essence of the concept), it is much more akin to what colonisation was for the Greeks or the Phoenicians.

However, the expression is not only offensive on the left, as it posits a symmetry, and therefore a kind of equivalence, more or less, between the military conquest of yore and the demographic surge of today: it seems also inadequate and is also criticised on the right, for quite different reasons, obviously, and in this case, by means of a reference that is even older than the ancient cities and properly etymological, but still very much alive. Originally, the colon was a farmer; the colonia, or colony, a rural property. To colonise is to develop. Thus when applied to the current situation in France and Europe, the terms “counter-colonisation” “colonisation” scandalise some people because they find it revolting to equate peaceful immigration (officially) with imperialist appropriation and seem to others – fewer in number, it is true, and whose voices are much less powerful – to be too kind, too flattering, because in their eyes the newcomers are not developing the territory (on the scale of history).

One might object to these objectors, and some do, that the first contingents of immigrants, or their first generations, are credited, at least according to the official historingraphy, with “rebuilding the country”  after the ruins of the Second World War. They, the proponents of colonisation as “development,” and as being too good a name for the migratory submersion, retort to the rejoinder, without thinking for a moment ( generally) of denying or even diminishing the considerable work accomplished by many immigrants, that the first battalions of mass immigration date from the sixties and especially the seventies of the twentieth century: a time when post-war reconstruction was already a thing of the past, for the most part; and that moreover, it would be odd if, for example, the Algerians, who are the first to be involved in terms of numbers were to be recognised  as the authors of the reconstruction of France at the same time as their own country, between independence and the present day, was deconstructing on all sides, sinking into violence and civil war, but also and before that into dereliction, disorganisation, disrepair and mismanagement.

It will be said that in France, Algerians and other immigrants benefited from French money and relative (increasingly relative) French opulence to achieve what they were unable to achieve in their respect homelands. But it should not be forgotten that Algeria, at least, is a rich country, which enjoyed under the French a certain prosperity largely wiped out with independence; and which above all, is the lucky recipient of a particularly abundant oil windfall, from which the nation and its citizens could legitimately have expected ease, if not fortune. Nothing of this sort has happened to them, as we know – a failure for which the Algerian leaders, and in particular  President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, never fail to blame the old French colonisation, which nonetheless left them most, and the best, of the environment in which they still live, and most of the infrastructure that has served them for fifty years, even if, like everything else, it has fallen into disrepair through lack of maintenance.   

With the passage of time – half a century at least – it is becoming increasing difficult for the countries that were part of the French colonial empire to blame France and colonisation ( in the approximate sense that has been used ) for the continuance of their lagging  development. Many of the perist in doing so, however, and foremost among them is Algeria, once again, whose leader never misses an opportunity to paint an apocalyptic picture of what their nation suffered under the French presence. I think I have even noticed the word genocide bandied about, a word that stirs people up less and less nowadays, its true, so much has it been made indifferently to cover incomparable monstrosities on the one hand and deplorable acts on the other, certainly, but as they have been legion, alas, in the course of every conflict on Earth since China, the Aztecs or Egypt.

P 210

Can yo imagine the French of 1945 wanting nothing more than to go and live in Germany to continue to benefit from the language of the country and from the incomparable police order they had been able to enjoy for four or five years? Or the Venetians of 1866 abandoning the Serenissima to go and live in Vienna? Or the Christian Spaniards of the Reconquista leaving Spain, as soon as that peninsula had been liberated from the Moorish yoke, to go and live in Meknes, or Tunis, or in the Regency of Algiers?

One of two things: either the colonial regime was not as harsh as had been said and is increasingly being said, and the former colonised have not retained such a bad image of it in their minds, since so many of them have chosen to settle in the homeland of the former colonisers and so many others, in crowded ranks in all the cities of the Maghreb and Black Africa, aspire to nothing else; or the wounded memory and the vindictiveness are there, and then it is not at all as friends but as avengers that the ex-colonised present themselves. That is what President Houari Boumediene’s famous speech to the UN in April 1974 seems to imply, and even to state very clearly  - one has some scruple about quoting it again after so many others and after oneself, but its two or three sentences cannot fail to feature in a short essay on the change of peoples; not to mention the fact that they are one of the best examples ever of the famous theory that tyrants and totalitarians regimes always announce exactly , at the outset or even before, what they intend to do; but ntheir great fortune is that nobody believes them, because what they say – the extermination of the Jews, the dictatorship of the proletariat or the Muslim conquest of Europe – seems such an incredible enormity.

“One day, millions ofmen will leave the southern hemisphere. And they won’t go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it by populating it with their sons. It’s our women’s wombs that will give us victory.

It couldn’t be clearer. And in the forty years since this speech was made, much of what it foretold has already come to pass. In several of Europe’s capitail and major cities, the indigenous population is already in the minority; and from this point onwards, their share of the total population is already declining all the faster as they find it unbearable, or quite simply impossible, to live alongside the new ethnic majority: either because they find their new status as a minority in what was once their own  country saddening, even humiliating; or because the degree of nocence, imposed on them – from the famous incivilities, so litotesly named, to neo-grand banditry, via nuisances of all kinds, starting with noise and with the deterioration of the living environment – forces them to flee. Demographic change and nocence are the two main instruments of population change.

What Houari Boumediene did no foresee,  despite his formidable gifts as a prophet was that the conquering wombs he was announcing would be generously subsided to accomplish their conquest, and by none other than the conquered, or those promised to so become. It is doubtful whether in the course of history  such a phenomenon has ever been seen: country which , without any visible external constraint, has bled itself dry, and practically put itself out of business, in order to subsidise its own conquest it, and guarantee the replacement of its own people. Combined with the right of birthplace ( jus soli ) and the absence of discrimination between citizens and non-citizens ( a defect that nullifies the bvery notion of citizenship ), Europe’s pro-natalist policies, and especially those of France ( the most effective ), are, for the time being, an extraordinary encouragement to the Great Replacement. They are absurd in themselves, since never in its history has our country – and almost all the others are in the same situation – been so densely populated. The earth can’t take any more human beings, natural resources are running out, and all ecological policies that have been painstakingly  and too meagrely implemented in any case are totally futile as long as human density  continues to increase, accelerating, for lack of space, the general proletarianisation, the de-civilisation, the re-ensavagement of the human species, the devastation of the landscape, the pollution of the air, water and soil, the merging of town and country into a single chaotic and dangerous suburb with a universal vocation.  

The Great Replacement by Renaud Camus

To the two great prophets,                                                                                                              Enoch Powell and Jean Raspail

Chpt 28  Call from Colombey  November 9 th, 2017

 P 483 - 487

Immigration has become invasion, invasion has become migratory submersion. This appeal was launched on 9 November 2017, the anniversary of Genernal de Gaulle’s death, at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises, not far from his grave. It resulted in the creation of the National Council of European Resistance, chaired by Renaud Camus, and that of the movement of its sympathisers and supporters, the Resistance group, chaired by Karim Ouchikh.

France and Europe are being a hundred times more colonised, and more seriously so, than they have ever colonised themselves. Irreversible colonisation is demographic colonisation, through population transfer.

Some say there is no colonisation because there is no military conquest. They are mistaken. The army of conquest is made up of delinquents, big and small: all those who make life impossible for the French by harming them in every conceivable way, from the all-too-famous ‘incivilities’ to terrorism, which is simply their extension. All the perpetrators of terrorist attack started out as common-law criminals. In fact there are no terrorists. There is an occupier who, from time to time, executes a few hostages, us, as occupiers have always done. I call occupiers all those who declare themselves to be such, or show themselves to be such by their behaviour.

The change of people, the ethnic substitution, the Grand Replacement, is the most important event in the history of our country since it came into being, because with another people that history, if it continues, will no longer be that of France. France has always successfully assimilated individuals who wanted to be assimilated; it cannot assimilate peoples, and even less so hostile, vindictive, even hateful and conquering peoples. It takes unspeakable vanity, and a total lack of understanding of what a people is, to imagine that with a changed population France would still be France. All words are liars, but the biggest liar of all is French, unfortunately. There are no French jihadists, they are not French.

To believe that there are only French people in France is a total illusion. There are invaders and invaded, colonisers and colonised, occupiers and occupied.

One can’t put an end to a colonisation without the coloniser leaving: Algeria in its time has shown us this well enough, with utmost clarity, unfortunately – a good opportunity for us to emphasise, incidentally, the difference in civilisations.

One can’t end an occupation without the occupier leaving. The only way out is remigration. The same people who say remigration is impracticable want to bring forty million migrants to Europe, if not two hundred millions. They declare that man has entered an era of general migration. Let him migrate and remigrate, then. What is possible in one direction must also be possible in the other, with more means and more gentleness.

Time has run out for politics, elections or parties. 2022 is too far away, the change of people will be too far advanced by then, and the replacers will be the arbiters of the situation, unless they are its masters. And in any case, there is no chance of ever winning a game in which the opponents holds all the cards and sets all the rules. The powers that be, their banks, their judges and their media, want ethnic  substitution. They are not protecting us from it, they are organising and promoting it against us. They have drugged the people to accept it, by the teaching of oblivion, by deculturation, censorship, repression and permanent injection of self–hatred. They don’t import workers, especially as there is no work and there will be less and less. They import future consumers, whom they no longer even bother to pass off as refugees, since the vast majority of these migrants come from countries where the is no war whatsoever: orphans, the sick, adventurous or conquering young people, teenagers who have quarrelled with their parents or had a run-in with the police, shopkeepers whose businesses have failed.

You say that these future consumers have no money. Think again, tomorrow they will have yours, because the so-called social transfers are, in truth, little more than ethnic transfers. Europe is the first continent in history to pay for its own colonisation.

A spectre is haunting Europe and the World. That is replacism, the tendency to replace everything with its normalised, standardised, interchangeable double: the original by its copy, the authentic by its imitation, the truth by the false, mothers by surrogate mothers, culture by leisure and entertainment, knowledge by diploas, the countryside and the city by the universal suburb, the native by the non-native, Europe by Africa, man by women, man and women by robots, peoples by other peoples, humanity by a haggard , undifferentiated, standardised posthumanity, interchangeable at will.

Of all the genetic manipulations, the Great Replacement, a kind of procreation by surrogacy applied to the whole planet, is the worst. Genocide by substitution, in the words of Aime Cesaire, is the crime of the twenty-first century. All the more strange is it, incidentally, thatecologists should exclude man from their laudable concern for biodiversity.

Replacism now considers itself strong enough to take direct control of the management of the human park, without any intermediaries. In France, Emmanuel Macron, who, along with Justin Trudeau, is its world most accomplished representative, has already neutralised the small political caste, sent back to their original abode the main players in French political life over the last thirty years, filled the Assembly with puppets at his beck and call, put together a haphazard government and broken up the major parties. He doesn’t govern, he manages, as he would a bank or a limited company.  

He gets out of politics through economics, finance and business management. We want to get out of it through history. The question of the independence or subjugation of a great nation, of the survival or disappearance of a great civilisation, is not politics: it is history.Charles de Gaulle in London was not politics. Jean Moulin in Lyon was not politics. Neither was Joan of Arc in Chinon, nor Gandhi in Calcutta, nor any of those who stood up for independence of their country and the dignity of their people.

What we need today is not a new party, not even a union of the right: the rejection of replacist totalitarianism is no less left-wing than right-wing. What we need is the coming together of all those who say a big NO to ISLAMISATION and to the AFRICAN CONQUEST. What we need is a National Council of the Resistance, of European Resistance, because all the nations of Europe are invited to join in the fight to save our common Celtic, Slavic, Greco-Latin, Judeo-Christian and free thinking civilisation.

My friend Karim Ouchikh, President of the Siel and I Renaud Camus, have decided to set up just that, a NCR, or NCER. We will be publically proposing that anyone who seem to us to be motivated by the same desire to save our country should join us, and we will be expanding our committee by co-option. But all like-minded French people and Europeans are invited to get in touch with us and give us their support. The aim is to build up a force that, ideally will not need to be used.

That having been said, if by some misfortune it turned out that the only alternative left to us was submission or war, then war it would be, a hundred times over. There would be nothing civil about it, despite the number of collaborators and traitors. Rather, it would be part of the great tradition of fighting for the rights of peoples to self determination, for the liberation of territory and for decolonisation. We must finally leave the colonial era behind, of which our colonizers speak so ill while they are colonising us. We need to put a stop, once and for all, if possible over the Mediterranean, to the crazy pendulum of colonisation and counter-colonisation.

Vive la France. Long live European civilisation.   

You always get more of what you subsidize! Welcome to the wonderful world of ‘free stuff’!