Today, President Macron will lead a national tribute to the teacher Samuel Paty, decapitated in a Paris suburb last Friday by an 18 year old Chechen, born in Moscow.  This comes on top of the large spontaneous public gatherings in many French towns over the weekend, in the immediate aftermath of the killing.  Macron has already made a public statement to the effect, according to Charles Moore in the Telegraph, that:

Paty was teaching “the freedom to believe and not to believe”. Winning this battle is “existential” for France, because, as a secular republic, the principle is foundational.

This is cant.  The real and racist attitude of the French government towards freedom of expression was shown by the prosecution and conviction, in January, of the writer Renaud Camus, for the sin of making a very fine speech in Colombey-les-deux Eglises on 21st October 2017 to the National Council of the European Resistance, of which he is president.  The speech itself was generous to the Jewish community of France and to its holocaust narrative.  But Camus still found himself pursued by the disgusting quasi-governmental and notably Jewish organisations SOSRacisme and LICRA, and charged with “public incitement to hate or violence on the basis of origin, ethnicity, nationality, race or religion”.  He was sentenced to two months in prison - quite enough to be at danger from non-white inmates - commutable against a payment of 1800 euros to these two bodies.  He paid the blackmailers.  But how much will he have been silenced?  More or less than the French teachers who will not now do what Samuel Paty did, and show their pupils a couple of the cartoons which prompted the Charlie Hebdo massacre of 7 January 2015?

In his initial response to Friday’s killing Macron said the attack shouldn’t divide France because that’s what the extremists want. “We must stand all together as citizens,” he said.  In the spirit of standing together, then, below the line I reproduce the entire text of Renaud Camus’ speech.  It is worth the time taken to read it.  But be sure to say nothing like this yourself if you visit France, and do not under any circumstances refer to immigration, as Camus did, as an invasion.  You are not a famous French author.  You will doubtless get two years if SOSRacisme or LICRA gets to hear of you.

Full text of speech given by Renaud Camus to the National Council of the European Resistance on 21st October 2017.

I shrank from words for a long time. I thought they were too strong. I was even angry with those who employed them because I felt that they were compromising our cause by too strong, exaggerated terms, which were going to frighten those around us and make us look like madmen. I am convinced today that we must no longer retreat, neither in front of men, neither in front of the facts, nor in front of the terms.

Thus colonisation . I have said it a hundred times and I will say it again, we are a hundred times more colonised, and more seriously, and more deeply, than we have ever colonised ourselves. The essence of colonisation, from ancient Greece and Magna Graecia, the Hellenic colonies in southern Italy and Sicily, is the transfer of population. Military, administrative, political, imperialist colonisations are certainly very painful for the colonised, but they are nothing compared to demographic colonisations , which affect the very being of conquered territories, which transform their soul and body, and which threaten to be eternal, or, at the very least, irreversible.

We are told that there is no colonisation because there is no military conquest, no victorious army, no soldiers marching in our streets. We are wrong. We are being deceived. The conquering army is the scum. The instrument of conquest is what I called nocence . Don’t say you don’t know what nocence is since you commonly use the opposite term, formed from it, innocence. Nocence is what innocence is the opposite of. The nocence is the act of harming, harming a little or harming a lot, from the all too famous incivility to terrorism, including the feet on the benches of the RER, the tearing of old ladies’ bags and the big banditry. It should be noted in passing that the good old native French delinquency has almost disappeared. It did not know how to take the turn of globalisation in time, as they say. It has been replaced.

It should also be noted that between common law delinquency and terrorism there is no solution of continuity. The progression is uninterrupted. There is a difference in degree , there is no difference in nature . All terrorists without exception cut their teeth in common law delinquency. It’s the same career, the military career. Besides, there are no terrorists. There are occupation troops, of which the most formidable commandos, at regular intervals, execute a few hostages, as all occupation troops have always done.

To pretend to fight against terrorism without worrying about conquest is absurd. At another time, that would have been wanting to get rid of the Gestapo by coming to terms with the German Occupation. It’s the natural offshoot of this. We must not “fight against terrorism”, we must liberate the territory, and that by re-migration. To treat terrorism as an epiphenomenon is to repeat the mistake of the French during the so-called “events in Algeria” (we are now at the “events in France”). The French then believed, or affected to believe, for the more informed, that the fellaghas were already an epiphenomenon, a superficial foam of hatred and terror, in short; and that, beneath this very regrettable foam, the Algerians adored them. No, Algerians didn’t love them at all. They adored them so little, even, that hardly liberated and even before they imposed on settlers settled in the country for much longer than ours today in ours one of the most abrupt re-migrations in history - remember you: the suitcase or the coffin. I certainly do not recommend imitating its methods, but I believe the principle inevitable. Colonisation cannot be ended without the colonisers leaving. We do not end an occupation without the departure of the occupant.

Occupation. This is another word that I have long shied away from and that I fully accept now. No comparison should be made, we are told, between the First and the Second Occupation. First, we can always compare everything, if only to distinguish. To compare is not to assimilate. And there is certainly no question here, nor ever, of reducing by one iota the horror of the First Occupation, the German one. But the Second, the African, on many points has nothing to envy him. Certainly she does not torture in the cellars, as we know, although there was all the same the appalling episode of the martyrdom of Ilan Halimi, not to mention the turning points, the victims of which are almost invariably young indigenous girls. , not to say “native French”. Secondly, the number of massacred starts to be quite the same as the last time. The degree of immediate nocence, annoyance, inconvenience and humiliation, for the peaceful citizens who, quite wrongly, would like nothing more than to stay peacefully out of it all, is probably stronger this time around. . It must be said that the Occupants are today ten times, what am I saying,a hundred times more numerous than three quarters of a century ago. Like their predecessors they are more and more often in uniform, especially the female auxiliaries, and rightly rely on sails, boubous, djellabas, turbans, niqabs and slippers - to say nothing of their innumerable brats. -, to mark their territory, display their strength and numbers, and depress the Occupied.

Who are the Occupiers? Those who consider themselves as such or who testify to being such, through their speeches or their attitudes - I recognise that there are many people there.

These Occupants, the current Collaboration, are even more eager than their older sister to prevent their every wish. It must be said that, if there are many differences between the two Occupations, and of course there are, the two Collaborations, they resemble each other like two drops of water. We can hardly find that this word, Collaboration , far from being exaggerated, is insufficient. Neither our government nor our media collaborate , indeed: they are . They are not accomplices, they are authors, instigators . They are the ones who want the horror in progress, the ethnic substitution, they who are constantly promoting it. They are not alone in wanting it, of course, but it is not imposed on them by anyone.

Which brings me to another very strong word that I refused for a long time and that I must, today, take into consideration, at least. It is that of genocide . I refused it for years out of respect for the victims of the Hitler genocide, and for the uniqueness of their industrial extermination. The genocide of the Hutus did not have the same scientific character. But it also consisted of mass killings, which we seem to be avoiding for the moment. Can we speak of genocide when there are, as now, neither gas chambers, nor Shoah by bullets, nor systematic cut-cutting with a machete? I believe this is necessary if we want to wake up sleeping peoples and make them aware of the enormity and the horror of what is happening. The genocide, nowadays, has a greater concern for its image: it does not want to panic its victims, who could protest and struggle, nor to raise the loud cries of its critics, it is true few and marginalised. He no longer kills, he overwhelms. He does not massacre, he replaces. According to the happy formula of Aimé Césaire, who did not believe in saying so, it is genocide by substitution. All the countries of what was once the Western world and, let’s say the word, of the white race, Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, are subject to a similar engulfment under the other, under everything which is not them, under all races, ethnicities, cultures, civilisations, religions, traditions and intraditions of the Earth. Nowhere is the phenomenon so evident as in Canada, which its government is enthusiastically delivering to the rest of the world; but it is just as evident in Sweden and, unfortunately, in France.

The method that has so effectively made it possible to overcome culture, music, university and so on - namely the burying under all that is not them, the open door, the “Spirit of openness”, as she says with a good humour à la “ Arbeit macht frei ” France Culture, the most sectarian station in France -, should well make it possible to overcome the white man. Culture perishes under entertainment and the so-called “cultural industries”, music under variety, the university under the absence of selection, Europe and the West under “diversity”. And it is always the diversity that decreases.

Like so many other words, like culture , like music , like French , anti-racism has radically changed meaning. It meant the fight against racism, and for the protection of various threatened races; it now covers - as its name also bore it - the hatred of races, of the idea and of the concept of race; the negation of their existence, and especially of the white. Logically, racism should also change its meaning, in symmetry, and become the name of the love of races, of all races, the desire for their preservation, his own obviously included, especially when it is the least numerous and most threatened.

Anti-racism drew death camps, and unanimity Never again!which they aroused in the universal conscience, after their liberation, its incontestable legitimacy, its moral authority, its prestige, its formidable political power. However, by a complete turn of the spiral of meaning, or of fate, this anti-racism born or reborn from the Shoah has built, in a man’s life, a society, ours, where in many schools the Shoah cannot no longer being taught, because the students don’t want to hear about it and claim it is Zionist propaganda; at the same time, the Jews are fleeing France or Sweden by the thousands, because they no longer feel safe there. The Jewish community of Malmö had survived the Second World War, it does not survive the change of people and the new “Swedes”.

The first negationism criminally denied the genocide. The second is even more criminal if possible: it is directly genocide, since it denies the existence of races. He denies their existence while proclaiming that they are equal, which sufficiently shows his degree of logical coherence. Their theoretical, very theoretical non-existence is the condition for their practical, effective disappearance. The dogma of the inexistence of races, this creed quia absurdum - I believe because it is absurd, as with the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception - of our society, is the main foundation. In the collapse of our school system, it is all that is still taught. In the total failure of transmission, it is all that is still transmitted. When people know only one thing, and it is less and less rare among the daze that wins, it is that there are no races. For my part, I am more and more convinced that the solemn and threatening proclamation of this dogma, in the mid-seventies of the last century, is the nodal point from which everything became possible: including the worst horror, the generalised ethnic substitution, the Great Replacement, global interbreeding, the industrial production of replaceable man, of Undifferentiated Human Matter (MHI).

It is commonly said that it was the extermination of the Jews that made it impossible to talk about the races, as all peoples had always done in all innocence, for once. Yet a Leon Blum spoke fluently of his, in his letters, and it was precisely in the small house where he was held prisoner by the Germans in Dachau, in the middle of the concentration camp universe. I am not going to quote for the ten thousandth time the famous phrase of General de Gaulle in 1959, according to which “we are nevertheless above all a European people of the white race, of Greek and Latin culture and of the Christian religion”. We are objected that this is a private conversation. Very good. Here then is another President of the Republic, this time in the exercise of his functions, still later, during a speech at the School of Political Sciences, December 12, 1972: Georges Pompidou speaks there, in connection with Gaullism, of a “in-depth reaction of our race”, and, a few sentences later, of “the even of our race “,” this versatility that Caesar distinguished and already used against the Gauls, and which makes the French people, people in love with calm, peace and stability if ever there be one, periodically and by crisis feels a need unconscious and uncontrolled change, and a change which calls into question everything, not only the men, but the principles, but the institutions ”. Heaven, parentheses, that our people soon feel such a need, and revolt before it is too late against those who promote its disappearance (except by name). December 12, 1972: Georges Pompidou speaks there, in connection with Gaullism, of a “in-depth reaction of our race”, and, a few sentences later, of “the very character of our race”, “this versatility that César distinguished and was already using against the Gauls, and which makes that the French people, people in love with calm, peace and stability if there is one, periodically and by crisis feels an unconscious and uncontrolled need for change, and a change which puts everything in question, not only the men, but the principles, but the institutions ”. Heaven, parentheses, that our people soon feel such a need, and revolt before it is too late against those who promote its disappearance (except by name). December 12, 1972: Georges Pompidou speaks there, in connection with Gaullism, of a “in-depth reaction of our race”, and, a few sentences later, of “the very character of our race”, “this versatility that César distinguished and was already using against the Gauls, and which makes that the French people, people in love with calm, peace and stability if there is one, periodically and by crisis feels an unconscious and uncontrolled need for change, and a change which puts everything in question, not only the men, but the principles, but the institutions ”. Heaven, parentheses, that our people soon feel such a need, and revolt before it is too late against those who promote its disappearance (except by name). of a “in-depth reaction of our race”, and, a few sentences later, of “the very character of our race”, “this versatility that Caesar distinguished and already used against the Gauls, and which makes the French people, people loving calm, peace and stability if there is one, feels periodically and by crisis an unconscious and uncontrolled need for change, and for a change which calls into question everything, not only men, but principles, but also institutions ”. Heaven, parentheses, that our people soon feel such a need, and revolt before it is too late against those who promote its disappearance (except by name). of a “in-depth reaction of our race”, and, a few sentences later, of “the very character of our race”, “this versatility that Caesar distinguished and already used against the Gauls, and which makes the French people, people loving calm, peace and stability if there is one, feels periodically and by crisis an unconscious and uncontrolled need for change, and for a change which calls into question everything, not only men, but principles, but also institutions ”. Heaven, parentheses, that our people soon feel such a need, and revolt before it is too late against those who promote its disappearance (except by name). “This versatility that Caesar distinguished and already used against the Gauls, and which makes that the French people, people in love with calm, peace and stability if there is one, periodically and by crisis feels an unconscious and uncontrolled need for change, and a change which calls into question everything, not only the men, but the principles, but the institutions ”. Heaven, parentheses, that our people soon feel such a need, and revolt before it is too late against those who promote its disappearance (except by name). “This versatility that Caesar distinguished and already used against the Gauls, and which makes that the French people, people in love with calm, peace and stability if there is one, periodically and by crisis feels an unconscious and uncontrolled need for change, and a change which calls into question everything, not only the men, but the principles, but the institutions ”. Heaven, parentheses, that our people soon feel such a need, and revolt before it is too late against those who promote its disappearance (except by name). but the principles, but the institutions ”. Heaven, parentheses, that our people soon feel such a need, and revolt before it is too late against those who promote its disappearance (except by name). but the principles, but the institutions ”. Heaven, parentheses, that our people soon feel such a need, and revolt before it is too late against those who promote its disappearance (except by name).

The same Georges Pompidou, whom he is not accustomed to rank among the hotheads or the henchmen of Satan, writes, in what is commonly called his Memoirs , in fact Letters, Notes and Portraits , a collection posthumous:

“My father and my mother belonged deeply to the French race, hard at work, thrifty, believing in merit, in the virtues of the mind, in the qualities of the heart. “

It is good to notice that the mere fact of speaking of the French race , as our ancestors always did it very quietly, sufficiently proves that one is not racist, this race having, by chance, very little ethnic character, no more than that of notaries, Sunday painters, geniuses, greedy or friends of angling. If I were a racist, I wouldn’t be like Vacher de Lapouge, like Chamberlain or Alfred Rosenberg, I would be like Malherbe ( What will you say, future races ... ), like Racine ( Princes of my race, ancient graves), like de Gaulle or Georges Pompidou; or like that Georges Bernanos who gave race, in passing, the best of impossible definitions, in one of the most beautiful sentences of French literature, in my opinion:

“Alas! around the little French boys bending together over their notebooks, pen in hand, attentive and sticking their tongues out a little, as around the drunken young people of their first outing under the chestnut trees in bloom, on the arm of a young blonde girl, There used to be that vague and enchanted memory, that dream, that deep murmur with which the race cradles its own ”.

What are the race, the people, the nation embodied in us? They are “a vague and enchanted memory, a dream, a deep whisper”. And it is for this reason that France, during its history, has always integrated wonderfully those who wanted to enter into its dream, to listen with it to the deep murmur of its language, of its literature, of its music, of its landscapes, its flavors, its skies and its ancestral gestures. France can integrate men, she can integrate women, she can integrate families who ardently desire it: she cannot integrate peoples, and even less peoples who do not want it at all.

The tragic mistake, not to say worse, of anti-racism was to use the word race in the same incredibly narrow sense that racism had done before it, by simply reversing values ​​term by term. It is easy to claim that races do not exist when we are content, like racists, to take the word only in its scientific or pseudo-scientific connotations, which are only a tiny part of its meaning in our language, as well as in most others. To say that races do not exist may be scientifically true - and again, I have doubts - but it is above all a semantic sleight of hand, a kind of linguistic swindle. It is already more correct, or less false, to say that scientists do not need this concept, a bit like Laplace said of God, to Napoleon, a little silly, that this hypothesis was not necessary for him. To say that races do not exist is as stupid as to say that God does not exist, or social classes, or myths: they may not exist, I am not able to to judge, but they are the reality of the world, and the main engines of its mass movements and its great commotions. It is also quite pleasant to note that never have beings spoken or been spoken so much in theirs, of race, as since races no longer exist, officially. Everyone has started singing in their family tree, and too often we know what people are going to say and think, just by the name statement. and the main drivers of its mass movements and major commotions. It is also quite pleasant to note that never have beings spoken or been spoken so much in theirs, of race, as since races no longer exist, officially. Everyone has started singing in their family tree, and too often we know what people are going to say and think, just by the name statement. and the main drivers of its mass movements and major commotions. It is also quite pleasant to note that never have beings spoken or been spoken so much in theirs, of race, as since races no longer exist, officially. Everyone has started singing in their family tree, and too often we know what people are going to say and think, just by the name statement.

The white man is too expensive, too soft, too civilised, too educated, and in addition he already has everything. What does global replacism matter are not workers, they are consumers: who very quickly will need food, housing, clothing, schools, medical care, electronic objects, gadgets. They are essential to saving the economic bubble. You will say they have no money. You are wrong: they have or they will have yours. So-called social transfers have long been essentially racial transfers - sorry: ethnic. If these organised transfers are not enough to put the replacement populations in possession of your savings and your property, they will seize them by force, thanks to their thugs who are their soldiers. The nocence is the instrument of the change of people. I know something about it, it is for having said it that I have been convicted on several occasions by the courts. I was not at all surprised. I trust the injustice of my country.

We do not understand anything about the Great Replacement if we do not see that, however gigantic it may be, it is only a small part of an infinitely larger whole, what I have called global replacism., and which has already been alluded to here. Global replacism is in my opinion one of the two main totalitarianisms that today share the world - the other being obviously Islam. They will necessarily be rivals, because everything opposes them. But today there is a kind of German-Soviet pact between them, which lasts longer than the real one. It is a provisional treaty of non-aggression between the conquerors: replacism needs Islam to provide it with the contingents of its great replacements; Islam needs replacement to place its soldiers everywhere. The nemesis of Global Replacism, however, which will lead to its demise is that it replaces calves with hyenas. He will be the first to eat. Little consolation for those replaced.

To replace , such is the central gesture of postmodern and perhaps soon post-human, trans-human societies. Everything is replaceable and replaced: Venice by its double in Las Vegas, Paris by its double in Beijing, Versailles by EuroDisney, stone by syporex or cinder block, slate by corrugated iron, wood by plastic, the city and the countryside through the universal suburbs, the earth through cement and tar, the seaside through concrete, the mountains through winter sports resorts, paths through hiking trails, nature through the amenities in sight of economic benefits, exercise through sport, sport through the Olympics, the Olympics through business, business through corruption, competition through doping, literature through journalism, journalism through i_nfo_, the real through the fake, the original by reproduction, the you by the you , the name by the first name, the name and the first name by the pseudo, the heart by the artificial heart, all the parts of the human body by spare parts, history by ideology, the fate of nations by politics, politics by economy, economy by finance, the gaze by sociology, grief by statistics, the real world by the tourist site, the inhabitants by the tourists, the natives by the foreigners, the Europeans by the Africans, the mothers by the surrogate mothers, the men by the women , women by inflatable dolls, men and women by robots, peoples by peoples, humanity by posthumanity, humanism by transhumanism, man by Undifferentiated Human Matter.

A great mystery is that the ecologists, who are so attached to biodiversity, and they are right, seem to exclude the human species. No doubt they rightly believe that the white man is costing the planet too much. But there are other solutions than its erasure, if only demographic decline, without which all ecological policies are completely futile. If there was a superiority to the white race, it would be that there is much less than the others

Surrogacy , PMA , GRP (Great Replacement of Populations), these are never more than the same genetic manipulations, Taylorist standardisation applied to living organisms, replacement at work. Man must be artificial, like nature: standardised, normalised, replaced, in order to cost less and generate greater profits.

As much as high profits, low costs, admire amphibology, low cost , low cost , are the central tenet of the replacement world. Everything becomes low-cost , even when it is as expensive for the consumer as its original version. This world is characterised by proletarianisation as much as by pauperisation. Under the pressure of overpopulation, city and country converge in the suburbs, this side of the place, this instead of being. The suburbs in turn evolve into wasteland, this waste land , wasted, rotten, this Waste Landprophesied by TS Eliot. Racism had made Europe a field of ruins, anti-racism is turning it into a slum.

The father of global replacement is Frederick Winslow Taylor, the Taylor of Taylorization, standardisation, normalisation. Taylor is to replacism what Marx is to Marxism. His great book - the Das Kapital of Global Replacism, is called The Principles of Scientific Management . We can read sentences as revealing as:

“In the past it was man who came first; in the future it must be the system ”.

As his most recent preface writes:

“Taylor has blood on his hands”.

His most notable disciple is Henry Ford who, by considerably reducing the number of parts required, by making them interchangeable, standardised, standardized, was able to produce a car inexpensive enough, the Ford T, for him to be able to implement his idea. of genius, sell it to its own workers. The producer became the consumer. He was paid to buy what he produced, and thus feed the famous system, which could operate in a closed circuit. Today, in megalopolises where men and women live in increasingly small spaces and sometimes in cupboards or boxes, they ruin themselves in rent to be near a job that allows them (barely ) pay their rent. By an even more radical simplification, the producer becomes the product.saved at sea, they are received as the raw material that they are industries of MHI, Undifferentiated Human Matter, which import and produce to their consumers.

Admittedly, the regime of organised shipwreck, as a means of mass transport, does not stop involving a few drowned, but for the global replacement, which precipitated these unfortunate people on the waves, they are very admissible collateral damage and marginal compared to system operation.

Henry Ford was a staunch anti-Semite, he had close ties to Nazism and huge interests in Hitler’s Germany, if only the German Ford. The concentration and extermination camps are of course the translation into action of Mein Kampf but it is also, to a large extent, the application to the genocide of the Principles of Scientific Management .

Global replacism, cinematically, is Metropolis + Les Temps Moderne_s + the lesser known _Soleil Ver_t, _Soylent Greeen : Metropolis by the organisation of daze, in this case by the Great Deculturation, the collapse of school systems, mass imbecilisation, drugs; Modern Times by standardisation, normalisation, Taylorization, this time applied to man himself; Green sun , finally, by the transformation of man into a consumer product, normalised and standardised, Undifferentiated Human Matter.

The divine surprise of post-industrial above-ground finance is its love affair with anti-racism, which, at the outset, if we think of Henry Ford, precisely, was nothing less than assured. But anti-racism, as soon as it changed its purpose, that it was no longer the protection of two or three threatened races but a fulminant and dogmatic affirmation, literally, of the inexistence of all, then of necessity and of necessity. he inevitability of their fusion (the contradictions do not scare him) by mass immigration and interbreeding, became blessed bread for global replacement. See the enthusiasm of a Laurence Parisot or of an Yvon Gattaz for ethnic substitution. Anti-racism, in its past, brought replacement ideological respectability that it lacked. Replacism, by its means, brought power and money to anti-racism. See the careers of a Harlem Désir or a Julien Dray. Replacism is a huge provider of positions and prebends, and there is no question among us of rising in life, whether to be prefect, general, museum curator, theatre director or ballet master, in refraining from pledging allegiance to him as often as possible.

I am already too long and in order not to lengthen I am going to use a facility which is offered to me to explain what I mean by global replacism . It can be defined with a single word, or rather with a single name: Macron . Macronism is the SFRG , French Section of Global Replacism, and it is so far, a great title of glory for our country, the purest incarnation. In it converge the two main genealogies of replacism: on the one hand, banking, off-ground finance, the post-industrial hyperclass; on the other, neo-antiracism, that which denies races. Macron is not even anti-racist, he is beyond all that: races, peoples, identities, origins, these things no longer exist for him; and, as we know, there is no French culture.

However, I would like to underline a curious point of convergence between us, us anti-replacists, and his incarnate replacement. Replacism, this run-of-the-mill economism, this exacerbated financialism, is beyond politics, it no longer wants it. Through him, above-ground finance takes directly in hand the management of the human stock, the production of the MHI, by neutralizing the political caste, what Raymond Barre once called the microcosm , and which the macrocosm no longer wants.I call this system the direct davocracy: direct government by Davos, by the bank, by multinationals, by laboratories, by pension funds, by big money managers, without intermediaries. Macronism has sent home most of the main figures of French political life for thirty years, the Sarkozy, the Juppé, the Fillon, the Holland, the Bayrou, the Cambadélis, dare I say the Marine Le Pen. He reduced the National Assembly to the state of registration chamber, populated by random elected officials, who owe everything to their leader and are unlikely to overshadow him. This regime has given birth to a government of supporting roles, defectors and symbolic jobs, like in the theatre, which it has pulled out of its sleeve. But above all, above all, he broke up the three major parties which one could think a year ago held the destinies of our country in their hands: Socialist Party, Republicans, National Front - these three movements broke up or appear on the eve of do it ; at the very least they seem taken aback, and stunned .

It is there, and only there, of course, that the curious convergence of views, or interests, or analyses, to which I alluded above, between Macronism and us is located. At the beginning of this year, I published a book of interviews with Philippe Karsenty entitled 2017, last chance before the Great Replacement . I was referring to it, of course, in the presidential election and I meant, of course, political last chance. We let this chance pass, and it will not come again. It would be totally futile to place our hopes in 2022. First, it is too far, ethnic substitution is going too quickly, in 2022 it will be too late and the result of the election will depend even more than in 2017 on the will. of the occupier since, through an unnamed and unprecedented perversity, the power to replace it gave it the right to vote and citizenship, placing the unfortunate natives hostage under the demographic and electoral weight of the colonists. Second, the situation we face is not political. The fate of a people and a country, the question of their independence or their submission, the survival or otherwise of a civilization, this is not politics, it is history. De Gaulle in London was not politics. Jean Moulin in Lyon it was not politics. Joan of Arc was not politics, nor Gandhi, nor George Washington, nor Bolivar, nor even Ben Bella, if you allow me to name him in this glorious company (and no doubt he is glorious for his compatriots ).

Knowing whether we are going to submit or not, accept the unacceptable or not, betray our ancestors or do them piously honour, it is not politics, it is ontology: something that happens in the world. in the depths of being and not in the electoral ballot box.

Of the three parties jostled by Macronism on the march, the one whose fate interests us most is obviously the National Front, which for forty years has embodied, for better or for worse, the hope of many patriots, of whom I am not. I’ve never been I admit. We have noticed in recent days that this party had for almost ten years been the main inspiration for a man for whom there is no native French , in other words natives, French of French origin, French of France. This is the great illusion shared by the National Front and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, and François Asselineau, and many of our sovereignist friends, who as good Republicans only want to know the French in France. French, there are no words more lying, nor more painful to hear, often. So there are no French jhadists . If they are jihadists they are not French . You shouldn’t stop them from going out, but now you have to stop them from coming back.

In the territory of our homeland there are at least two peoples: the invaders and the invaded, the occupiers and the occupied, the colonizers and the colonized. It is folly to pretend to confuse them; above all, it is naïve submission to the a-racist, replacementist, nominalist, fusionist, ensemble-living illusion - between living together, you have to choose.

Faced with such a situation, the necessary need is not that of a new party, nor of a renovated party, nor of small alliances with this one or that one for a by-election in Saint- Fortunat-sur-Eyrieux or Mauzé-sur-le-Mignon; nor even a union of the rights, dear to my friend Karim Ouchikh, and this is one of the rare points of divergence that I have with him, whose action I deeply admire and support. What is needed is a non-party union of all the patriots, wherever they come from, of all the resistance fighters, of all the anti-colonial and anti-totalitarian militants, of all the anti-Placists in short. Save our country! What is needed is a National Council of Resistance , driven by a single objective: the liberation of the territory, that is to say, re-migration.

The same people who claim that all of humanity is now a migrant, and who with a light heart consider bringing forty million immigrants to Europe, if not two hundred million, claim that re-migration is impossible. In truth, it is not clear why what is possible and desirable in one sense, in their eyes, would not be in another, in smaller proportions, and under much better conditions - we would take care of that.

And don’t come and talk to us about civil war . There was never any question of civil war . A war of national or colonial liberation has never been a civil war, whatever the number of traitors, collaborators, fellow travellers and suitcase carriers. There must be only one people for a civil war; now we have at least two, or fifty. Exit civil , then, and exit as war, I hope so, because if I hope that through the union of all the patriots, a force capable of influencing the course of history and reversing its meaning, in France and everywhere in Europe, will be constituted, it is is in the tenuous, but stubborn hope that this force of refusal will be so strong that there is no need to use it. I call for revolt, not violence. Innocence is non-violence. There is no violence in Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, which nevertheless protect themselves effectively from the invasion.

It is true that we are no longer there, alas; and that the invasion, we have suffered for a long time. It is no longer a question of preventing it, it is too late, but of repressing it. If there is no alternative but submission or war, war , then a hundred times over. Innocence is non-violence, I just said, it is not pacifism. Pacifism was the main thrust of the First Collaboration, just as anti-racism is the main thrust of the Second. Most of the pacifists ended up in Vichy, like the anti-racists today at the Maison de la Radio or France Télévision. Faced with the unspeakable - and genocide by substitution is one - we have the right to revolt. We even have a duty to do so. Revolt!Save our country! And, I would add, with our European brothers, in as close union as possible with them, let us save our continent and our civilisation.