More than ‘immigration’, we need to speak of mass colonisation by African, Maghrebian, and Asian populations, acknowledging that Islam is seeking to conquer France and Europe; that ‘the delinquency of youth’ is the first step toward ethnic civil war; that the invasion is as much about maternity wards as it is about porous borders; that, for demographic reasons, Islamic power is threatening to install itself in France, first at the municipal, then, perhaps, at the national level.

The public schools are floundering, prey to the violence of ‘Beurs’ and ‘Blacks’, the new conquerors. ‘No-go zones’ have passed the thousand mark. For several years now, the number of immigrants, either legal ones with visas or illegal ones, has exploded. These new arrivals are not employable workers, but immediate candidates for the dole. We’re standing at the edge of an abyss: if nothing changes, in two generations France will no longer have a majority European population, and this for the first time in her history. Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Holland are on the same catastrophic path, just a few years behind us. Not since the fall of the Roman Empire has Europe known such a cataclysmic situation. And it’s occurring with the complicity of our clueless, ethnomasochistic political class and with the criminal collaboration of the immigrationist lobbies.

The growing ethnic chaos in Europe risks abolishing our civilisation; this threat is graver than any of the previous plagues and wars that Europe has known. And we shouldn’t forget that this colonisation and Islamisation serves the interests of the United States and that the integration/assimilation of the invaders, like multi-ethnic communitarianism, is, in actuality, utterly unfeasible. There is, moreover, an alternative: reconquest.

​

Never has the ethnic and cultural identity of Europe, the basis of her civilisation, been so gravely menaced, exacerbated by the collaborationist and suicidal complicity of the media and the politicians. Laurent Joffrin could thus write this stupefying phrase in Le Nouvel Observateur: ‘The extreme Right thinks it can ameliorate the disorders of the liberal future with a remedy that is as false as it is murderous, opposing its own aggressive ethnic identity to the inevitable mélange of cultures.’ The fatalistic belief here in the inevitability of race-mixing is simply unsupported by the facts. It’s no ‘mixing of cultures’ that we’re experiencing in France, but rather the destruction, the eradication, the ethnocide of European civilisation for the sake of Americanisation, on one side, and Islamisation and Afro-Maghrebisation, on the other.

Under cover of their integrationist ideology, which has never been realised anywhere in the world, our enemies, loyal to the Trotskyism of their origin, endeavour to abolish our ancestral culture, which they consider intrinsically perverse. ‘Ethnic identity’ and its defence are thus designated as an Evil — having become symbols of aggression, in Laurent Joffrin’s term. The defence and affirmation of one’s culture in this view is nothing but a form of racism. Far from becoming a ‘planetary civilisation’, a global village, the planet is today being organised into competing ethnic/identitarian blocs. The mixing of cultures and the abolition of identities are not part of the Twenty-first-century’s project. India, China, Black Africa, the Arab-Muslim or Turkish-Muslim world, etc., are affirming their identities, tolerating neither a colonising immigration nor a cultural mélange on their soil. Only our pseudo-European elites defend the dogma of a ‘mixed planet’, which is pure illusion. Europe is losing its ancestral heritage, while the official defence of the national ‘patrimony’ is nothing but a museological enterprise. For cultural identity, like biological identity, is fundamentally archeofuturist: that is, it stems from an ongoing renaissance of forms and generations, beginning with the original germen. Permanent biological and cultural renewal and the ongoing assertion of the will to power: such is the law of all long-living peoples. Identity is inconceivable without the complementary notion of continuity. The struggle against identity has become the watchword of the dominant egalitarian ideology. This entails abolishing both our memory and our blood. School programs testify to it, for in class they’d rather discuss an African folk tale than sing the old French songs. Céline’s prediction of a ‘tom-tom’ invasion is coming true.

This colonisation by alien populations is deeply rooted in our mentality. The French themselves are the artisans of France’s destruction. If she is the country most assaulted by the alien invaders, it’s because her cultural and ethnic identity is the most impaired. The problem goes far back. Since the Revolution of 1789, Jacobin France has thought of herself as ‘the republic of the human race’, ‘the country of all men’, in imitation of the United States, which had just gained its independence. But only in the United States, this country founded on immigration and the destruction of its aboriginal peoples, is the formula true, whereas in France, a land of enrooted peoples and ethnicities, this universalistic formula is dangerously false. From the start, the French Republic was based on the dogma of a non-ethnic state. After the defeat of 1870, the Republic’s ideologues, with Renan at their head, opposed Germany, a nation ‘constituted by an original people, speaking an original language’, in contrast to the allegedly more civilised France, founded not on a specific race, an enrooted history, or an inherited identity, but on a social contract and ‘a political desire to live together’. Since then there has prevailed this disastrous French ideology, which denies its own ethnic reality and makes the republican half-caste (métis) the model citizen.

In 1914, again in 1940, Germany was perceived as a hereditary enemy, representing a people of a distinct stock — a primitive, identitarian people — who were to be defeated by French republicans, detached from all blood relations and linked to their fellow citizens solely on the basis of a social contract. By way of a historical boomerang, today’s anti-ethnic and antiidentitarian republican ideology, after having tried to destroy the historical personalities of France’s various provinces, is failing to assimilate and integrate her millions of immigrants — or rather her new colonisers. These latter have conserved their identity, whereas the native French have lost theirs! In effect, French ideology is destroying France. Founded on a hopeless cosmopolitanism, this French ideology is deeply rooted in the mentality of bourgeois governance: hence the nearly unanimously passed ‘anti-racist’ laws of Pleven (1972) and Gayssot (1990), which have, by governments of the Right and Left, established a thought police, innumerable pro-immigrationist measures, and a renunciation of border controls. Generally speaking, France’s bourgeois elites, whether political or mediacratic, lack either an ethnic or identitarian consciousness. They are indeed complicit with the present colonisation and invasion, both through their support for anti-racist activities and through their quasi-religious ideological belief that ‘identity’ is an evil, like every other political doctrine linked to ethnicity. And the most dangerous of these collaborators, in my view, are those on the ‘Right’, because they disarm and demobilise the instinctive resistance of healthy young people.

​

Such culpatory anti-identitarian activities ought to be seen as a form of xenophilia — that is, as a fascination for the Other, for the stranger — rather than as an ‘anti-racism’, which even touches the heart of those political and cultural movements claiming a French and European identity, though they demonise all forms of ethnocentrism. The evil is profound, the virus is lodged deep within the organism. The house is on fire, but no one is saying anything. In respect to certain so-called ‘identitarian’ philosophers — who defend ‘communitarianism’, minimise or deny the effect of immigration/colonisation, and howl with the wolves against ‘racism’ — it’s neither intellectual credulity, ignorance, nor cosmopolitanism that motivates them, but simple cowardice, born from a desire to appear socially respectable, to submit to the thought police, to ‘correctly protest’ without ever crossing the cordon. Such treasons are so crude that even the cosmopolitan Left despises them. Yes, the enemy despises its own collaborators. The enemy respects only those resisters who actively rebel.