Our church parishes, most political parties, countless institutions and associations, as well as the world of show business have all been advocates of migrant residency, of open borders and of keeping the migrants in place for years on end.
Are they driven by ethnomasochism and xenophilia? Are they the naïve flock of the religion of human rights? Do they suffer from anti-racist snobbery or a desire to be politically correct? Do they deliberately strive to miscegenate France and Europe, or more precisely, to africanise and asiatise them as a result of their hatred towards European ‘ethnic purity’? A bit of everything, I reckon.
In any case, what we notice is a mixture of fatalism when faced with uncontrolled immigration (considered uncontrollable) and of self-destructive impulses towards one’s own people. ‘By all means, invade us, it will do us a lot of good.’ What is also worth noting is that our pro-immigration and pro-collaboration circles, as well as those who head them, are members of the French middle class, or else belong to circles which are completely immune to any contact with illegal immigrant populations and utterly protected from their criminality, especially the world of showbiz. Their contempt and their lack of awareness regarding the living conditions and the price of coexistence paid by the real people of Europe (i.e., the ‘little Whites’) are beyond measure.
* * *
Monsignor Lustiger,1 during a study day organised in Rome in March 1999 on the topic of Europe, welcomed ‘the difference that was brought about by religious and ethnic immigration’. Our colonisation is to be seen as an enrichment through some absolutisation of this hollow concept of ‘difference’. The contradiction is conspicuous: how are we to deal with difference and heterogeneity in a homogenising and universalistic ideology of miscegenation? The Cardinal also said, ‘We must welcome Others’. This is an incorrigible kind of xenophilia: notice how the word ‘Others’ is written with a capital letter, mind you. It’s another one of those clichés of political correctness, one that is unfortunately generated by some self-declared Right-wing intellectuals’ desire to please and take on a philosophical image. The venerable Cardinal continues, ‘Europe has never been a land of immigration for the peoples of Africa and Asia. However, the situation in Europe is now changing, causing migration pressure that is impossible to contain. Europeans cannot ignore this fact.’ Agree to be colonised, my dear people, there is nothing to be done. At the height of its power, the Church refused to grant civil rights to non-Catholics. Now that it is experiencing a decline, however, it has hypocritically adopted the naïve precepts of tolerant ‘communitarianism’. ‘Solidarity and respect determine the position that otherness is granted in a political construction’, Lustiger babbles.
The programmes of our political parties concerning immigration are quite edifying as well. The Socialist Party intends to ‘develop aid programs to facilitate the return of all the immigrants who were not accepted and who were not granted asylum’. In other words, what is being referred to here is return aid for illegal aliens at our taxpayers’ expense (instead of eviction, as is required by law). Thus, illegal entry into France will be officially remunerated. When one realises that return aid has never interested legal immigrants, this kind of proposal serves as a mockery of our voters. The Socialist Party has renounced immigration control once and for all because its members believe that immigrants will vote for them, which will, however, never happen. When they are sufficiently numerous and well-implanted, in fact, they will vote for their own candidates, most likely for Islamic parties, as explained above.
The Greens, for their part, aim to organise the colonisation of Europe in a highly straightforward fashion. ‘Short-stay visas given to visitors from countries outside the European Union should be cancelled, and we should grant these migrants the right to social security.’ Sure, let’s offer Maghrebian ‘tourists’ such security… As for the right to be granted asylum, the Greens believe that the Schengen agreements are not ‘generous’ enough yet, and that we must abolish any and all verification processes which ascertain the truth of the persecution which is said to threaten these asylum seekers, thus strengthening the intensity of the suction pump…
The organisations known as Lutte Ouvrière2 and Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire3 follow the old internationalist, Trotskyist dream of diluting the European people. Their programme is important, since it acts as a metapolitical4 rather than an electoral means of achieving this, and inspires all the associations and immigrationist lobbies (Straight Ahead, Right to Housing, SOS Racism, SCALP, The South, the Human Rights League, MRAP, Licra, etc.) whose doctrine and demands influence governments. Interesting: ‘A Europe of equal rights, one which begins with the right to the vote for all who live there, where all undocumented immigrants must be regularised’. In other words, it’s an invitation sent to the whole world. Come to Europe from Morocco, Mali, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. It’s like a game of musical chairs: if you manage to enter (which is easy), you will be unevictable and automatically given citizenship and all benefits. The Lutte Ouvrière and Ligue Communiste Révolutionaire have nonetheless made very good proposals for the reallocation of speculative profits to anti-unemployment investments. However, in matters of immigration, their anti-liberalism collapses like a house of cards.
The Communist Party, always animated by its intellectual cheap petrol engine, is paradoxically 100 per cent consistent with the recommendations of the Catholic hierarchy: ‘The right to vote for all foreign residents, the abolition of double punishment [i.e., not to expel foreign offenders upon their release from prison], the regularisation of undocumented migrants who have applied for residence, the right to asylum for those who request it.’ What liberal internationalism… No to the transfer of capital, yes to the transfer of humans.
As for the UDF (French Union for Democracy), the RPR (Gathering for the Republic), and the RPF party (Rally of the French People) of Charles Pasqua, the proposals and programmes dealing with immigration are completely unsuitable for reading. It’s nothing more than a technocratic hodgepodge which hints that we must ‘control’ the phenomenon through ‘consultation’. These people have done nothing when in power. Specifically, the soft Right allows our colonisation to take place as a result of its own laziness, its weariness, and out of fear of being accused of inhumanity, while the insane Left encourages settlement through political miscalculations or ideological passion.
* * *
The institutions of the famous ‘civil society’ follow the same immigrationist trend as most of the media. The same goes for all the usual collaborators such as Professor Schwartzenberg5 and Monsignor Gaillot,6 who are widely mediatised. The spectacular actions of illegal immigrants (the ‘undocumented’) prove this. By demonstrating and calling for the harbouring of illegal immigrants, our ‘anti-racist’ associations and the petitioning members of the intellectual and showbiz environments continuously defy the law with hardly anything to lose, knowing that they benefit from total impunity (as seen in the case of Article 21 of the Chevènement law, a law that punishes those who are guilty of active solidarity with the undocumented but is never applied).Both Libération and Le Monde continue to have a field day denouncing the expulsion of illegal immigrants and the smallest evacuation of illegally occupied premises as inhumane, with the following implication: ‘These are fascist measures’. The ‘collectives for the support of undocumented migrants’ are growing in number, just like the ‘Vietnam Committee’ once did in the French high schools of May 1968.
All of these are organised by native Europeans and mobilise brave little French people who are possessed by the demon of xenophile charity.
On 30 June 1999, hundreds of protesters, be it those who belong to associations, political activists, or those who are part of the intellectual and showbiz environments demonstrated outside the Ministry of Justice at the Place Vendome in Paris, which is adjacent to the Ritz. Was it because they wanted to know the whole truth about the death of Lady Di? Not quite. Beatrice Bantman explained the next day in Libération, ‘The goal was for them to get busted. “Arrest us, sir, if you please”, they repeated to the police officers who were on duty. This reasoning has its own logic: those who, like them, help, support, or harbour undocumented migrants are guilty of the crime of solidarity.’ Of course, none will have any cause for worry, and furthermore, not a single person among these ‘activists’ has ever accommodated or helped an ‘undocumented’ African or Maghrebian immigrant. They are not that stupid.
‘Collectives’ and ‘support committees’ are formed and events are organised (like the one of ‘Saint Bernard’ in 1996) as soon as one is about to expel an immigrant who was wise enough to publicise his case. Every single time, the prefecture in question gives in and renounces any claim to law enforcement. We ‘derogate’ and we throw in the towel when confronted with these active minorities who benefit from the support of the press. Illegal migrants who refuse to board their return flights or those who rebel are released at the slightest virtuous outcry by the journalists.
And then there’s a well-established technique: immigrants and foreign offenders who are sentenced to expulsion as required by law resort to going on a hunger strike. The media do their bit to move the public, and governments bow in defeat and stay their decision. Moncef Kalfaoui, an Algerian drug dealer, was to be expelled after two years of incarceration. Result? Claims of ‘double punishment’ and a hunger strike. Clemency was denied by Mr Chirac. In response, a campaign was orchestrated by Libération (in June 1999). Here’s the epilogue: as he had fathered three children who were born in France and born French (jus soli), the administration waived its right to expel him, breaching our laws. It is true that the ‘Chanet report’ (May 1999) does urge the authorities ‘to abstain from expelling foreign offenders with real ties in France if their crimes are minor ones’. In short, we are asked not to apply the law, which is puzzling in the case of a parliamentary report. The application of the law on double punishment is also, according to Libération, ‘a genuine banishment whose injustice is considered revolting by most lawyers’.
Admittedly, in our Republic of Judges, the latter’s opinion overrides the will of the people, especially if they are affiliated with the Union of Magistrates. Yet in all countries of the world, double penalty is common practice, in accordance with the UN Charter.
Recently, 200 ‘undocumented migrants’ of Turkish and Chinese origin and members of the ‘Third Collective’ entered and occupied the Massa Hotel in Paris, which serves as headquarters to the Society of Men of Letters.7 Hardly an innocent objective. They are well aware of the fact that intellectuals are viscerally pro-immigration. Let us listen to Libération’s commentary, which is quite a bravura: ‘Backed by writers, filmmakers, artists, and the ever-faithful Dan Franck, Valerie Lang, Emmanuel Terray, Monique Chemillier-Cendreau, and Leon Schwartzenberg, the occupation began in the charming atmosphere of a garden party and was exquisitely courteous. “We are not accustomed to expelling foreigners”, said Jacques Hale, board member of the Society of Men of Letters, standing amid the foliage and garden roses’ (10 June 1999). Are we to laugh or cry at prose of such stupidity, at such overly sweet melodrama?
No one in this noble-thinking political Left, this caviar garden party, this privileged highbrow media class, this All-Parisian showbiz, would ever dream of demonstrating in support of the ethnic French who are unemployed and at the end of their rights. They alone are those who live in misery, and they are the real excluded ones. But everyone is mobilised to help the ‘young’ dealers who drive BMWs, and who the police had the audacity to detain and put behind bars for a period of 48 hours (which is an offence to their human rights, you see?) for having smuggled fake Senegalese refugees, Malian traders without contracts, or unwanted Algerian gangsters . It is heartwarming for us to give our brothers in the galley a helping hand… Also, what a social and moral passport it is when being an immigrationist is synonymous with being allowed into the fashionable circles of the new liberal-American Left, a Left devoid of ideas (just like the Right), but protected by its good conscience and moral hypocrisy (unlike the Right) and, above all, a Left that gives out many sinecures.
Having converted to capitalism, this new Left is now defending a virtual form of socialism and real immigrationism. Just like in the Coca-Cola formula, it is difficult to determine the proportion of imbecility, hallucinated altruism, anti-racist snobbery, ethnomasochism, and political (mis)calculation in this cocktail. The prevailing feeling among these collaborators is basically the same as that which characterised the declining second-century Roman elites: cowardice, plain and vile cowardice, combined with a selfishness that breeds indifference towards their own people and its future generations. All things considered, I liked the real Communists better, to be honest.
Let us give a few examples of collaborator activism, taken in bulk. Endorsing the exhortations of those bishops who, like the Greens, devote 10 per cent of their time to their ministry and 90 per cent to immigrationism and the promotion of Islam, the Mayor of Limeil-Brévannes said in November 1998: ‘We will not resolve the problem of undocumented immigrants through any CRS (Council of Residential Specialists). A residence permit is not worth a life.’ In other words: no expulsion and no temporary residence permits; let us allow them to settle into our country for good, for the sake of humanity and a quiet life.
More specifically: in the Mayor’s commune, the illegal migrants who had gone on a hunger strike and had occupied the City Council Chambers were unable to prevent their own eviction. They proceeded to reoccupy the premises by force, which paid off: they were given residence permits and free hospitalisation. The ‘national coordination’, which includes all those who support undocumented aliens as well as the advocates of mass regularisation, had this to say following the expulsion of some illegal immigrants who had taken over an administrative office: ‘The Prime Minister chose to use heavy-handed methods against men and women who are struggling for their dignity’. What ‘dignity’? That of settling down in France against our Parliament’s will? As for the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Nations (MRAP), it made a grandiloquent statement that was to leave the toughest of the French weeping: ‘We expected the government to respond humanely and to come up with a policy that would aid those unfortunates who have put their lives at risk’. Indeed, they might die in a shower of CRS bullets…
This illusionism is based on the following flawed reasoning: we should allow them in so as to avoid a North-South explosion. However, what this actually does is cause a detonation in our homes. This kind of argumentation is proper to those who act like resigned and frightened sparrows, disguising the words ‘we do not want to do anything’ with the excuse ‘there is nothing we can do’. Akin to many others before him, Robert Toubon, a columnist for the Equilibres et Populations newspaper, made a reference to the worsening North-South imbalance when he wrote in 1996, ‘The growing migration pressures will escalate to a level that will make it impossible for the “rich” that inhabit the northwest riverside to actually close their borders, unless they take the risk of triggering an explosion in the pressure cooker that is boiling in the southern and eastern Mediterranean.’
In other words, we are being asked to give in and open our borders to avoid a crisis. No matter what, there must be no conflict and no disputes with Maghrebian countries! Could it be that we are afraid of them? Whatever the case, the Algerians themselves did not hesitate to fight in order to oppose French colonisation…
* * *
In any case, the activism of the immigrationist lobby, which aims to prevent us from applying the law — a law that could hardly be more lenient than it already is — has been as effective in enhancing our ethnic colonisation as the suction stemming from egalitarian social laws. Nevertheless, history will recall that it is the Europeans — including their decadent bourgeoisie — who are primarily responsible for the settlement that has afflicted them and for their own demographic submersion. Third World immigrants, who I consider to be the main enemy, believe that they have every right to invade us, as they are filling a gap. Today, this occurs through trickery, but it will soon be done by force. In the same manner, Americans fill the cultural and geostrategic gap left by the absence of Europeans.
Whether one looks at the Burgundians who allied themselves with the English during the fifteenth century,8 the Second World War, or the Greens today, occupation and collaboration in France have always walked hand in hand. To resolve this problem by one means or another, there will be no other solution when imminent chaos strikes than to begin by silencing the collaborators, meaning the immigrationist lobby which has been the primary source of our colonisation for thirty years. Our colonising enemy is a worthy foe. He displays great skill in playing his game, but the collaborators who play against their own camp, the ones who deliberately score an own goal, deserve as little mercy as de Gaulle believed they did based on the precepts of the Roman Emperor Diocletian. Delendi sunt.9
1 Jean-Marie Lustiger (1926–2007) was Archbishop of Paris from 1981 until he resigned in 2005.—Ed.
2 Workers’ Struggle.—Ed.
3 Revolutionary Communist League.—Ed.
4 Metapolitics refers to the cultural aspect of political struggle, without which electoral change is impossible.—Ed.
5 Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg (b. 1943) is a political scientist and politician of the RPF.—Ed.
6 The Most Reverend Dr. Jacques Gaillot (b. 1935) is a former French Catholic bishop nicknamed ‘The Red Cleric’ because of his extreme Leftist positions. He was removed from his position by the Vatican in 1995 for publicly opposing several of the Church’s precepts.—Ed.
7 The Society was founded by Honoré de Balzac, Victor Hugo, Alexandre Dumas, and George Sand in 1838.—Ed.
8 During the latter half of the Hundred Years’ War, Philip the Good, the Duke of Burgundy, was persuaded to form an alliance with England, which was then at war with France, and negotiated the Treaty of Troyes, which stipulated that the English King, Henry V, would succeed King Charles VI of France by marring his daughter, thus ceding the throne to Henry instead of his own son and thus unifying England and France under English rule.—Ed.
9 Latin: ‘they must be destroyed’. The Roman senator Cato the Elder once famously said Carthago est delenda, or ‘Carthage must be destroyed’, in reference to Rome’s mortal enemy, which was eventually done.—Ed.
The above text is an excerpt from Guillaume Faye’s The Colonisation of Europe (Arktos, 2016). If you liked this selection, be sure to check out the whole book.