Renaud Camus - You Will Not Replace Us! - Quotes

A few quotations from the book I found to be interesting. Download entire book here:

Personally I have never imagined that a group of people with evil intentions congregated one day in some big luxurious executive room and decided that they would change the population of Europe for a cheaper one that would grow faster in quantity. I think it is more evil than that. Some people incriminate the Jews, others incriminate the European Union, some think Wall Street or the IMF are entirely responsible. There might be some truth in any of those assumptions ...

It would be surprising that the Jews should be the ones mainly responsible for a phenomenon, the Great Replacement, of which they are the very first victims. The change of population in Europe has brought about overall and growing insecurity which makes daily life very difficult, if not downright impossible, for a number of Jews who are almost permanently exposed to very strong Muslim aggressiveness, modern anti-Zionism flourishing both as a form of exasperation and as an excuse, a more decent cover, for very classical Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism.

As for classical occidental European anti-Semitism, it is like a derelict shop in the dilapidated historical downtown, now entirely driven out of business, and fashion, by the enormous shopping malls, in the banlieues, ominously favoured by replacist or "antiracist" power. A number of Jewish communities in Europe who had survived the Holocaust do not survive the Great Replacement. Thousands of French Jews are leaving the country each year, choosing to make their Alyah because they feel they have no choice.

This, on top of personal feelings, is one of the reasons why I was deeply shocked to learn that, during the notorious antiremplacist demonstration in Charlottesville, in 2017, next to the people who were shouting You will not replace us!, which, of course, I thoroughly and enthusiastically approve of, as the very cry against post-humanism, some, a minority and a very small one I hope - I am very much accustomed to the ways of the mainstream press, and I know their delight in mentioning as central, in the actions of their adversaries, what was in fact totally marginal - were shouting Jews will not replace Us! It is not the Jews that are replacing you. ...

Soros is, admittedly, Jewish, and he does play an essential part in Global Replacism, as have done, on a smaller scale and with much more limited means, many a Jewish intellectual, journalist, columnist or writer, red-hot promoters in their time of massive immigration, or mass migration. But this has perceptibly changed, fortunately (from my point of view); and the proportion of remplacist Jews and anti-remplacist Jews is now almost reversed. In any case, Jews are very much divided on that issue, which makes them no different from any other community.

To that must be added that Israel belonging to the Jewish People, with Jerusalem as its capital, is the model and the essential reference, at least in Western culture and civilization, to all sense of belonging. If those three did not belong to each other, it would be the end of all belonging. That specific link is so essential that it is, so to speak, the gold exchange standard all other links. If Jerusalem were not Jewish there would be no reason for Paris or Saint-Denis to be for ever French; for London or Winchester to be English, or indeed for Washington or Concord to be American - at least not in a cratylian world, that is, in my way of thinking, that of art, literature, language, memory, culture, sense, order, in-nocence and civilisation.

The population stock of France had experienced little variations in time between what is termed the Great Invasions (by Huns, Goths, Wisigoths and the like), during the 6th and 7th centuries, and, at the other end of the timeline, the last decades of the 20th century. Indeed what is now referred to as immigration is a process that started in the close of the 19th century. But this was immigration of an entirely different character from the one we are now experiencing. For one thing it was entirely European, being composed of Belgians in the north of France, Poles, specially in the eastern and northern parts of the country, Italians in the South, later on Spaniards, Portuguese, Jews fleeing the pogroms of Poland, Ukraine or Russia and, of course, Nazi persecutions later on. Also, the number of newcomers bore no relation whatsoever with those brought in by present day immigration - which, incidentally, renders this term totally obsolete, although it is still very much in use: the flow of migrants has taken such proportions that immigration has become a misnomer for what it is: it is more akin to an invasion, a migratory tsunami, a submerging wave of ethnic substitution.

The narrative according to which France has always been a country of immigration (like, say, the United States) is of course false and preposterous: for about fifteen centuries, the French population has been remarkably stable, at least in its ethnical composition. Then came, as reminded above, immigration proper. But mass migration as it started in the mid-seventies is an entirely distinct phenomenon. There are striking differences between the two migratory trends, not only in their respective orders of magnitude, from thousands to millions of people, but also because immigrants in the late 19th century and during first two-thirds of the 20th century were in their huge majority sharing the Christian faith and more specifically the Roman Catholic denomination, i.e. the dominant religion, of the French, and practically all of them were of European stock; whilst late 20th century and 21st century immigrants have almost all been African and more often than not Muslim. Their African culture and Mahometanism make it a much stronger challenge for them to become integrated into French culture and civilisation, all the more so because most of them show no desire whatsoever to achieve any such integration, whether as individuals or communities.

The stance taken by the relevant sociologists harks back to Freud's "kettle logic," as quoted by Derrida: accused of having returned a borrowed kettle with a conspicuous hole in it, a man says, firstly, that the kettle was undamaged when he returned it; secondly, that it was already damaged when he borrowed it; and, thirdly, that he had never borrowed it in the first place.

On the subject of immigration, sociology in France typically says, or has said, firstly, that there is less and less of it, foreigners having been much more numerous in the 1930s, and that it has almost come to an end (of course, millions of foreigners have been granted citizenship - the Great Replacement is complete when there are no foreigners left); second, that France has always been a land for immigration, that foreigners and immigrants have always flooded in, that there is absolutely nothing new happening here that would be worth mentioning; and, thirdly, that in any case it is too late now to do anything about it, that the change of people is an obvious and objective fact, that it has been too massive to reverse its course so late in the game and that the most sensible thing to do now is to try and love it, as the novel population, labelled and glorified as diversity, is obviously here to stay.

If we are not pleased with this new state of affairs, according to which we, the indigenous crowd, are required to integrate into the newfangled multicultural and multiethnic society well then, we have (so far) full license to leave and go elsewhere to see if we could adjust to a society that would suit us better.

Whichever way we look at the problem, the fact remains that one people had a country which it could call its own, and so it did; and now it has to share it with other peoples, not particularly friendly ones, and who look like they will in turn call it their own, as soon as they are able to muster enough strength and host enough force to put their claim on it. In any other country, and at any other time in history, those responsible for this loss and humiliation would be indicted as traitors. The word seems to have gone out of fashion - one would not know what to betray.

The claim that France has always been a land of immigration, along with the ancillary claim that French culture and French art are for the most part the creation of foreign artists - whilst in truth foreign artists flooded into France, especially at the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th century, because of the international prestige of its own art and culture-, is but one and the first of a series of very powerful historiographical myths which flourish as the change of people is accelerating, to make it easier to accept, or more difficult to refuse, by the French natives, its victims.

The second of those myths, also a very popular one, and not only among immigrants and their descendants, propounds that France, during the Second World War, was liberated from the Germans by Northern and Central Africans soldiers coming from its then African Empire, and recruited by the Free French. A very popular film entitled Indigènes, one of many a motion pictures or television programmes incessantly produced to persuade the French to accept colonisation and ethnic substitution, was released with the ostentatious purpose to narrate that historical episode. Yet, as everyone knows, France was liberated mostly, and famously, by the American troops landing on the Normandy coast on June 6th, 1944 with a good number of Englishmen and some soldiers coming from every part of the British Empire. There was also, a few weeks later, a landing in Provence, with French troops coming from North Africa who had progressed along Italy with the Allies and liberated Corsica on their way. About one third of these forces was made up of soldiers from the regular French Army, another (big) third of Frenchmen from North Africa, later known as "Pieds Noirs" (Black Feet), and indeed one third of "indigenes" troops, also from North Africa, specially Morocco.

... A third historiographical myth is that immigrants, especially those from North Africa, and more especially those from Algeria, "reconstructed" France after the disaster of the Second World War. This representation too, needless to say, is sheer fancy. Mass migration only started in the mid-seventies of 20th century. By then the "reconstruction" of France had been achieved for some time. It had been formally declared completed by 1960. Of course a few early immigrants had taken part in the post-war reconstruction effort, but they were not numerous enough, far from that, to be the parents or grandparents of the millions of present-day immigrants. Besides those few workers did not work for free, they were paid, obviously, and it is certainly not common practice for labourers or artisans who have received a salary or a compensation as workers employed in the construction or reconstruction of a building, office tower in Niort or antique farmhouse in Normandy, to claim afterwards that the property is theirs, or partly theirs, on the dubious grounds that they have worked on it.

If Algerians had been so efficient in rebuilding France, how could one explain that in independent Algeria they have performed so poorly and appear, even with high-level national oil-revenue, sorely incapable of managing their own country and maintaining the infrastructures that the hated coloniser had left behind with them?

Not only is Western Civilisation the first in history to drain its own resources to make sure its own colonisation is duly complete, it is also the first one to be all leniency for those who want its eradication while it relentlessly persecutes those who put up efforts to defend it and work for its salvation.

I am deeply convinced that the termination of the concept of race, at least in France, in the mid-seventies of the 20th century, was the key moment which made everything that followed possible; and, even more decisively, made (almost) impossible any resistance to what was to happen - mass immigration, mass migration, invasion, colonisation, ethnic substitution, in short the Great Replacement.

To decide and proclaim that races do not exist is about as intelligent as deciding and proclaiming that unicorns, or myths, or social classes do not exist. Those things may not have a scientific existence, whatever that means, but they are social, or literary, or poetic, or taxinomic creations of such considerable impact that proclaiming they do not exist is tantamount to seriously testing the meaning of the verb to exist.

No one likes bad news but modernity feels an absolute hatred for bad ideological news. It can withstand bad political news, bad economical news, even bad ecological news, although they are very unpleasant; but bad ideological news are beyond its capacity for suffering and acceptance. When faced with them, it immediately decides that they are false, and that those who bring them are criminals. These persons are not criminals because their news are false, their news are false, have to be, because the bearers are criminals, and so are their news. Those news are false and criminal because everything would have to be changed in the general (and ideological) system of perception and evaluation if they were true. They just can't be. That would be too harsh on too many people.

Imagine, for example, and for the mere sake of discussion, that a young scientist would discover - and that very unlikely event would be one of the worst things which could happen - would discover, say, that women capacities of intellection are inferior by 17,44 per cent to those of men. Do you think such discovery would have great success? Do you think prestigious scientific magazines would compete for the honour of presenting it to the world? Do you think the young doctor would be offered a better and larger laboratory, and more people to work under his guidance for a better knowledge of women's rights?

More likely he would be sent to some faraway laboratory, with a strong, if mute, invitation to keep quiet, if he could. Science, like history, and like information, is a matter of choice, a selection. There are probably a plethora of important discoveries of which no one has never heard. They were simply not in the spirit of the age.

It has been much said that mass immigration has been schemed and provoked by industrialists and other employers who wanted a cheap workforce and a means to check the increases in wages demanded by native workers and unions. That was largely true, and still is, in part, but for many years now it has not been not so much workers but consumers that Global Replacism has been importing by the millions.

Readers will object that those replacers have no money: how could they be consumers? And indeed they have no money, even though they often seem remarkably well equipped with technological gadgets and communications devices. They have no money but they will need housing, roads, bridges, hospitals for their health, schools for their children, stadiums and theaters for their leisure time, mosques for their faith and community affiliations, cars, domestic and electronic appliances and so on. They have no money but that is not a problem because they will have that of the remplacees, the indigenous population - by which I do not mean that they will steal it from them, although that may happen; but that the so-called social benefits are in fact racial benefits, from the colonized people to the the colonizing one, via the colonialists; from the replacees to the replacers, via the replacists.

In France, very absurdly, only forty-eight per cent of the citizens have to pay income tax, while fifty-two per cent do not. It would be interesting to know the respective proportion of replacers and remplacees in both groups. One would probably discover that it is replacees who are largely paying for their own replacement.

Why should one want to suppress the European Union, or at least have one's country leave it, just because one does not like its policies? One should be more ambitious, should want to seize power inside it, and radically change its ways and modes of managing things. Europe, one should take hold of it, not leave it. One should expel Africa from it, not exit it. I was personally much saddened by Brexit, because I think Europe without Britain, which is a major and essential component of its civilisation, is not Europe at all. The continent being invaded, the nations which are part of it should stick together and resist, not try and find salvation one by one, in dispersion and isolation.

Just as I am writing this short book, Italy is refusing to take in more of the so-called "migrants", which I thoroughly approve of, but is fighting with other European countries for a fair distribution of them. There is no such thing as a "fair distribution" of them. If invaders refer to what they really are, and it does so, they should not be distributed among European countries, but sent back to where they belong. This tends to show how the problem, being a matter of life and death for the continent and its civilisation, cannot and will not be solved in one country only, or one by one. It is a matter of civilisation on a continental scale. So called "sovereignists" lose a lot of time and energy, not to mention elections, by concentrating their attacks on Brussels and neglecting the invasion.

The United States, especially under the presidency of Barack Obama, have shown themselves very favourable to the change of people and civilisation in Europe, and almost impatient to see it made irreversible. In France the American embassy is in close touch with the so-called "quartiers populaires" and has set up a system of grants and fellowships whose laureates have been almost exclusively of African descent, which shows whom the United States consider as the most likely leaders of tomorrow's France. But with Donald Trump America began to realise that it was itself just as menaced by the frightful Great Remplacement as Europe is. Hence the shouts of You Will Not Replace Us at Charlottesville and elsewhere.

The truth is that Europe and the Atlantic are being replaced in the heart, eyes and interests of Americans by Asia and the Pacific Ocean, and that is for a large part the result of a shift in population on the American territory itself. For a growing number of Americans, Europe is not the Old Country anymore, the land of the ancestors. Replacists can be replaced, they are actually being replaced, and if they are not they will soon be. As far as replacement goes, America is at least as much a victim as it is a culprit.

How can people accept, either enthusiastically or reluctantly, what had been to their ancestors the worst conceivable horror: not having a country they can call their own anymore, being obliged to share it with other peoples which are not especially friendly and easy to live with, slowly or not so slowly being replaced by invaders of other races, other continents, other cultures, other religions or religious views, other civilisations, and with very different mores?

This very year we are celebrating in France, in the United Kingdom, in Belgium, the centenary of the 1918 Victory, which we do not even dare call Victory anymore. What would the soldiers of World War I think, after the horrible sacrifices they made, indeed giving up their youth, their health, their comfort and often their lives, if they could see what France, or Belgium, or Great-Britain have become to-day, countries that are violent, dirty, falling apart, third world territories with a third-world population, battlefields for very uncouth foreign peoples? Would they think this is worthy of their efforts?

The truth is that between living and together, with the occupying forces, one has to make a choice; and that there is no other solution, if a change for peace is to be preserved, that they return to where they came from. To admit as an established fact that the Great Replacement, ethnic substitution, the change of people and civilisation, is by far the biggest and most urgent problem Western countries have to face, compared to which all the others, serious as they may be, are minor; and that there can be no other way to solve this problem than remigration: those are the two points, and only two points, that one has to agree upon to be a member of the National Council of European Resistance.