Julien Rochedy
1,465 words
Translated by Guillaume Durocher
Translator’s Note:
Julien Rochedy is the former director of the Front National’s youth organization (FNJ). He wrote this article after he left the FNJ’s leadership, remaining on good terms with the party, which he felt allowed him to speak more freely and critique the FN’s official assimilationist stance. The text gives some idea, beyond Marine Le Pen’s electorally necessary but potentially dangerous formal compromises with political correctness, as to what brighter people in the party are thinking. The title is editorial.
March 22, 2015
For years, I convinced myself that the best message to spread was that of assimilation. Several reasons led me to this.
Firstly, this principle had been abandoned by the others, the left and the right, who defended integration or even “inclusion,” that is to say systems leaving people of immigrant origin the privilege of conserving, if not the entirety of their culture, at least the pride in their origins and everything that goes with it. Nature abhorring a vacuum, there was here a principle to recover that could not be more republican to stand up for politically.
Furthermore, I thought that this principle particularly corresponded to, let us say, the French soul. France being a uniquely cultural nation, and the French not having, by nature, almost any ethnic consciousness (unlike the Germans, the English, Italians or others), we could only ask France’s inhabitants to respect a majority culture. This message, it seemed to me, not only could be understood and appreciated by the French, but presented in addition the – considerable – advantage to not be vulnerable, or very little, to accusations of racism which have always fallen upon the national movement.
I supposed that the French tree was capable of bearing new branches, and that, being in a desperate impasse, the best that we could do was to transform a maximum of people of immigrant origin into “cultural” Frenchmen, that is to say to take in themselves, the most that they could, a part of our civilizational heritage in order that they too transmit it.
This discourse of “assimilation,” with all the advantages it had, became the one Marine Le Pen chose to talk about immigration. It is still today hers, and, as one of her spokesmen for years, I spread them with her as soon as a microphone or audience was offered to me.
Today, I have to say it, I want to do my communitarian “coming out.” Here too, several reasons are leading me to this.
Firstly, even if I was tempted to think about it the least possible, I knew very well that it is impossible to assimilate 10 to 15 million people. The argument is banal but valid: We can assimilate individuals but not peoples. At the scale of these numbers, we are dealing with peoples, not with individuals having been transferred in host families. This has never happened through history, and given that the latter is, for us, our only true political school, we do not see how such an achievement could be possible today, especially as the conditions, were we even to try, are currently the worst possible. Indeed, French culture and civilization’s power of attraction has strongly diminished. We are alas not in the 18th or 19th centuries. We have given way to the Anglo-Saxon cultures for too long already, and, even though a certain number of ethnic French [Français de souche] have already virtually no more attraction for their own civilization, we would want recent Frenchmen to become Jean Gabins or recite Corneille or Racine? This seems perfectly improbable. And as in any case we have not even begun, for 30 years, with assimilation, we find ourselves face to face with people already shaped by their own culture. In short, it is already too late. Add to this cultures profoundly different from European cultures, because African, Muslim, etc, and you find yourself in an impossible situation.
Bottom line, currently, assimilation is a dream or an exceptionally difficult challenge. The communities are already forming on our territory, perfectly naturally. One million resuscitated black hussard,[1] svelte and severe, could do nothing against this. And in any case, we don’t have them. Therefore, the die is cast.
But as we are talking of “political messages,” let us come to that. The wiliest in the Front National no more believe in the assimilation of 15 million people than I do, but skillfully respond that such a discourse is useful to have. It reassures the French on their old illusion of a social peace guaranteed by a strong common culture, and could even have people of immigrant origin join the movement who have made the personal choice of perfect assimilation.
Yes, it can work, and incidentally, to a certain degree, it does work.
Nonetheless, I believe that it is possible for the FN to have be ahead of the game by recognizing a fact which will be an incontestable reality of tomorrow. In truth, because communitarianism will act as the social system in France – and even in the West as a whole – of tomorrow, the question which remains to be decided is that of its implementation: Will it be a denied and conflictual communitarianism or on the contrary an ordered one?
The political advantages of such a discourse are the following:
Firstly, it would be closer to realities and to the possible. Certainly, in the terms of “political marketing,” this is no longer really essential, but for he who would want to prepare to, actually, wield power, integrating in its software the truth and elements of the possible is not something superfluous.
It would also accomplish the recognized equation of what is already the case, namely that the Front National is the party of the French, of those who feel and breathe to be as such, and who are mostly, whether we want this or not, not of immigrant origin.
In addition, this message would hardly repel the votes of immigrant origin. Let me explain: I have been struck at how such a discourse responsibilizes and reassures French Muslims or simply French of immigrant origin. It does not demand that they become “perfect Frenchmen,” which they do not want to be, with rare exceptions, but allows them to remain what they are, organized, respected, on the only condition that they respect the laws of the country while not being in charge of it. In short, it would raise again the banner of the state above the communities, which would all be, as much as possible, encouraged to bear allegiance to it. We would then have Frenchmen, all reassured in their way of life, but working together for their own good.
Now, certainly, I will be told that this model is that of the United States. Yes, it’s true. Over there, in the archetype, the communities exist and live more or less as they please, as long as they respect the laws of the state and are able to serve it, in the cultivated awareness of serving something higher than them and which guarantees their ways of life.
It is not ideal, of course. But we are not fifteen-year-olds anymore: The ideal is behind us. We must do the best we can with the social conditions which are ours, and too bad if these now resemble the multicultural Anglo-Saxon societies. It is not our fault, it is so. If it had been up to us, there would not have been any immigration and all these problems would never have arisen.
In any case, what is the alternative? If 15 million people, no doubt 20 million tomorrow, will never become, all of them, typical Auvergnians and Bretons, we will have to organize all this a bit, whether we like it or not. If only in order – because we are attached to this – to conserve the classic type of Auvergnian and of Breton. There remains solutions of civil war, of massive remigration, or of genocides, but nobody, in the current state of things, by reason or morality, can propose such solutions. Given this, organizing with France in mind communities which in any case exist and will exist more still tomorrow, seems to be the only at once peaceful and salutary future-oriented solution. The rest is but illusions, anarchy, and blood.
PS: I add, to those who dream of “remigration,” that this can only be possible in a context of clearly identified communities. All of the examples of population movements in history show this.
Translator’s Note
1. This refers to the so-called “black hussars of the Republic,” the public educators who under the Third Republic (1870-1940) are credited with spreading liberal, secular and bourgeois values, and assimilating the regional populations (Flemish, Breton, Provençal . . .) to a single French national culture.
Source: http://www.rochedy.fr/2015/03/pour-un-discours-communautariste.html
10 Comments
Another wolf in sheep’s clothing it seems to me. What is notably absent in M. Rochedy’s discourse which separates him from White Nationalism, is the notion that the preservation of France’s ethnic heritage may be a good in and of itself. ‘Communitarianism’ is put forth as the next best thing, only because assimilation is (currently) impossible. Yet, if the numbers were on his side, or the flow just a bit slower, M. Rochedy would apparently have no problem with immigrants gradually replacing indigenous Frenchmen as citizens of the republique. He speaks of the ‘classic type’ of Auvergnat and Breton as if it were some fuddy-duddy notion no longer relevant in our times.
If ‘culture’ is worth fighting for, why is it so unreasonable that one might wish to preserve the Gallic and Germanic ancestry of Frenchmen? Why is the French race not worth preserving, rather than just the culture? The indigenous Frenchman is, after all, a branch of European a man, a wondrous and beautiful race, but now highly endangered. Why is it out of the question that this heritage also be also considered a treasure of France? M. Rochedy says his generation was not responsible for the disastrous mass immigration, yet if he cannot recognize this even now, are we really to believe that he and his fellows would have made an effort to stop it when they had the chance? The generation before them certainly did not, and that is how we got to where we are today.
Lastly he states flatly that remigration is impossible now because it requires clearly identified communities. Yet in the same article he recognizes that immigrants remained shaped by their own culture, and that the “the French, of those who feel and breathe to be as such, [are] mostly, whether we want this or not, not of immigrant origin”. Why then does M Rochedy so adamantly state that remigration is nothing “illusion, anarchy, and blood”? Why does M Rochedy seem so concerned that Frenchmen accept their fate of becoming a minority in their own country? Is this man really on our side? If preserving White French integrity is neither possible nor desirable, then what exactly is M Rochedy’s motivation? What is he fighting for?
I don’t know M. Rochedy and cannot speak to the tendency of French Nationalism that he belongs to. The fact that he began in the Front and not in one of the metapolitical groupuscules would indicate that his roots are in “petty nationalism” and patriotism rather than racialism.
American audiences should realize that being against “Communitarism” is something you find across the entire political spectrum in France and among the apolitical as well. Whether they are Communists, Republicans, Monarchists, or Nationalists.
Considering our milieu in its various flavors:
Recall the young man who spent a year in jail without charge, Esteban Morillo, or the Mussolini-esque leader of the Nationalist organization he adhered to, Serge Ayoub, they consider themselves French Nationalists against Communitarism.
The “Liste Anisioniste” led by Dieudonné M’bala M’bala and Alain Soral in the municipal elections of 2009 announced on their official poster the intention to “liberate Europe of…Communitarism.”
On the executive board of the Bloc Identitaire you find surnames like Lotti and Cavaglia.
The head of the Traditional Catholic activist group, Civitas, is Alain Escada.
The Robert Stark of the Monarchist milieu in France is named Franck Abed.
…just to name a few
As you can see, the melting pot of French Identity is more than just an idea but a fact of life even among the most fervent and active Patriots and Nationalists.
Ask French people how they feel when visiting the northeastern US, they sound as if they are describing Yugoslavia in the 90s. Tolerance for communitarism is that low.
The leading intellectual of the call for Remigration, Laurent Ozon, was perhaps the first to advocate Communitarism as an intermediate step in expulsion of alien peoples from Europe. He uses the example of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, whose realm included Arabic speaking Muslims in Sicily and who set up a staged process for their expulsion from Europe, as a template. Anything that limits grey areas between our populations, whether culturally or genetically, in the meantime is valuable in that process.
By announcing his adherence to this idea, M. Rochedy has officially ended his career in the FN (at least for the next few years), as it is anathema to the brand of nationalism of the Le Pen family. I applaud his courage in taking this stand and wish him luck in advocating for it.
If we are able to elect Marine Le Pen president then pass an immigration moratorium Referendum and begin stripping criminal and jihadi non-White citizens of France of their citizenship (both part of Marine Le Pen’s central platform and acheivable within the “Weak Executive” constitutional arrangement of France), then entertaining these more radical projects becomes more practical in the context of Mass Movement Politics.
The timorous “Camp of the Saints” scenario revisited. Nothing to see here, folks–move along.
Regards All,
Greg South
I don’t think so. The biggest problem in resisting replacement is ignorance that replacement is occurring. Either the process of replacement is not detected (though one may well wonder how that is possible) and thus its long-term effect is unacknowledged, or if it is detected, the final, long-term effect is deemed to lie so far in the future that it is impractical to worry oneself about it now.
Even when one does detect the process and acknowledge what it must eventually lead to, convincing others has proven extraordinarily difficult. It is not therefore surprising to find racialists concentrating on more immediate concerns and speaking in a manner consistent with those concerns. It is a mistake to interpret this as firm evidence of betrayal or inadequate racial loyalty.
Our mentality is that of a herd. The lions take a gazelle and the other gazelle go on peacefully grazing, content for now knowing the lions are no longer hungry. Since WWII, Europeans have been expelled throughout the world. No one in the West seems very upset about the matter. It occurs to me that separation is the only position, if not territorially, at the least spiritually and hopefully one day politically.
“Now, certainly, I will be told that this model is that of the United States. Yes, it’s true. Over there, in the archetype, the communities exist and live more or less as they please…”
This fellow knows nothing of America. White communities exist as they please? If only it were so. Freedom of association is long dead in America.
I think his point is that you’re allowed to be Italian, or Greek, or Mexican, or Cambodian, or what have you, and to centre your life around being part of that community without worry that you will be penalized or criticized for being insufficiently ‘American.’ That freedom doesn’t extend to white identity – whites are pressured to identify with something other than whiteness – so his statement isn’t completely true, but being French it’s possible he hasn’t ever thought about the issue in strictly racial terms.
Over there, in the archetype, the communities exist and live more or less as they please, as long as they respect the laws of the state and are able to serve it, in the cultivated awareness of serving something higher than them and which guarantees their ways of life.
I hope Julien Rochedy doesn’t actually believe multiculturalism functions this way, either in the archetype or on the ground. His account suggests a vision of contented Blacks and Mexicans happily serving the American Republic in the cultivated awareness that they are valuable additions to a superior civilization.
The vision becomes perhaps even more bizarre if we think of Muslims in multicultural Britain.
We have given way to the Anglo-Saxon cultures for too long already
“Multiculturalism” is a name for the cultural fragmentation caused by multiracial immigration. It was promoted after the fact to convince anglosphere publics that they were gaining something valuable in exchange for losing their national identities.
It has nothing to do with special features of Anglo-Saxon societies. If you import a million Zulus and a million Muslims into Poland, you’ll have a multicultural country in Poland, now matter how eagerly the Poles try to assimilate them. France already has a multicultural society, no matter how often and how vocally the French oppose communautarisme, for the simple reason that they have imported so many Muslims. Rochedy evidently understands that now.
You get conflict and fragmentation as a predicable result if you import hordes of culturally incompatible non-Whites into a White nation. You can call the result “multiculturalism” or you can think up some other name, but the fragmentation will have occurred whatever name you choose to apply.
In other words, White nationalism isn’t rocket science.
— Irmin
After staring at the picture for half an hour, I finally got around to reading this. Very disappointing, really. Since when does conservatism mean a complete lack of imagination? Since always, I guess. The conservative is limited to imagining himself in past worlds created by people who were not conservatives. The idea that repatriation of non-whites is simply impossible, and we will simply have to draw into segmented, petty identities is a non-starter. If France is porous, then so will be Brittany. And if Brittany can repel the invaders, then so can France. The New Right is so crucial, because we need to unchain the world-creating imagination. We need to move the world in our direction. Then Conservatives will follow us like the good little dogs that they are. Wouldn’t it be nice to have spokesmen for good ideas that are has easy on the eyes as Julien Rochedy?
The author doesn’t completely discount the possibility of what he terms “remigration.” While perhaps not believing so strongly in it himself, his post-script comment indicates that he believes the formation of clearly identified communities to be a necessary precursor to any such movement of peoples. I agree with him. Clearly identified groups can more easily be conceived of as ‘markers’ on a map, which one can move around according to plan, and knowing which group one belongs to brings tremendous clarity when evaluating policy proposals. Whereas if everybody is jumbled up with no clear-cut dividing lines even talking about racial solutions becomes so nightmarishly complex that most people just don’t bother. If you doubt this, consider how you might go about racially ‘resolving’ Brazil – not merely devising a solution, but getting a critical mass of people to buy into it.