Henry de Lesquen
506 words
Translated by Guillaume Durocher
Translator’s Note: Henry de Lesquen is a French nobleman, retired civil servant, and groundbreaking presidential candidate. The following op-ed was apparently written during the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, but was more recently republished on Lesquen’s campaign Website.
Fire Smoldering Under the Ashes
Events in Georgia remind us of the difficult existence led by multicultural societies. In South Ossetia, the native Ossentians lived side-by-side with immigrants of Georgian ethnicity who had come from the country’s interior. Their relations seemed peaceful, but fire smoldered under the ashes. The Georgian army’s intervention, which was defeated by the Russians, led to an “ethnic cleansing” of South Ossetia, which has now become homogeneous again after the precipitous departure of almost all Georgians.
“Ethnic cleansing”: the expression is indeed horrifying, when one thinks of the great misfortune it represents for those who are its victims and who, if they are not slaughtered, must flee the country where they have always lived. During the Yugoslav War, the term was first used by the Serbs. But those who had pioneered the concept were soon in turn its object, notably in Kosovo, where the Serbs have been savagely persecuted by Albanian Muslims, who had become the majority in the province.
Ethnic cleansing is as old as humanity. It was implemented, for example, at the end of the Second World War, to the detriment of millions of Germans who lived in the territories annexed by Poland and Czechoslovakia. More recently, in 1962, the Frenchmen of Algeria also suffered an unrecognized ethnic cleansing.
The Law of Heterogeneity-Violence
Whenever this terrible phenomenon begins in some part of the world, the media always spreads roughly the same comments as truisms: “This is incomprehensible. Everything was going so well, between them and us . . .” And they accuse evil genies of having artificially provoked hatred between communities which had been made to live harmoniously together.
Of course, one cannot ignore the role played by activists who are, apparently, the cause of the conflict. But a spark cannot cause a conflagration if the substance is not flammable. Ethnic cleansing and its train of misfortunes are often inevitable, because multicultural societies are multi-conflictual. There is a social law of heterogeneity-violence: the more a society is heterogeneous, the more it is violent. Ultimately, those actually responsible for civil war are those who created or allowed the creation of a mix of ethnicities or communities which had to explode sooner or later.
France is Not Safe
France is not safe from intercommunal violence. Ethnic cleansing is already being implemented, on a small scale, in the immigrant cities, which ethnic Frenchmen have had to flee. The riots which occur regularly in our suburbs are a foretaste of what will happen to us if we do not make the right decisions. It is not enough to stop immigration; we must reverse migration flows . . . We need to fight this irresponsible policy, by explaining to the French that another policy is possible.
We must return France to her identity. To avoid an ethnic cleansing, we propose remigration.
6 Comments
Repatriation is the answer.
But how to achieve it.
While violence is a concern, the prime reason we don’t want non-Whites and Muslims is because we have the right to have our own countries.
The West, including Canada and America, is not and never was intended to be, a place for “all races and nations”. To claim that it is, or was, is a direct attack on the identity, legitimacy, and existence of the Western people.
Repatriation of the immigrants is the answer. But how to achieve it ?
Allow me to answer that question. I speak from my particular experience as a Briton. The answer comes in three phases:
Firstly, the understanding and acknowledgement that the party politicians are shameless , unprincipled , irresponsible liars who have lied to all of us. For the last fifty years (Yes, 50 years) the party politicians have at every major election promised the electorate , “Vote for us and we will stop, curtail, limit, etc. immigration”. The politicians have broken their word every time; they have never attempted to stop, curtail or limit immigration, on the contrary, so great has been their betrayal that now Mohamet is the top name for new born baby boys in England.
At the same time, the British politicians have lied to the millions of immigrants they have permitted to enter Britain: the politicians had no right to invite these millions into Britain: the party politicians had no mandate to invite these millions. The politicians had never sought, indeed had never dared to seek to obtain such a mandate, given the massive and popular opposition to immigration from the native Britons. All of which means, of course, that the immigrants are, so to speak, recipients of stolen property, with no moral right to be here. Conclusion, all of us currently residing in Britain are ruled over by shameless, professional liars. This is the point that we all start from.
Secondly, organised repatriation will take place in Britain, when the British people start again to take up responsibility for their – de-industrialised, crime-ridden, financially and morally bankrupt nation, in whose capital city, London, we Britons are now the minority. All these vast changes for the worse, ineluctably moving in the direction of our genocide, have taken place in a fraction of a life-time.
Thirdly, when the British once again take responsibility for their nation, for their country and for their own people, then it will be quite natural for them to expect that all those foreigners, residing in our country but with no moral right to do so, will return to their own countries, motivated by the same sense of patriotism as will be motivating the British at this happy juncture.
A final word for the doubting Thomases: I have personal experience of what it is like to be an immigrant living in somebody else’s country. When I was young I emigrated to Australia where I lived and worked for a number of years. It occured to me one day, that I as an Englishman living in Australia, was entirely dependent on the good will of the Australians: I had money in my pocket because the Australians had given me job; I had a roof over my head because I lived in a house Australians had built, etc., etc. Now believe me, every immigrant residing in Britain knows these elementary facts of dependency on the good will of others, just as I did those years ago in Australia. Every Third world immigrant knows that he is entirely dependent on his British “host”. I mean these Third Worlders have not conquered us in some war. They are here solely because lying politicians invited them in; politicians who had no right to do so, because the politicians had never obtained, and indeed had never sought to obtain, a mandate for mass-immigration.
To put it compactly, the very first step in reversing this process is to deal with the governing traitors who allowed it. Those politicians must be removed from power and replaced by those who share your views.
Yep, drive the rascals out.
Funny, the same people are proud of their “resistance” against the German invaders (who came because the French had previously declared war).
Even in the worst French nightmare – Germany winning the war – France would not have become the violent multi-ethnic hellhole it is now, nor the civil war torn country it is bound to become … compared to which the occupied Vichy-France during WWII was a heaven of peace.
I think it would be quite practical, as one step in a well planned program of repatriation, to distribute printed matter — flyers, stickers — in appropriate languages, correct grammar, etc., containing various messages, along the lines of: “You must return to your native land.” “Remember: This will never be your country.” “Your ancestors eagerly await your return home, and may your children and grandchildren live long to gratefully cherish your decision.” (Messages like this last one will require subtle wordsmithing. The help of polyglots and language scholars will be invaluable.) And further admonitions to similar effect.
Imagery and design might incorporate traditional ethnic elements, evoking nostalgia for the homeland, illustrating particularly held virtues and values (positive reinforcement).
While the very existence of the messages is without doubt menacing (precisely as is the foreign presence itself), the presentation should be informative, clear, respectful and mostly positive, or at least neutral — but it must not be phrased as a request. No content should state or imply “Please” or “Thank you.” No apology, no regret. Equally inappropriate are offensive stereotypes, insults, or any overt threat or menace.
It is a helpful message from a civilized host to a possibly civilized guest who may need encouragement in finding the will and the way toward the exit, but who will without fail be made to return.