The Great ReplacementDouglas Mercer
What we in America call multiculturalism the French call vivre ensemble, or “living together.” If that sounds like a euphemism to cover up a genocide, it’s because it is. As French author Renaud Camus dryly notes, “Between living together and living, one must choose.”
And so one must.
The phrase “the Great Replacement” has achieved iconic status in White Nationalist circles and beyond. For White Nationalists, it refers to the most fundamental fact of our time: that white people are being replaced in their ancestral homelands by the world’s brown and black dregs. This is White Genocide, also called by Camus as “genocide by substitution.”
For Jews and the Left, the Great Replacement is a “conspiracy theory” –except when it’s not; except when they are crowing: We will replace you. They have indeed said and are doing this. If we self-respecting white men refer to the Great Replacement, we are paranoid nuts; when our enemies refer to it, they are referring to an inevitable, natural phenomenon, something that is a force majeure and the sum of all good. Wikipedia calls it a “conspiracy theory,” after all, so it is not really happening; but when it is happening, it is a great and good thing. Crimethink meets Doublespeak.
The term “Great Replacement” was coined by Renaud Camus. It and his other writings have caused him untold legal trouble in France, and he is always going to court for his “forbidden words,” as when he tweeted out the following pointed satire:
A box of condoms offered in Africa equals three fewer drownings in the Mediterranean Sea, 100,000 euros of savings for French Family Assistance, two prison cells freed up, and three inches of ice floe saved from global warming.
As you can imagine, for the world’s ruling elite that was far beyond the pale. The truth always is, for them.
Camus came to prominence in intellectual circles in the late 1970s as a flamboyant homosexual writer who limned the freewheeling gay sex underworld. He spent time in America and dabbled in Andy Warhol’s circle before teaching in Arkansas. But just as Pym Fortuyn moved from issues of “gay liberation” to advocating a stop to all immigration, Camus eventually came to the issue of protecting the European peoples at all costs.
His famous — to our enemies, infamous — book was titled Le Grand Remplacement. It has never been entirely translated into English, but Camus himself has translated excerpts from it, combined with extracts from some of his other writings and has published it under the title, You Will Not Replace Us!
Throughout this trenchant work, his skill in writing and his vehemence for the cause is evident:
Immigration, which was bought in a long time ago as a decorative lizard, has become in the meantime an enormous crocodile occupying half the drawing-room, but the general convention is to pretend not to notice and to mind one’s business exactly as if the beast was not there. Once in a while, when he is in the mood, and that is more and more often the case, he tears off and devours a leg or an arm, but people go on handling tea cups and discussing train timetables or the advisability of changing the wallpaper over him as if he were some kind of deconstructed sofa, blood all over the chairs and the carpet notwithstanding.
Blood all over the carpet, indeed; just don’t mention it in polite society.
Camus starts out by noting that the idea of replacement is central to modern industrial societies, and that replacements, imitations, and fakes abound. Consumer society relies on planned obsolescence and deems things and people inherently worthless, disposable, and interchangeable:
For better or worse, everything is being replaced by something else: something simpler, more convenient, more practical, easier to produce, more at hand and, of course, cheaper. Las Vegas displays a fake Venice in Nevada, Spain establishes a mock Las Vegas in Castilla, China has its own Paris near Peking — a much safer place than the real one for the traveler and for the local dweller alike.
But of course it is the replacement of the peoples of European descent in their homelands which is his main focus:
I have coined the phrase Great Replacement (in French Grand Remplacement) to denote the brutal change of population which has been taking place in France (and in Europe) since the beginning of the last quarter of the last century; and which has been gaining momentum ever since.
His definition of the Great Replacement is as simple as it is terrifying: It is when “one people is replaced by another.” He fully believes that this change is genocidal and is perpetrated with malevolent intent:
Population swamping or “demographic invasion” is a different matter entirely. It undermines the very identity of the nation or the people targeted by the swamping. The major threat associated with it is that it might very well be irreversible.
The population submitted to mass migration and ethnic submersion is not being killed or expelled, save for some unfortunate exceptions, which are becoming more and more numerous. The fact remains that entire streets, districts, towns, regions, not to mention schools, which had for centuries been the home of a given population, suddenly have an entirely different one. The face of the country has been transformed to an unimaginable extent.
As for the idea that this is a “conspiracy theory” he only has unadorned contempt. He knows that this gaslighting is just one of the parlor tricks used by the floating class which meets at Davos and controls the means of communications. They are playing three-card monte with our lives: Now you see it, now you don’t.
I have said time and again that the Great Replacement was neither a theory nor a concept. I wish to God it had been that, and nothing else, instead of being a horrible tragedy, a monstrous crime against humanity, an ecological and biodiversitarian disaster. The Great Replacement is not a theory, it is a ghastly fact, and my name for it, adequate to a degree, is like the Great Plague, the Great Fire, the Great War or the Great Depression.
After the Second World War, a Jew who went by the preposterous high-WASP alias “Ashley Montague” wrote the infamous “statement on race” for the United Nations. Unsurprisingly he said that “there are no races” and that the idea that race-mixing produces an inferior human being was false. The Jews, of course, are the most race-conscious people on Earth; and they are also the people who most vehemently push the idea that there are no races.
These two things are connected. That there are no races has become, alongside “all men are created equal,” one of the ideological hallmarks of the New World Order.
Though Camus mistakenly and tragically denies the role of Jews in the “change of people,” he wholeheartedly believes that this false notion of there being no races is the linchpin which underlies the Great Replacement:
I am deeply convinced that the termination of the concept of race, at least in France, in the mid-seventies of the twentieth 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, colonization, ethnic substitution, in short the Great Replacement.
Antiracism, after the proclamation of the new dogma, c. 1975, was the doctrine jointly pointing toward two apparently incompatible assertions: first, that races did not exist, second, that they were all equal.
Still, the most influential event of all was the proclamation of the dogma — the official announcement that there was no such thing as races. When people know only one thing, which is more and more frequent, especially amongst students, they know that, that is what they know. And the more they know nothing else, the more they are convinced of the truthfulness of that.
He rightly notes that the idea that there are no races is not so much an assertion of fact but a religious dogma, an article of faith, with heretics who disagree burnt at the stake. Getting rid of the concept of races is not the combating of a biological fact, but rather of ridding society of a moral pollution or spiritual contagion:
The dogma of the inexistence of races, proclaimed in the mid-seventies of the twentieth century, is the credo quia absurdum of both antiracism and Global Replacism. It has much in common with the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception (of the Virgin Mary), which was also proclaimed at a rather late stage by Catholicism. Both make sense only in a rather far-fetched theological order of meaning and are an obvious challenge to common sense.
If the idea that there are no races is the signature of the Great Replacement, the notion of equality is a close second. Camus believes that the ruling class wants to produce “UHM,” or Undifferentiated Human Matter: to reduce humanity into an indistinct homogeneous mass and spread it like Nutella across the face of the Earth.
The great Virginian John Randolph once said, “I love liberty; I hate equality.” Camus concurs:
I believe in the equality of nothing — except by chance, or by a sometimes legitimate coup d’etat of the law. Equality, as soon as it leaves its legal and political bed, destroys everything it touches — vessels, ramparts, cities, men — as Æschylus said Helen of Troy did. Equality between parents and children has destroyed the family, transmission of culture, civilization. Equality between teachers and pupils, or between good pupils and bad pupils, has destroyed schools, teaching, knowledge. Equality between high culture and entertainment has destroyed culture. Equality between citizens and non-citizens is destroying citizenship, states, nations. Equality between century-old local traditions and mores and imported ways of life and foreign traditions will leave nothing standing, or worth standing, of any nation. In France and in Europe, equality between Christianity and Islam spells death for French culture and European civilization.
In this, we see the notion that this leveling process, and this insistence on equality, is inherently genocidal, and is meant to dispossess the nation’s rightful owners.
The phrase “all men are created equal” has been wrenched from its original context and become the primary arrow in our enemies’ arsenal. Object to equality, and you are straightaway ostracized, marginalized, and demonized. Equality is the sine qua non of genocide.
White Genocide will be the first genocide perpetrated and justified on humanitarian grounds. Although ironically, equality is the last thing they want. They want advantages and to put the white race underfoot. Equality is not so much a principle for our enemies as it is a weapon; a means to grain power over us.
Camus notes that all of the powers of the modern world have embraced equality; that capital in particular has made a devil’s bargain with the Left. The “hyper class” and the corporations feign or forge agreements with the Left because they have a common wish to render everyone the same, on the one hand to be good equal citizens and on the other, mindless, robotic consumers:
That is what makes equality, as well as antiracism, so precious to Global Replacism, to the universal petite-bourgeoisie, to the industries of man, and to Davocracy; and that is what explains why it is so easy, for the hyper-class, to find arrangements, either secret or open ones, with the equalitarian left, and why they support it, financially or otherwise.
That is why corporations fell all over themselves giving money and support to Black Lives Matter. That is why the CEO of putatively conservative Chick-Fil-A once got on his knees and shined the shoes of a black man.
Camus sees capital and the Left as being fully in sync with one another in that both hate borders, standards, distinctions between people, and anything else that might constitute an obstacle to homogenizing the human race and making us all mindless cattle ready for the knife.
The Small Replacement
The small replacement precedes the Great Replacement, like how the tsunami is preceded by the sea’s receding.
For Camus, the “small replacement” is essentially what Lothrop Stoddard called the “revolt against civilization.” It is the lowering of cultural standards and the coarsening of cultural life. It is replacing Bach and Beethoven with the banality of the Beatles. This cultural devolution renders a civilization weak and makes it unable to stand with confidence against the onslaught of those elites that seek to replace it. This cultural degradation is the prerequisite for the replacement of our peoples.
His primary example of this is music, and he specifically notes how white culture had been taken over by black culture — black culture as emanating from the insidious and imperial cultural leviathan that is America.
Plato said that when the music changes, the gates of the city crash. Today, these culture-destroyers are well inside the gates. They are up in the corner offices, dispensing cultural trash and catchy mind viruses:
The change of meaning of the word music implies a massive change in geographical reference. Music in the new sense — pop music, rock, rap, etc. — is largely Anglo-Saxon in its origins and expression, and especially American. Even French or other continental European singers willingly sing in English or American rhythms. Those rhythms, generally binary, military, insistent and disquieting like the obstinate sound (boom-boom, boom-boom, boom-boom) of an artificial heart in the operation room of a hospital, are themselves largely inspired, if only through jazz, by African musical traditions.
He’s talking about mindless and monotonous jungle music and how it now pervades every corner of the West, of how clueless whites of most every stripe ape and revel in it, not knowing that they are kowtowing to an alien mindset.
He also sees this small replacement in the lowering of educational standards. The chief villain in this regard in France was Pierre Bourdieu, a prominent educational theorist. Bourdieu observed that the children of parents who were themselves educated had a tendency to do better in school and were traditionally cultured. Bourdieu saw this as unfair and set out to level the process, and his influence was wide and pernicious:
Bourdieu was, of course, very much against the situation he was describing so aptly. He, at least, and, I imagine, most of the innumerable disciples he has had in France — where they have been running the educational system for forty years –, and in the world, wanted the privilege of children with educated parents put to an end, as a privilege, by being offered to all children.
But of course when you offer this privilege to every child, you offer it to none. When you offer culture to the masses, you end up with no culture.
Conversely, Camus calls the process of educating and cultivating the young in the traditions of their ancestors “transmission”:
Cultural Inheritors are the most precious parts of any society: they should be protected with great care, and their number, whenever possible, enlarged. Culture, to thrive, needs a cultivated class. Culture is for a very important part an inheritance, this cultivated class must be partly hereditary (that is: it must be a class). Its privilege, namely culture, won’t always be transmitted: there will always be failures in transmission. For that reason it has to be partly renewed with each generation.
At present, the cultural signals from generation to generation have been cut off, and we see the results of this in the demeaned and degraded state of our civilization. When one can’t hear his ancestors, his descendants are doomed.
Davos/Taylorism/the New World Order
Camus also places great emphasis on what he calls “Davos Man.” This is the world elite who are engineering the replacement of people of European descent, the New World Order schemers, and the global initiates of one-world government:
[Emmanuel] Macron is indeed, in my opinion, the best local representative on Earth of what I have called Davocracy, the government of the planet by Davos, that Swiss ski resort where the Great Paymasters of the world, bankers and giants of finance, congregate once a year to decide how the planet should be run.
“Davos” signifies the New World Order, the group of global initiates who are trying to turn the world into a global favela. They want to be the feudal lords without any obligations to the serfs.
In America, we see Big Tech continually censoring any speech which deviates from the politically-correct party line. Camus has another term for these global predators: FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google). These are the tech overlords who cry “white supremacy” whenever anyone speaks of the Great Replacement, or who ban any unapproved discussions of Jews or of the depredations transpiring in traditional white homelands.
In this respect, William Pierce once said:
The new world order schemers have the ultimate aim of creating a homogenous population of coffee-colored serfs: docile, predictable, and interchangeable. They don’t want a large reservoir of White people anywhere who might rebel.
Here, the idea of interchangeability means easily replaced.
Camus concurs with Pierce’s statement, and writes of the “global slum” that the elites want to create. It the old Jewish dream of “one world,” where the rulers retreat to their well-guarded redoubts, their personal security guaranteed, while the masses toil for them below.
It looks a lot like Brazil. It looks a lot like today.
It’s why the jobs go out, the people come in, and the nation is turned into both an economic zone and a dumping ground for the world.
Camus also traces the history of this method that is being used to create an anti-white dystopia. He writes of what he calls “Taylorism” after the founder of scientific management: Frederick Winslow Taylor. Taylor was a Princeton-educated Quaker descended from settlers who came to America on the Mayflower. He invented the system of scientific management, which brought regimented work and soon bled into all parts of modern life. He turned men into a cogs and replaceable parts in a machine. As such, Camus says Taylor has “blood on his hands.”
As an epigraph to You Will Not Replace Us!, Camus uses a quote from Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management: “In the past man was first; in the future the system will be first.”
This is the New World Order. This is the Great Reset.
This is the prelude to the Great Replacement:
Frederick Winslow Taylor is the central figure of the history of Replacism, or pre-Replacism. Although he is certainly not a figure of comparable intellectual scope, he is to Replacism what Marx is to Communism. That, of course, is an enormous responsibility. Taylor is the creator of UHM (Undifferentiated Human Matter), not to mention deaths by drowning across the Mediterranean. Taylorism means man will be replaced by machines (robots, electronics, computers, numbers, statistics). From a movie buff’s point of view, Global Replacism is Metropolis + Modern Times + Soylent Green.
The civilization that white people created will not survive their eclipse. What will succeed it will not be a new civilization or a new culture but will be an anti-civilization, an anti-culture; the machine will go on as before, but to the undiscerning eye it will be indistinguishable from what operates it:
Taylor’s central concept is that of normalization, or standardization. Products, objects, instruments, machine parts will cost less, in time and money, and will henceforth yield bigger profits, if they are the same and can be easily exchanged with one another. Taylorisation is always a process towards the same, the sameness of the world. Imitation, reproduction, factitiousness, are at the very core of the Taylorian revolution, which amounts to nothing less than a second Industrial Revolution. Imitation for the sake of mass production, precipitating the era of mass reproduction so well observed and analyzed by Walter Benjamin (and so well exploited by Andy Warhol, Pop Art and Pop Music), is what made Taylorism particularly appropriate and suitable for the advent of the petite-bourgeoisie as the new ruling class, which it certainly helped to achieve.
And finally, he sees how the Davos Men of the world and the “woke capitalists” work in tandem with the radical Left to racially and economically dispossess white people:
High Finance was an old lady of practically unlimited means but execrable reputation. She was well aware of being obliged to put forth a good image, so someone introduced to her antiracism, a popular young man of impeccable credentials, numerous relations, high ambitions and little money. Contrary to what one may have thought, those two soon discovered they had a lot in common, notably the hatred of segregation, discrimination, borders, frontiers and the like, everything that might lead to a distinction between human beings. They were also highly complementary. Antiracism provided the couple with a good name and with absolute protection against all criticism: how could anyone criticize virtue, goodness, generosity, equality, fraternity between people from all walks of life? Finance provided it with money, power, total mastery of the media — all the more so that money and power, thanks to that unexpected union, had virtue on their side, which might one day come handy, and it did, to alleviate the qualms of a few idealistic or extremely naïve journalists.
As always, capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same Jewish coin, working hand-in-glove for our destruction.
You Will Not Replace Us! is in a sense a response to Charlottesville in that its title is a pointed play off the famous slogan that was heard there. Others, however, shouted a slightly different one: “Jews will not replace us!”
Camus is infamous in France for his failure to call out Jewish perfidy, and has ongoing battles with valiant anti-Jewish hero Herve Ryssen on this point. In his naïveté, Camus writes:
I was deeply shocked to learn that, during the notorious anti-replacist 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.
But of course it is, sir. Of course it is. It is exactly the Jews who are replacing us, along with their traitorous handmaidens, the criminals of the white race.
The Jews have been replacing us since Franz Boas crossed swords with Madison Grant. The Jews have been replacing us since Maurice Samuels said the genius of America is that it doesn’t identify the state with race. The Jews have been replacing us since 1924, when Emanuel Celler thundered on the house floor against the Nordic idea. The Jews have been replacing us since they began to play up that obscure poem on the Statue of Liberty in 1938, when they began bellyaching that turning that ship back was the crime of the century. Jews have been replacing us since they attacked the McCarran-Walter Act. The Jews have been replacing us since they got their water-carrier John F. Kennedy to hoodwink Americans into thinking they were a nation of immigrants. The Jews have been replacing us since Emanuel Celler — after lying in wait for 41 years — got the President to sign America’s death warrant in 1965. Jews have been replacing us since the neocons routed the paleocons. Jews have been replacing us since Ben Wattenberg touted America as the first universal nation and since Stephen Jay Gould denigrated the Army’s IQ tests. The Jews have been replacing us since Susan Sontag said that the white race is the cancer of history. The Jews have been replacing us when a Jewish judge stopped California from Saving Their State in 1994 and since Barbara Lerner Spectre said Jews will be at the forefront of forging a multicultural Europe. The Jews have been replacing us since red-fanged Deborah Lipstadt said the advent of Trump set the calendar to January 1933. The Jews have been replacing us since the uproar over those “kids in cages” and since Eric Kaufmann said that White America can no more stop the population change than they could stop a hurricane, since Jonathan Greenblatt called Tucker Carlson a fascist, and since Samantha Vinograd said that Trump saying he wanted to reclaim America’s heritage made her sick to her stomach.
In short, contra Camus, the Jews have been replacing us since time immemorial — and they are replacing us still. Just ask Michelle Goldberg.
This failure to name the Jew is a major ideological error on Camus’ part. He often scathingly and mockingly says that the elites don’t want to hear what he sarcastically refers to as “bad ideological news” — such as the fact that there are races and that they are not equal.
From Camus’ standpoint, the fact that the Jews are replacing us is “bad ideological news” — and it’s news he can’t abide.
Camus also peddles the errant nonsense that the European Union is the inheritor of the “Nazi” system, and that the first Holocaust is now being mimicked by a second. He even wrote a book called The Second Career of Adolf Hitler, the idea being that the Great Replacement is Hitlerism redux.
This is foolishness squared. Adolf Hitler had one career, and it was glorious, but the Great Replacement is the opposite of that. Indeed, anyone who reads Mein Kampf knows that Hitler was very aware of the “rising tide of color” and the “passing of the great race,” and that all his efforts were meant to combat that. Hitler was anti-replacist, to state the obvious. But as for the Jews, you can be sure they will always replace us — if we let them.
Of the future of France and the white race, Camus writes:
The prospect of a full-blown civil war is increasingly conjured up as the most likely outcome from the current circumstances prevailing and unfolding in France and several other countries of Europe. Living together, the infamous vivre ensemble (“between living and together, one has to make a choice . . .”), is showing every day more clearly its totally illusory character.
Between living together and living, one must choose. He sees that the very fact of the invasion is a war prefigured:
By making life impossible or an unbearable ordeal to the indigenous people, be it through what has been ridiculously dubbed “incivilities” by the media, aggressive gazes, overbearing posturing to force passers-by down from the sidewalk, night time racket in public places, obnoxious and abusive loitering in entrance halls or staircases of residential buildings, rumbustious car or motorcycle stunts, feet on the seat in public transport, emphatic demonstrations of civic indifference and lack of consideration for the peace and comfort of the ordinary citizen, the creation in the citizenry of a general feeling of fear, insecurity, dispossession and estrangement through criminal actions of more standard categories such as stealing an old lady’s handbag, violent car-jacking or home-jacking, bank mugging and the like, unprecedented forms of hyper-violence up to full-blown terrorist acts and massacres, the delinquents amongst the newcomers, of which they constitute a surprisingly high proportion, trigger the aptly called white flight and in the process secure under their rule additional chunks of territory for themselves, their kin and partners in crime.
There is a reason that he calls the black/brown menace in our ancestral homelands a “colonization”; it is a demographic coup, and nothing is sadder than becoming an exile in one’s own home.
Camus sees that it is the same in America:
The current “caravan” of Hispanics, that is, for the most part, Indians — those who were strangely enough called the red race, in ancient and naïve classification –, plainly show how two opposite conceptions of the world are in rivalry with each other, as these people walk across Mexico towards the United States, where they intend to establish themselves.
To that list, he could now add the 10,000 Haitians who were recently wading in our river, or the 60,000 Haitians poised like a menace in the jungle making their way to the Great White North, or the innumerable Afghans who our sick and sinister elites have demanded we bring in — but who will live nowhere near them.
This is replacement. The Great Replacement. It’s not a theory, an idea, a fantasy, or a trick of the mind. It’s as real as a heart attack. It’s a fact — a fact that anyone with two working eyes in his head can see, provided they are not benighted by the fairy dust continually thrown into them.
We who point out the fact of the Great Replacement are mocked and called criminals. But what is more criminal than those leaders who conspire to extirpate and replace their own people? What is more criminal than those who engineer their own people’s demise? Is there anything more criminal than leaders who perpetrate a fiduciary breach by welcoming the invaders?
When he hears of some fresh outrage, Camus often simply tweets out: “The genocide by substitution is the crime against humanity of the twenty-first century.”
And so it is.
His solution is rather simple, but no Western leader has the courage to implement it:
Without remigration there will be no liberation. Liberation (of conquered land, occupied country, colonized people) and remigration (of the conqueror, occupying forces, colonialist settlers) are one and the same thing.
They must go back. The aliens in our midst must go home. What we need more than anything is separation from our racial enemies; even more than White Nationalists, what we are and must be is White Separatists.
There is no other way. We need white homelands. And the lives we save will be out own.
In the spirit of a million righteous fires, may the European peoples resolve together not to be replaced, for we can no longer live together with the racial alien and the Other.
That is, we must choose to live.
They say that every people builds its own monuments and writes its own epitaph. For the white race, for the great race, for the greatest race of all: Let it not be.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
IQ Doesn’t Matter
John Fante’s Ask the Dust
Survival of the Fittest: Interview with Alexander Deptolla of Kampf der Nibelungen
The British Brass Band
Forgotten Roots of the Left: Fichte’s Moral & Political Philosophy, Part III
Big Pharma, the Great Replacement, & the Jews
An Interview with David Cole Part 2
An Interview with David Cole Part 1
On the other hand. I found the following little comment somewhere or other on the internet.
The only way to save an ethnic or racial group is to recreate the conditions which led to its emergence in the first place. We appeared for a reason or purpose. Our, or anyone’s, race or tribe will disappear for good if there’s no reason for it to exist. As far as I can see, no purpose exists anymore for white people of any ethnic variety. PS. The diminishing race’s simple desire to continue to exist is not sufficient.
My comment: If the above is indeed correct, then trying to recreate our original condition from a state of ease, degeneracy and chaos is, to use Alan Watts’ phrase, like trying to lift yourself into the air by tugging at your own bootstraps. Only divine intervention can set things right.
I still haven’t figure out what the other races’ purposes are.
Already in the 1920s Madison Grant was saying that the Nordic race was a race of adventurers, explorers, and men of action and as such were singularly unsuited for life in an crowded industrial and urban environment, and to life after the closing of the frontier. And that other races who were suited to this milieu were coming in and thriving and replacing the Nordics in the world they had created. Mere existence in itself is not a noble goal but in a triage situation survival is the prerequisite for the noble endeavors and the great people that the future may bring. Legend has it that though Hitler had decided not to survive his Reich at the last moments he was urging his men to make their escape. One of his most devoted followers asked him: “But after this what will I live for?” And Hitler told him with encouragement and confidence: “Why, for the man to come!”
Nordicists, as well as Alpine and Mediterranean chauvinists, should refer to Hiliare Belloc’s great poem The Three Races (*) — the text of which (let alone the illustrations!) is for some reason nowadays hard to find on the Internet.
(*) From his edifying Cautionary Tales
I think all that is silly. There is no evidence that anything exists for a “purpose”. I was raised Christian, and although I’m philosophically agnostic, I think that even if I were one day to return to Christianity, I would still fail to see purpose in the world – and especially in the “blind algorithm” of natural selection. If God does not exist, what could be meant by “purpose”? “Purpose” implies an intentional or creative agent. If God does exist (and assuming He/It bears some relation to the Christian conception), at best we could say something like a) we are ‘ensouled’ mammals; b) our lives are gifts bestowed (but only indirectly, via the freely chosen actions of our parents) by God; and c) we are bound to abide by various moral commandments (and that if we do, d) we shall be rewarded in/by Heaven).
But racial characteristics are simply the byproducts of the interactions between the germlines of races and ancestral environments (and luck, of course, not to have died prior to reproduction).
With amnesty for illegals and current immigration trends, we may see a population of 400 million in America in 2040 with a maximum of 180 million whites. The country will be more like latin america than it already is even.
Exhibit A: Los Angeles today.
You do not and you shall not stop abominations such as the great replacement by bitching and moaning about it and pointing out how terrible it is. [. . .]
You are banned, fedposter.
Could you explain your reason for this banning? Was something of Kimball’s deleted? What is written is unobjectionable. At some point, white preservationists need to begin community organizing as the necessary prelude to eventual political activism. Articles and books discussing TGR are always welcome, but as Sam Francis once averred, thinking that correct ideas with nothing more will somehow eventually win political power struggles is naive. Indeed, I tend to believe that ethical persuasion only ever works with white majorities (along with small minorities of nonwhites).
Irrespective of all the anti-White forces… the thing is very simple, it is simply a question of our decision: we can decide that we don´t want it.
I don´t believe for a second that Whites are ok with becoming Brazil: you just show them 2 scenarios, one is Brazil, one is a wholesome White neighborhood. The decision is clear (that is btw the weev-method… fwiw but credit where credit is due).
So it´s completely irrelevant if economic forces etc. would favor a borderless diverse world, there are no immutable laws that lead to that outcome: when we Whites say: we don´t want it, but we want to live in White countries, then the world will be a wonderfully economically efficient world WITH WHITE COUNTRIES ! THAT´S the answer. I´m all for Free Market, economic efficiency etc. but nothing of this implies race-mixing! We can just have our wonderfully economically efficient world but still have our White countries simply because we Whites choose to have it that way.
We as a collective White block demand from every institution the affirmation that they advocate the prospering of White people, and as a collective White block we only do business with those institutions that comply: so who´s going to stop us?
So the solution is very simple and we only need to build that collective White block which should not be difficult as shown above.
I would like to add why I mentioned the aspect of “wonderfull economic efficiency”… isn´t that capitalist jewish etc., well NO : it is our ticket to freedom, freedom from boring labor. There is an aspect that is very rarely discussed: there is today no need anymore to work 40+ hours per week ! After 200 years of technological development… we still slave like where we started? That´s the point that we need to discuss: where is this potential that we have opened up? It is sucked into the fraudulent financial system black hole ! But this is OUR accomplishment, and we get to profit from it: with 10 hours labor per week, we can cover all of our needs, and the rest of the time we are free (free even to do things in a slow, oldfashioned way again if one is so inclined, or to use the free time for whatever kind of activity)!
That is why I´m in favor of efficiency… and that is why they now artifically reduce efficiency by supply chain disruption by corona and climate hoax so as to constantly keep us in a state of need, distress, panic.
But as prosperity increases, more ‘wants’ are created, which in turn become ‘needs’. Working 10 hours per week might today be sufficient to support oneself at the level of someone meeting their survival needs in the 1920-30s. But 10 hrs pr week is insufficient with the ‘wants’ of the 2020s (and the fact that most people want those ‘wants’, and thus force even those who don’t care about them into the binary option of working either 40hrs per week – or no hours).
You are correct that TGR is a political policy (or interacting and ramifying set of policies). The borderless world may increase economic prosperity (though I would strongly question the fact of that, as well as extent, if indeed it’s true; and I definitely think it false over a sufficient time scale), but it remains a political decision which is in no way economically necessary. No one except the most bizarre libertarian idealogues thinks that we should sell weaponry (let alone nuclear missiles) to Islamist terrorists (or regimes), but disallowing this does somewhat reduce Lockheed Martin’s profitability. So what? One can imagine (I mean, easily and obviously, not just as a matter of “theory-building”) a white ethnostate that combines a laissez faire capitalist economy with zero nonwhite immigration.
Whatever the positive economic contribution of mass immigration, other considerations (like white preservation) can override profit-maximization for immigrant-heavy firms, and even general economic growth. Again, I speak theoretically; in theory immigration could be net-positive for the economy depending upon the economic value of the immigrants admitted (are the admittees high or low-skilled? talented or untalented? lawful or criminal? etc.); in practice immigration is not good for the economy, as neoliberals allege, but very bad for a) most native born workers as well as citizens; b) government budgets at all levels; c) public electoral support for capitalism (and other goods, like law and order); and d) the nation itself – the collective entity abiding through time.
You’re also correct that the problem comes down to a matter of political will, though decreasingly so: at some point fairly soon, even an awakened majority of whites will possess too little electoral (and possibly physical) power to change the racial trajectory of historic white lands, at least absent very severe martial conflict that few whites personally want, and which whites collectively might actually lose. But you’re incorrect that our task is easy; if it were, we’d already have done it.
Thank you for this inspiring jeremiad, and the extensive quoting of (the other) Camus. Was this submitted as an entry to compete for The Great Replacement essay competition announced last week? I also appreciate that I now know what 5000 words looks like.
” …capital, in particular, has made a devil’s bargain with the Left. The “hyper class” and the corporations forged agreements with the Left because they have a common vision to make everyone the same, on one hand, to be good “equal citizens” and on the other, mindless, robotic consumers.” I would add to this may be the most important element: Managerial Elites. Burnham predicted a world of managerial mega-states, ruled by a new elite on the basis of its technological and administrative expertise. Burnham considered this revolution inevitable and irreversible and thought that conservatives should seek to direct it from within. Lewis observed” America was entering the terminal stage of a protracted period of social transformation. He called it a “revolution of mass and scale,” as world-historical as the neolithic transition from subsistence hunting to farming. This revolution was not the product of conscious design. It had begun with America’s explosive population growth at the turn of the previous century and the consequent enlargement of virtually every major institution in the country. He details the steady expansion in scale, complexity, and reach of various sectors of American life. Government, business, education, unions, churches, media, and entertainment were all transformed by a new social pattern. Organizations once rooted in local relationships, family ties, and regional cultures became larger, more impersonal, and more standardized.
Either you read Pareto, Burnham or most importantly Samuel Lewis, the answer and the solutions are right there. Francis proposed that the study of politics was not principally the study of ideas but the study of power: how power is acquired, lost, used, and concealed by a dominant minority. He concluded that the primary political question is always which elites shall rule, not whether elites shall rule. And that’s the crux of the problem.
If there are no races, there can be no racism. So ‘anti-racism’ is, in that context, utterly meaningless, and it’s impossible to be racist. How can you fight something that doesn’t exist?
I think the author is correct to say that Camus is wrong to say: “that the European Union is the inheritor of the “Nazi” system, and that the first Holocaust is now being mimicked by a second.” That smacks of a certain variety of conservatism and it may make Camus go off script.
However, the author too goes off track when he maintains: “Indeed, anyone who reads Mein Kampf knows that Hitler was very aware of the ‘rising tide of color’ and the ‘passing of the great race,’ and that all his efforts were meant to combat that. Hitler was anti-replacist, to state the obvious. ” Having read Mein Kampf and the Second Book, I can only reason we didn’t ‘read’ the same things. But this is not the proper place to discuss that false interpretation of ‘National Socialism’ which has been about in America, one which equates ariosophy with ‘white nationalism’ and its will to ‘replace’ the “inferior race” (as Hitler’s books put it) – the Slavs. It might be useful for Counter-Currents to discuss that subject one day.
Renaud experienced a near fatal de-personing twenty years ago for the crime of noticing. He knows. It makes sense to force them to pay to defend their racism rather than their race, where they can afford to always be wrong.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment