Jean Raspail, Prophet of the Great Replacement, Rejoins God

Jean Raspail, Prophet of the Great Replacement, Rejoins God

 

Guillaume Durocher

 

Ex: https://www.unz.com

Jean Raspail, the famed French explorer and writer, has passed away at the age of 94. This man is famous in our circles, not just in France but around the world, for his controversial 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints, which imagined what would happen if 1 million Third-World immigrants suddenly landed on the southern French coast.

Apparently, the head French counterespionage in the 1980s, Alexandre de Marenches, gave a copy of the novel to President Ronald Reagan. My own grandfather gave a copy to my father. This is a classic of Western identity under siege.

Raspail in fact was a man varied interests. He cannot be accused of being an ignorant xenophobe. He spent many years of his life on various expeditions getting to know exotic cultures, whether exploring the Inca heartlands and Tierra del Fuego, recording the deplorable social conditions of the Redskins of the United States, or living in Japan. As with many thoughtful Westerners, knowledge of the beauties and richness of distant peoples went hand-in-hand with a greater appreciation for his own Western identity. Raspail has won many prizes over the years for his bountiful and diverse literary work.

With that, I leave you with a translation of one of Raspail’s few public pronouncements, an article published in Le Figaro newspaper on 17 June 2004

* * *

The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic

I circled around this theme like a dog-handler around a parcel bomb. It is hard to approach it frontally without it exploding in your face. There is the risk of civil death. And yet, this is the crucial question. I hesitated. All the more so given that in 1973, in publishing The Camp of the Saint, I said just about everything on the topic. I don’t have much to add, other than the fact that I think the goose is cooked.

I am convinced that our fate as Frenchmen is sealed, because “they are at home in my home” ([according to French Socialist President François] Mitterrand), within a “Europe whose roots are as much Islamic as Christian” ([according to French conservative President Jacques] Chirac), because the situation is irreversibly moving towards the final swing in the 2050s which will see the “native French” become reduced to the more elderly half of the country’s population, the rest being made up of Africans, Maghrebi or Black, and all sorts of Asians hailing from the inexhaustible reservoir of the Third World, with a strong Islamic majority, including Jihadis and fundamentalists, the latter dance only just beginning.[1]

France is not the only nation concerned. All of Europe is marching towards death. There is no shortage of warnings: notably a report from the United Nations (which is overjoyed by this development), the indispensable works of Jean-Claude Chesnais and Jacques Dupâquier;[2] but these are systematically downplayed and the INED [National Institute for Demographic Studies] is pushing disinformation. The almost sepulchral silence of the media, governments, and European institutions on the demographic crash of the EU-15[3] is one of the most astonishing phenomena of our time. When there is a birth in my family or among my friends, I cannot look at this baby without thinking of what is being prepared for the fecklessness of our “governance” and what he will have to face when he grows up . . .

Not to mention that the “native French” – constantly beat over the head to throbbing drumbeat of human rights, of “welcoming others,” of the “sharing” dear to our bishops, etc, boxed in by a vast arsenal of repressive “antiracist” legislation, conditioned from infancy to embrace cultural and behavioral “métissage” [mixing], and “plural France”[4] and all the excesses of the old Christian charity – will have no other choice than to tighten their belts and melt without complaint into the mold of the new French “citizen” of 2050. All the same, let us not despair. Certainly, there will still be what ethnologists call isolates, powerful minorities, perhaps 15 million Frenchmen and not necessarily all of white race, who will still speak our language in its more-or-less preserved integrity and who will stubbornly remain imbued with our culture and our history, as passed down from generation to generation. But it will not be easy for them.

In the face of the various “communities” which we see emerge today on the ruins of integration (or rather its gradual inversion: we are the ones who today integrate “the other,” and no longer the opposite), who in 2050 will be definitively institutionally settled, [the French minority] will in a sense, I am looking for the right term, be a community of French continuity. This community will be founded on families, fertility, the endogamy of survival, its own schools, parallel networks of solidarity, and perhaps even geographical zones, its own slices of territory and neighborhoods, or even its safe zones[5] and, why not, its Christian and Catholic faith, if by chance that cement still holds.

This will not be a pleasant situation. The clash will occur sooner or later. Something like the elimination of the kulaks through the appropriate legal means. And then what?

Then France will only be peopled by hermit crabs, whatever their origins, who will live in the shells abandoned by a forever extinct species which was called the French species. A species which in no way prefigured, by God knows what genetic metamorphosis, the species that will bear this name in the second half of this century. The process has already begun.

There is a second possibility which I can only express in private and which would require me to consult my lawyer: that the last isolates resist to the point of engaging in a kind of reconquista, no doubt different from the Spanish one, but inspired by the same motives. A dangerous novel remains to be written on this subject. I will not take charge of this, I have already given. Its author is probably not yet born, but this book will see the light of day at just the right time, of that I am sure . . .

What I don’t understand, and what plunges me in the depths of an afflicted confusion, is why so many informed Frenchmen and so many French politicians are knowingly and methodically, I don’t dare say cynically, contributing to the immolation of a certain France (let us not say “eternal,” which disgusts certain beautiful souls) on the altar of a exacerbated utopian humanism. I ask myself the same question concering these omnipresent associations defending the rights of this, the rights of that, all these leagues, these societies of thought, these subsidized little offices, these networks of manipulators who have infiltrated the machinery of the State (education, judiciary, political parties, unions, etc.), these innumerable petitioners, these correctly consensual media and all these “intelligent people” who day after day and inject with impunity their numbing substance into the still-healthy organism of the French nation.

Even if I can almost credit them with some degree of sincerity, I sometimes have trouble conceding that these are my countrymen. The word renegade begins to come to mind, but there is another explanation: they confuse France with the Republic. “Republican values” are evoked in their infinite variation, we learn that to the point of disgust, but there is never a reference to France. Yet France is first a carnal homeland. The Republic, on the other hand, is but a form of government, synonymous for them with ideology, a capital “I” ideology, the great ideology. It seems, then, that they are betraying the former for the sake of the latter.

Amidst the flotsam of references which I have accumulated in thick folders in support of this assessment, here is one which under friendly airs is quite instructive on the extent of the damage. An extract from a speech by Laurent Fabius at the 17 May 2003 Socialist congress of Dijon: “When the Marianne[6] of our city halls will have taken on the beautiful face of a young Frenchwoman of immigrant origin, that day France will have taken a step forward by fully living the values of the Republic . . .”

Since we are quoting people, here are two more, to conclude: “No amount of atom bombs will be able to prevent the flood made up of millions of human beings who will one day leave the southern and poor portion of the world, to land in the relatively open spaces of the northern hemisphere, in search of survival.” ([Algerian] President [Houari] Boumediene, March 1974.)

And this one, drawn from the twentieth chapter of the Book of Revelation: “When the thousand years are completed, will be gathered the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth and the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they will go up the breadth of the earth and surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city:”

Notes:

[1] The delicate imam of Vénissieux, thanks to birthright citizenship, has alone produced sixteen little French citizens. (Raspail’s footnote.)

[2] A French demographer and demographic historian, respectively. – GD

[3] The then-members of the EU, covering most of Western Europe.

[4] La France plurielle, a euphemism for “multicultural France,” when the word “multicultural” still suffered from bad press in our country.

[5] Places de sûreté, a reference to the areas in which the Protestant minority was allowed to safely resided during France’s Wars of Religion.

[6] French town halls typically feature a bust of Marianne, the symbol of the French Revolution. – Guillaume Durocher

« Arte, la télé qui vous manipule »

Ex: http://imperiumeuropa.hautetfort.com  

Lors de mon dimanche de Pentecôte j’ai eu droit à une belle séance de manipulation sur la chaîne ARTE dans l’émission « Les petits secrets des grands tableaux, le négrier Turner 1840 ». Durant ce reportage on pouvait apprendre que le Royaume uni fut la première puissance européenne à mettre fin au commerce triangulaire en 1807. Mais non à l’esclavage puisqu’il faudra attendre 1833 pour que Londres y mette fin. Mais de cela il ne fut pas question. Uniquement de la fin du commerce triangulaire. Et le reportage de poursuivre en précisant que du fait de sa toute puissance maritime le Royaume Uni força les autres nations européennes à faire de même. La France mettant dix ans à suivre l’exemple. Cela nous transporte donc en 1817. Et voilà la manipulation. En vérité la traite négrière fut interdite le 29 mars 1815, quand Napoléon revint au pouvoir lors des Cent-Jours, et fut confirmé par l'ordonnance royale du 8 janvier 1817 et la loi du 15 avril 1818 sous Louis XVIII. Mais c’est bien l’empereur Napoléon 1er, sous l’influence du libéral Benjamin Constant, qui décida d’abolir ce commerce. Sauf que cela ne cadre pas avec l’image véhiculée par nos médias qui veulent que nous ne conservions de Napoléon 1er que le souvenir de l’homme qui rétablit l’esclave en France en 1802 après son abolition par la Révolution française.

Sans Jamais vraiment nous préciser les conditions et les raisons qui ont conduit à la réintroduction de cette pratique ignominieuse. Sous l’influence d’un fort lobby colonial sous la direction du deuxième consul Cambacérès et de Talleyrand, ministre des Relations extérieures, sans parler de son épouse créole Joséphine, le jeune Premier consul se retrouvait face à une situation chaotique dans les confettis de l’Empire colonial. Outre que l’esclavage ne fut jamais abolit dans de nombreux territoires en dépit des décisions révolutionnaires comme à La Réunion ou en Martinique, cette dernière n’hésitant pas à se soumettre temporairement à la couronne britannique qui n’avait pas aboli l’esclavage, Napoléon Bonaparte devait également faire face au mécontentement des colons qui, en contrepartie, n’avaient reçu aucune compensation financière. Le Premier consul qui ambitionnait encore de rivaliser avec le Royaume uni sur les mers en rétablissant un empire colonial ne vit dans le rétablissement de l’esclavage qu’un moyen politique pour rétablir l’autorité de la métropole sur son empire. Sa décision fut pragmatique et non idéologique comme certains révisionnistes des temps modernes se plaisent à le dire.

L’abolition de la traite négrière découla de la même approche pragmatique. La France n’étant plus en capacité de rivaliser depuis longtemps avec l’Angleterre sur les mers. Le décret impérial du 29 mars 1815 entérina ainsi l’abolition de ce sinistre commerce comme le prouve le document ci-dessous.

Cependant après la défaite de Napoléon à Waterloo, le roi Louis XVIII de retour au pouvoir décida que tous les actes de celui que les Bourbons considéraient comme un « usurpateur » étaient illégitimes. Et c’est ainsi qu’il faudra attendre l’ordonnance royale du 8 janvier 1817 pour que Louis XVIII interdise à son tour l’introduction d’esclaves dans les colonies françaises. Ce qui permet à ARTE en 2020 de nous manipuler mine de rien en affirmant que la France avait suivi le Royaume uni dix ans plus tard en passant totalement sous silence la décision impériale et le rôle précurseur de Napoléon 1er. Une belle fake news historique provenant pourtant d’un média tout ce qu’il y a de plus mainstream....

D.B.

Sans unification, l'Europe sera le théâtre du conflit opposant les Etats-Unis à la Chine

Ex: http://imperiumeuropa.hautetfort.com   

Parmi les nombreuses raisons qui sont avancées pour justifier l'unification politique de l'Europe, que celles-ci soient données par les européistes mondialistes ou par les identitaires européens, il y en a une qui n'est jamais évoquée. L'unification politique de notre continent est nécessaire, car elle est indispensable à notre survie pour empêcher que notre continent ne devienne le théâtre de l'affrontement entre la Chine et les Etats-Unis. Durant la période entre 1945 et 1991, année de l'effondrement de l'URSS, l'Europe a vécu une période bénie des Dieux. Notre continent était divisé entre les deux principales puissances de l'époque. Elles concentraient sur notre sol une grande partie de leurs forces armées et de leurs moyens de destruction. Mais l'équilibre de la terreur empêchait paradoxalement tout affrontement direct entre les deux. Washington et ses alliés tout comme Moscou et les siens savaient qu'une guerre en Europe équivaudrait à une destruction mutuelle. Cette situation a été à l'origine de la période de paix qui a prévalu en Europe durant des décennies. C'est tellement vrai, qu'il faudra attendre la chute du mur de Berlin en 1989 pour que le Vieux continent connaisse à nouveau les affres d'un conflit militaire avec l'éclatement de la Yougoslavie en 1991. La conscience qu'un affrontement direct en Europe provoquerait leur destruction mutuelle a conduit ces puissances à s'opposer indirectement sur les théâtres périphériques (Asie, Afrique, Moyen-Orient, Amérique latine). La situation aujourd'hui me semble comparable. Sauf que le cœur de l'affrontement ne se situe plus en Europe mais en Asie. Et pour les Européens, malheureusement, cela va tout changer.

La Chine et les Etats-Unis veulent tous les deux la suprématie planétaire. La plus grande partie de leurs forces sont concentrées en Asie. Du côté américain, cette situation a été validée lors de la double présidence de Barack Obama avec la décision de transférer vers la zone Asie-Pacifique la majeure partie de la flotte américaine. Mais comme au siècle dernier, les deux puissances savent pertinemment qu'un affrontement direct en Asie et dans le Pacifique engendrerait leur destruction mutuelle. C'est donc sur les théâtres périphériques que ces deux puissances s'affrontent déjà, de manière indirecte, via des nations, des rébellions, des mouvements terroristes ou des consortiums économiques. Et cette fois, malheureusement, l'Europe est devenu l'un des enjeux de cette bataille. Les stratèges américains, conscients de l'impossibilité d'une guerre traditionnelle face à la Chine du fait de l'arme atomique, misent leurs espoirs sur une répétition de la Guerre Froide. Ils veulent entraîner la Chine dans une guerre économique, commerciale, numérique et technologique qu'elle ne serait pas en mesure, selon eux, de gagner afin de provoquer comme jadis en URSS l'essoufflement puis l'effondrement du régime. La guerre sur les tarifs douaniers lancée par Donald Trump ou ses attaques contre l'un des fleurons de la technologie chinoise, l'entreprise Huawei, pour le contrôle planétaire de la 5 G, sont les signes précurseurs de cette stratégie. Et on peut même se demander, certains m'accuseront ici de complotisme, si les pannes électriques majeures au Vénézuela et plus récemment en Uruguay, économie florissante à la différence de sa voisine bolivarienne, ainsi qu'en Argentine, n'entrent pas dans la préparation de ces nouvelles formes de guerre qui opposeront les deux géants.

En Europe, la Chine avance ces pions. Bien aidée par l'hostilité des néo-conservateurs américains qui voient toujours en Moscou une puissance rivale. Les Etats-Unis n'ont jamais voulu d'une Russie indépendante, forte et européenne. Leur hantise que cela puisse déboucher sur l'émergence d'une Europe continentale unie, qui passe nécessairement par un axe Paris-Berlin-Moscou, et qui se placerait automatiquement en rivale des Etats-Unis a toujours était au cœur des préoccupations de la géopolitique anglo-saxonne. Il suffit de se rappeler de ce que les Américains ont tenté de faire de ce pays sous la présidence du pantin Boris Eltsine pour comprendre de quelle Russie ils se satisferaient. Le malheur pour les Européens et que cette politique pousse Moscou dans les bras de la Chine ce qui entraîne déjà des répercussions dramatiques pour notre continent. Les tensions et les guerres aux confins des frontières russes ou dans ses traditionnelles zones d'influence se multiplient. On le voit déjà en Ukraine mais attendez-vous à ce que cela tangue en Transnistrie, en Moldavie, dans les Balkans, dans le Caucase, en mer Baltique et peut-être autour de l'enclave de Kaliningrad dans le pire des cas. On le voit déjà dans les pressions exercées par Washington sur l'Allemagne et différents pays européens pour empêcher la réalisation du projet de gazoduc Nord Stream 2 qui doit alimenter l’Europe en énergie russe bon marché au détriment du gaz de schiste américain. Une déstabilisation de la dictature Biélorusse peut également s'inscrire dans ce schéma d'affrontement indirect entre la Chine et les Etats-Unis. L'Europe ne manque pas de terrain de jeu.

À cela s'ajoute le fait que le projet chinois de nouvelles routes de la soie n'épargne pas l'Europe. Ses tentatives de prendre le contrôle d'une partie de l'économie grecque, n'oublions pas qu'elle a acheté le port d'Athènes, ses investissements de plus en plus nombreux dans les Balkans, notamment en Albanie, ou ses récentes propositions économique alléchantes aux différents gouvernements italiens, entrent bien entendu dans ses plans de domination économique. Mais ces initiatives prouvent surtout que l'Europe devient pour la puissance chinoise un théâtre d'affrontement dans le cadre de sa rivalité avec la puissance américaine pour la suprématie mondiale. Et cela n'augure rien de bon pour les Européens. Si nous ne voulons pas subir ce que les nations africaines, asiatiques ou sud-américaines ont subi durant la Première Guerre Froide, les Européens doivent mettre immédiatement un terme à leurs divisions, tendre la main à Moscou et sortir de l'OTAN. Seule une Europe puissante et unie, rassemblant la Russie, pourra nous éviter le destin funeste que Chinois et Américains nous réservent au travers de leur affrontement.

D.B.

Panoptic Power & the Surveillance State

Fenek Solère

 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

A new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in quantity hitherto without example.

— Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

The panopticon rotunda prison designed by the 18th-century utilitarian English philosopher Jeremy Bentham ostensibly allows a single security guard to observe the prison’s inmates without them being able to tell if they are being watched. This causes them to regulate their own behavior out of simple fear. In a metaphorical sense, this panopticon has already been constructed and is now fully operational.

It is currently most fully manifest in the insidious social conditioning termed “political correctness,” but was originally conceived at a time of rapid industrialization, when Bentham believed the principles set out for his humane prisons could be applied to factories, hospitals, and schools. The idealist naively foresaw the societal adoption and application of the architect Willey Reveley’s designs for a secure holding center as the physical embodiment of his duty-and-interest junction principle. This would, in effect, facilitate public transparency, as the jailers would simultaneously be observable to the wider community and therefore solve the age-old problem of “who guards the guards?”

An interesting idea, but one that totally underestimates the coercive power of human agency and the propensity for elites to want to control the herd’s sensibilities. Conservative historian Shirley Robin Letwin, as long ago as 1965, traced the socialist Fabian movement’s enthusiasm for social planning back to the early utilitarian thinkers and described Bentham’s panopticon notions as “monstrous” and “overlooking the dangers of unrestrained power.” More libertarian types identified in Bentham’s “ardor for reform” the seeds of totalitarianism.

These threats were fully explained in books; by the American Gertrude Himmelfarb’s The Haunted House of Jeremy Bentham (1965), and David John Manning’s The Mind of Jeremy Bentham (1986). Both argued that Bentham’s fear of communal instability led to him advancing theories of social engineering that would inevitably result in negative impacts, particularly in areas such as personal privacy, and would further erode any sympathy or tolerance that might already exist for people who deviated from the societal norms upon which the power of the elites rested.

Michel Foucault touched on this in his work Discipline and Punish (1975), which focused on “corrective technology,” and in his subsequent work The Eye of Power (1980) which emphasizes the fact that Panopticism is “a mechanism that automatizes and disindividualizes power so as to establish permanent surveillance and assure automatic functioning of power.” French psychoanalyst, Jacque-Alain Miller saw, like Foucault, in the panopticon concept a “mechanism of power and a diagram of political technology”; and the sociologist Henri Lefebvre, who like Dutchman Marc Schuilenburg, a lecturer and author of books like Mediapolis (2006) and The Securitization of Society (2015), believes that “spatiality” is in fact a social phenomenon and points to a “different self-consciousness arising among humans who live in an urban area.”

A rich seam, then, for writers of fiction to mine for their visions of a dystopian future! David Lyon, author of The Electronic Eye (1994) fully grasps this when he concludes:

No single metaphor or model is adequate to the task of summing up what is central to contemporary surveillance, but important clues are available in Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four and in Bentham’s panopticon.

These fears surface time and time again in the fictional writings like that of Yevgeny Zamyatin, whose novel We (1920) inspired Orwell; Sauron’s All-Seeing Eye, peering out from the Dark Tower of Barad-Dur in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings; Gabriel Marcia Marques’s Chronicle of a Death Foretold (1981); and Angela Carter’s Nights at the Circus (1984). Take fiction alongside Gilles Deleuze’s non-fictional essay Postscript on the Societies of Control (1990), where he argues that the “towering enclosures” envisaged by Bentham have been superseded by the rapid advances in technology and behavioral training such as the modern incarnation of political correctness. This means that people are self-censoring, even while accessing “mostly” controlled news narratives — perfectly exemplified by the case of George Floyd and the “mostly peaceful” Black Lives Matter protests, while the counter-protests that followed the vandals tearing down statues in London were described as “unacceptable right-wing thuggery” by the MSM. It’s as Thomas Mathiesen, a Norwegian professor of criminology in Oslo says: “the majority watch the few” and “mass media has thus turned the discipline society into a viewer society.”

This brings to mind the satirical science fiction movie The Truman Show (1998) and thoughts of the Omnicam Ecosphere, which in some ways preempted reality TV shows like Endemol Entertainment’s Big Brother. Derrick Jensen and George Draffan, co-authors of Welcome to the Machine: Science, Surveillance, and the Culture of Control (2004) named Bentham as one of the “earliest pioneers of modern surveillance.” Simone Brown’s Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness (2015), although giving preeminence to the fact that Bentham was traveling aboard a slaving ship even as he drafted his papers on panopticon, nevertheless makes a valuable point when she proposes that society is ruled by an exceptionalism of power; the constant state of emergency becomes permanent, and certain groups are excluded on the basis of their predicted future behavior through a profiling system adopted by those in authority.

How might we be profiled? By the CCTV on our streets, in our city centers, and following our every step in shopping malls all across the country. The advent of such technology provides an “electronic panopticon,” according to Nicholas Fyfe and Jon Bannister’s academic paper Fear and the City in the journal of Urban Studies (2001). Shoshana Zuboff uses the metaphor of the panopticon in her book In the Age of the Smart Machine to describe how employees are monitored by their employers. Phil Taylor and Peter Bain add their concerns about people being forced into unrewarding service industry call-centers in their book Entrapped by the electronic panopticon?  (2000), and Roger Clarke expresses the notion of social media’s capacity to conduct “dataveillance.” Mark Poster, a professor in Media and Film Studies at the University of Irvine in the US first coined the expression “superpanopticon” in his book The Mode of Information (1990), and sociologist Christian Fuchs points out the massive corporate surveillance conducted by socio-technical platforms like Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook.

These incredibly powerful billionaire entities — including Jeff Bezos’s Amazon, et al — are mostly owned or controlled by people who share the same tribal origin. Their reach transcends national and cultural boundaries, and their company mission statements espouse values that are totally and unapologetically inimical to white well-being. They remind me of Patrick Curry, who says in his book Defending Middle-Earth (2004): “Sauron’s desire is one empire, ruled by one logic in accordance with one will.”

The elite’s clear ambition is to establish what Foucault describes as institutional forms of standardization, a sort of universal hegemonic power; under the economically applied methodology of Panopticism, it will further nourish capitalism’s need for communal subjection, easy access to cheap manpower, and all-pervasive technology. C.S. Lewis foresaw such a thing when he described in his science-fiction novel, That Hideous Strength (1945), a modern-machine centered attitude, or technocracy, seeking to control and possess nature, which in turn destroys our very humanity.

George Orwell reviewed Strength in the Manchester Evening News some two years before publishing the epic Nineteen Eighty-Four, writing: “Plenty of people in our age do entertain the monstrous dreams of power that Mr. Lewis attributes to his characters, and we are within sight of the time when such dreams will be realizable.”