An American who visits France is usually struck by the high level of demographic replacement of this country. In time, he learns that almost every political actor is anti-white. He also discovers that French elites are even afraid of the word “race.” They censor the very word because it reveals the nature of so many problems and reveals so much. For example, by refusing even to use the word, they can deny very high non-white crime rates. At the same time, they expose whites at the bottom to the dangers they describe as an unavoidable aspect of reality while carefully protecting themselves in white enclaves.
Consciously to disfavor whites, when you are white yourself, is a kind of mental disorder. When this tendency strikes the elites of a country, it implies there has been something other than social and cultural conditioning. Why is this mentality so deeply rooted into the French intelligentsia and, as a result, in the French people? I believer there are three causes.
The first is dysgenics — a reverse genetic selection. The two World Wars, especially the first, were the graveyard of a huge number of white men of great value to France. This was the beginning of war on an industrial scale. A local proverb says that France died at Verdun. Ten million shells fell from February to December, 1916; 300,000 men were killed and another 400,000 mangled.
Technological progress brought an end to evolutionary progress because the best, most courageous men died, failed to reproduce, and left a demographic vacuum. Weaker, cowardly, cunning men found ways to avoid death and lived to reproduce. At the same time, better medicine allowed the survival of those whom nature would otherwise have eliminated.
The rise of feminism owes much to this tragedy. The French state now provides social benefits and secure employment, and crafty, less robust men can now be attractive to women. Men became weak and suggestible, consensual, submissive, domesticated, panicked at the thought of being rejected by the herd. Preoccupied with “what will be said,” they fear anything that could lead to exclusion. As these men became more numerous, they saw the risks of racial consciousness and quickly internalized the new norms. Women, who are even more inclined to consensus, reinforced anti-white norms to the point of institutionalizing them.
In France, anyone who is pro-white can easily lose his job. This is a way to eliminate competition from more virile men.
Bruno Le Roux, minister of the interior under former President François Hollande said: “I never use the expression Français de souche (native French). I reject this expression, just as François Hollande does. Personally, I systematically block on my social media accounts all people who use this expression.” Anti-racism is a way to advertise virtue — another way to rise in society.
Since the 1970s, French university leftists (Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Pierre Bourdieu), have elaborated systems of deconstruction and delegitimization of the West, which have even reached the United States. This approach makes the white man a sedentary, anecdotal minority. This seems to have been a conscious ambition: to bring about an intellectual and philosophical revolution like those that had taken place in science and industry.
One of Deleuze’s goals was to “deterritorialize” the West (which is equivalent to making it alien to natives) and to give advantages to “minorities.” Foucault wanted to transform history (in which the living are heirs of the dead), into a heap of chance events, cut off from each other, serving only to show the cruel domination of Westerners over others. For Bourdieu, inequalities were caused by perverse actions of the system on individuals who are equal, not only in rights, but in capacities.
These ideas promoted desires, scorned common sense and all norms, promoted shame in being a man, and presaged all that has since happened in Western societies: preference for non-whites, mockery of whites, erasure of sexual boundaries, fluid identities, rejection of race, and extreme distrust of any aspect of the past. Leftists became the intellectual priests who forged concepts and mentalities.
The left changes the object of religious feeling from heaven to earth. It is not because of revolutionary atheism that the Left hates Christianity. The Left hates any earthly competitor and tries to eliminate it. Left-wing atheism, whether Freemason or intellectual, consists in no longer believing in a heavenly paradise, and in demanding an earthly paradise. The Left “kills” God, redefines paradise, and enforces a political gospel. Of course, its new “paradise” is a fiction, so the Left cannot tolerate any form of realism.
The purpose of political fiction is to manufacture an alternative reality. It therefore enters into a deadly rivalry with everything that could destroy it: race realism, social realism, economic realism, behavioral realism, sexual realism. The fiction now imposed on reality is a war on pragmatism that lets the weak dominate the strong, so they can enjoy an imaginary “earthly paradise” without having to deserve it.
This is the long history of the parasite and its host. We understand our enemy better than he understands himself. We face censorship because truth is deadly to the fictions created by the weak. That is why we must repeat these truths tirelessly in all languages.