The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Topics Filter?
Academia Africa Alain Soral Alt Right American Media Anti-Semitism Antiracism Arts/Letters Assimilation Belgium Black Lives Matter Blacks Brain Structure Brexit Buddhism Censorship Charles De Gaulle China Coronavirus Culture/Society Economics Elites Emmanuel Macron Eric Zemmour EU Europe European Genetics European Population History European Right Fascism Feminism Foreign Policy France Free Trade Freedom Of Speech Germany Global Warming Globalism Hbd History Hitler Hollywood Hungary Ideology Immigration Italy Japan Jews Marine Le Pen Mishima Muslims Nationalism Nazi Germany Neoliberalism Philosophy Poland Political Correctness Poverty Race/Ethnicity Racial Reality Science Science Fiction Star Trek World War II Zionism Abortion Affordable Family Formation Algeria American Empire American Military Ancient Genetics Ancient Greece Ancient Jews Ancient Rome Arabs Aryans Berlusconi Black Crime Britain Capitalism Careers Catholic Church Charles Darwin Charlie Hebdo China/America Chinese Christine Lagarde Civilization Communism Constitutional Theory Crime Cuba Democratic Republic Of Congo Demographics Disease Diversity Donald Trump Economic Development Economists Edmund Burke Egypt Employment Eugenics Europeans Evolutionary Psychology Feminization Fertility Rates Finns Floyd Riots 2020 French National Front French Revolution Genetics George Patton Greece Greta Thunberg Group Selection Gypsies Hate Speech Historical Genetics Holocaust Homosexuality Income Indo-Europeans IQ Islam Israel Knighthood Lee Kuan Yew Liberalism Marxism Mental Illness Merkel Middle Ages Middle East Nazism Noam Chomsky North Africa Paris Quebec Quebecois Race Riots Racism Religion Romania Rothschilds Samurai Singapore Slavery Slavs State Department Stoicism Switzerland Technology Tim Wise Universal Basic Income Wealth White Nationalism
Nothing found
 TeasersGuillaume Durocher Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter

Three years after Paris’ Notre Dame burned on April 15, 2019, with needless to say still no word on the culprit, France must again, as in 2017 have to choose between flawed immigration patriot Marine Le Pen and Establishment globalist Emmanuel Macron. Their much-anticipated debate is on Wednesday April 20. The Brussels bureaucracy’s sudden allegation against her of campaign finance irregularities has been widely derided

and there are some Establishment media worries about a Brexit/ Trump-style upset [Macron’s struggles with young voters leave an opening for Le Pen by Ivana Saric, Axios, April 18, 2022]

Perhaps Le Pen won’t make it, this time. But, compared to 20 years ago, France is clearly on the move.

There was much to parse in these first-round election results. There is no question that radical immigration patriot Eric Zemmour’s final result, 7% of the vote, was deeply disappointing, at least to me. Le Pen received 23.15 %. There are a number of reasons for this score, not least the “strategic voting” (vote utile in French) of perhaps one third of Le Pen voters, who voted for her to prevent a Leftist candidate from reaching the second round.

But perhaps more significant: the collapse of the mainstream Socialist and conservative (UMP or LR) parties that had governed France for decades until the last-minute invention of Emmanuel Macron. The Socialist and conservative candidates received 55.8% of the vote as recently as 2012. But they reached less than 7% this time.

Bruno Gollnisch, Le Pen père’s former right-hand man, could not hide his schadenfreude:

“seeing the candidates of the two parties, … who have governed France for 60 years and co-managed the coutry’s decline, getting less than 7% of the vote gives me, I admit, some perverse pleasure.”[Twitter, April 15, 2022, my translation]

The Socialist candidate was already a non-entity in the 2017 election. This year, however, the Establishment Conservatives candidate, Valierie Pecresse also received less than 5% of the vote—which crucially means that the government will not reimburse her campaign spending! Pécresse was reduced to pleading for donations to make up the 7 million Euro loss, 5 million Euro of which she had obtained through personal loans.

Thus the two traditional parties of France (= Democrats and Republicans), while still powerful in local and regional politics, are irrelevant so far as national politics are concerned.

Macron rules on the basis of a hegemonic center while all opposition has concentrated around two irreconcilable “extremes”—the Left around Mélenchon; the Right around Le Pen.

Mélenchon’s triumph on the Left is suggestive of the racialization of French politics. in the major cities, white neighborhoods voted Macron while black/Muslim ones voted Mélenchon:

Damien Rieu, a social media maven who has joined Zemmour’s Reconquest party, declared the election had seen “the eruption of the ethnopolitical [and] electoral communitarianism, the first step towards [becoming] Lebanon.”

Indeed, it seems that around 70% of Muslims voted Mélenchon and 40% of his voters were Muslim. Tellingly, 45.8% of prisoners who voted cast for Mélenchon, twice the national average. This is highly suggestive of the ethnic composition of French prisons.

(The Government of the French Republic generally declines, on principle, to collect demographic date—see David Orland’s Connerly’s Racial Privacy Initiative: The Unhappy French Connection published on VDARE in 2003.)

Mélenchon, who had spent his whole career as a die-hard secularist, is now embracing his increasingly colorful electorate. While denouncing the very idea of a “Great Replacement,” he tells his activist supporters—who are still mostly elderly white boomers—about the glories of “creolization” in the mixed-race France of the future. [Qu’est-ce que la créolisation, nouvel étendard de Jean-Luc Mélenchon? by Vincent Bresson,, October 1, 2021] He no longer opposes the wearing of Islamic headscarves by university students, something he used to condemn as a sign of archaic patriarchal culture. His laïcité now basically boils down to a rabid hostility towards Christianity.

But curiously, Le Pen and Mélenchon both did well in France’s majority-black and mixed-race overseas territories (French Guiana and several islands in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean). This was essentially motivated by a desire for handouts (Le Pen and Zemmour both have voiced strong emotional attachment to these territories as the last vestiges of France as an intercontinental empire) and, significantly. the fact that some of these territories face huge amounts of illegal immigration from Latin America and Africa.

Indeed, there have been amusing cases of local black women protesting against pro-migrant NGOs run by well-thinking white women. NazBol Françafrique when?


Too often what passes for dissident politics is nostalgia and sentimentalism. Many movements are backward-looking and therefore self-refuting; we can’t return to the 1950s (or whatever is your preferred era) and, even if we could, we would end up back where we are today.

Therefore, it is refreshing when political movements offer forward-looking visions. One such vision is offered by the Foundation for the Continuity of European Nations (Fondation pour la continuité des peuples européens), a coalition of French engineers, scientists, and lawyers. This group has an attractive website whose URL means “Science and Remigration.” It has also developed projects such as STEM tutoring for young Europeans and an online archive of the European artistic heritage.

Last September, the foundation published a political program to foster European scientific progress and ensure our nations’ perpetuity. It is a positive vision for a restored France within a broader European civilization characterized by technological prowess. The images evoke the freshness and creativity of Europeans, the achievements of France’s industrial past, and contemporary European technological achievements.

The Foundation’s project has three pillars:

  1. Repatriation of non-Europeans.
  2. A natalist policy for middle- and upper-class working couples.
  3. Promotion of science, reindustrialization, and European mega-projects.

The authors emphasize that Western decline is both moral and demographic:

The West is in crisis. Bit by bit, it has been shriveling up, horrified by its past, crushed by the excessive weight of a world which it has borne on its shoulders for too long. . . .

[Europeans’] depression and replacement in their own countries is an unmatched catastrophe in world history. . . .

Europeans have fallen behind because of their general demoralization. For decades, our leaders have told us that we did not have the right to a future . . . .

Westerners are demoralized, even though Western civilization “is nothing less than that on which the modern world is built” and has contributed the vast majority of the scientific breakthroughs and inventions. The foundation wants to restore Europeans’ pride in their heritage and optimism for the future.

“Legal, just, and peaceful remigration”

The Foundation emphasizes that “[t]he good functioning of French institutions requires the restoration, insofar as possible, of the French territory’s ethnic homogeneity.” The lack of a common identity makes for contentious redistributionist politics and the breakdown of civic life. European heritage must not be watered down or shamed in a vain attempt to placate resentful, unassimilable outsiders.

The authors argue that “demographic and economic rationality implies a gentle remigration taking place over time, coupled with natalist policies making life easier for working couples, with an objective of breaking the ‘second-child ceiling.’” They avoid apocalyptic scenarios and instead offer measures that could be taken by a patriotic French government. Third-world migratory flows are to be reversed “through legal, just, and peaceful means.” In particular:

  • French citizenship would be withdrawn from criminal dual nationals (French citizens of North-African and Turkish descent typically retain their original nationality by default).
  • A monthly stipend of €450 for 10 years would be paid to non-Europeans if they returned to their homelands and gave up French citizenship.
  • A point system would cut welfare payments to households that include criminals.
  • Advertising campaigns in African and Middle-Eastern countries would dissuade would-be immigrants.
  • Subsidized tuition for foreign students (300,000 per year at a cost of €3 billion annually) would be ended.

The authors write: “[T]he major issue at stake is not immigration but remigration.” They also note that expanding the prison system – whose population has doubled since the 1980s – is not a solution; the problem must be tackled through repatriation.

“Breaking the third-child ceiling” for French couples

The Foundation proposes measures to boost French fertility, especially among the middle and upper classes: “Restoration of European fertility is an absolute priority in order to stabilize European countries and guarantee their continuity. The future belongs to those countries who will be able to reverse the fall in fertility.”

The program meets the needs of working women rather than keep them at home. It would include teleworking, childcare near workplaces, and support for mothers seeking to reenter the workforce. Following the Hungarian model, income tax would be reduced by 25 percent for families with four or more children.

The authors are willing to countenance alternative family models: They would offer assisted reproductive to single women, lesbians, and women over 35.

Fostering European science through mega-projects

The Foundation proposes ways to boost France’s scientific potential, and stop the brain drain: unabashed educational elitism, subsidies for innovative researchers, strong intellectual property protection, and financial incentives for researchers to file patents and publish research. The government’s “social equality and inclusiveness” criteria for research funding would end.

The authors put French scientific efforts in a broader European context, and emphasize that European immigrants can contribute to France’s recovery: “We are not against the idea of immigration, but we make a fundamental distinction between two very different immigration flows: African immigration and European immigration.”

They do not suggest withdrawing from the European Union and want to “weave a European destiny, cultivate [economic] liberalism, and maintain an open world with developed countries.” Automation in transportation, urban deliveries, assembly lines, warehouse management, and old-age assistance would help Europe manage demographic aging.

The authors believe European scientific mega-projects can inspire our people: “Great projects are vital to give European nations a goal, a destiny, and accomplishments that make them proud of their identity. They are what can guarantee the cohesion and inner fire necessary for our well-being.” A quadrennial Festival of European Sciences would celebrate innovators and scientists.

The authors would build on previous European projects, often undertaken outside the EU framework, such as Airbus, the Ariane rocket system, the European Space Agency, the Galileo satellite navigation system, and the Virgo experiment. New European projects and agencies, not linked to the EU, would study nuclear fusion and thorium fission, aerospace, quantum computing, AI and robotics, transport, and genetic medicine. They would ensure Europe’s energy independence and help it catch up with China and the United States.


On March 8, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on fighting “racism” in culture, education, media, and sport. The text is a mishmash of ethnic demands peppered with woke language about “uprooting structural racism,” the need to collect “equality data,” and adopting an “intersectional approach to policymaking.”

The resolution was overwhelmingly adopted by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), with 495 votes in favor, 109 against, and 92 abstentions.

The most worrying provision is a demand to censor media containing “stigmatizing” information about “racialized communities . . . for example by targeting migrants as being the source of various economic and social problems and giving disproportionate coverage to crimes committed by migrants.”

Given the disproportionate involvement of Africans and Muslims in crime, welfare use, and underachievement in many western European countries, the EU Parliament is demanding censorship of media that spread factual information.

Consider the following statistics:

  • The London Metropolitan Police reported that in 2019, 51 percent of knife crimes were committed by blacks, even though blacks are only about 13 percent of the population. This black over-representation in knife crime is not new, and perfectly mirrors black over-representation in violent crime in the United States.
  • French data show that North-African, Sub-Saharan African, and Turkish immigrants to France have higher fertility rates, are more likely to underperform educationally and economically, and are more likely to use social housing than are European immigrants or the native French.
  • In Germany, there was a rise in violent crime when Angela Merkel let in one million “refugees.” This culminated on New Year’s Eve 2015–16 when gangs of Middle Eastern men sexually assaulted more than 1,200 German women, including more than 600 in Cologne and about 400 in Hamburg. Police authorities tried to hush up the assaults. The European Commission insisted the they were “not related” to the arrival of “refugees” and warned against a “xenophobic” backlash.
  • In Rotherham and other northern English towns, Asian gangs sexually exploited thousands of English girls for years with impunity. Local politicians refused to investigate because doing so would “give oxygen to racist perspectives.”
  • People from the Middle-Eastern and North-Africa (MENA) in Denmark have a negative impact on public finances throughout life, using more in welfare and public services and paying less in taxes than either native Danes or Western immigrants.

The Economist titled a graph of the Danish findings “It’s complicated,” although it is not complicated at all:

Similar figures can be found for just about every Western country that collects the statistics.

The EU Parliament also wants national media regulators to have greater power to censor “programs that promote racist content” and wants cuts in public funding to media promoting “hate speech” and “xenophobia.” The media should “eschew practices that perpetuate or reinforce negative stereotypes about ethnic and racial minorities” and should “show members of these communities performing positive roles.”

The MEPs also want censorship of social media, calling for “accountability of digital platforms and social networks” that spread “anti-migrant and anti-minority sentiment.”

The text’s author is Salima Yenbou, a French MEP of Algerian descent, born in the Parisian banlieue of Seine-Saint-Denis, which is notorious for having almost entirely lost its native French population. She is a former Green politician who recently rallied to the centrist globalist movement of President Emmanuel Macron.

Salima Yenbou (Credit Image: Didier Reynaud via Wikimedia)
Salima Yenbou (Credit Image: Didier Reynaud via Wikimedia)

Ms. Yenbou defended her resolution:

We need to actively work against racism, so that our daughters and sons no longer have to ask themselves whether they have a place in our societies. To build a better future, we have to know and understand our history. That’s why it’s important for students to learn more about colonialism, slavery, genocide, and all the ensuing phenomena.

She added that we need to “put an end to media that spread racist language about migrants and refugees, and contents that are intentionally or unintentionally racist.” The elimination of unintentionally racist content, whatever that is, would give governments very broad censorship power.

The full text makes many demands:

  • Rewrite school curricula to fight “discriminatory stereotypes” and shoehorn in “figures from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.”
  • “Lifelong learning” among educators and police to weed out racism.
  • Measures to ensure “people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds take part in cultural events, such as voucher schemes or similar endeavors,” which sounds like subsidies for non-whites.
  • “Foster diversity in cultural institutions among both employees and management, by introducing eligibility and award criteria in organizations that receive public funding,” seemingly a call for discriminating in favor of hiring and promoting non-whites.
  • EU institutions must ensure “mainstreaming of racial equality throughout EU policies . . . by all [departments].”
  • “Promote the languages, culture and history of minorities in school curricula, museums and other forms of cultural and historical expression” and fund “the arts and culture of racialized and ethnic groups.”
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: EU, Immigration, Political Correctness 

Earlier: French Immigration-Restrictionist Patriot Eric Zemmour Declares For President, As His Mistress Is Allegedly Declared Pregnant

And they’re off! French President Emmanuel Macron officially announced on March 3 that he is running in this year’s presidential elections. Meanwhile the two main immigration patriot candidates, Marine Le Pen and Éric Zemmour, have both qualified to run in the election by each securing over 500 supporting signatures from mayors and other elected officials. Phew!

Zemmour’s qualifying was far from certain, since the identities of the signatories must now—since a reform by the previous president, the non-entity François Hollande—be made public, opening them up to social opprobrium. (In 2016, this Managed Democracy technique was key to stopping American Renaissance Editor Jared Taylor from running against a RINO in Virginia’s Tenth Congressional District, where he lives).

The first round of this election will be on April 10. So the next question now: who will face the centrist Macron in the second-round presidential election on April 24?

There is still an off-chance that the vacuously amorphous “conservative” candidate, Valérie Pécresse, will make it. But let’s put that uninspiring possibility aside.

Marine Le Pen in general has polled better than Zemmour, though he was neck-and-neck with her in second half of February. But lot can happen between now and the first-round voting on 24 April. And the fact is that she should not be in this position—she should not have made it possible for a significant challenger to emerge on her right.

Significantly, Marine Le Pen’s party, the National Rally (Rassemblement National or RN—she changed its name after the 2018 Presidential election) has been bleeding out personalities to Zemmour’s Reconquest party. The list of RN defections to Zemmour grows ever-longer: Senator Stéphane Ravier, four Members of the European Parliament (MEPs)—Nicolas Bay, Gilbert Collard, Maxette Pirbakas, and Jérôme Rivière—and the identitarian social media maven Damien Rieu. These figures are little-known outside of France, but many have been important in the French nationalist scene. Another example of Zemmour’s superior ability to unite the conservative and nationalist rights: Two national MPs, Guillaume Peltier and Joachim Son-Forget, have defected to Reconquest from the conservative and centrist parties.

Perhaps symbolically the most important loss came from Marine Le Pen’s own family. Marion Maréchal, her attractive 32 year old niece, recently joined Zemmour’s movement at a spectacular March 6 rally in Toulon. She justified her move saying:

I am convinced Éric Zemmour is the best positioned in this presidential election. This is not a matter of polling but of political vision. Politics is about energy [c’est une dynamique] … The continuity and unity of the French nation is at stake in this election. If we do nothing, in just a few years, our children could wake up in a France who would have the same name but would no longer be the same person. … I am here because, like you, I am convinced that the cultural and demographic question is the priority.

Maréchal by the way still knows how to work her magic, she said for instance:

The European Union has become a vast camping ground for migrants, a store front for Chinese products, an incubator for supposedly progressive insanities, torn between veiled women and “pregnant” men.

Maréchal hasn’t been directly active in politics since the 2018 presidential election, preferring to run a private political science school in Lyon, and she has not been part of the RN since 2017.

Marine Le Pen’s own father, the venerable nationalist patriarch Jean-Marie Le Pen, now 93 years old, whom she actually expelled from the party he founded as part of her move to the center, had been making ambiguous statements. Occasionally, he seemed to favor Zemmour or, at the least, whichever candidate has the better chance of winning the second round. (However, he recently however came down in favor of his daughter[Présidentielle: Jean-Marie Le Pen juge “choquant” un ralliement de Marion Maréchal à Éric Zemmour,, Jan 30, 2022].)

What are the causes of Marine’s losses in the nationalist camp and Zemmour’s rise as a challenger? These are many and interrelated—and they have relevance to Donald J. Trump’s ability to retain his hold over the GOP base.

Marine Le Pen’s entire political strategy since she was handed control over her father’s party in 2011 has been to avoid the various French Establishment taboos periodically violated by her father: Marshal Philippe Pétain’s not being a traitor, the place of the Holocaust in world history, the existence of race, and so on. In other words, she cucked.

Credit Image: © Alexis Sciard/IP3 via ZUMA Press. Éric Zemmour, La France n’a pas dit son dernier mot, Rubempré, 2021, 352 pp. (in French only)
Credit Image: © Alexis Sciard/IP3 via ZUMA Press. Éric Zemmour, La France n’a pas dit son dernier mot, Rubempré, 2021, 352 pp. (in French only)

French-Jewish pundit and presidential candidate Éric Zemmour’s latest book, France Has Not Said Her Last Word, is part political diary, part campaign manifesto, and part sociology of the French elite. The book sheds light on Mr. Zemmour’s personality and his brand of French nationalism, but the most illuminating insights are about the social reality of top French political and media figures. We get a powerful sense of why French leaders, especially on the center-right, accept the dissolution of their nation.

When it was published in mid-September 2021, this book became the launch pad for Mr. Zemmour’s presidential crypto-campaign (he officially announced his candidacy by video [English subtitles] only at the end of November). YouTube has “age-restricted” the video, so unlike most YouTube videos, it cannot be embedded:

The case for Mr. Zemmour’s candidacy boils down to two issues:

  1. Opposition to The Great Replacement.
  2. Opposition to the media-political elite that permits The Great Replacement.

One could claim that Mr. Zemmour’s successful career as a pundit shows that nationalist voices are not shut down in France, but this discounts how rare it is for right-wing/nationalist journalists to survive professionally and the many obstacles Mr. Zemmour has had to overcome. This book describes the tremendous social, economic, and media pressure nationalists face in France: media demonization, boycott campaigns by advertisers and entertainers, editorial colleagues who try to get one fired, ethnic activist and “anti-racist” NGOs that bring suits for “hate speech,” and the simple desire not to be shunned by one’s social circle.

Mr. Zemmour provides many examples, both in his own life — he has been fired by all media he has worked for, with the exception of Le Figaro newspaper and the TV station CNews — and among French conservatives. His personal success owes much to his ability to appeal to deep, untapped yearnings among the French.

The story of the book itself is interesting. Mr. Zemmour’s usual editor Albin Michel refused to publish it, even though many of his previous books were bestsellers. The editor explained that Mr. Zemmour “is engaged in a personal ideological battle which simply does not correspond with the editorial line of a generalist publishing house like Albin Michel.” Mr. Zemmour had to self-publish via Rubempré, his own imprint, named for one of Balzac’s characters. Unlike most self-published titles, the book is available in bookstores.

A supporter of Eric Zemmour waits for a signature after a meeting at the Zenith venue in Rouen, north western France, on October 22, 2021. (Credit Image: © Maxppp via ZUMA Press)
A supporter of Eric Zemmour waits for a signature after a meeting at the Zenith venue in Rouen, north western France, on October 22, 2021. (Credit Image: © Maxppp via ZUMA Press)

The cover illustration almost conveys the idea that Mr. Zemmour is a “French patriot, already president.” Even so, in just a few weeks, the book had reportedly sold 165,000 copies. Albin Michel lost out, but Mr. Zemmour is doing very well, however a disadvantage of self-publishing is embarrassing typos.

Why run?

The book’s introduction makes the most explicit arguments for Mr. Zemmour’s decision to run: “Not a day goes by without a provocation, without a deconstruction, without a mockery, without a destruction.” (p. 8) There follows a long list: attacks on the police, the spread of wokisme in academia (new PhD theses on “gender theory in 17th century Limousin”), cancellation of classic films and culture, removal of statues of Napoleon and other heroes, violent Muslim gangs (North-African, Chechen, Kosovar), no-go areas, and grisly terrorism. The most fundamental issue, however, is immigration. Mr. Zemmour says of The Great Replacement:

This vital identitarian question renders all other questions subsidiary, even the most essential such as education, industry, social protection, or the place of France in the world. I am sure that no candidate — not even Marine Le Pen — will dare to evoke this identitarian and civilizational quarrel in the campaign. (p. 24)

While Marine Le Pen is a staunch opponent of non-European immigration, she accepts the line on The Great Replacement. In 2014, she agreed that it is a “conspiracy theory,” and in 2019 she claimed she “didn’t know about” the concept. The Great Replacement is a standard idea in nationalist circles and Miss Le Pen has shared the stage with Renaud Camus, who coined the term.

Sept. 24, 2015 – Renaud Camus at a demonstration in front of the German Embassy in Paris to protest the migratory hordes sweeping over Europe. (Credit Image: © Maxppp via ZUMA Press)
Sept. 24, 2015 – Renaud Camus at a demonstration in front of the German Embassy in Paris to protest the migratory hordes sweeping over Europe. (Credit Image: © Maxppp via ZUMA Press)

Mr. Zemmour thought that his success as a journalist would change French politics. His 2014 Le Suicide français — a chilling description of French decay since the 1960s — had sold over 200,000 copies but seemed to have little political effect. To Mr. Zemmour’s surprise, no conventional politician adopted his ideas. He amusingly calls his naïveté “Gramscism for dummies.” Many people — his son, opponents to gay marriage, French Trump supporters — urged him to run for office. He hesitated, fearing that politics would ruin his career but, at age 63, it is now or never.

The book’s introduction recounts Mr. Zemmour’s meetings with the two other then-plausible anti-immigration candidates: conservative party leader Xavier Bertrand (who since has failed to win his party’s nomination for the presidency, losing to the moderate “conservative” Valérie Pécresse) and Marine Le Pen. Mr. Bertrand listened attentively to Mr. Zemmour’s proposed policies on immigration, and did nothing.

To Miss Le Pen, Mr. Zemmour argued that “the System” — a dissident term he uses several times — wanted her to reach the second round in the presidential election in order for her to lose again to Emmanuel Macron. She seemed almost self-pitying: “Look at me. I am alone, I no longer have a personal life.” (p. 23)


The conservative French-Jewish pundit Éric Zemmour may well become France’s next president. The centerpiece of his campaign is opposition to the Great Replacement. The latter means the ongoing trend of substitution of the indigenous populations of France and Europe by non-European immigrants, in particular by Africans and Muslims.

In his most recent book, Zemmour writes the following on the Great Replacement:

I have the impression that no politician rightly apprehends what is at stake: the death of France as we knew her. . . . One simply needs to look at the films of [the 1960s and 70s] to realize this. The “great replacement” is not a myth, nor a conspiracy, but an implacable process. This vital identitarian question renders all other questions subsidiary, even the most essential such as education, industry, social protection, or the place of France in the world. I am sure that no candidate – not even Marine Le Pen – will dare to impose this identitarian and civilizational quarrel in the campaign. . . . Only [the far-left] Jean-Luc Mélenchon dares to mention the subject, but only to glorify the future of a mixed-race, “creolized” France …[1]

Zemmour’s central campaign promise is “zero immigration” to France (presumably not including immigration from the European Union). In addition, he would deport foreign criminals and would deprive criminal dual nationals of French citizenship (a suitable prelude to deportation). Significantly, French citizens of Turkish or Arab origin typically are dual nationals by default.

The key measures on immigration would be submitted to a national referendum. If successful, this clear expression of the people’s will would enable the government to punch through the predictable opposition of globalist elites in the media and judiciary. Great Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, despite the kicking and screaming of globalist elites, shows that referenda can lead to concrete results going against Establishment preferences.

In addition to his opposition to the Great Replacement, Zemmour is a forthright civic nationalist. He wants migrants to “assimilate,” by which he means to become culturally indistinguishable from Frenchmen. He is opposed to Islam as a “totalitarian” religion and wants Muslims to have a purely interiorized private spirituality, like Christianity, with no role in French public life. Zemmour’s assimilationist zeal goes so far as to propose restoring an old law mandating that children born in France be given only traditional French names.

Clearly there are serious contradictions here. The French “assimilationist” model has already failed, producing about the same results that we see in the United States or Great Britain: a society marked by ethnic stratification, clustering, and conflict. Today, around a third of newborns in France are African or Muslim, simply making assimilation obsolete. No doubt Zemmour can see this. His clinging to assimilation may be due to a combination of personal reasons (his own position as a proudly assimilated French Jew) and political ones (electoral palatability). Significantly, Zemmour has previously said that he understands why young French whites no longer believe in assimilation and that his attachment to it is due to his belonging to an older generation.

The Great Replacement in Practice: Kosovo and Seine-Saint-Denis

A typical street scene in Seine-Saint-Denis
A typical street scene in Seine-Saint-Denis

In his book, Zemmour goes into vivid detail on the existential threat that the Great Replacement poses for France. He often compares the emerging new France to Kosovo or Lebanon, where besieged Christian minorities live at the mercy of the new Muslim majorities. He notes that in Kosovo, a highly important province in the history of Serbia, Muslim Albanians became the majority by the early twentieth century. With the 1999 NATO bombings the Muslim Albanians became the rulers over the Serb minority:

[I]n the 1970s, Orthodox Serbs represented only 13% of the population. Today they are only 5%, expulsed from the capital, Pristina, confined to enclaves, as ostracized second-class citizens, when they are not persecuted, martyrized, chased out of the land of their ancestors. The ethnic cleansing is accompanied of course by a religious and cultural great replacement. Medieval churches are burned down by ecstatic Muslim crowds, mosques dripping with gold-leaf are built in their place, financed by the nabobs of Saudi Arabia and Qatar: the inexorable and cruel reality of a great replacement that does not exist![2]

Zemmour often sarcastically remarks on the alleged “non existence” of these demographic and civilizational changes. He denounces the academic “sophists” who claim no significant change has occurred, falsely arguing that populations have always been in complete flux. The mainstream media-political establishment in France claims the Great Replacement is a mere “conspiracy theory.”

On the contrary, the demographic Great Replacement is prepared by a symbolic replacement in the cultural sphere. France, we are told, has “always” been a diverse land of immigration and thus there is nothing novel at all about the Afro-Islamization of the country. A museum of immigration celebrating these changes was installed precisely in … the building of the 1931 colonial expo celebrating France’s intercontinental empire in Africa and Indochina! Zemmour observes: “In the museums of France, too, it is the hour of the great replacement.”[3]

In France, the shape of things to come is announced by the département (county) of Seine-Saint-Denis, which makes up the northeast suburb of greater Paris, a significant place in French history as the resting place of our kings. For Zemmour, “Seine-Saint-Denis is the symbol of this great replacement which does not exist.”[4] Over two thirds of newborns have at least one foreign parent. Over 60% of youths are of foreign origin. But these figures are merely indicative: the administration simply doesn’t know how big the population is or how many illegal immigrants there are (estimated between 8 and 20% of the population).

While President Emmanuel Macron may hold up Seine-Saint-Denis as “California without the sea” [sic!], the territory is an economic basket case. National civil servants flee postings there after 2.7 years on average, despite a €10,000 bonus, whereas they last 7 years in the more comfortable département of Essonne. Huge urban renewal projects lead to no lasting change and even the corporate offices set up there (taking advantage of special tax breaks) fail to attract local workers: they are unqualified. Zemmour argues the issue is one of human capital, not infrastructure: “the problem is the content, not the container.”

Zemmour sees the State’s efforts in Seine-Saint-Denis as useless, akin to the myth of Sisyphus. Furthermore, the territory’s mosques have been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, as documented by the sociologist Gilles Keppel. No wonder François Hollande told journalists that France’s multicultural situation will “end with a partition.”[5] For Zemmour, “Kosovo is the future of Seine-Saint-Denis; Seine-Saint-Denis is the future of France.”tfg

Zemmour on the Limits of Civic Nationalism


Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father and long-time prime minister (1959–1990), should be a role model for nationalists across the West. Lee was not a philosopher but a practical politician, so his insights are not theoretical but the product of three decades of leadership.

Lee was able to adapt to changing circumstances, eliminate Communist threats, maintain political stability, and reach astonishing levels of prosperity. All this in a small, insecure city-state with no history of independent self-government, in a region marked by aggressive geopolitics and sharp ethnic conflicts. Lee understood not only human capital, racial differences, and ethnic conflict, but navigated these realities to build a thriving nation for his people.

The wreckage of the British Empire

For most Westerners, southeast Asian countries scarcely register as anything other than tourist destinations and old war zones, but they offer interesting cases studies of the difficulties of nation-building and ethnic conflict.

Under the British, what are now Malaysia and Singapore were governed by administrators, such as Stamford Raffles, who ruled with a combination of commercial acumen and genuine moral concern. Economic opportunity brought many Indian and Chinese immigrants to the area. There has been ethnic conflict ever since, especially between the native Malays and the Chinese. By the 1950s, locals of all races wanted independence, but how to create coherent, free, and prosperous nations from heterogeneous human material?

Statue of Sir Stamford Raffles in Singapore (Credit Image: Wachholder0 via Wikimedia)
Statue of Sir Stamford Raffles in Singapore (Credit Image: Wachholder0 via Wikimedia)

Singapore is a small island of just 281 square miles, off the Malaysian coast. Whereas the Chinese diaspora are a scattered minority in the rest of southeast Asia, in Singapore they have long been a majority of 75 percent, the rest of the population being mostly Malays (15 percent) and Indians (7.5 percent).

In the 1950s, Communism was popular among many Singapore Chinese, inspired by Mao Zedong’s triumph on the mainland. Lee Kuan Yew tried to prevent the Bolshevization of Singapore by merging it into a larger country with a conservative Malay majority: Malaysia. This lasted from 1963 to 1965, with Singapore leaving because of ethnic chauvinist policies of the central government dominated by Malay nationalists. Lee said, “I had believed in the merger and unity of these two territories, with people connected by geography, economics, and ties of kinship.” His voice shook as he spoke the final words. This left Singapore alone, surrounded by the much larger, generally hostile Muslim states of Malaysia and Indonesia.

An Illiberal, Stable, and Prosperous Democracy

Lee set about building a new nation with a patriotic people, a prosperous economy, and political stability. He ensured stability with “illiberal” democracy: There were elections at least every five years, but opposition parties could operate only with difficulty, if at all. Communists, Communist sympathizers, and “chauvinists” of various stripes (ethnic, linguistic, or religious) were repressed and excluded from political life. The government had great influence over the media and the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) ruled an essentially one-party, parliamentary state. Lee also kept close ties with Britain and America as guarantees in the face of foreign threats, Communist or otherwise.

East Asia is the only region in the “global south” with countries that have been able to equal or even surpass Western standards of living. The rest, in the words of Francis Fukuyama, are perpetually trying to “get to Denmark.” Most of the successful nations caught up to the West thanks to stability through authoritarian or non-electoral governments. This has been the case not only in Singapore, but in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and also to some extent in Japan and South Korea. Typically, there is collaboration between government and big business together with a high savings rate for reinvesting profits. Once the country is wealthy, with a secure middle class, liberal democracy may then be instituted.

Lee Kuan Yew never trusted Western democracy; he refused to import divisive, multiparty politics. He thought the best people should rule through a meritocratic system of selection and make enlightened long-term plans. He thought this would be impossible under a democratic system susceptible to short-sightedness and demagogy. But whereas South Korea’s and Taiwan’s non-elected illiberal regimes collapsed, the Singapore government’s legitimacy has been continually refreshed at the ballot box, with popular support for authorities who gut liberalism when needed.

Jun 6, 1959 – Singapore – Lee Kuan Yew speaks during a People’s Action Party press conference after the PAP won 43 of the 51 seats in the legislative assembly. (Credit Image: © Keystone Press Agency / Keystone USA via
Jun 6, 1959 – Singapore – Lee Kuan Yew speaks during a People’s Action Party press conference after the PAP won 43 of the 51 seats in the legislative assembly. (Credit Image: © Keystone Press Agency / Keystone USA via

Lee did not reject all the Western practices inherited from the British. He was impressed by the capacity of Western capitalism to stimulate economic growth. With a sharply rising population, Communist agitation among the unemployed, and the end of Singapore’s previous role as a trade hub for the British Empire, the island needed a new model. Lee tried to enrich Singapore through world trade and investment.

In many post-colonial nations, infrastructure and public services declined when the British left. Many of the new governments were chauvinist and socialist. They seized foreign- and minority-owned businesses, which destroyed the trust and incentives needed for economic activity. Together with native incompetence and corruption, this led to stagnation, isolation, and underdevelopment, from Burma to Indonesia.

Lee stamped out corruption and protected all private property and foreign investments. The result was massive Western and Japanese investment, and Singapore benefited enormously from transfers of technology and know-how. In 1965, Singapore’s GDP per capita was US \$500, today it is around \$60,000 (equivalent to \$100,000, considering the low cost of living).

Few governments, whether democratic, liberal, or authoritarian, can claim the continuous legitimacy and popularity that the Singapore regime has enjoyed. Voters supported Lee because he faced down Communists, eliminated corruption, and — last but not least — produced results: decades of political stability and economic growth. The Singapore authorities have kept their peculiar system of government even after Lee left the premiership in 1990.

Biopolitics I: The importance of human capital

Singapore also practices what can be called biopolitics: policies that affect the biological character of the people through immigration, reproduction, and identity formation. Lee wanted to turn the diverse population of Singapore into patriotic citizens. This meant making as many Singaporeans as possible employed property owners with a stake in the new country. He conscripted young men for two years of military service; the island needed citizen-soldiers in case of hostile action by Malaysia, Indonesia, or some Communist power.


The Great Replacement is a “discredited conspiracy theory,” but it also an empirical reality, wherever governments and agencies deem fit to publish the relevant figures.

France has long been loathe to publish such statistics, but neighboring Belgium — which has a similar history of recent immigration — is not so circumspect. The Belgian Federal Bureau for Planning recently published a highly interesting fact sheet on the national origin of mothers in Belgium.

The figures for 2020 show that Belgium now has a historically-low total fertility rate of 1.58 per woman. Of these, barely half of births (52.3%) are to native Belgian mothers. The rest are more-or-less evenly split between mothers who are Belgian citizens of foreign origin and foreign mothers.

Fertility rates differ drastically by origin, with native Belgian woman at a mere 1.38 and foreign women at 2.05 (48.5% higher).
Fertility rates differ drastically by origin, with native Belgian woman at a mere 1.38 and foreign women at 2.05 (48.5% higher).

Belgian citizens of foreign origin have a fertility rate of 1.58, suggesting a convergence of birth rates over time. Admittedly, interpretation is difficult as it is unclear what is included in this category. What proportion of these are Italian-origin Belgians (significant waves came from 1945 onward, now numbering around 450,000)? What proportion are Arabs or Congolese with Belgian passports? We don’t know.

Proportion by origin and age of women of child-bearing age, (orange: native Belgians, blue: Belgian citizens of foreign origin, grey: foreigners).
Proportion by origin and age of women of child-bearing age, (orange: native Belgians, blue: Belgian citizens of foreign origin, grey: foreigners).

The replacement of the Belgian population will only ratchet up over time. Significantly, among 15-year-old girls, foreign-origin Belgian citizens and foreigners outnumber native Belgians more than two-to-one!

One struggles to find any previous examples in European history of population substitution on this scale. Probably one has to go all the way back to the Indo-European conquests circa 5000–4000 years ago.

The Belgian statistics are frustratingly unclear concerning the national origin of mothers in Belgium. “Citizens of foreign-origin” and “foreigners” indiscriminately include southern Europeans, eastern Europeans, Middle-Eastern Muslims, and Africans. There has been substantial European immigration to Belgium from Italy, Romania, and elsewhere.

It seems highly probable that European-origin mothers will have lower fertility rates than Africans and Muslims, though conceivably the latter converge somewhat in fertility with the natives over time.

Figures from the Belgian Statistics Agency revealed that in 2021 the proportion of native Belgians had fallen to a mere 67.3% of the population (from 74.3% in 2011 and 81.8% in 2001). The collapse of native Belgians is real, drastic, and ongoing.

Among Belgian citizens of foreign origin and foreigners, 48.3% are from neighboring or other EU countries and 51.7% from non-EU countries (mostly from the Maghreb, Turkey, and Black Africa). The proportion from non-EU countries has increased, being 38.4% in 2001 and 47.6% in 2011.

Thus, foreign-origin people in Belgium make up one third of the population, about evenly split between Europeans and non-Europeans. I suspect non-Europeans make up about a third of births in Belgium, similar to France.

Whatever one makes of all this, the Belgian population is being irreversibly transformed beyond recognition within a single lifetime.

The consequences for the native population have often been dire. In France, recent figures show that foreigners (not including citizens of foreign origin) make up 7.6% of the population but are two to four times more likely to commit crimes such as theft, sexual assault, and murder:

This does not even factor in French and Belgian citizens of African nor Muslim origin. During a trial of the French-Jewish pundit Éric Zemmour for “hate speech,” the Socialist politician Jean-Pierre Chevènement came to Zemmour’s defense. He testified that as interior minister he received a daily list of crimes in France and most of the criminals had African or Muslim last names.[1] Note that Chevènement was Minister of the Interior from 1997–2000! The situation is no doubt even more stark today.

Beyond the decline in social capital and well-being, there are also plenty of signs the population change is leading to a collapse in any common values within the society. A recent poll by the respected agency IFOP found that 65% of young Muslim high-schoolers in France considered that “the norms and rules” of Islam “are more important than the laws of the Republic.”

The right is often faulted for being alarmist on immigration. Part of the reason for this is that the consequences of these trends take time to become apparent but also have tremendous momentum. The most extraordinary political courage will be necessary to hold back the tide, let alone roll it back. In any case, wholly preventable ethno-religious conflicts among Europeans, Blacks, and Muslims will continue to be facts of life in Western Europe for the foreseeable future. There is every likelihood these problems will worsen and, if nothing is done, will indeed become overwhelming.


[1] Éric Zemmour, La France n’a pas dit son dernier mot (Rubempré, 2021), p. 127

Can ‘France’s Tucker Carlson’ Retake France for Patriots?

France is abuzz with the news that Éric Zemmour – a right-wing pundit – may in run the country’s presidential elections set for April 2022. Polls already have Zemmour enjoying double-digit support and potentially even beating Marine Le Pen and the mainstream conservative candidates, thus making him run off against sitting President Emmanuel Macron in the second round.

Zemmour would, according to these same polls, win around 45% of the vote in this scenario. That’s short of a victory but, this early in the game, it’s exactly the kind of level of support Brexit and Donald Trump received before their triumphs in 2016.

But who is Éric Zemmour? The pundit has been virtually a household name in France for many years. He is akin to Tucker Carlson in America: just about the only voice in the TV news media who effectively, though usually not explicitly, defends the interests of the nation’s core ethnic demographic.

I have previously written on Zemmour’s career in the media. Suffice to say that he has been able to carve out a lucrative niche for himself as the highest-profile nationalist/conservative voice in the French media landscape. This makes him a polarizing but popular figure as there is great untapped demand among audiences for patriotic rhetoric. This demand is largely ignored by journalists who are, like in the rest of the West, structurally biased in favor of left-liberal causes.

Occasionally, mainstream journalists forget to keep their biases subtle and covert. One journalist at the France Info public TV station said Zemmour “is not allowed to come here.” The channel then publicly contradicted the journalist and clarified that Zemmour would be invited only when he had officially become a candidate.

Zemmour’s career: right-wing media gadfly

Zemmour has successfully built up his profile on the right-wing edge of the media system. He long worked for the conservative newspaper Le Figaro and broke through on TV talk shows in which he was noted for his criticism of feminism and professional “anti-racist” activism. He has been periodically fired by certain media for going ‘too far.’ He has also often been dragged into court by said “anti-racist” lobby groups – while he has generally been vindicated, he twice was found guilty of “inciting racial hatred.” In the end, Zemmour has been able to flourish despite these setbacks, keeping gainful employment in a critical section of the French media and continuing to reach his audience.

Zemmour is technically still not a candidate for the election. However, things came to a head earlier this year as he set up a political party, recruited staff, and raised funds. Last month, France’s TV regulator, the Superior Audiovisual Council (CSA), required that Zemmour’s TV appearances be limited to what is proportionately allowed for presidential candidates. This was a big deal as Zemmour had previously been allowed to dominate a popular talk show on maverick TV station CNews, which had enjoyed as many as 800,000 viewers at a time.

Zemmour’s ideas: The defense of French interests, including the native French

Regarding Zemmour’s political ideas, the best place to start for English-speakers is probably the recent interview he gave to a Hungarian think-tank, on the occasion of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fourth Demographic Summit. (This event, focused on opposing immigration and supporting European families and fertility, was itself very noteworthy and included the participation of the prime ministers of Czechia, Serbia, and Slovenia.)

In the interview, Zemmour explicitly mentions France’s white identity with a suitable quote from General Charles de Gaulle, who said that the French were “a European people of white race, Greek and Latin culture, and Christian religion.” Both add that while some non-Whites and Muslims may become French citizens, the nation would lose her identity if these groups ceased to be “a small minority.” In the French media, few have been as explicit as Zemmour in denouncing the ills of Afro-Islamic immigration and the results in terms of criminality, welfare abuse, and day-to-day Islamization.

(Those who want a more detailed exposé of Zemmour’s views read my review of his longest work: Le Suicide français, a meticulous examination of the steady decay of the French nation over the past fifty years. The book sold an estimated 300,000 copies.)

In Zemmour’s politics, France is the be-all-end-all. He is enamored with the nation who gave citizenship to the Jews during the French Revolution, enabling his own people to flourish, and with the glory that France was able to achieve under great leaders such as Napoleon Bonaparte and Charles de Gaulle.

Zemmour’s dissident critics: A tool of the globalist oligarchy?

Zemmour has plenty of critics, including among patriotic dissidents. One such critic is the anti-Zionist civic nationalist Alain Soral, who asks: Why is Zemmour “allowed” to speak in the media in the way he does? Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has long made similar comments, enjoyed no such privilege but was viciously demonized. Is Zemmour not allowed to rise because, wittingly or not, he serves the interests of the global oligarchy which wishes to see France weakened, paralyzed, and bled by fatal internal conflict, namely the ethno-religious civil war which Zemmour is effectively promoting?

I personally do not find the Soralian critique convincing. He fails to recognize the fact that there are differing factions within the French and global oligarchies. Indeed, Donald Trump was able to win the U.S. presidency precisely by exploiting these divisions. He governed with the support of ultra-Zionists who won a great deal for Israel. America won a bit too, though admittedly much less, with drastic reductions in border crossings and refugee settlements.

In France, Zemmour has been able to survive thanks to the support of the Dassault family, an originally Jewish family (I don’t know how much they have intermarried with gentiles) who own the Figaro newspaper and a segment of the French arms industry, and Vincent Bolloré, a gentile billionaire industrialist who owns CNews. I cannot say if these men have supported Zemmour out of right-wing convictions or for subscriptions/ratings.

It is true that Zemmour’s rhetoric is ambiguous. At times, he speaks of “assimilating” foreigners into France, such as by a recent proposal to require newborns to be given traditional French names. At others, he speaks of France’s white identity and of potential civil war between the natives and the Muslims.

Assimilation is a non-starter in a country where around one fifth of newborns are Muslim and one third are non-European. I do not however think “racial civil war” will be occurring in France at least within the next 10-15 years. And even if it did, the fact is that at this stage the Europeans would easily win.

Just another day in the democratic French Republic

Le Monde has released an article reporting on the publishing of books by French politicians, a veritable cottage industry. The report confirms a few things which any observer of the genre will long have noticed, e.g.:

  • That French politicians write books to give off airs of literary gravitas.
  • “‘The exercise is getting banalized and is leading to a profusion of writings of variable quality,’ stressed [pollster] Brice Teinturier […]. [N]ew criticisms are addressed to politicians who are in office: they are criticized for writing instead of working.”
  • “Sophie Charnavel, head of the publisher Robert Laffont, considers that certain books are only there to occupy space and ‘are standardized’ so that their author is invited to the morning radio shows. A marketing exercise.”
  • That, as a rule, no one is reading the bulk of these publications.

E.g., European Commissioner for the Economy Pierre Moscovici’s memoirs have exactly zero reviews on Moscovici is well-known for his striking resemblance to pornographic actor-director Pierre Woodman.

The ultra-Zionist Socialist former prime minister Manuel Valls – who, being married to a Jewess, once declared that he was “eternally linked to the Jewish community and to Israel” – pointedly entitled his book Not a Drop of French Blood (his parents are Spanish and Swiss; and he is currently serving as a municipal councillor in Barcelona).

Admittedly, a few heavyweights are able to sell: Nicolas Sarkozy’s latest memoir The Time of Storms (volume I) has sold 238,000 copies and François Hollande’s The Lessons of Power has sold 200,000 copies (miraculous given how inert Hollande was as president). A few big names of the far left and far right like Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Philippe de Villiers can also break into six-digit sales.

I was most struck however by a throw-away paragraph at the end of the article:

There remains however one unknown person before the 2022 presidential elections. The question is now sharply posed: till when will last the big publishers’ consensus to never publish a book signed by Marine Le Pen? For now, the cordon sanitaire [quarantining of the far-right] remains the rule for the 10 biggest publishers. “[Publishing her] would mean participating in her detoxification, which I do not want to do. My hat as a citizen takes precedence over my hat as a publisher,” said Olivier Nora [the CEO of the publisher Grasset]. Here too, economic and political motives are intertwined: “Morally, I am not ready to do this,” concluded Muriel Beyer [deputy head of Humensis, a major political publisher]. “And, professionally, my authors would not want to be part of the same publishing house as her.”

Thus we have a tacit agreement among the major publishers to exclude a candidate who appeals to a solid third of French voters and who has made every effort to assert her “republican” and “democratic” credentials; fully abandoning her father’s rebellious streak on race, World War II and the holocaust, Charles de Gaulle and the Algerian War, etc. Today, you’ll occasionally hear praise of Marshal Philippe Pétain from our globalist President Emmanuel Macron, never from putative far-rightist Marine Le Pen.

The article also makes clear that the big publishers range politically from centrist to far-left in political orientation and that the few who publish right-leaning books are subject to moral opprobrium.

The public censure and politically-motivated discrimination faced by Le Pen supporters likely also accounts for the fact that her party often runs the same candidates for both county and regional elections (60% of candidates running in the regionals are also running in the counties). Few people are willing, or can afford, to take the professional and social hit of public association with one of France’s most popular political parties.

Number of candidates by party running for both the regional and county elections: Rassemblement National (RN or National Rally), is Le Pen’s party.
Number of candidates by party running for both the regional and county elections: Rassemblement National (RN or National Rally), is Le Pen’s party.

A fine democracy we live in! A few will come to the conclusion that there is a slight contradiction between liberal-democrats’ idealistic pretensions and real human psycho-social power dynamics. It’s a shame Our Moral Betters are not more honest with themselves about the nature of their vaunted political pluralism and their instinctive demand of hegemony.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Censorship, France, Marine Le Pen 
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Becker update V1.3.2