The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGuillaume Durocher Archive
Charles de Gaulle on the Folly of Assimilation
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Charles de Gaulle with African veterans invited to Paris for Bastille Day (1962)

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow 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
Something Here
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Alain Peyrefitte, a former minister and close collaborator of Charles de Gaulle, meticulously maintained notebooks in which he recorded his many meetings with the great French president. The recordings are gathered in his monumental memoirs, C’était de Gaulle (“That Was De Gaulle”), stretching out to over 1800 pages of sayings and discussions.

The work thus presents a massive sample of De Gaulle’s private “table talk” with his closest collaborators. Besides hearing much of the man’s wit and wisdom, we gain great insight into the thinking behind his policy decisions.

I have previously written on the Algerian War and De Gaulle’s reasons for rejecting the partition of Algeria which would have created a majority-European “French Israel” in North Africa, presumably surrounded by hostile Arab states.

On October 20, 1959, De Gaulle spoke with Peyrefitte on the reasons for granting independence to France’s African colonies and why this was more difficult than it had been for the British:

It’s true that the natives are not yet ready to govern themselves. But . . . the world exists around us and has changed. The colonized peoples are less and less able to put up with their colonizers. The day will come when they will no longer be able to put up with themselves. In the meantime, we must take realities into account. The most urgent thing we need to do is transform our colonial empire, by replacing domination with consent [le contrat]. There are great advantages for us in passing the baton to local leaders, before they rip off our hand to take it from us.

We founded our colonization from the beginning on the principle of assimilation. We claimed to be turning the Negroes into good Frenchman. We made them recite: “Our ancestors the Gaulish”[1]A slogan French schoolboys were taught during the Third Republic (1870-1940), emphasizing France’s indigenous Celtic roots, and ignoring her Germanic ones, at a time of bitter tension with Germany.; this was not very clever.

That is why decolonization is so much more difficult for us than for the English. They always recognized differences of race and culture. They organized self-government.[2]In English in the original. They only had to loosen ties for it to work. We on the other hand denied these differences. We wanted to be a Republic of 100 million identical and interchangeable Frenchman. That is why decolonization is heartbreaking for the French. . . .

It’s beautiful, equality, but it is beyond our grasp. To make all of the overseas populations enjoy the same social rights as those of metropolitan France [les métropolitains], at the same standard of living, would mean that ours would be cut in half. Are we ready for this? Well, if we cannot give them equality, better to give them liberty! Bye, bye,[3]In English in the original. you are too expensive for us![4]Quoted in Alain Peyrefitte, C’était de Gaulle (Paris: Gallimard, 2002), pp. 68-69.

Elsewhere, De Gaulle despairs at the fact that previous French regimes had allowed 1 million European immigrants to settle in Algeria amidst the Arabs. He argues that France’s most enlightened policy was in Morocco, where the king was kept in place as a local ruler. In fact the Moroccan monarchy to this rules over one of the more stable and orderly Arab states.

De Gaulle was skeptical of the idea of France “assimilating” tens of millions of Africans and Muslims both as colonial subjects and as immigrants to France proper.

In 1982, King Hassan II of Morocco expressed similar thoughts to the Jewish journalist Anne Sinclair (then-wife of Dominique Strauss-Kahn):

Sinclair: Would you like [Moroccan immigrants] to be integrated in France? Are you for or against the very principle of integration?

Hassan II: I would not even call this integration. I would not at all want them to be the object of an attempt, because they will never be integrated.

Sinclair: You think that they don’t want it or that the French reject them?

Hassan II: Will they express the fact that they can’t do it? It’s possible among Europeans. They have the same basic foundation [la trame est la même]. The movements within European history have been east-west, human movements, religion, many things. But here, we’re talking about another continent. And there’s nothing you can do it about it: they will be bad Frenchmen.

Sinclair: So you are discouraging us from trying to integrate them.

Hassan II: I am discouraging you concerning my people, the Moroccans, from any attempt to turn them away from their nationality [détournement de nationalité] because they will never be 100% French. I can guarantee you that!


[1] A slogan French schoolboys were taught during the Third Republic (1870-1940), emphasizing France’s indigenous Celtic roots, and ignoring her Germanic ones, at a time of bitter tension with Germany.

[2] In English in the original.

[3] In English in the original.

[4] Quoted in Alain Peyrefitte, C’était de Gaulle (Paris: Gallimard, 2002), pp. 68-69.

• Category: History • Tags: Assimilation, France 
Hide 94 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    There’s that funny meme about Hitler on a cloud laughing while Stalin is shocked at what the modern left has become (LGBTQ etc.)…someone should do the same about Hitler and De Gaulle. Would actually be even more appropriate, since Hitler predicted that France would eventually become a nigger state. He was fairly prescient in that at least.

  2. @anon

    Very true.

    I shat a proverbial brick when I learned that one of De Gaulle’s first policies in newly-liberated France was instituting a MORE NORDIC IMMIGRATION POLICY!

    • Replies: @Bartolo
  3. Cyrano says:

    If someone can resurrect Hitler for only a day so he can inspect the fruits of his labor – he will die laughing at his own stupidity. In his lifetime the only minority Germany had were few hundred thousand Jews. Thanks to his “policies”, the Jews are mostly gone from Germany now, only to be replaced by about 12 million other non-German and non-Jewish minorities. If he could choose between those 2 options: few hundred thousand Jews or a cocktail of 12 million minorities from all over the world which one would he chose? Even a moron like Hitler would have to go for the option number one: few hundred thousand Jews.

    • Troll: Malla
    • Replies: @anon
    , @suicidal_canadian
  4. A. Who is Charles De Gaulle?

    B. France still owns its old colonies in Africa and elsewhere lock, stock, and barrel. And sucks resources out of them like one of those huge industrial vacuum cleaner trucks sucks up paint waste and smokestack ash and steel mill shavings.

    Apparently, they found a way around giving them “freedom.”

    • Replies: @A.R.
    , @Bartolo
  5. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    If someone can resurrect Hitler for only a day so he can inspect the fruits of his labor

    Sure, but you can say that about many of the “victors” of WW2 as well, Churchill certainly would be appalled at the state of Britain today. And many white Southerners who participated in WW2 (e. g. Strom Thurmond who took part in the D-Day landings) can’t have liked the way the US developed after 1945.
    So maybe Hitler would feel vindicated…the fellow “Aryan” nations which decided to fight him have all been humbled and, like defeated Germany, will fade from existence within a few decades. His predictions have come to pass in a way. Did it only happen because his project gave racialism a bad name? Or was it always inevitable, the logical end point of Western liberalism?

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @Cyrano
  6. Integration very seldom happens unless the ethnicities have a lot in common with each other, just look at the British and Northern Ireland, two seemingly similar ethnic groups but with enough differences that the British never really integrated into Irish society and didn’t want to in the first place. Some people with similar cultures will find it much easier to integrate, like say the Dutch in Britain, most second generation Dutch where you can find them you would probably not know they are Dutch unless you knew their surname.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @Rich
  7. Pater says:

    Make that the folly of ‘Mass Migration’, whether you go with multiculturalism or assimilation the very importation of ancestrally and culturally alien peoples into your territory is recipe for problems.

  8. When Champlain was settling New France his desire was to assimilate the First Nations people. Not only was assimilation unsuccessful but many Frenchmen ran off to live with First Nations people because the life was easier.

  9. fnn says:

    A completely segregated US Army was hypocritically denouncing “racism” at a time when NS Germany was a tranquil and humane place compared to the anti-racist Soviet Union:

    By 1938 eugenics was “shunned in public discourse of the day.” (p. 250) Whereas such ideas were commonplace in the mainstream media in the 1920s, General George van Horn Moseley’s 1938 talk on eugenics and its implications for immigration policy caused a furor when it was reported in the newspapers. Moseley was charged with anti‑Semitism although he denied referring to Jews in his talk. The incident blew over, but “henceforth, the military determined to protect itself against charges of anti‑Semitism that might sully its reputation or cause it political problems …. The army projected itself as an institution that would tolerate neither racism nor anti-Semitism”

  10. De Gaulle sold out the Pieds-noirs in Algeria.
    This might have been tolerable if he had shut France to non- European immigration.
    As the article on the Evian Accords notes:

    Algerians were permitted to continue freely circulating between their country and France for work, although they would not have political rights equal to French citizens.

    Despite his many sensible quotations on race, assimilation and France, he permitted the beginning of the North African invasion.

    • Replies: @Sean
  11. Exactly. The irony of this article is the writer tries so hard to paint Charles De Gaulle as a prototyical “White Man’s Burden” kind of white savior when in reality those French speaking countries in Africa are still colonies of France and whenever any one of their leaders attempted to break free they where either killed (Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso) or overthrown (Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast).

    The French have and continue to be the most cut throat colonialist. They produce Francophone elites Black Skin and White Mask elites who rule over Black West Africans and suck all the industry in those countries directly to France, to the point that their currency is still pretty much the Franc when even France no longer have the Franc.

    Their currency is thus printed in Paris, stored in Paris and when they need a loan they get it from France, backed by guess what the same money of their that the French hold. The interest rates are over the roof and all industry in French West Africa are French. So French pretty much have a more predatory system today than thay did 50 years ago in that region.

    The so called Central Bank for those French West African states is headquarted in Ivory Coast and is funded 100 percent by France of course. The former President of that Bank is currently the guy who now runs Ivory Coast. The same guy who they funded to overthrow Gbagbo. The same guy who after leaving the bank became in 1908’s Prime Minister of at that time of Ivory Coast only President, in which position he implemented…you guess it structural adjustment programs.

    That is to privatize into French hands the cocoa industry of Ivory Coast which is the largest in the world, along with all government utilities. In other words the only things that were not in the hands of French multi-nations. The guy’s wife is a White French Jewish woman. Oh by the way, that is what the French do. In Senegel, in Ivory Coast the President’s wives are historically White French Women. Of course they are simply agent handlers on behalf of Mother France and their husbands…ie. the Preidents are zombied agents.

    If you read how the French hunted down and killed all the top leaders of Camerron independence movement in the 1960, dozens of highly educated intellectuals. In Camerron and in the streets of Paris until they were all gone. Than decimated their supporters through Camerron. Look up on Google images of French troops holder the severed feads of that independence movement leaders. So today Camerron is a basket case because its not a country. French put a guy and made up President. After 20 years they got tired of him. He went to Paris to see his French Doctor who told him he only have a year left to live. Of course his French Doctor was simply another agent handler.

    That as enough to scare him to death and he give the power to his Vice President who has now ruled for 30 years. Of course I mean “rule” in parenthesis.

    My friends, Africa is simply a field of brute force as inflicted by European colonial powers. Noting more noting less.

  12. Cyrano says:

    I wish someone could have presented Adolf with this choice: You can either save Germany, or save capitalism – which one do you choose?

    Those 2 options are not mutually inclusive (contrary to popular belief). You don’t have to save capitalism in order to save Germany. Smatter of fact, despite Germany losing bigly to the greatest “Communist” state that ever existed, capitalism still survived in Germany, and yet today they are way, way worse than during the 1930’s when the Jewish boogieman was after Germany via Communism.

    According to Hitler (and many on this site) the Jews have genetic predisposition towards communism. The Jews are mostly gone from Germany now, communism is not even a distant threat, and yet Germany is up to its neck deep in s**t. How do you explain that?

    We’ll I guess because the Jews are running the show in the greatest democracy of them all, and are using them to bring a new version of communism to Germany. Sure.

    Maybe communism was never the problem. Trying to plagiarize it and then present the result as evidence of “progress” is what the problem really is.

    • Replies: @suicidal_canadian
  13. @Cyrano

    This is reasoning that is so illogical that you must be Jewish. Hitler understood the threat that Jews posed to Germany. He tried to kick them out, they wailed and faked a holocaust, and then after National Socialist government was toppled using the USA golum they rigged the post-war reconstruction to enable mass immigration of Turks and other scum. Seems like Hitler had a good idea of what the Jews were about (he even talked about their obsession with African immigration in Mein Kampf) but he got defeated.

  14. @Concept Politico

    France and Africans were colonized by the same people. If Africans were intelligent they would team up with French against the common enemy and in the process free all of their countries. But, blacks hate whitey too much to think rationally about the situation.

  15. @Cyrano

    I think Cyrano has been smoking the legal marijuana and has forgotten that the last 75 years happened. Post world war II Jews changed tactics, stopped talking about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and decided to ally themselves with racial minorities, sexual minorities, refugees, and immigrants against the “racist, oppressive whites”. The idea was that they could use a coalition of the oppressed against white western civilization so that they could depose the rulers and elevate themselves into a new ruling class. They have been remarkably successful.

    If you want to read a book that talks about the Jewish proclivity for socialism – I recommend reading “The Jewish Utopia” by Michael Higger which talks about the prophetic-rabbinic vision of the ideal world. Here’s the summary: the Jewish utopia as envisioned in the Talmud is a global socialist state run by Jews. It’s literally built into their religion. The Jewish Utopia, written by an influential Jewish scholar is the definitive analysis of the Jewish conception of the ideal world as set forth in the Talmud. This is not some sort of zany conspiracy theory or even a genetic predisposition as you say (lol). It’s simply a part of their faith. That’s why they are so obsessed with carrying out their bizarre schemes.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Curmudgeon
  16. We made them recite: “Our ancestors the Gaulish”[1]

    [1] A slogan French schoolboys were taught during the Third Republic (1870-1940), emphasizing France’s indigenous Celtic roots, and ignoring her Germanic ones, at a time of bitter tension with Germany.

    The older and wiser French seemed to have had a similar sense of their identity as the Greeks have of them today and that is why they are called Galloi and the nation is called Gallia in the Hellenic language. They are essentially Gauls, which used to have an old Frankish elite in their midst, but which was subsumed within the Gaulish nation many centuries ago.

    One hopes they will recognise this crisis of identity and rectify it one day.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
  17. A.R. says:

    Is your question A supposed to be some reflection of your, presumed, negative personal view of De Gaulle?
    Or are you that ignorant that you do not know who De Gaulle was?

  18. Anonymous[274] • Disclaimer says:

    So, the French of the late 19th century were told to disregard their Germanic heritage and to accentuate their Celtic roots.

    Surely, the whole concept of ‘France’ – the language, the laws, the culture, the structure etc, owes more to ancient Rome than to anyone else.

    So, why has the Italian contribution to France – we must remember that large portions of southern France are really Italian by culture and ethnicity – been entirely ignored and deliberately downplayed by generations of French leaders?

  19. Sean says:

    I think DeGaulle was most worried about a future German invasion and thought there was no option but to be demographically dynamic by any means necessary in order to keep up with Germany. In 1939 the French thought the 100 million in their colonies would outmatch the German advantage in military age manpower, which was 2: 1 in under 30 year olds and almost 3:1 in the call up classes of 19-20 year olds.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  20. @Anonymous

    The French are famously proud of their (Latin-based) language and acknowledge the Roman heritage. They do not consider themselves heirs to the modern-day Italians though.. much as we appreciate them. A sliver of southeast France, including Nice and Corsica (which also has its own identity), are formerly Italian. The bulk of southern France spoke quite different Latin-based dialects: Occitan, including Catalan and Provençal.

    The latter was exterminated during France’s consolidation as a nation-state in the modern era. Ezra Pound waxed lyrical about medieval Provençal ballads and poetry and indeed, as a kind of intermediary between French and Italian, it is quite beautiful. e.g.:

  21. Sean says:

    A slogan French schoolboys were taught during the Third Republic (1870-1940), emphasizing France’s indigenous Celtic roots, and ignoring her Germanic ones, at a time of bitter tension with Germany.

    Charles de Gaulle (1837 – 1880) was a “specialist in Celtic languages and civilisation”. I have to wonder about how far back that name really went, whether grandfather tweaked the patronymic a bit for added appeal. It certainly paid off if he did.

    De Gaulle was skeptical of the idea of France “assimilating” tens of millions of Africans and Muslims both as colonial subjects and as immigrants to France proper.

    De Gaulle had to rely on them as soldiers, two thirds of the Free French were colonial troops . De Gaulle was told that if he wanted to a French division at the head of the Allied liberation of Paris he needed to come up with a white French one, but he could not so they used the whitest division and removed all blacks and still lacking enough whites, filled the ranks up up with North Africans. Even of the white troops in that division, many were actually Spanish. In 1803 Napoleon banned all interracial marriage.

  22. @Oliver Elkington

    “Integration very seldom happens unless the ethnicities have a lot in common with each other, just look at the British and Northern Ireland, two seemingly similar ethnic groups but with enough differences that the British never really integrated into Irish society and didn’t want to in the first place.”
    The key here is “didn’t want to in the first place “.
    The protestant British never felt anything but contempt for Catholic Ireland. It’s Scots/English settlers were never intended to integrate. The colonizers were agents of the Crown, & as such were privileged above the natives. From Cromwell onwards, Ireland was an object of exploitation, much like many other British Imperial acquisitions.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  23. @Concept Politico

    My friends, Africa is simply a field of brute force as inflicted by European colonial powers. Noting more noting less.

    Africa was far more brutal and chaotic before Europeans arrived.

    Arab slave trade already existed for hundreds of years and involved castration. It is still around today in Mauritania. You can search for “Zanj rebellion iraq” or “Siddi” (black slaves taken to India).

    One reason the French colonized North Africa was to stop Barbary slave traders based at Algiers who used to raid European coasts for “white gold” particularly, women for breeding purposes.

  24. Bartolo says:

    B. Whatever resources France is “stealing” from Africa, it must be natural resources, for you really have nothing else. And now tell me, who has more right to exploit those resources: he who found a way, by his labour and intelligence, to actually do something useful with them (say, with Nigerian oil), or those who wouldn´t have known what to do with it in a million years, but just so happened to live where the resources are located? I know pointing this out is painful, and I don´t mean to be offensive. But you should thank the White man that, given your incapacity to produce anything of value, at least you can sell us stuff that just happened to be in the ground where you live. Bitter, very bitter. But true.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  25. Anonymous[153] • Disclaimer says:
    @Guillaume Durocher

    Surely, the greatest ever son of Gallia – Napoleon – was an Italian man.

  26. Anonymous[153] • Disclaimer says:

    In retrospect, the French effort at colonising equatorial and west Africa, that is black Africa, as opposed to north Africa, has proven to be nothing but sheer folly.
    A malaria, disease ridden humid swamp of nonentity and uselessness, without the redemption of precious natural resources. The only nett result, of course, has been the colonisation of European France by black Africans – an endeavor that *has* proved successful, but not for the ethnic French, of course.
    As with the French colonisation of north Africa, it can be seen as a vain attempt to boost national self esteem after the humiliations wreaked upon France by England, Prussia and Russia. No doubt the thinking went “the more land area, nominally, at your control, the bigger you are as a nation state” – a mode of thinking proven to be wrong by the rationalism of the 20th century.

    Interestingly an Anglo/French war was close to being triggered right at the start of the pomp of the Entente Cordial by the Fashoda incident – a spat over a worthless piece of desert.
    Just how different 20th century history would have been if that war went hot!

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
  27. Bartolo says:
    @Guillaume Durocher

    Here is a very interesting article by a very brilliant guy I didn´t even know about. It´s about two different conceptions of universalism and their radically different consequences. It was written in response to a comment by Eric Zemmour on the topic. I am sure you will find it interesting:

    Comme bonus, voilà un article très intéressant du même type sur le Katechon, les cosmogonies des différentes religions, etc:

    Also, it would be interesting to see your thoughts on the controversy Soral-Zemmour. Many claim (Jérôme Bourbon, for instance) that Zemmour is just a zionist agent and even that he´s as thick as thieves with BHL (!). I strongly tend to think that Zemmour is sincere. I know, this is too “franco-français”. But one of the main subjects of the Unz Review is Jewish Power, so why not write about that?
    Also, I think it´s terrible that Soral seems to have resigned himself to massive afro-muslim presence in France. In his view, all we have to do is get rid of Jewish Power (les fauteurs de guerre), and the Muslim and Christian French (!) children of Abraham will live a paradise of vivre-tous-ensemble characterised, you guessed it, by “equality and reconciliation”. I normally agree with or at least can see where Alain Soral is coming from. But this is so retarded and incoherent that it lends credence (at least superficially) to claims that he is some kind of Iranian (?) agent of influence (all the more likely if we consider that the man barely has any money and the French state takes every penny he earns to give it to Jewish organisations). He made very revealing comments in response to a question by a listener in Soral répond. The said listener brought up the question of the great replacement and possible violence down the line. But Soral immediately avoided the question (after saying that, yes, migration had been a great mistake and that Mélenchon would have to stop it if he were serious about the social question) and started attacking the Jews (of course), going so far as to say that bringing up the question of migration was useful in Le Pen´s time (because it was “preventive”), but not now (you see, once you have millions of foreigners in France, it´s too late, and complaining about it turns you into a fauteur de guerre like Zemmour). With him, it´s all about thwarting the Jews, with the interest of France coming in at a distant second place.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Durocher
  28. @Concept Politico

    If one reads, one usually learns that the African nation to which you refer is “Camaroon”, a lesson you should have learned before commenting on it.

    • Replies: @OldFool
  29. Rich says:
    @Oliver Elkington

    I’m not sure a majority of Catholic Irishmen ever even supported severing ties with Britain. When Queen Victoria visited, prior to the Easter uprising, she was met by adoring crowds, to the dismay of Irish nationalists. The Irish served in the British army at very high levels and emigration from Ireland to Britain was very common. Intermarriage was also not that uncommon, even with the religious differences.
    In Northern Ireland the circumstances were a little different, discrimination against Catholics much more noticeable, but if not for Home Rule separating the South, probably would have ended much sooner.
    One thing you have to give the old British Crown, they let the Irish remain Irish, the globalists who run Ireland now, will have ethnically cleansed the Irish from their homeland within 50 years due to 3rd world immigration.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Malla
  30. @Bartolo

    Very interesting.

    I cannot judge Zemmour myself. He doesn’t exactly claim to be a rebel (like Soral) and much of what he says is very relevant. He covers the misdeeds of Jewish lobbying organizations in Le Suicide français but does not talk about it much (at all?) on audiovisual media.

    Soral is a NazBol punk . . . This makes him very independent and courageous, hence willing to cover issues (like Jewish-Zionist power) which others flinch from. Like many Marxists, his critiques are often very incisive and cogent. That doesn’t mean his counter-proposals are always very credible . . .

  31. Sean says:

    I knew of the beating to death and throwing into the Seine of hundreds of Algerians in central Paris, but I didn’t realise it was so soon after soon after De Gaulle came to power in a quasi coup backed by paratroopers.

    Fascinating review of a DeGaulle bio. I did not know that the 1968 revolution started when in a row over men’s access to female dormitories at University of Paris, the Gaullist Minister for Youth was heckled by Daniel Cohn-­Bendit and the authorities attempted to discipline him. Reviewer Peter Hitchens (for it is he) notes:

    Cohn-Bendit, the perfect symbol of the age, would become a member of the European Parliament and one of the most fervent spokesmen of the new establishment in Brussels. He is the anti-de Gaulle.

    Strange indeed that he does not mention Cohn-Bendit being an unrepentant sexual molester of little kindergarten children. That the sickening pervert is still in public life makes it seem like he enjoys impunity against the police and media for some reason.

  32. DeGaulle wanted an empire, just like the British had an empire. All that was left was Africa to dominate. Unfortunately, Africa was full of Islam and Islam does not intergrate (assimilate), but conquers. DeGaulle wasted most of France’s assets trying to tame the untameable. Now, Islam has invaded France and will turn it into a dhimmi nation and France will nevermore be a part of Western Civilization, as will be the case with the rest of Europe.

  33. Bartolo says:

    Re Zemmour: Yes, he actually criticises Jewish shenanigans (although not with the intensity and obsessive one-mindedness of a Soral or a Bourbon) and has been opposing immigration for a very long time, which makes the accusations against him all the more unfair.

    Re Soral: Exactly. Marxists/communists often offer great critiques, but their practical proposals are almost invariably hare-brained. Or maybe colibri-brained, in this case. But one has to admit that Soral is extremely entertaining to listen to.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Guillaume Durocher
  34. Sean says:

    Communists idealise the proletariat and Soral has a high opinion of himself, but Zemmour dared to talk about how helpless the white proletariat are in face of the sexual success black and Muslim males are having in the seduction of working class white girls.

    • Replies: @Bartolo
    , @Iris
  35. Bartolo says:

    Soral has been called a narcissist, and there is some truth to that. I think he is jealous of Zemmour, who, according to him, only suffers from a symbolic repression. Which is not true. He used to have a 3-4 minutes slot 5 days a week at RTL… which was then reduced to two days only and eventually replaced altogether by a show where he debates with a clown of unspeakable inanity. Now I don’t listen to the show any longer, because listening to that guy was a waste of time, I wanted Zemmour only. Also, whatever Soral says, Zemmour is, in a way, risking way more than him. No Muslim is going to slit Soral’s throat Theo Van Gogh-style. But Zemmour might well be physically attacked.

    • Agree: Sean
    • LOL: Iris
  36. Cyrano says:

    I don’t think that the Jews have commie gene in their DNA. They are simply opportunists – if they happen to live in a commie country – they are the greatest afictionados of communism ever. If they happened to live in a multicultural capitalist country – they are the biggest multicultural capitalists.

    Why do the Jews support multiculturalism? It is counterintuitive on their part, because it will destroy the (mostly western) countries that they reside in. So why do they support multiculturalism? It’s pragmatism.

    The Jews think that the west – by bringing immigrants that are more deplorable than them (in the western eyes) -will finally leave the Jews alone and focus their intolerance towards the more worthy 3rd world immigrants.

    Based on all the evidence, the Jews are only fooling themselves. Even if the west manages to bring in the whole 3rd world, the Jews will always occupy a special place in the heart of every bigot in the west. They’ll always be the favorite minority – as far as preferred target of hatred goes.

    For close to 2 millenniums, in order to preserve their identity, the Jews refused to blend in, in their host countries in the west. And now, in order to find some safety, they are trying to blend in among other unblendables from the 3rd world. Helluva strategy.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Bartolo
  37. Anonymous[261] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s pretty obvious in France that the huge imported Muslim population is a dire if not mortal threat to French Jewry, and that explicitly anti immigrant and anti Muslim sentiments are being made by prominent French Jews.
    The days of Vichy and of French civil authorities happily giving away the names and addresses of French Jews to the Nazis are long passed and fading away from memory. The real existential threat to French Jews are the blacks and browns – and they know it.
    They are also fully aware that France, a nuclear power will be non white majority by 2100, and fully hostile to Israel, the Jewish state and to Jews as individuals, murders and attacks on Jews by the blacks/browns are only set to increase.
    Expect Jews to fully abandon France in the near future.

  38. @suicidal_canadian

    If you want to read a book that talks about the Jewish proclivity for socialism …

    It depends on how you define socialism.

    The greatest fraud perpetrated on the (((West))) was that Marx was a socialist. He called himself a socialist, but he was a communist, and his views were rejected by a large majority of socialists. If anything, Jews have a proclivity for control, whether that comes via finance capitalism or communism makes no difference to them, because the issue is control. That is why finance capitalism and communism are the two sides of the same coin.
    Socialism is everywhere. Co-operatives are socialist, as are credit unions. Most operate at a local level, but they are often interconnected with other co-ops in an area. There are a few co-ops that are national, usually in the insurance industry. The difference between a co-op and a Wall Street corporation, is that one person can only hold one share.
    Sure, there are kibbutzim in Israel, but, as I understand it, they are owned by the state, not the locals. Therefore, it is not socialistic, but communistic.

  39. Iris says:

    Zemmour dared to talk about how helpless the white proletariat are in face of the sexual success black and Muslim males are having in the seduction of working class white girls.

    Zemmour is short, dwarfish, with a crooked face and overall very poor looks. And he looks nothing like a “White”. On top of this, his debating ways demonstrate an agressive and disturbed personnality.

    Having neither the looks, nor a confident masculine personality, Zemmour is found unattractive by most women. As a consequence, he jumps on the “White Men” bandwagon by pretending to defend them, with the ultimate goal of posing for one of them.

    Zemmour belongs to the psychanalist. And White men, of whom Zemmour is not, are found the most attractive by women from all ethnic backgrounds, so they don’t really need to be defended.

    • Replies: @Sean
  40. Hrw-500 says:

    That reminds me of another alternate history event who could had gived us a different alternate history if Jean-François Sipido had killed Edward VII who wasn’t king yet and the Entente Cordiale is aborted. I saw once a long while ago on
    The link to the story is now broken but fortunately it was saved on the Wayback Machine.

    The 20th Century would had been different, very different.

    Btw, I wonder what’s motivated De Gaulle to said “Vive le Québec libre” when he visited Expo 67 in Montreal?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  41. De Gaulle was truly opposed to assimilation. He was asked to leave Canada after his “Vive le Quebec libre” speech, which essentially encouraged the Quebecios to split, or at minimum, fence themselves off from the maudit Anglais.

  42. Svevlad says:

    I don’t think Stalin is shocked. I think he knew that it was inevitable in the west. It’s exactly why he did what he did to avoid it happening in the east.

  43. Bartolo says:

    To understand Jews, focusing on specific ideologies is pointless and sheds no light on the matter.
    They side with whatever allows for maximum: 1. – Concentration of power (capitalist oligarchs, communist honchos… it doesn’t matter, what matters is that they infiltrate the neuralgic centres of power through superior organisation and a small number of very talented and motivated individuals); 2. – Dilution of all bonds between people and of collective identities, for only those two factors allow people to oppose their designs through conscious and targeted collective action; atomised and confused individuals with sad and chaotic lives who do drugs and sodomise their dogs are easy to control; 3.- Internationalism and lack of borders. This allows them to move from country to country placing themselves at the top of the hierarchy, sucking off the wealth of the land. It also allows them to destabilise and weaken countries through mass immigration. Voilà. 3 factors is all you need. The rest is a smokescreen.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  44. Anonymous[187] • Disclaimer says:

    Canada is, of course, de facto fully independent from the UK – don’t let all the trappings, fittings and fixtures fool you. And the same was true back in 1967.
    Therefore, De Gaulle was not attacking the UK with his remarks, but the nation state of Canada, of which those of Anglo Saxon or even Scottish stock form but a percentage of the total population.
    In this sense, his proclamations were pure provocation for the sake of provocation, but aimed at the wrong target.

  45. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:

    Of course, by year 2100 France will be a predominantly non white, non genetically French and mainly Islamic nation. Only a damned fool would dispute or quibble with this incontrovertible *fact*.
    It goes without saying that the French government, and military cadre will be contingent upon this fact. Another undeniable fact is that under this new dispensation Israel, and Jewish people in general will be unpopular in the extreme, and we can count on the fact of the ‘new’ France shamelessly instituting antisemitism as official policy. Don’t be surprised if hunting down of Jews outside France’s borders will be official governmental policy.
    Interesting question is that this new France will still be a major nuclear power. A cadre hostile to Israel will have exclusive control of nuclear warheads and delivery systems.

    It goes without saying that the Israelis *must* be well aware of this inevitable future trajectory , and *must* right now at this present time, be working out strategies to deal with this dark dark future.

  46. Sean says:

    Having neither the looks, nor a confident masculine personality

    [S}hort, dwarfish, with a crooked face and overall very poor looks [a]s a consequence, he jumps on the “White Men” bandwagon by pretending to defend them, with the ultimate goal of posing for one of them.


    • LOL: Iris
  47. Yet ironically, wasn’t it under de Gaulle that the great migration of North Africans into France really gathered steam? Losing Algeria in order to keep France French (which was a false dichotomy at any rate) is obviously a bargain perfectly worth making but one de Gaulle did NOT make. He manufactured the worst of both worlds: gave up Algeria while allowing hundreds of thousands of North Africans to settle in France. The fact he recognized the potential for mass migration to be disastrous and used its specter as justification for giving up Algeria only to then open the gates wide anyway is puzzling to say the least.

  48. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:

    From what I’ve read, French Jews are regarded by the blacks and browns as a class of ‘superwhites’ that is white people but with extraordinary wealth, power, influence, education, celebrity, talent etc.
    Now, granting the *instinctive* hatred blacks and browns have for whites – this is due to reptile brain processing of *obvious* racial superiority of whites taken, literally, at face value – and the Arab/Israeli conflict intensifying hatred of Jews amongst black/browns as a type of unifying force and shibboleth, we can expect outright hostile anti semitism to rise to a massive extent in France, and this carried over to be a French foreign policy aim.
    Not much different from the Nazis, in fact.

    The ultimate irony is that the left and nothing but the left is entirely responsible for this situation.

  49. @Guillaume Durocher

    You forgot to include Breton, which is enjoying a resurgence of interest in France’s Brittany. My wife’s late father spoke fluent Breton.

  50. @Sean

    De Gaulle became President in 1958, not 1938. By then, Germany was a partitioned former Great Power, largely subservient to the 3 Allied Powers which had won WWII. It posed no military threat to France.
    France was also a former Great Power. Both World Wars had greatly weakened it. De Gaulle refused to recognise this fact. He wanted to retain access to of the mineral and other resources of the former colonies, particularly Algerian oil, as well as continuance of trade dominance. The quid pro quo was that the nationals of these countries would have easy access to enter France for work.
    No doubt de Gaulle thought this was necessary to retain France’s pretension to Great Power status. No doubt, he thought the numbers coming from the former colonies would be very small. He was completely wrong on both counts.
    It would have been better if de Gaulle had recognised that loss of empire meant loss of trade and having to look elsewhere for more expensive raw materials, including from trade rivals. Also, that France was no longer a front rank power and that his main task was to preserve the political and ethnic integrity of a regional power.
    He didn’t do this. In fact, his policies actually accelerated France’s decline.

    • Thanks: The Anti-Gnostic
    • Replies: @Sean
  51. Cyrano says:

    Having said all that, the Jews can’t save your countries for you – no matter how precious you think you are. The Jews were not designed for that. Even if they could, their minority status prevents the Jews from being a meaningful opposition to any insane policies that your elites concocted. The question of saving the west comes down to its elites and their “deplorables”. You should work it out between yourselves. At the bare minimum, there should be a referendum on the most important question of them all: Yes or No to uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world? In every single stupid western country. You can vote in your meaningless elections until you turn blue in your faces, and still not accomplish anything. Despite all those vigorous voting, they turned your countries into nature reserves for protected 3rd world species. Which was nice of them, they really showed what a great humanists they are, but those nature reserves for 3rd world imports are now encroaching on your habitat. The only way out of that nightmare is to really put “democracy” to a test and let you decide whether you want to commit suicide or continue to play the “nice guys” and keep winning some much needed applause from the 3rd world.

    • Replies: @Bartolo
  52. @Bartolo

    You insane lying toady brown-nosing-the-rich-so-far-your-whole-head’s-up-their-ass chump bullshit troll.

    You know nothing. You’re just like all the other chumps on here who are upset because the coronavirus affords them less opportunities to go nigernigerniger all the way home like the one-n0te cretins they are.

  53. Sean says:

    Having benefited from the period in which bachelor officers attending Mass were denied promotion as being of anti Republican sentiments, in 1910 General Mangin (who was at Fashoda , the trauma of de Gaulle’s youth) published La force noire in which he argued for France to recruit an army of Senegalese and keep it in North Africa for use against the Germans. During WW1 newsheets produced for the poilu in the trenches printed stories (actually fabricated by by white officers) that pretended to be letters by Senegalese troops boasting of their sexual adventures with French women! The Soral tendency.

    Post WW1 Mangin commanded the Senegalese who occupied the Rhineland (including Rhenish Bavaria). Mangins 1923 plan to detach these regions from Germany was revived in 1945. In 1946 under the name of the Monnet Plan to detach the Ruhr from Germany (‘internationise’ meaning Soviet troops their) and employ hundreds of thousands of German POW as forced labour to rebuild France was adopted by French government leader Charles de Gaulle, but on immigration de Gaulle said some immigration from Europe was beneficial, but was quite specific that non Europeans would get fixed term contract for their stay in France and not be given right of domicile. He resigned later that year to spend 12 years awaiting the call. The Gaullists remaining in government wanted France to veto the creation of West Germany. France was worried about access to the coal of the Saar and this was among the concessions got to agree to the formation of west Germany were still taking it until the 1980s.

    Then through the Schuman plan, which its eponymous creator admitted was the continuation of the Monnet plan, the French tried to co opt West Germany . De Gaulle only kept the EU so he could use it as a counter to America, exchanged dollar reserves for gold (led to the US coming off the Gold Standard) sidled up to the Soviet Union and certainly did not want nuclear weapons to use against the USSR.

    Danny the Red was a German citizen as De Gaulle pointed out. After the protests of 1968, when DeGaulle was humiliatingly forced to flee to Germany, he fell from power France and ended up being co opted by Germany as he predicted would happen without him. Macon is a representative of greedy French bankers who need the EU to get Germany to mutualise the toxic ‘assets’ of French banks. That is his function.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  54. Bartolo says:

    I totally agree with everything

    • Thanks: Cyrano
  55. Anon[179] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s true, assimilation can never truly happen across racial, linguistic and religious lines. This is why all immigration should only be between countries that share those 3 traits. A non-white could never become fully assimilated in white majority countries, same goes for non-black in black majority countries, non-Asian in Asian majority countries etc. Blacks have been in the US for nearly 400 years and they are still not fully assimilated into European ways, and most likely never will.

    The only way for a minority group to truly assimilate into the majority is through intermarriage. When the 1/2 minority children again marry the majority race, they become 1/4 minority, and usually by then, they no longer look or act like the minority group, i.e. they’ve become wholly absorbed and assimilated.

    Large scale immigration slows assimilation through intermarriage which is why it must be deterred. Immigration must be small in number, no more than 0.01% of the native population per year, which means no more than 30,000 a year for the US. The immigrant must be no older than 18, smart enough to get into a top 100 university in the US for a STEM degree, and single, to allow assimilation within one generation as they intermarry with natives.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  56. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:

    The real test of ‘assimilation’ is whether you would be happy to marry and have children with one of the immigrant tribe, or would be happy for your son or daughter to do likewise.

    Squeamishness and hypocrisy have no place with this test – which should be the only real and true test politicians should bear in mind when formulating ‘immigration policy’.

  57. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:

    The large numbers of Japanese who emigrated to the USA in the early 20th century have more or less disappeared as a distinct ethnicity, since, by and large, white American men have found Japanese women beautiful enough and gracious enough to marry and have families with. This despite the undoubted large genetic gap between the two races.
    The same thing can *never* be said about the natural instinct and attitudes of white men toward black African women.

  58. @Anonymous

    Surely, the whole concept of ‘France’ – the language, the laws, the culture, the structure etc, owes more to ancient Rome than to anyone else.

    Yes, because when Vercingetorix definitively had his arse handed to him at Alesia and was imprisoned in Rome, put on public display and then executed… the Gauls cucked and went all-in on Latin affectations.

    Today the Frogs are proud that their language is kinda-sorta Latin-ish – like a cucked man being proud that his kid has his best mate’s eyes.

    By contrast, people who didn’t let themselves get culturally arse-raped by Rome are proud of their own distinctive languages and cultures. Even though the English got arse-raped for a while – by the Romans and then by the Normans a millennium later – they recovered their dignity and remain recognisably Anglo-Saxon and culturally more like Krauts (who – at Teutoberger Wald – imposed the most humiliating defeat on Rome since the Battle of Lake Trasimene. Teutoberger Wald was later overshadowed by Rome getting its arse whipped at Carrhae less than 50 years later).

  59. Anonymous[227] • Disclaimer says:

    On a somewhat related note, one must be very very wary of nation states – such as the EU, for example – which institute massive uncontrolled third world immigration as a major policy objective, when a high proportion of such immigrants are, apparently, women of little to no education and little or no workplace skills.

    The days when the rich employed such women as servants have long gone. Likewise, so has light manufacturing industry, which, in former times soaked up such women as cheap labor.

    No. It must be understood by one and all that these female immigrants are coming to the EU *for the express purpose of prostitution*. This is seen in London, England, for example. The other side of the coin is, of course, that it has created a ‘punters’ paradise’ in London, the likes of which has not been seen since Victorian times.

    At least, for some part, male immigrants from the third world actually do *useful* work to some extent, the mass immigration of single women, a modern trend, should not be tolerated by an intelligent nation.

    • Replies: @anon
  60. Sean says:

    At one time Soho was full of French prostitutes. Polish women and men were doing all sort of jobs absolutely everywhere in Britain. Polish and other EC immigrant worker competition with indigenous workers in the UK was the reason for Brexit,. It was not international financial incompatibilities (de Gaulle’s stated reason for objecting to Britain being in the EU ) but the UK workers thinking their wages were being held down by a endless tsunami of EU freedom of movement immigrants that caused Brexit Andre Malraux of said of General De Gaulle that he was “the man of the day before yesterday and the man of the day after tomorrow.

    In 1967 he noted that the total of US balance of payments deficit for the preceding eight years was exactly the total of American investments on Western Europe, and he hoped for a return to the Gold Standard. This was twisting the tail of the US so on Israel de Gaulle could hardly have been influenced by American Zionists. De Gaulle also annoyed Canada over Quebec.

    I think de Gaulle was basically moved by the concept of the nation, and he did not object to racial aliens as such. Enoch Powell–often compared to de Gaulle– was much the same.But Germany had knocked the stuffing out of the French and British state and their Imperial pretensions. After two World Wars, the idea of merging nation states into one another was assumed to be a safe and good thing on common sense and moral grounds; economic integration provided vast profits for the elites. The globalized networks of mutual dependence were thought to create stability, security and predictability. The truth is exactly the opposite: globalisation constitutes a biological threat. More novel disease pandemics are inevitable. And this is one problem migration cannot be the answer to.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  61. Anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:

    Actually despite Enoch Powell being, among other things, a devout Christian, an Oxford don, a poet, a biblical scholar, an Indian Army officer etc etc, I’m pretty sure that his hostility to the darkies flooding into the UK of 50 years ago was based at least in part on a racial anime typical for Englishmen of his generation, hence, ” charming wide grinning piccanninies”.

    The rest, of course, was fuelled by the late 1960s American race riots.

    • Replies: @Sean
  62. Jews are for integration everywhere but Israel. Only the tribe should remain pure to rule over all.

  63. Sean says:

    ‘Charming’ is usually omitted in Britain when quoting those words because it makes the fact he did not mean the word(he often used archaic language) the way it sounded. Moreover, broad grin s that looked good were very rare in the UK back before orthodontics.

    Anyway, it was not just Imperial officers like Powell (or General Mangin) who saw their country’s Empire as having main function in the last analisis of providing military manpower against Germany . I assume you mean on immigration Powell felt some racial ‘animus’, he was certainly seen as articulating it; the Smithfield porters who marched to Parliament to support him were rough customers. Well maybe, but you must remember that Powell failed and any such current of racial opinion was completely suppressed with politicians and people intimidated by antiRacism. Whatever antipathy to Pakistanis and Blacks there was insufficient to prevent Tony Blair initiating large scale replacement NON-European immigration as well as EU migration almost unopposed. Brexit was caused by the million upon millions of Poles and other east EU freedom of movement immigrants taking up their right of entry and habitation in the UK. Powell was right about the EU (which he hated and left his party because of) and immigration, just like de Gaulle.

    Old Enoch was quite certain when the Wall came down that Germany Reunified would try to dominate Europe and an EU with the whole of Germany in it would frighten Russia. Both Powell and Degaulle were both anti American and favoured an alliance with Russia. De Gaulle would never have agreed to join the EU if he knew France would eventually be in it with the whole of Germany. Currently., the French population is projected to match Germany’s by 2055, and that explains why the French are keen on immigration into France by nonEuropeans. Germany has a smaller proportion of their population unwhite than either France or Britain, and Jews are most certainly less influential in Germany than in France, the UK or US, yet these countries protect Germany militarily while it pursues its subtle brand of mercantilism, sells China capital goods, and builds a huge pipelines to get Russian energy. So Germany won in the end. De Gaulle always knew that would happen after he was gone.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  64. Anonymous[103] • Disclaimer says:

    Tony Blair foisted massive uncontrolled immigration – the declared policy of his political master, The Economist magazine – on Britain by sheer stealth, deceit, deception and bare faced shameless lying. Notice, if you will, that absolutely *NO* mention of this policy, which was the keynote of his maladministration, was made in his 1997 election manifesto.

    Belatedly, the British public caught on to this fraudulence, and ejected Labour from power. They will remain out of power for a very very long time. Decades, in fact. Count on it. Brexit and Corbyn are/were the karmic price New Labour had to pay for this injury/fraud on the British public – along with a period in opposition amounting to at least a *generation* in length.

  65. Just in from the Ministry of Truth:
    UK migration: Net migration from outside EU hits ‘highest level’.
    Where are they all going to fit??

  66. Adûnâi says:

    De Gaulle was a Christian traitor to the French State of Maréchal Pétain and to Europe and a slave to Anglo-America. Thanks to his collaboration with the Westernerns, the Aryan race lost their existentail struggle in 1945, and the hordes of the swarthy men of the South and the East will consume what is left of us in the 21st century.

    Men such as him swindled away all the great advantages Europe achieved over Asia in the previous half a millennium for the sake of their pacifist delusions. Now we will pay the toll for their mercy. Pereat Europa!

  67. @Sean

    All beside the point. After 1958, de Gaulle could have prevented non-European immigration into France. He didn’t. He pursued a delusory Great Power policy which laid the foundations of today’s debacle. As Enoch Powell put it so well:

    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.

    • Replies: @Sean
  68. Mitleser says:

    They are not a Gaulish nation, they are a mix of Germanics, Romans and Gauls without the Gauls being dominant.
    Otherwise, there would be more signs of their Gaulish nature like a different, more Gaulish language or at least their nation having a Gaulish name.

  69. Sean says:

    He maybe ought to have, but could he in reality have lived with what that would have entailed, given his sense of history and ‘certain idea of France’ and its position in the world? While there was no longer a serious prospect of war against Germany in 1958, there was still the prestige of the French state and business demanding cheaper labour. Gobineau noted that all empires end with the mixture and replacement.

    Putting the historical and economic arguments to one side, surely one must be quite dubious of the proposition that any nation state’s leadership can accept an unending fall in population however slight. De Gaulle had more or less the same objectives as any other leader of France would or could have–either then or now–and when in the final analysis an indigenous population’s birth rate is too low and immigration of non Europeans is the only way to maintain the country’s status, it all becomes rather inevitable.

    Powell famously said failure at the the end of a life in politics is inherent in the nature of politics and the nature of life; a man sees that not only has what he started out with the intention of doing not come about but his original ambitions belong to a different world. He should not take that as a refutation: his dreams and long losing battle to make them reality were the most important thing about him.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Verymuchalive
  70. Anonymous[241] • Disclaimer says:

    Surely, but surely even the dumbest, stupidest political leader possible MUST realise, at one basic very very visceral animal reptile brain level, at least, that a Europe taken over by non Europeans is the ULTIMATE failure and evil.
    That all of the above isn’t true I find impossible to accept, about as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas.
    I’m fully aware of the religious/cult aspects of the modern ‘equalities’ creed, the self deception, the pontiffs, the creed etc but what is unnatural is instinctively unnatural and thus foul and offensive and cringe making.

    • Replies: @Sean
  71. Sean says:

    If the German birthrate had no fallen, if they had reacted like the Palestinians say, there would have been another world war. That all European birth rates fell meant falling population in nation states and they prefer non European immigration. France had been traumatised and Britain had the stuffing knocked out, noth lost Empires. They wanted to live on the war and the remnants of empire as a status symbol. It also functioned as a source of labour.

    It would have been superhuman for the leaders or common people to foresee all this and elect leaders like Powell, who did not see it himself at first and certainly did not speak on it until a decade after mass immigration started. He proposed repatriation, and that was at one time official Tory policy, but the British population just did not care that much and how could the leadership do anything so controversial without overwhelming backing. This was in order to to avoid something that would take decades to be fully appreciated.

    There is no Europe, only a collection of nation states: France, the UK and Germany all attend closely to how they are in relative power. Countries are like people: conscious of status among their own peers. Individual non Europeans, even if entailing a foreseeable long term predictability that non Europeans would would eventually amount to millions and dominate the main cities, were not seen as the pressing threat to “a certain idea”. Brexit, at bottom, was the feeling that Britain had to leave the EU or be reduced in status compared to Germany and France. Immigrants did not present a threat that the nation state could cope with. Nation states are for fighting other nation states.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  72. Anonymous[132] • Disclaimer says:

    This is nonsense:

    There *NEVER* was an official government programme in the UK, at least, to import ‘labour’ in to the UK from the Empire/Commonwealth in order to stoke post war reconstruction or any other purpose for that matter.
    The interlopers and chances of the SS Empire Windrush invited themselves in, due to a loophole in the 1948 Immigration Act, the politicians of the time, Labour people, I have you, urged and pleaded with them to go home, they did not want them, and were fully aware of their profoundly alien nature. In the event they never took up jobs in rebuilding Britain, but generally rubbishy jobs in ‘service industries’. The cunts at London Transport took in some as bus conductors, apparently some failing textile mills took in pakis, but it is certain that no post war government EVER encouraged them to come in or justified their ingress on the grounds of providing labour for industry. As I said, they are and were changers who sneaked in to enrich themselves.
    However, post war British governments DID invite in thousands of displaced persons from Europe to work in construction, mines, agriculture and heavy industry. Conveniently, their contribution to UK reconstruction is completely ignored – for obvious reasons.

  73. anon[361] • Disclaimer says:

    In US, young immigrant women hold the majority of low level jobs in the medical system.
    For that matter, whites have only token representation among the top physicians and surgeons.

  74. @Sean

    Putting the historical and economic arguments to one side, surely one must be quite dubious of the proposition that any nation state’s leadership can accept an unending fall in population however slight.

    There was no unending fall in population, however slight. Quite the contrary. Between 1946 and 1960, the population of France surged from 40.3 million to 45.7 million, an increase of over 13%. All without mass immigration. So there was no economic case for such immigration in the first place.
    De Gaulle permitted non- European mass immigration not only out of a deluded Great Power policy, but also as a way of pandering to corporate interests
    This was seen as early as 1963 with the execution of Jean Bastien-Thiry. A section of the Permanent State/Corporate Interests, the Vieil Etat-Major, were opposed to de Gaulle and wanted him removed. Bastien-Thiry was their front man as it were. But de Gaulle needed the co-operation of these people after the business of Algeria was settled. Scores of OAS men were commuted and later pardoned. They didn’t matter. The OAS was a paramilitary organisation, bereft of any real establishment sympathisers or connections.

    VEM was different. Bastien-Thiry was a missile designer with close connections to the French Military Industrial Complex. Bastien-Thiry could not be commuted or pardoned. At any time, He could have revealed who his patrons were. He had to be permanently silenced. So he was. To this day, the people controlling VEM have never been revealed.
    No doubt, most of them would be reconciled to mass immigration. The money to be made from cheap labour tends to dampen opposition. But the episode displays how de Gaulle always tried to accommodate corporate interests even when they opposed him, or tried to kill him. In this case, shoot the front man, but try and reach an accommodation with his patrons.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  75. Sean says:

    Following the loss of two provinces to Germany, Zola wrote a novel all about the importance of raising the French birth rate. De Gaulle was not unaware that in ww2 his country suffered an embarrassing collapse in the face of a high tempo attack, which can hardly have been hamstrung by the Germans having almost 3:1 of an advantage in the number of 19-20 year olds they could call up.

    While I was spectacularly wrong wrong about a falling population for France, the French did have a long history of worrying about being decline relative to Germany and by 1946 they were more worried than ever so de Gaulle had more or less the same objectives as any other leader of France would or could have, both then and when he was brought back in 1958. Namely, he wanted France to be a cohesive country that maintained its traditional influence in the world. An Apartheid type immigration regieme on the basis of race would have preserved France’s racial integrity but damaged its standing in the world. And how long would it have lasted given the protests of 1968 by that burgeoning cohort of white youth? No, de Gaulle’s moderate conservatism was rejected by students but also a broader based movement of workers who brought the country to a halt with strikes. Anything deGaulle did would have been reversed when he left office. By the way in October 1961 he had tens of thousands of Algerians deported in the aftermath of hundreds them being beaten to death on the Saint Michel bridge and thrown into the Seine.

    Algerian immigration to France proper had started before WW1 and increased considerably during and after it. De Gaulle’s policies had no sharp effect, it was a slow process of family unification and the Algerians in France still numbered under a million in the late 1970s. Durcher is quite clear that deGaulle was against mass immigration. So I would say that while deGaulle had no objection to a limited inflow of North Africans he never thought in terms of the wave that occured in the 90s. Politicians cannot think a few weeks ahead as the current pandemic has shown. It surely is asking a lot for someone like de Gaulle to place his immediate concerns in second place and create impregnable measures half a century before the need for them was evident to the electorate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  76. OldFool says:

    “The African nation is ‘Camaroon’ ”

    Close, but no cigar for you either, sir.

    The name is Republic of CAMEROON (French: République du CAMEROUN),

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  77. Anonymous[278] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t know about France, but I know about Britain:

    Firstly and most importantly, the British political class as a whole, apart from a few exceptions such as Enoch Powell were too *COWARDLY* to take the harsh and tough action needed to halt and reverse black/brown mass immigration. They knew full well the delayed impact of this immigration and its social evils. Winston Churchill when Prime Minister in the early 1950s warned strongly against it while in cabinet meetings, but the cabinet was too timid and cowardly to step on a few toes. This immigration was NEVER about economics, labor shortage or population stagnation.
    Secondly, in recent times black/brown immigration has been promoted by all of the main British political parties as a ‘good within itself’, somewhat bizarrely. Again this has nothing to do with any economic or population justification – all the *real* hard evidence tells us that black/brown immigrants are a tremendous economic detriment to the UK – but is simply the ruling political dogma of our times.

    • Replies: @Sean
  78. Anonymous[430] • Disclaimer says:

    Apparently, mass immigration into France was ‘officially’ ‘curtailed’ in 1974, in response to the oil crisis of that time and the ramp up of mass unemployment.

    Yet, the majority of darkies in France, their parents, grandparents even, entered after 1974.

    A fact that never ceases to make me laugh.

  79. Sean says:

    The leadership class in Britain may have foreseen what would happen in a generation of two, but the more democratic a country is, the more the leader cannot go out on a limb. The common people getting behind an idea is necessary before the leadership class might seriously think to adopt it. Unless you bring in a strong leader who has power resilient to opposing factions, tough decision making for long term goals is a non starter. Powell was first and foremost a Parliamentarian so I think he fell short of the kind of leader required. He also had resigned on another matter which reduced his influence,

  80. Anonymous[247] • Disclaimer says:


    The vast majority of white Britons *hated* mass darkie immigration when it was happening then, and they still hate it now.
    Churchill’s comments to cabinet on the subject, made in the early 1950s, show that he hated it too. The replies from fellow ministers all bespeak of cowardice and procrastination.
    A policy platform of repatriation and zero immigration would have been a sure fire recipe for a massive commons majority in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and at present.
    It was only cowardly bullshit about ‘not offending the Commonwealth’ that is an area with little going for it and no blood ties to Britain – sheer nonsense in other words – that intimidated a lot of stupid, pompous cowardly MPs.

  81. Hibernian says:

    I’m not sure a majority of Catholic Irishmen ever even supported severing ties with Britain.

    After the mass executions following the Easter Rising they did.

    • Replies: @Rich
  82. Hibernian says:

    Previously the German colony Kamerun.

  83. A new paper on the genetics of France.

    Ancient genomes from present-day France unveil 7,000 years of its demographic history

    It is behind a paywall but here is a summary.

    It looks like modern French are close to their Bronze/Iron Age ancestors. Similar results to Rome, Spain, Greece and even Lebanon.

  84. @Verymuchalive

    I did offer up Bastien-Thiry in the hope Durocher might contradict or disabuse me. No such luck

  85. Rich says:

    Interestingly enough, although Sinn Fein won an overwhelming number of parliament seats, they still received less than 50% of the total Irish vote. Would the Irish of that time have voted for separation if they could see that it would result, 100 years later, in a homosexual Hindu Prime Minister who frolics shirtless in a public park with his “lover”? I think, if they’d known, they’d have given up the Pope and eagerly joined the Protestant faith and sworn allegiance to the British Crown.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  86. RSDB says:

    Would the Irish of that time have voted for separation if they could see that it would result, 100 years later, in a homosexual Hindu Prime Minister who frolics shirtless in a public park with his “lover”?

    Probably, given that the UK isn’t that much less of a joke.

  87. @RSDB

    That, plus Rich has a large burden of proof to show how Event #1, the separation of the Republic of Ireland from England, led to Event #2, the globohomoization of Ireland.

  88. Malla says:

    Charles de Gaulle said

    It’s true that the natives are not yet ready to govern themselves. But . . . the world exists around us and has changed.

    Very true, the colonialism project was aborted, ended before its time. That is the tragedy of the Third World who listened to those stupid marxists and native exploitative elites. What we idiot brown blacks never realized was that White rule and White (or Yellow) immigration benefited the brown blacks the most. It would be the Whites who would benefit from decolonisation by cutting the rope on the expensive brown black masses. Europe’s economy boomed during decolonisation. Now millions of brown blacks want to live in White country under White man rule!!!

    We founded our colonization from the beginning on the principle of assimilation. We claimed to be turning the Negroes into good Frenchman. We made them recite: “Our ancestors the Gaulish”[1]; this was not very clever.

    That is why decolonization is so much more difficult for us than for the English. They always recognized differences of race and culture. They organized self-government.[2] They only had to loosen ties for it to work. We on the other hand denied these differences. We wanted to be a Republic of 100 million identical and interchangeable Frenchman. That is why decolonization is heartbreaking for the French. . . .

    Could it have anything to do with the ideology of the French Revolution. That all mankind is the same and Liberty and Brotherhood for all mankind. That was a stupid idea.

  89. Malla says:

    Charles de Gaulle said

    Well, if we cannot give them equality, better to give them liberty! Bye, bye,[3] you are too expensive for us![4]

    Unfortunately Papa France cannot get rid of their expensive spoilt ex-colony children. Even Mitterrand, the commie said in one interview that it is not France which wants to engage with its colonies, the African colonies would not leave Daddy France alone and this is a head ache for Daddy. More France (or Whitey) does for brown blacks , more the brown blacks make up stupid conspiracy theories of Whitey looting darkies. Ungrateful scum.

    There is this idiotic rumour going around in black Africa of a “colonial tax” being “levied by France on its black African colonies and thus evul YT lootin us super talented darkies and keepin uz down” Total B.S.

    What we do know is that there are 14 countries in Africa that use currencies (the West African franc and the Central African franc) backed by the treasury of France. Twelve of these countries are former colonies of France and two later adopted the CFA – both currencies share the same acronym.

    These currencies have always been at a pegged exchange rate, first with the franc, then with the euro. They both share the same value, but are not transferable (you can’t spend one inside the area of the other currency).

    The countries that use the CFA currencies are required to maintain a 20 billion dollar balance in France to act as a reserve to stabilize the currency. Basically France holds 50% of their cash reserves on their behalf (not 65%, let alone 85%), i.e. about $20 billion. For a huge economy like France, it’s a pretty small sum. The French state cannot access these funds. They still belongs to the countries that have deposited them. They can withdraw them should they decide to spend some of their reserves. Whatever interest is made is redistributed to them. The reserves aren’t converted into French francs. They stay in CFA francs. Since the French franc does not exist, even as an accounting unit, it can not devalue. The CFA franc exchange rate is fixed to the euro.

    The arrangement is voluntary. Every CFA franc member is free to withdraw from it (& withdraw their money). The countries that operate with these currencies are free to leave the arrangement at any time. Mali left the currency and later rejoined. One former Portugese colony and one former Spanish colony have opted into the system, without having previous ties to France. So none are forced to hand over money to France.

    The reserve is not a tax. It is a reserve of funds. It does not need to be paid annually. The money earns a small (0.75% IIRC) but positive annual interest. Comparable or better than many central banks today. In other words, the Banque de France withholds a large portion of the member countries’ reserves. Calling that a tax and unfair spoliation takes a rather one-sided view: Through this system, the Banque de France, backed by the French state, effectively plays the role of externalised Central Bank to the CFA-zone member countries.

    What that means is that not only do they do much of the work (including artificially maintaining a currency – the franc – which isn’t in circulation anymore, because this is what has been agreed upon the CFA would be indexed on), it also means that, should any of the CFA countries experience a financial crisis, government shutdown or anything else that would normally affect the currency, the Banque de France is on the hook for them (yet while having very little control over what these states actually do – pretty similar to the Euro only if the zone was almost entirely made up of extreme Greces).

    Now, all the CFA states have a track-record of unreliable economic figures and bad book-keeping (meaning finding out what is actually going on is very difficult), over-spending, corruption and high reliance on natural resource exports (subject to significant price variations). Furthermore, the independence of their institutions such as the central bank is not guaranteed (quite the opposite).So the question is not so much whether there will be crises the Banque de France will have to pay and use the reserves for – rather when and how often they happen. The withheld reserves therefore can be seen as a combination of a management fee and an insurance premium.

    Is it a good system? Debatable, and be it just because of these kinds of red-herring discussions, I would want to say no. Plus, it may indeed be time for the former colonies to cut these kinds of ties with the former coloniser. But it is in no way a “tax for the benefits of slavery and colonisation”. Nor is the fact that many of the banks (including private ones) in the area invest most of their capital in French Treasury bonds, instead of their own economies.

    The rumour of the “colonial tax” has its origin in the monetary spaces that France created in Africa in order to guarantee some economical stability in these regions.

    While there is a lot of valid criticism towards these monetary zones, some people have recently been playing on the ignorance of the masses on these issues to give a very deformed view and claim something like “former French colonies have to pay 50% of their GDP to France as a colonial-tax”. A pity that there is no international treaty nor any sort of bookkeeping that substantiate this.

    A quick internet search reveals several, almost identical articles repeating the accusation of a colonial tax, but none are sourced. Africa today is often very vocal about exploitation by non-African countries, and yet this ‘colonial tax’ is only discussed in variations of a single article.

    Even the anti-colonial pro-African French left press has largely debunked it :

    So the answer is no, there is no such thing as a colonial tax. There are, however, a lot of people that claim the opposite, some of whom with very sinister motivations.

    The closest money transfer actually gets to a colonial tax is that many African government leaders sponsor candidates and parties in political elections in France, hoping they will support their interests. As an example, in early 2012 Mediapart revealed that a huge chunk of money from Nicolas Sarkozy’s election campaign came from Kadafi and that explained a large part of his eagerness to help Libyan rebels to overthrow their dictator. But that is obviously not a tax either – first of all, not only is it not mandated by law, it is actively against it; The money goes to political parties, not the state; And the purpose is to butter politicians up so they will increase development aid payments to the dictators’ states, which only makes sense if they get more out of it than they pay in.

    Actually Europe has contributed huge sums to African development. It probably exceeds US$1 trillion. Other estimates are lower. Today, France is the prime lender and biggest development aid provider to most of its former colonies.

    PART of the problem is that European devotion to socialism meant that post-colonial African leaders pursued big-government socialist policies and EU aid also reinforces African socialism . Meaning that all the European aid went into an African black hole of wealth destroying socialist policies. (The same economic socialist policies that destroyed the Soviet Union and is drowning Europe in an ocean of debt).

    In other words, blacks and browns are very expensive. Whites (and maybe Yellows) should withdraw all interaction with the expensive ungrateful brown black world as much as practically possible. Kick all brown blacks back (except a very few who are good like 0.0001%) and stop interfering in the affairs of darkies (except maybe encourage them to protect endangered habitats in their territories). Let the darkies rot in their shitholes. Do not give them the benefit of your presence.

  90. Malla says:

    When Queen Victoria visited, prior to the Easter uprising, she was met by adoring crowds, to the dismay of Irish nationalists.

    The same thing happened when Prince George V, son of the King Emperor of India came to India. The poor crowds adored him while Gandhi created riots which led to Indians killing and looting other Indians. While millions of other Indians were thronging the streets to have a glimpse of their Prince. The Prince George V in the Delhi Durbar was being entertained by top Indian classical singers and he rewarded them handsomely (just like a native Emperor would do).

    When the Prince of Wales sailed to India from London, late in 1921, Mr. Gandhi, then at the height of his popularity, proclaimed to the Hindu world that the coming visit was “an insult added to injury,” and called for a general boycott.[13]

    [13. Gandhi’s Letters on Indian Affairs, pp. 96-7.]
    Political workers obediently snatched up the torch, rushing it through their organizations, and the Prince’s landing in Bombay became thereby the signal for murderous riot and destruction. No outbreak occurred among the responsible part of the population, nor along the line of progress, which was, of course, well guarded. But in the remoter areas of the city, hooliganism ran on for several days, with some fifty killings and four hundred woundings, Indian attacking Indian, while arson and loot played their ruinous part.

    Meanwhile the Prince, seemingly unmoved by the first unfriendly reception of all his life, proceeded to carry out his officially arranged programme in and about the city. On the evening of November 22 it was scheduled that he should depart for the North.
    As he left Government House on the three- or four-mile drive to the Bombay railway station, his automobile ran unguarded save for the pilot police car that went before. Where it entered the city, however, a cordon of police lined the streets on both sides. And behind that cordon pressed the people–the common poor people of the countryside in their uncountable thousands; pressed and pushed until, with the railway station yet half a mile away, the police line bent and broke beneath the strain.

    Instantly the crowd surged in, closing around the car, shouting, fighting each other to work nearer–nearer still. What would they do? What was their temper? God knew! Gandhi’s hot words had spread among them, and God alone, now, could help. Some reached the running-boards and clung. Others shoved them off, for one instant to take their places, the next themselves to be dragged away. And what was this they shouted? At first nothing could be made of it, in the bedlam of voices, though those charged with the safety of the progress strained their ears to catch the cries.

    Then words stood out, continuously chanted, and the words were these:

    “Yuvaraj Maharaj ki jai!” “Hail to the Prince!” And: “Let me see my Prince! Let me see my Prince! Let me only see my Prince just once before I die!”

    The police tried vainly to form again around the car. Moving at a crawl, quite unprotected now, through an almost solid mass of shouting humanity, it won through to the railway station at last.

    There, within the barriers that shut off the platform of the royal train, gathered the dignitaries of the Province and the City, to make their formal farewells. To these His Royal Highness listened, returning due acknowledgments. Then, clipping short his own last word, he turned suddenly to the aide beside him.

    “How much time left?”

    “Three minutes, sir,” replied the aide.

    “Then drop those barriers and let the people in”–indicating the mobs outside.

    Like the sweep of a river in flood the interminable multitudes rolled in–and shouted and adored and laughed and wept, and, when the train started, ran alongside the royal carriage till they could run no more.

    And when he turned back from his transit of the Great North Gate–the Khyber Pass itself–a strange thing awaited him. A swarm of Untouchables, emboldened by news that had reached them, clustered at the roadside to do him reverence, “Government ki jai!” “Hail to the Government!” they shouted, with cheers that echoed from the barren hills.

    And when the Prince slowed down his car to return their greetings, they leapt and danced in their excitement.

    For nowhere in all their store of memory or of legend had they any history of an Indian magnate who had noticed an Untouchable except to scorn him. And here was a greater than all India contained–the son of the Supreme Power, to them almost divine, who deigned not only to receive but even to thank them for their homage! Small wonder that their spirits soared, that their eyes saw visions, that their tongues laid hold upon mystic words.

    “Look! Look!” they cried to one another. “Behold, the Light! the Light!”

    And such was their exaltation that many of them somehow worked through to Delhi to add themselves to the twenty-five thousand of their kind who there awaited the Prince’s coming. The village people from round about flocked in to join them–the simple people of the soil who know nothing of politics but much of friendship as shown in works. And all together haunted the roadside, waiting and hoping for a glimpse of his face.

    At last he came, down the Grand Trunk Road, toward the Delhi Gate. And in the center of the hosts of the Untouchables, one, standing higher than the rest, unfurled a flag.

    “Yuvaraj Maharaj ki jai! Raja ke Bete ki jai!

    “Hail to the Prince! Hail to the King’s Son!” they all shouted together, to burst their throats. And the Prince, while the high-caste Indian spectators wondered and revolted within themselves at his lack of princely pride, ordered his car stopped.

    Then a spokesman ventured forward, to offer in a humble little speech the love and fealty of the sixty millions of the Unclean and to beg the heir to the throne to intercede for them with his father the King Emperor, never to abandon them into the hands of those who despised them and would keep them slaves.

    The Prince heard him through. Then–whether he realized the magnitude of what he did, or whether he acted merely on the impulse of his natural friendly courtesy toward all the world–he did an unheard-of thing. He stood up–stood up, for them, the “worse than dogs,” spoke a few words of kindness, looked them all over, slowly, and so, with a radiant smile, gave them his salute.

    • Replies: @Anon
  91. Anon[169] • Disclaimer says:

    Gandhi never created riots. He was too much of a pussy to do that.

    The British were lucky that they could occupy India for so long with almost zero bloodshed.

    Even today, British tourists are treated well in India. Lots of Anglo Indians get special reservations.

  92. @animalogic

    Why Eire proper never industrialized and why the English were able to set up the conditions that enabled the potato famine is something I never quite got.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Guillaume Durocher Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Becker update V1.3.2