France: The Reality of the Great Replacement

Article author: 
Guillaume Durocher
Article publisher: 
Unz Review
Article date: 
28 April 2019
Article category: 
National News
Medium
Article Body: 

The following is a translation of the summary of Jean-Yves Le Gallou’s speech at the third Fête du Pays Réel (Festival of the Real Country), held on March 30. This is a useful summary both of some of the dubious claims of the French mainstream media on immigration and of the known facts....

If disinformation is extremely widespread, immigration is surely the area in which it is strongest, notably on the question of the great replacement. On this point, the mainstream media make mutually contradictory claims, because they assert both that the great replacement does not exist . . . and that it is not intentional!...

 In fact, for 5000 years, the French population, stemming from an Indo-European settlement, has changed very little: a few percentages over several centuries. The bulk of these migratory movements took place within the European continent, including what has been called “the great invasions.”...

One can estimate the share of the population not originally from France or Europe at 20%, a number confirmed by several sources....

... in 2008 there were 210,000 recorded entries and in 2018 there were 410,000. It almost doubled!...

[Graph] The rising percentage of Muslim first names for newborns in France.... The director of the Department for Public Opinion and Business Strategy of the IFOP polling organization observes that 18.5% of newborn boys have a Muslim first name....

The demographic figures, while being very revealing, by no means describe the whole reality of the great replacement. It is not only a part of the population which is changing, it’s our civilization: the growing role of Ramadan in our society, the sharia which is becoming the law in certain neighborhoods, the increasing popularity of the headscarf, the generalization of halal (50% of market animals are slaughtered according to this rite)....

Translator’s note: The financial speculator George Soros has opposed European patriots like Viktor Orbán and used his billions to pressure Europe to open up to Third-World immigration. He said in October 2015, at the height of the migrant crisis: “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”...

Translator’s note: In August 2016, amidst the migrant crisis, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker declared “Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.”...

So who wants this great replacement? It is true that more and more elected officials are publicly saying that they want to limit immigration. But, as it happens, the law is largely of a jurisprudential nature. It therefore pertains to the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Council, the Council of State,[13] the Court of Cassation, or the National Court for Asylum Law.
 
This superiority of the courts over government power was particularly well illustrated by the case of family unification: instated by the Chirac government in 1976, the following government tried in vain to abrogate it. In vain, because the new decree was invalidated by the Council of State. Thus, for forty years since, family reunification has continued to be applied.So who wants this great replacement? It is true that more and more elected officials are publicly saying that they want to limit immigration. But, as it happens, the law is largely of a jurisprudential nature. It therefore pertains to the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Council, the Council of State, the Court of Cassation, or the National Court for Asylum Law.
 
This superiority of the courts over government power was particularly well illustrated by the case of family unification: instated by the Chirac government in 1976, the following government tried in vain to abrogate it. In vain, because the new decree was invalidated by the Council of State. Thus, for forty years since, family reunification has continued to be applied....

The same has occurred for the right of asylum, originally meant to protect small minorities persecuted in their home countries. It has become a convenient way to move to France because the courts are building, decision after decision, a legal system extremely favorable to foreigners. ...

The State must stop subsidizing immigrationist organizations and abrogate the Pleven laws[14] and others which prevent free debate on a question that is so vital for the future of our people.
 
By refusing to take such measures, government and parliament are allowing, whether they intend to or not, the Great Replacement to take place.
 
---
 
[14] Translator’s note: the Pleven laws (dating from 1972) form the foundation of France’s censorious ‘hate speech’ legislation.