Reduction of freedom of speech in modern France goes back to the 1970s, with the promotion of what was called the “memorial laws”. These laws were passed to prohibit any criticism of the official version of certain points in the history of the Second World War. Today, it is in that very same spirit that some voices are being raised to criminalize what they call (without really knowing what they are talking about), the Great Replacement “theory”. What is the appropriate response to this? First of all, let us agree on the meaning of the words used. Most of the media qualify the Great Replacement as an extreme right-wing and racist conspiracy theory, regularly conflating its author, the writer Renaud Camus, with criminals who happen to share his observation and decide to go on killing sprees. What better way to disqualify the writer and his phrase? But what does Renaud Camus mean by “Great Replacement”? Well, here’s how he defines it himself:
“Oh, it’s very simple: you have a people and almost all at once, in the span of a single generation, it is replaced by another, or by several others. The Great Replacement, the change of people, is the most important phenomenon in the history of France for centuries, and probably forever.”
That’s Renaud Camus’ definition of the Great Replacement: it is an ongoing change of people happening in France as well as in other Western countries caused by decades of lax migration policies and deculturation. These measures ultimately lead to the rapid ethnic modification of the host countries, all in the name of tolerance, diversity and multiculturalism. Just compare pictures of the Parisian, London or Belgian metro in the 1920s,1950s, 1980s, and in 2022.
You will see for yourself how blatantly obvious the anthropological evolution of the pictured individuals is. That’s the Great Replacement for you.
In the long run, this phenomenon may lead the host countries to a state of libanization, thus triggering dramatic consequences. To be aware of this Great Replacement in progress is to give peace a chance by acting as quickly as possible so that each people can blossom in its own homeland, while safeguarding the benevolence due to individuals who have made the effort to assimilate into our Western culture. One may deny the reality of this change of people and believe, as the mainstream opinion wrongly claims, that France has “always been a land of immigrants”. One may also deny the demographic and social reality of a phenomenon experienced by millions of French, English, Belgians, Swedes or Germans in their daily lives. Finally, one may bury one’s head in the sand and wallow in virtue signaling by shouting how racist the whole thing is. But criminalizing an observation that other very famous public figures share as well, including the far-left French politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon (who uses the phrase creolization), would be tantamount to criminalizing freedom of thought itself. What kind of democracy would do that?
However, we shouldn’t fool ourselves. The reason why the phrase Great Replacement is so demonized is because its semantic power has the capacity of awakening the conscience of Western peoples trapped in their collective inertia in the face of the mortal perils threatening them: the uprooting of identity, deculturation, demographic submersion, ethnic replacement.
Is blind violence the appropriate response to these threats? No. Yet this is the intention that countless commentators around the world fallaciously lend to the phrase Great Replacement. In his 160 books’ work, Renaud Camus, a keen pacifist, advocates non-violence. Camus’ solution to fight off the Great Replacement does not lie in „demographic growth, nor religion, nor Jean-Marie Le Pen“ (a French far-right politician), but in “culture and political will”.
The Great Replacement is a crime against humanity, against global ethnic diversity, against Native peoples. The Great Replacement is not a theory. It is a crime.