Sex and Deviance, page 28
However, these stars who adopt third world children consider them toys, instrumentalising them as magnets for publicity. The adoption of third world children, especially African children, often degenerates into a real child trafficking business for which anti-racist humanitarianism serves as a smokescreen.[11]
Third world children are adopted in preference to European orphans (notably to Russian and Eastern European orphans, who are legion) quite simply because adopting a child of colour is chic and anti-racist, even if it is a great deal more difficult. It is life membership to ideological conformity.
The Race-Mixing Imperative, Soft Genocide, and Preparing the Way for Ethnic Chaos
‘United Colors of Benetton’
Biologically, the disappearance of a people, an ethnicity, or a race is achieved principally through others intermixing with its women, that is, with their wombs. The union of a woman of race X with a male of race Y is much more dangerous for race X than for race Y. For women are the biological and sexual reservoir of a race, a people, a genetic patrimony — not men. Indeed, a woman can only bear a limited number of children in her life, while man can generate a multitude with any number of fertile women. Demographers only define fertility and population renewal in terms of the number of children per woman, by maternity and not by paternity.
This is why today we must as an even more serious problem to that of uncontrolled immigration of third world populations (which have a higher fertility rate) into the countries of Europe, namely the problem of the interbreeding of White women with men of colour, which, in France especially, is reaching noticeable proportions. Not only does the White race thus face competition within its own territory, not only does it fail to renew itself across generations with its weak rate of fertility (that is, everywhere under two children per woman), but a fraction of its reproducing women are subtracted from the number which will reproduce their own kind and opt instead to give birth to mixed-race persons. So, besides the growth of a foreign population pouring across our borders and reproducing itself via its practice of endogamy, fertile White women are having fewer children and, on top of this, a portion of them are offering themselves to foreigners.
Whites, with a few exceptions, are the only people who are not concerned about their collective future, who do not possess a racial consciousness, so guilty and complex-ridden have they become. One of the causes, in addition to their universalist christianoform mentality, is perhaps to be sought in the consequences of Nazism, which have provoked a mental paralysis and collective bad conscience.
In the end, this very serious situation will result, if it continues, in a gradual silent genocide of Whites in Europe — their own cradle (soon to be composed mostly of foreigners, mixed-race persons, and an ever-diminishing proportion of Whites) — as the historian Pierre Chaunu and the journalist Georges Suffert suggested in their book, The White Plague, published at a time when the phenomenon had barely begun. This is the fate which lies in wait for France, and which the vision of the streets at the end of the school day confirms ever more disquietingly year after year.[12]
When a people transforms its genetic patrimony and biological composition to this extent, it clearly ceases to be itself. If nothing changes, the inhabitants of Europe at the end of the twenty-first century will no longer be persons of European origin, and thus European Civilisation will no longer exist. Europe itself will no longer exist as a demographic, but merely as a geographical expression. It will simply be an appendix of Africa, entirely devoid of an ethnic consciousness (contrary to most of the other peoples of the world), though the Europeans of the West consider this cataclysm with the indifference of the living dead. The demographic indicators are certainly indicative of this future, and are truly terrifying.[13]
A very subtle ideological model has been created in order to destabilise the minds of young White women. Its basis is the supposedly greater virility of African and North African men, a theme which has been doing the rounds in our society for a long time. There are comparatively very few cases of relationships between White women and Far-Easterners. Another real and worrisome element is the devirilisation of European men, who appear unable to defend ‘their’ women. This ethological phenomenon is very disturbing. When the males of a group — in all higher vertebrates — are no longer capable of strength, virility, or domination, the females turn to the males from the other group.
Often, young White girls in working-class neighbourhoods quite paradoxically seek to be ‘protected’ by taking a foreign boyfriend. Protected by the coreligionists of their boyfriends, they are trying to avoid harassment. In the more bourgeois neighbourhoods, we witness another phenomenon: provocative snobbery. Young White girls want to provoke those around them and their families by going out with a Black or Arab boy, or some other foreigner. They thus show, by a soft and spongey conformism, that they are ‘anti-racist’ and keeping up with the times.
* * *
It is very strange that the man of colour is proud to be seen with a White woman and to give her children. There are various contradictory reasons for this.
First of all, it is a matter of signaling the appropriation of a White woman in order to humiliate the White man on his own turf. This capture of the female is a very ancient ethological phenomenon for which history offers many examples, the roots of which are found in the animal kingdom. To be seen with a White woman is both a mark of pride and of revenge. At the same time, in Africa and the Middle East, men of the higher classes aspire to whiten themselves by taking a European wife; this is the case with a number of African and Arab monarchs. Similarly, African and Antillean women — from the days of French colonialism right up until today — dream of nothing but marrying a European, not only for the prestige but also to have less coloured children.
In these two contradictory cases, we observe a schizophrenic inferiority-superiority complex: humiliate the dominant White man by taking a White wife, but at the same time ‘whiten’ one’s own descendants, implicitly acknowledging feelings of belonging to an inferior race. Destroy the White race while whitening oneself: an insurmountable contradiction. Consider, too, Senghor, the ‘Négritude’ movement’s poet,[14] who married a White woman and had mixed-race children!
One exception to this trend is the Tribe Ka. This Black racist, extremist, and violently anti-Zionist group led by Kémi Séba (an ideologue of rather limited powers) takes inspiration from American radical Black movements and claims to reject mixture with Whites and to dissuade Blacks from looking for White wives. However, this is a rather louche position, for these people are perfectly able to reproduce with African women, to establish African families and brotherhoods in France, and in no way do they forbid the impregnation of White women.
* * *
We should also consider that other phenomenon involving inversion. The imperative of miscegenation (if possible with a White woman) is of course founded on the egalitarian ideology of anti-racism. At the same time, the attraction to Arab and Black men, or to swarthy men more generally, is based upon very ambiguous imagery. Such men are supposedly super-virile and perform exceptionally well sexually. But the image which is offered in the media and most notably in the pornographic industry is that of animal strength: no longer Tarzan, but King Kong. Sporty, athletic, violent, with a penis and muscles inversely proportional to his cerebral capacities. In short, the image of the lover of colour is that of animalism. The Black and the Arab man is implicitly and subtly reduced to the status of human beasts. This entirely contradicts the anti-racist agenda which is the heart of the dominant ideology: an unconscious racism is at the heart of anti-racism....
Of course, this belief in the sexual and physical super-capacity of the Black or the Arab is a myth which corresponds to no reality.[15] It is a fantasy to which the destructured White woman succumbs, stupefied by the gigantic media propaganda machine.
* * *
Mass immigration and the racial mixing of native women in Europe will gradually lead to ethnic chaos,[16] the formidable drawbacks of which are twofold. It will result firstly in the creation of a society broken into hostile communities subject to the law that multiracialism equals multiracism, and secondly in the presence of a population of mixed-race people hovering between two identities which is especially unstable. Such a society is difficult to govern because of its heterogeneity and, as Aristotle saw, unsuited to democracy or social peace, always inclined to violence and constantly threatened by despotism.
This is why the French republican ideological belief (taken up by the other countries of Europe) in a ‘multicoloured France’ that can succeed if ‘integration’ is possible (that is to say, if the incredible crystallisation of a heterogeneous and chaotic biological and ethnic base into a homogeneous society is possible) amounts to a belief in miracles and the stupidest utopia, for which the fetish-term diversity is repeated like a totem.
Moreover, let us take a look at the geographic areas where strongly racially mixed populations are concentrated: North Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Antilles. Even Black Africa, where the colonial borders placed irreconcilable ethnic groups side by side, has known the same endemic disorders. Instability and violence, the fruit of ethnic chaos, are in every case chronic. The central power is everywhere corrupt and hyper-authoritarian. Is this what awaits France?
* * *
It is appropriate to challenge here a dogmatic counter-truth propagated by the dominant ideology: that France has always been racially mixed[17] because over the course of centuries it has seen waves of immigration. Of course, current immigration and racial mixture will be beneficial because it creates diversity. This is a confusion between diversity and chaos, heterogeneity within proximity and mass random mixture between differing biological types and cultures.[18] Now, four things must be noted: 1) In Antiquity, both the Germanic invasion-immigration waves into Gaul and the implantation of Italic-Roman colonies concerned closely related populations; the Muslim incursion and installation in Provence-Languedoc [in the eighth century AD –Tr.] involved limited numbers, and many of the invaders were expelled; 2) the surges of immigration into France which began in the nineteenth century came from Europe (Italy, Belgium, the Iberian Peninsula, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans) — that is to say, populations belonging culturally, ethnically, and biologically to the same ‘Albo-European stock’, as Senghor puts it. Not to mention that they concerned numerically small populations that were thus possible to assimilate; 3) current migration and the miscegenation which follows from it are of a scale never before witnessed in history, and involve extra-European populations, which changes absolutely everything; 4) the ‘ethnic melting pot’ is only beneficial if it involves close ethnic groups belonging to the same greater anthropological family. In other words, if any and all kinds of mixture occur, the population which results is no longer in any sense a people, but an ungovernable heterogeneous mass unsuited to any form of civilisational development which are susceptible to endemic violence and all sorts of psychological pathologies. It is this catastrophe that lies in wait for us, which Japan, India, and China have been perfectly well able to avoid.
We are given the counter-example of the United States which is supposedly a melting pot, but this is false, for the American melting pot only concerned European immigrants, whose synergy was the source of that country’s strength. The contributions of Blacks, Asiatics, and Latin Americans were not decisive. Moreover, the advancement of multiraciality in the US is proving to be more of a handicap for the world’s leading power than anything else, as the American political scientist Jared Taylor has shown.[19]
Miscegenation as Official State Doctrine
De Gaulle would be spinning in his grave if he could see the situation of France today. The General cannot be accused of racism or fascism. Alain Peyrefitte in C’était de Gaulle[20] reports that the Head of State was concerned about migration from the global South into France, and that he had granted independence to Algeria in order to avoid a mixing of populations which, in his view, would be catastrophic for the identity of France. He recalled that France is a ‘racially White, majority Catholic country of Greco-Roman culture’; he said that France, a generous country with a universal vocation, could receive a few small minorities of African origin, but no more; he even wished, horresco referens [I shudder to tell –Tr.], that immigration to France be composed mostly of populations from ‘Northern Europe’ — Belgians, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, and the like. He added: ‘I do not want Colombey-les-deux-Eglises to become Colombey-les-deux-Mosquées’ (the statement is well-known, but today’s Gaullists suppress and bury it). The little world of political journalism has taken care not to make any noise abroad or comment on this annoyingly improper observation of the late General: silence in the ranks!
The spirit of the times has certainly changed, and today’s ‘Gaullists’ (imposters, really) would condemn and exclude from their ranks any political personality who expressed the General’s ideas as reported by Peyrefitte. In our time, it is no longer the preservation of French national identity (in the etymological sense of the Latin natio) that concerns the Head of State, but its destruction, its dilution, by means of a falsifying rhetoric which transforms the idea of national identity into its contrary by way of the Orwellian technique of semantic inversion. Éric Besson, intriguing defector from the Socialist Party, when he was President Sarkozy’s Minister of Immigration and National Identity recalled in an interview with the Journal du Dimanche (22 November 2009): ‘200,000 are granted long-term admission each year. Mixed marriages are a constant in our society, and they contribute to the racial blending of the French people. Racial mixture has enriched and continues to enrich France.’ A flagrant untruth: Mr Besson, like all parrots of the dominant ideology, confuses (or pretends to confuse) inter-European unions, which do not amount to race-mixing, with extra-European sexual partnerships, which do. There has always been (and only to a moderate degree) blending with migrants coming from other parts of Europe, but who were of the same origin and the same civilisation. This has nothing to do with the mixing currently taking place with peoples from other continents. With a combination of cynicism and absurdity, Mr Besson continues to rehash pompous wooden jargon: ‘We have an interest in blending and openness, yes. A demographic need, no. France has no quantitative need to encourage immigration. But we are choosing to contribute to the blossoming of global elites and our own influence. I am in favour of legal immigration.’
One cannot make heads nor tails of these statements if one knows that the overwhelming majority of even legal immigration (not to speak of the illegal) concerns not ‘global elites’ but underqualified populations from the third world: fraudulent refugees, fraudulent students, family reunification — all at the expense of the native French. There are several ways to show that Mr Besson’s position is pseudo-rational and ideological:
1) The Minister admits that France has no material or quantitative need of immigration (elsewhere he even emphasises that ‘legal foreign residents suffer 26 percent unemployment’[21]), but he still supports this legal immigration without economic or demographic necessity, and also supports miscegenation! It is proof that this opinion has become a dogma, and is on its way to becoming a categorical imperative imposed on the French by their ethnocidal elites. Destroy the homogeneity and ethno-anthropological identity of Europeans via demographic replacement and race-mixing — such is one of the implicit objectives of European governments and EU institutions. Race-mixing is not simply praised to the skies and implicitly encouraged by the powers of civil society (advertising, the media, entertainment, the culture industry, and so on), but explicitly encouraged within State discourse.
2) Blending (a key ideological term, along with diversity) is supposedly a way to create ‘global elites’ and contribute to the ‘influence’ of France. Oh, really? As if France had ever in the past needed racially-mixed people in order to exercise influence and produce scientific elites. Influence in this case means extinction — the same old Orwellian semantic inversion. Mixed marriages between French women and North African or Black African men is going to produce more ‘elites’ than those with European men? The reverse is rather the case. This sort of ideological propaganda, common among the journalistic and political classes (including those of the Right) is a vehicle for the same type of deceit and denial of reality as that of the old communist regimes.
3) Notice Mr Besson’s insistence that ‘I am in favour of legal immigration’, showing that he is fighting illegal immigration (which he has shown himself incapable of, in any case) like everyone else. This declaration reveals the anti-democratic impudence of the leaders who are imposing the flood of alien populations on the native French which will eventually, if no revolutionary change of direction occurs, overwhelm the European anthropological phylum in the twenty-first century and forever alter its particular genius.
European leaders have lost all true national consciousness such as that which De Gaulle, as well as the Left-wing political class of the Third Republic, possessed — neither of which would ever have defended mass extra-European immigration and the mixing of the races, and neither of which can be accused of ‘racism’ even in the false sense given to this term today.[22]
