Saturday, 8 July 2017

The archbishop of Strasbourg has decided to defy the political correctness that usually characterises the discourse of the French church. 
"Abortion is not just permitted but promoted," Mgr Luc Ravel says deploringly in the Dernières nouvelles d’Alsace. “It's promoting it, and that I cannot accept, not for reasons of faith but because I love France," he adds.

Then the archbishop, who graduated from the Polytechnic, does not hesitate to evoke "The Great Replacement", the famous expression invented by the sulphurous writer Renaud Camus.

“The Muslim believers know very well that their fecundity is such that today, what do they call it? ...the Great Replacement, they say to you very calmly, very positively, "but anyway, one day, all of that will be ours...", says the former bishop of the military and the son of a general.

As I've discussed previously the phrase "The Great Replacement" was coined by the French novelist Renaud Camus who lost his publishing contract because of his support for Marine Le Pen. He was also convicted of inciting hatred for saying that Muslim criminals were "soldiers, not thugs" (link). See more about Camus here and here.

"The Great Replacement" has essentially the same meaning as "White Genocide" but the former has gained much broader acceptance than the latter. Generation Identity uses the phrase in their campaigning and publicity stunts, but, at least in France, it has also crept into the mainstream conversation in newspapers and talk shows.

Since our goal is to get ethnic Europeans to realise that they or their descendants are going to live as ethnic minorities if present trends continue, the import thing is to push this idea into public consciousness by whatever means. Since "Great Replacement" has proven its utility, it's worth considering making broader use of it within English language discourse.

It's clear that some people, even European ethno-nationalists, find "White Genocide" jarring, partly because they associate the word genocide with physical extermination. Personally, I'm not one of those people. Years ago, when I first came across the word genocide used in connection with the immigration-driven displacement of Europeans, I found it enormously thought-provoking.

But it's clear that mainstream commentators, politicians and journos who might have some sympathy with the cause of European survival or are fully clued up about what is going on but hesitate to betray it publicly for fear of sanction - the likes of Douglas Murray, for example - might be willing to use "Great Replacement" where they would jib at "White Genocide". Popularising "Great Replacement" might make it easier for them to break through the censorship barrier and communicate our ideas to a broader audience.


  1. Another useful description is ‘race and faith replacement’, which I use in the hope of persuading Christians to open their eyes to the real world. The number of clergymen I can respect has now increased to two: the good archbishop and the Revd Robert West of the BNP.

  2. I agree 1000%

    The problem with the Whitegenocide meme is that it is dialectical. The fact that the Genocide Convention of 1948 lists five types of genocide including demographic eradication (article 2c) makes for a solid case.

    However, as Aristotle observed less than 20% of the population responds to dialectic. Think about it: 20% is the maximum ceiling anyone can ever reach with reasoned argument.

    Rhetoric on the other hand reaches 100%. If you're trying to communicate to the masses and you're not using rhetoric you're an idiot plain and simple.

    In the world of rhetoric genocide means stacks of bodies. Are there stacks of bodies? No? Therefore no genocide. Period. Case closed.

    There is replacement migration.

    There is demographic eradication.

    There is a great replacement.

    There is racial engineering.

    There is white dispossession.

    But it doesn't matter because the issue is closed. You had your chance to express your grievance. You chose to scream hysterically about stacks of bodies. And now they laugh at you.

    1. Great Replacement is too abstract. The Marxists win most of the time because they use very specific, highly-charged terms that activate people. No one ever protested an "international conflict", but they have come out by the tens of thousands to protest WAR. Big difference. "Racial engineering" is far too complex and broad of a term for the average man-on-the-street to grasp, much less inspire him into action. The power of words to unite and activate people lies in how much emotion and simplicity they can pack into their meaning. The fewer the words, the better. The shorter those words are, even better. When someone hears the word "Nazi" today, a flurry of images, meanings and emotions rushes through him. Rightly or wrongly, we instantly "knows" what Nazi is all about because it's been presented to him in a specific way over and over again. Academic or overly broad terms like "demographic eradication" will not get the job done. Most average people don't even know what demographics are, much less what it means to eradicate something. I'm not kidding. The Left packs concentrated meaning into short, powerful terms that elicit immediate reactions, emotions and understanding from people like "racist, anti-semite, conspiracy theorist and of course, White supremacy". Most people don't really understand these terms, but that's beside the point. They're used in such a way that elicits the desired response and action from the Leftists. We must do the same, except by being as truthful, simple, and specific with our words as possible, and White genocide is the truth and far more specific than "dispossession". Dispossession just means you're being displaced. There is no call for an urgent response in that. A warning of genocide, however, is a call to physical action to save one's own life, and I don't believe we need stacks of bodies to accomplish that, just raw truth shared with as many as possible.

  3. The problem with the term Great Replacement is that it's more of a softball, candy-coated term for what it really is: genocide. It's not specific enough for what's actually happening. If you're replaced by a cheaper, foreign employee at work, it doesn't mean something lethal has happened to you; it just means you were forced to go work somewhere else. With White genocide, we won't be going anywhere else; we will cease to exist because we're being collectively murdered.

    Marxism and political correctness have forced us to self-censor and not call things what they really are for decades. It's time to speak plainly and have the courage to do so. Call a spade a spade, and if it's shocking or jarring to people to hear it, all the better in an effort to wake them up. We have every right to speak openly and plainly about what's happening to us, and how much clearer can we be than to call it White genocide. If we cannot acknowledge it plainly and openly, how can we expect anyone else to understand the gravity of the situation, one in which we're not being replaced; they're killing us.

  4. And I would say to the moslem: "but it won't do you any good, because you will have turned it into a wasteland, JUST like you did with all the areas you control. Because you moslems, lack intelligence and creativity."

  5. The expression 'bloodless genocide' was in vogue about ten years ago. The EU didn't like it (too near the bone).

  6. Soft Genocide of the Caucasian Race