The Undifferentiated Human Matter of

Replacism - American Greatness

Edward Ring

47-60 minutes

Just over a year ago, an English translation was published of the

2012 book You Will Not Replace Us. Written by Renaud Camus, a
French author and political thinker, it was intended as a condensed
summary of lengthier volumes he’d already published on the
subject of culture and demographics.

The phrase “you will not replace us” gained notoriety in August
2017 when it was chanted by an assortment of right-wing
protesters who had shown up in Charlottesville, Virginia, to protest
the planned removal of Confederate monuments in that town.

There is no excusing the violent extremists who were among those

present in Charlottesville, much less the unforgettable and tragic
outcome. And it is unlikely that many of the protesters in
Charlottesville had any idea that a relatively obscure French writer
had coined the phrase they were shouting as they marched across
the University of Virginia campus.

But Renaud Camus, whose literary career began in the 1980s as a

“pioneering gay writer,” in more recent years has become, as
described in The Nation, “the ideologue of white supremacy.” In
March 2019, The Washington Post referenced Camus’ book as the
inspiration for the mass murder of Islamic worshipers that had just
happened in Christchurch, New Zealand. In September 2019, the
New York Times described Camus as “the man behind a toxic
slogan promoting white supremacy.”

It’s always problematic to discuss anything questioning the

demographic transformations sweeping the West. It’s easy and
politically acceptable to celebrate diversity, and even gleefully to
anticipate the permanent political ascendancy of the global Left in
Western democracies, as the demographic character of the
electorate inevitably shifts as a result of mass immigration. But to
ask whether or not this shift is desirable invites accusations of
racism, xenophobia, and white nationalism. It even invites
accusations that to open this discussion is to encourage extremist
violence.

Given these stigmatizing constraints, the only reason to bother

exploring the potential downside of “diversity” is that behind the
term “diversity” is possibly the most unexamined, voluntary, abrupt
and profound transformation of a civilization in the history of
humanity. And what if suppressing this discussion, pretending
nothing of consequence is happening, and censoring voices of
caution is actually what encourages extremism and violence?

In a New Yorker article written about Camus in 2017 by Thomas

Chatterton Williams, entitled “The French Origins of ‘You Will Not
Replace Us,’” the Frenchman is described as “a kind of connective
tissue between the far right and the respectable right,” who can
“play the role of respectable reactionary because his opposition to
multicultural globalism is plausibly high-minded, principally
aesthetic, even well-mannered.”
That description offers a broader perspective on Camus than one
of someone merely motivated by xenophobia or racism. Camus is
reacting against globalism as an economic nationalist and as a
cultural preservationist. He claims that what he calls a “Davos-
cracy” has deemed cultures secondary to having a critical mass of
consumers, and that it considers all humans interchangeable. The
phrase he’s selected to drive his point home, and repeated
throughout his book, is “Undifferentiated Human Matter,” or UHM.

Replacers, Replacists, Replacees, Replacism, Anti-

Replacism

Camus begins his book by declaring “replacing is the central

gesture of contemporary societies.” But he isn’t just talking about
people, he’s talking about everything. Claiming “the world itself is
fast becoming just another amusement park,” he describes the
process of replacism in all-encompassing terms. In an extended
explanatory passage, he writes:

Faux, simili, imitation, ersatz, simulacrum, copies, counterfeiting,

fakes, forgeries, lures, mimics, are the key words of modern
human experience. Stone masonry is being replaced by
ferroconcrete, concrete by plaster, marble by chip aggregate,
timber by PVC, town and countryside by the universal suburb,
earth by cement and tar….literature by journalism, journalism by
information, news by fake news, truth by fallacy, last name by first
name, last name and first name by pseudonyms….history by
ideology, the destiny of nations by plain politics, politics by
economics, economics by finance, the experience of looking and
living by sociology, sorrow by statistics, residents by tourists,
natives by non-natives, Europeans by Africans….peoples by other
peoples and communities, humanity by post-humanity, humanism
by transhumanism, man by Undifferentiated Human Matter.

What Camus is defending is more than preserving an indigenous

ethnic majority in his country. He is defending, as he puts it, “an
order, a prosperity, a sense of generosity in terms of social benefits
and safety nets, the sound functioning of institutions which have
been achieved through centuries of nurturing efforts, trials and
tribulations, cultural transmission, inheritance, sacrifices and
revolutions. What makes countries, continents, cultures and
civilizations what they are, what we admire or regret, are the
people and the elites who have fashioned them….man is not, or
not quite yet, some undifferentiated matter that one can spread
indiscriminately, like peanut butter or Nutella, anywhere on the
surface of the Earth.”

Rejecting most conventional terms, Camus has built his own

nomenclature around what he believes are fundamental mega-
trends that are not adequately described with existing vocabulary
or commonly understood polarities: liberalism vs conservatism,
globalism vs nationalism, capitalism vs socialism. Instead, he has
come up with the ideology of “replacism,” with three protagonists,
“the replacists, who want to change the people and civilization,
which they call multiculturalism, the replacers, mostly from Africa
and very often Muslims, and the replacees, the indigenous
population, whose existence is frequently denied.” He then divides
the “replacees” into two groups, the consenting replacees, and the
unwilling replacees.

Is France Actually Destined to Replace Its

Population?
The concept of demographic replacement brings with it an
assortment of tough questions, largely ignored, dismissed, or even
censored by the establishment media and mainstream politicians.
In France, the government collects no census or other data on the
race or ethnicity of its citizens, which means any tracking of
alleged “replacement” of the native population has to rely on
estimates. Estimates, however, reveal dramatic shifts in just the
past two decades.

An article published by the Brookings Institution in 2001 estimated

that five percent of the French population was non-European and
non-white. From what information can be found since then, that
percentage has changed at a blistering pace. According to World
Population Review, “when statistics were released in 2008, it was
reported that 11.8 million foreign-born immigrants and their
immediate descendants were residents in the country; a figure
which accounted for around 19% of the total population of the
time.”

While a rise from 5 percent to nearly 20 percent in less than a

decade is a stunning statistic, it may actually understate the
magnitude of the so-called replacement, because it doesn’t take
into account birthrates. For example, a chart on the Wikipedia
page “Demographics of France,” quoting data available (in French)
from the “Institut national de la statistique,” reports that in 2014, an
estimated 29 percent of all births in France were to parents where
at least one was foreign-born. Moreover, of the 71 percent of births
in that year to parents who both were born in France, it is probable
that a significant portion of those were to second- or third-
generation immigrants of non-European origin.

A 2017 article appearing in the Washington Times, referencing a

study published (in French) by the “Institute des Libertes,” offers
projections based on known population demographics and
birthrates in France. The study predicts that within 40 years, or
barely after mid-century, the white population in France will
become a minority. This forecast extrapolates from a white
birthrate in France of 1.4 children per woman, compared to a
Muslim birthrate of 3.4 per woman. If these birthrate disparities
persist, France is destined to become a Muslim majority nation
within just a few decades, even if immigration were stopped
entirely. Among the younger generations of French, that threshold
will be reached much sooner.

Is Integration Possible in France and How Is Mass

Immigration Justified?

According to Camus, several false narratives are being spread in

France by the “replacists” to dismiss the significance of the current
migration by saying it is nothing new. Camus argues that it is
preposterous to say that “France has always been a country of
immigration,” because “for about fifteen centuries the French
population has been remarkably stable, at least in its ethnic
composition.” To the extent there was immigration, it was always
thousands of people, of European stock and Christian faith,
compared to millions today who “have almost all been African and
more often than not Muslim.”

Whether or not Camus is a white supremacist is debatable, but his

skepticism towards the possibility of integration is unambiguous.
He writes “Their African culture and Mahometanism make it a
much stronger challenge for them to become integrated into
French culture and civilization, all the more so because most of
them show no desire whatsoever to achieve any such integration,
whether as individuals or communities.” Sadly, without honest,
balanced, and well-publicized research into this very question, it is
impossible to dispute this assertion.

Other popular narratives, according to Camus, also designed to

justify mass immigration, include the claim that France was
liberated from the Germans in 1944 by Northern and Central
Africans recruited by the Free French. Anyone familiar with the
battles of World War II would dispute this based on the fact that
the main invasion was at Normandy by American and British
forces. While units of the Free French army did land along with
other Allied forces in Southern France two months after D-Day, this
later invasion was launched after the Germans had begun to
withdraw their forces to fight in the north, and in any case, only
about one-third of the Free French troops were of African origin.

Another popular myth that Camus claims is promoted by France’s

multiculturalists, or replacists, is that North African workers
reconstructed France after World War II. This is clearly inaccurate
since France’s post-war reconstruction was completed well before
the 1970s, which is when mass migrations began from Africa into
France.

Possibly what might be considered by replacists to be the most

compelling argument in favor of mass migration is that it serves as
recompense for the depredations of the French as colonial
occupiers. But if the colonial era were so horrible, Camus asks,
why is it that millions of Africans “appear to nurture no plan more
clearly and cherish no higher ambition than to come to France and
live with the French?”
Camus makes an important distinction between European
colonialism and mass migration into Europe from Africa, one that
calls into question both mainstream claims—that integration is
possible, or that mass migration is justified. As he puts it, “France
and Europe are much more colonized by Africa, these days, than
they ever colonized it themselves.” His point is that the Europeans
imposed a military, administrative and economic occupation on its
overseas territories, but “this type of colonialism, developed in a
political framework, is much easier to end—all that is required is
for the conqueror’s army to withdraw.” What is happening in
France today is what Camus refers to as “settler colonialism,”
which is far more difficult to undo, if not impossible.

If the immigrant vs native French interactions Camus writes about

are typical—“making life impossible or an unbearable ordeal to the
indigenous people….through aggressive gazes, overbearing
posturing to force passers-by down from the sidewalk….the
creation in the citizenry of a general feeling of fear, insecurity,
dispossession and estrangement….unprecedented forms of hyper-
violence up to full-blown terrorist acts and massacres….which in
the process secure under their rule additional chunks of territory
for themselves”—then eventual integration may be very unlikely,
and his characterization of mass migration as a foreign occupation
may be more descriptive.

The Case for “Undifferentiated Human Matter”

To criticize the double standard applied by most online and offline

media on topics relating to race has been dismissed as
“whataboutism,” as if double standards don’t matter, as if differing
sets of moral criteria should apply depending on what group or
worldview is being examined. This double standard is in effect
throughout the West, enforced in matters ranging all the way from
online censorship to offline criminality. Camus notes countless
Christian church desecrations in France, rarely prosecuted, and
compares those to the heavy sentences levied onto protesters
who unfolded a banner on the roof of the “Great Mosque” of
Poitiers during its construction.

In France, Camus writes, “non-European youngsters by the

thousands can post horrible and very disturbing messages on
Twitter or Facebook about European or White people in general
without the slightest threat to have their social network accounts
suspended or be interrogated by the police; while opponents to
mass migration are the permanent target of the most finicky
censorship.”

Camus marvels at the fact that contemporary Western Civilization

is the first in history to be lenient “towards those who want its
eradication while it relentlessly persecutes those who would put up
efforts to defend it and work for its salvation.” But what is Western
Civilization? Is it bound up with ethnicity, or is it something more
intangible yet more profound?

In an irony of history, Lenin’s useful idiots, the leftist movements in

Western nations, are now serving not the international
communists, but global capital.

In France, the very notion of “race” has been deleted from Basic
Law texts. The conventional explanation for this transformation,
implemented in the 1970s, was that it reflected the revulsion the
French people felt towards Nazism and their horrific experience
under German occupation when Jews were being deported to
German death camps. Undoubtedly, this is true, but Camus
focuses on how the termination of the concept of race fulfills the
goals of the replacists.

Mocking the mainstream scientific dogma that proclaims races do

not exist, Camus takes the position that “race” embraces “social,
literary, or poetic, or taxonomic creations of such considerable
impact that proclaiming they do not exist is tantamount to seriously
testing the meaning of the verb to exist.” He uses “race”
interchangeably with “a people” and argues that conflating biology
with culture is to suggest that Europe does not exist, that
European civilization did not exist; no such thing as French culture;
no such thing as French people—that there are only people with a
French passport.

“In industrial and post-industrial societies, especially those where

the main industry is the industry of Undifferentiated Human Matter,
where man is the producer, product and consumer at once, there
is no such thing as a genuine product.”

The “Anti-Racist” Paradox: The True Agenda of the

Anti-Racists

If everyone is undifferentiated human matter, and races—biological

or cultural—do not exist, how can racism exist? And if races do not
exist, why must anti-racists so aggressively enforce a drive to
achieve perfect equality among races; why must they insist that all
races are equal?

This logical flaw is inexplicable, according to Camus, until you

consider how the meaning of anti-racism has changed. Anti-racism
no longer means a stance against racism as it is historically
understood, it now denotes a stance against the existence of races
and a willingness to have them disappear. Camus considers this
evolution of the term anti-racism, impelled by the paradoxical
concept that races both do not exist and are all equal, was a
critical enabling condition for the Great Replacement.

As he puts it, “Paradoxically, without the non-existence of races,

the change of race would not be possible . . . since there are no
races, there can be no substitution of races . . . change was
obvious, and rather unpleasant, but it was not taking place. How
could it occur, since it was scientifically impossible?” But why?
Who benefits?

It is here that Camus’ opening remarks, “replacing is the central

gesture of modern societies,” comes back into play, addressing a
phenomenon of which mass migration is only a part, albeit a very,
very big part. If the native French are being replaced by settler
colonials, then who is orchestrating this, and why? Camus claims
“what we are dealing with here is a delegated form of colonization,
a colonization by proxy, and that the forces that want it, and who
organize it, are not the forces who actually accomplish it.”

This two-fold colonization, orchestrated by the very rich and

implemented by the very poor, is part of the destruction of culture
that began before the mass migrations. As he writes, “no people
that knows its own classics would accept numbly and without
balking to be thrown into the dustbins of history . . . this numbness
had to be created.” Here and elsewhere, Camus is not talking
about a conspiracy, but rather “powerful mechanisms” created by
the combination of ideals and interests. The main ideal; equality.
The main interests: “normalization, standardization, similarity,
sameness.”
What Camus calls a “powerful mechanism” can indeed explain the
rise of globalism without resorting to conspiracy theories. For
global investors and multinational corporations to achieve
maximum growth and profit, the prerequisites are standardization,
free trade, open movement of people and capital, and a growing
mass of consumers in every economic zone—dependent,
destitute, it doesn’t matter. But to justify this, to make it a virtue,
even a populist cause, the ideology of equality and anti-racism are
in-turn prerequisites.

This erasure of high culture, this popular contempt for a cultivated

class that might perpetuate reverence for traditions and greatness,
this devolution, suits the ideology of the anti-racists. But it is useful
as well to global commercial and financial interests. In an irony of
history, Lenin’s useful idiots, the leftist movements in Western
nations, are now serving not the international communists, but
global capital.

It isn’t just France, of course, where traditional culture and proud

national histories are being deconstructed and disparaged by the
Left. In the name of anti-racism, the history of Western Civilization
is now being taught in America, increasingly, from elementary
school through graduate school, as an unending saga of
oppression and exploitation. In the name of equality, SAT scores,
and even grades, are being dispensed with in schools and
universities, double standards are established based on racial
quotas in academia and business, because race does not exist,
yet all races are equal. All this paves the way for an erasure of
peoples, the replacement of culture and identity with
undifferentiated human matter.
The Genealogy of Replacism

On page 138 of the English edition of You Will Not Replace Us,
Camus offers a family tree of sorts that pulls together the historical
events and ideological evolution which led France, and by
extension the West, to its present state. It not only attempts to
illustrate the origins of replacism, but also the cultural devolution
that he believes made replacism possible. Shown below is a
graphic representation of what Camus describes in painstaking
detail. Here is the “marital status” of replacism. “Son of Anti-
Racism and High Finance (themselves, respectively son of
Egalitarianism and Anti-Fascism, and daughter of Taylorization
and Ultra-Liberalism, granddaughter of Industrial Revolution and
Capitalism), marries Petite-Bourgeoisie, daughter of
Democratization and Welfare State, grand-daughter of French
Revolution and Proletariat.”

The logic of this genealogy makes a lot of sense. Replacism is

ideologically justified by anti-racism at the same time as it serves
the interests of High Finance. “Taylorism,” loosely synonymous
with “Fordism,” is the system of factory management that evolved
in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to break production into
standardized repetitive tasks, greatly improving both the efficiency
of manufacturing as well as making it possible to hire far less-
skilled workers for less money, and making them easily
interchangeable. Ultra-liberalism is Liberal ideology as originally
conceived, devoted to the virtues of free trade and free movement
of capital.

By marrying replacism to petite bourgeoisie, Camus is showing the

synergy between a loss of higher culture and the replacist agenda.
By depriving Western Civilization of its “cultivated class which is
indispensable to culture in the old sense of the word,” by allowing
respect for Western Civilization to slowly disappear, indeed by
demonizing all vestiges of privilege, and by glorifying the most
popular, largest common denominators of human experience, by
democratizing education to the point where everyone and nobody
is educated anymore, by mass-producing simulacrums of culture
designed to appeal to the most universal and primal ambitions,
there is no longer a people, there is no longer a unique culture,
there is no longer history, tradition, pride, identity, the nation
becomes an economic unit and nothing more.

Another fascinating aspect of the genealogy that Camus has

described is that it is not just logical, but perhaps some of what he
is describing is also inevitable. In hindsight, where would the
human path have deviated from these outcomes? Is it much of a
stretch to say the industrial revolution was inevitable, or the
innovation of mass production and standardization? Is it
unreasonable to suggest the rise of workers and unions to the
abuses that characterized the first hundred years of
industrialization may have been inevitable? Is all that Camus really
has to say mere sentimentality, mere nostalgia, is this just a primal
scream of a book and the movement it represents merely the last
mad roar of a primitive nationalism whose time has come and
gone?

Nostalgia and sentimentality may well inform the millions who

merely wish that things could go back to the way they were, but for
Camus, at least, stronger emotions and reason inform his
motivation. First of all, he would probably deride it as thoughtless
and typical for his critics to think that objecting to the destruction of
Western Civilization, in all of its traditions and values, is mere
reactionary nostalgia and sentimental longing for the past. But he
also would remind us of the threat we face, not only at the hand of
the replacists, but when the replacers eventually confront the
replacists.

Replacism, for all its deplorable sameness, for all its drive to
conquer and merge all cultures in the name of anti-racism and in
the interests of high-finance, at least has a new world to offer. It
may be grotesque and shallow, hedonistic and common, replete
with addictive gadgets that pass for fulfillment and while away
lifetimes, but there is profit, there is order, bread, circuses. There is
still civilization, after all, cheapened, flattened, filled with
undifferentiated human matter. But what if the replacers have a
different agenda entirely?

Camus believes the combination of leftist morals and traditional

right-wing business interests gives a unique power to replacism.
He writes, “as if the ruthless power in the upper district of
Metropolis, had, to top it all and make it worse, the capacity to
project to the world the gentle image of the soft social order found
in the Alpine pastures of The Sound of Music. He describes
replacism as a totalitarian ideology devoted to promoting the
replaceability of everything, man included. But he also claims that
the only totalitarian ideology in the world capable of rivaling
replacism in the world today is radical Islam. What a choice.

Is there such a thing as nationalist capitalism? And if not, is the

battle taking shape one between national socialists and
international socialists?

Neither Conspiracies Nor Scapegoats Account for

Replacism

The phrase “conspiracy theorist” or “conspiracy theory” recently

has been weaponized by globalists throughout the West. Wielded
along with the more established word weapons, “racist” and
“denier,” “conspiracy theorist” is now used as a verbal bludgeon to
silence anyone who questions globalization or replacism.

Camus has much to say on this and the related topic of

scapegoating. He writes, “The theory of conspiracy theory is one
of the most effective, catchy and brilliant inventions of the
ideological power and its executive clique, the media, to
discourage any reflection on its own workings, on the nature of its
power and on the crimes it might have committed. The theory
amalgamates all conspiracy theories into one, whose model are
the most eccentric views about the attacks of September eleventh
against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. But just as being
paranoid does not mean you have no enemy, accusing everyone
whose views differ from yours of being an adept of some
conspiracy theory does not mean there is no plot and no
conspiracy.”
Having made that assertion, Camus backs away from alleging
there is a conspiracy. Dismissing attempts by others to blame
replacism on the European Union, Wall Street, the International
Monetary Fund, or Jews, he suggests, in fact, it is “some
enormous, bizarre and complex process, so intricate that no one
can understand perfectly how they work and why, and no one can
master and stop them once they are started.”

This makes more sense than it may initially seem. It returns to the
idea of a logical and almost inevitable flow of history. Only at
pivotal historical moments can that flow be willfully directed
through the exertions of a united people, because so much of its
momentum is mechanical. And clearly that is what Camus is
calling for, when he writes “it is for us to break the machines which
churn out men like others churn out cookies, or Nutella, or surimi.”

Camus explicitly challenges the theory, not his, but prevalent

among some right-wing factions, that Jews are providing the
money and brains behind replacism. He correctly notes that in
Europe they are the first victims of the Great Replacement. He
discusses at length how “the change in the population of Europe
has made daily life very difficult, if not impossible, for a number of
Jews who are almost permanently exposed to very strong Muslim
aggressiveness, modern anti-Zionism flourishing both as a form of
exasperation and as an excuse, a more decent cover, for very
classical Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism.”

While identifying Muslim immigrants as the source of revived anti-

Semitism in Europe, Camus dismisses the role of “classical
occidental European anti-Semitism,” referring to it metaphorically
as “a derelict shop in the dilapidated historical downtown, now
entirely driven out of business, and fashion, by the enormous
shopping malls in the banlieues.” He notes that many Jewish
communities in Europe that survived the Holocaust are not going
to survive the Great Replacement, with thousands of Jews now
being driven out of France every year.

The experience of European Jews today in the face of mass

immigration of Muslims has led Camus to conclude that while
there are some prominent Jews involved in promoting the Great
Replacement, such as George Soros and others less known, he
believes that in recent years the proportion of replacist Jews and
anti-replacist Jews is now almost reversed, with anti-replacists
predominating. And he makes a claim, similar to sentiments
observed by Churchill a century earlier, that “Jews are very much
divided on that issue [replacism], which makes them no different
than any other community.” It may be fair to say that Camus sees
the Jewish community, certainly in Europe, as a microcosm, split
on the polarizing issues of our time in a way reasonably
proportional to the rest of the Western elites.

And perhaps in this we will come a recognition that Zionism is only

one form of nationalism, and Jews and Gentiles alike throughout
the West will begin to coalesce in support of preserving the
peoples and cultures of all Western nations. Camus writes “Israel
belonging to the Jewish People, with Jerusalem as its capital, is
the model and the essential reference, at least in Western culture
and civilization, to all sense of belonging. If those three did not
belong to each other, it would be the end of all belonging. If
Jerusalem were not Jewish there would be no reason for Paris or
Saint-Denis to be forever French, for London or Winchester to be
English, or indeed for Washington or Concord to be American.”
The Flight 93 Civilization

If you believe even half of what Camus has to say, Western

Civilization is all but doomed. It is to be replaced either by a
generic replacist world consisting of undifferentiated human matter,
or an Islamic world, which would take shape in the aftermath of a
cataclysmic conflict in which the replacers overthrew the no longer
useful replacists. What can be done?

Towards the end of his book, Camus calls for “remigration” of

immigrants out of France and back to their nations of origin. To
accomplish this, he views the European Union, currently controlled
by replacist interests, as something that could potentially be taken
over by anti-replacists. As he puts it, “The continent is being
invaded, the nations which are part of it should stick together and
resist, not try and find salvation one by one, in dispersion and
isolation.” But he reemphasizes how what threatens European
civilization is bigger even than colonization, writing “when we
Europeans started to be subjected to another, more brutal and
direct colonization, we were submitted to an Islamisation of our
Americanization.”

American cultural power, such as it is according to Camus,

populist, egalitarian, flattened, Petite bourgeoise, is almost
—stress, almost—a proxy for globalism sweeping away the unique
cultures and peoples of the world. Camus might say that America,
when it comes to replacism, is as much a culprit as a victim.

Which brings us to America, where, just as in Europe, resurgent

nationalism—unwilling replacees—contends with a daunting
coalition of replacists, replacers, and willing replacees. The
eventual outcome hangs by a thread, and no matter what the
outcome, so much can go wrong.

In 2016, an influential essay entitled “The Flight 93 Election”

compared the presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump with the choice passengers faced on the doomed
Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. As he put it, “2016 is the Flight
93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway.
You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and
not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain.”

Written by Hillsdale College research fellow Michael Anton, who

went on to serve for a time as a senior adviser in the Trump White
House, this essay addresses all of the same issues of replacism,
in the broadest context of the term. The dispossession of the
American people, culturally, economically, and eventually, through
actual physical replacement. Anton manages to make his points
without inviting quite the opprobrium that Camus has attracted, but
his words—a breath of fresh air to many but an unforgivable
transgression to others—were so frank and so incendiary that he
initially wrote under the pseudonym “Publius Decius Mus.”

What Camus has dubbed the Davos-cracy, Anton called the

“Davoisie,” as he implicates America’s conservatives as “sophists
who rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-
industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless
wars.” Anton went on to reserve an entire section of his essay for
the “other” issue, writing that “The sacredness of mass immigration
is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual
classes.”

Anton’s description of America under a Clinton administration is

almost synonymous with how Camus describes France under
Macron, differing only in the particulars. “A Hillary presidency will
be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire progressive-left agenda, plus
items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is
even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive
persecution against resistance and dissent… We see this already
in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media
enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the
mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns
—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the
Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the
IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the
media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.”

Three years after Trump’s stunning upset victory, the power of the
Left in America remains pervasive and growing. Under the twin
ideological poles of anti-racism and climate action—which is a
proxy for economic replacism—they have more or less
consolidated their hold on academia, and continue to expand their
influence in government at all levels along with most major
corporations. Imagine if Trump had lost.

Characterizing the U.S. election of 2016 as a last chance to have a

chance, a last chance to avoid certain death, was accurate. Now
the battle is joined but the odds remain stacked against the anti-
replacists. The Davoisie in all its power is doing everything it can
quiet the passengers and regain full control in the cockpit. The
Flight 93 Civilization remains fitfully airborne, but for how long?

To the extent Renaud Camus fights a lonely battle, with the smug
opinion-makers of the world stigmatizing him and everyone like
him as a “white supremacist,” chances are France will become a
nation of undifferentiated human matter, or an Islamic state, or
some hybrid of the two. But France will no longer be France.

The Inchoate Rebellion Against the Ruling Class

Across the United States and Europe, a rebellion is brewing that

lacks coherence or unity. Indeed many of the rebellious groups are
battling each other at the same time as they share a rage against
the Davos-cracy. In France, the Yellow Vest Movement which has
gripped that nation for over a year has attracted far-left and far-
right demonstrators.

While the Yellow Vest Movement in France was sparked by rising

fuel taxes, the duration and intensity of the protests bespeak years
of frustration. What unifies the participants is the punitive cost-of-
living in France, but there is no apparent agreement on the cause.
To speculate as to the cause, for the Right, immigration is the
primary factor; for the Left, global capitalism is the main reason. In
fact, they’re both correct.

The unemployment rate among immigrants in France in 2018 was

15.3 percent, nearly twice that of non-immigrants at 8.3 percent.
This ratio is virtually unchanged for over a decade. While it is now
almost impossible to find reports connecting the Yellow Vest
protests to anger over immigration—which means nothing—even
President Macron has agreed to new, tougher immigration
enforcement. In November 2019 the New York Times quoted
Macron as saying“The bourgeois live in areas with few immigrants
and do not encounter immigration in their daily lives. It is France’s
working classes that live with the difficulties of immigration, and
have thus migrated to the far right.”
On the other hand, huge sectors of the French economy have
been devastated since the introduction of the Euro in 1999, and
this consequence of globalization would have happened with or
without immigration. Two searing, pessimistic visions of where this
is leading are found in books by the bestselling French author
Michel Houellebecq. His 2015 book, Submission, describes a
bloodless transition in France from a secular republic into an
Islamic theocracy. His 2019 book, Serotonin, includes chapters
describing how France’s agriculture industry, which for centuries
was a vital, productive, diverse ecosystem comprising hundreds of
thousands of independent farmers, was within just a few years
nearly wiped out by foreign imports and corporate takeovers.

It would be simplistic and inaccurate to characterize the Yellow

Vest Movement as either Right or Left, just as it would not be
accurate to describe Marine Le Pen’s National Rally political party
as right-wing. The Yellow Vest Movement is a populist reaction to
replacism, for mostly economic reasons. The National Rally
candidates are a nationalist reaction to economic and cultural
replacism.

This illustrates how Camus has invented a term, replacism, that

not only transcends conventional definitions but creates space for
new combinations of political ideologies to form. Why should the
anti-replacists be capitalists instead of socialists? Capitalism has
been the justification to impoverish the middle class and fill the
nation with foreigners. Globalist (or international) capitalism has
been rejected by all within the otherwise inchoate Yellow Vest
Movement. Is there such a thing as nationalist capitalism? And if
not, is the battle taking shape one between national socialists and
international socialists? That would make sense.
The Rise of the Bronze Age Mindset

If Renaud Camus now plays the role of “respectable reactionary,” a

book that has quietly sold its way into influence and infamy is
Bronze Age Mindset, self-published in 2018, written by a
pseudonymous author “Bronze Age Pervert,” which he typically
shortens to “BAP.” Bronze Age Mindset is a book that disrespects
pretty much everything about modern life. Instead, the author
exhorts readers to aspire to become the piratical, fearless figures
of Bronze Age antiquity. Talk about reactionary!

The author, who in his book periodically dispenses with grammar,

recently surfaced to publish a response to a review of Bronze Age
Mindset written by Michael Anton. Both the review and the
response are valuable reading for anyone trying to understand the
evolving mindset of the anti-replacists. Because closely linked to
the reactionary resistance to both cultural and economic
annihilation is, obviously, a rejection of the so-called ruling class.
This sentiment, and little else, unites the Yellow Vest Movement in
France. A feeling of being betrayed by the ruling class also informs
movements in the United States that are otherwise bitterly
opposed to one another. BAP writes:

What you are witnessing is the unraveling of the postwar

American regime—or what is mendaciously called by its toadies
the ‘liberal world order’—in a way that is far more thorough than
the disturbances of the 1960s, and with consequences that will be
far more dire. The ‘altright’ doesn’t exist and has nothing to do with
the media representations of it as a form of ‘white nationalism,’ or
even—and here is what is crucial to understand—just ‘white
males’ or just the ‘right wing.’ The same phenomenon is taking
place on the left, and there is much more crossover than older
people realize: there is much more involvement also by nonwhite
youth and particularly by Latino, Asian, and multiracial youth in
this phenomenon than people want to admit.

In BAP’s essay, titled “America’s Delusional Elite is Done,” he

accuses the conservative intellectual establishment of failing to
oppose “the violent racial hatred and other forms of unprecedented
insanity coming from the new left,” including “the destruction of the
family, and the new push to groom children on behalf of
transsexualism and other supposed sexual identities.” He points
out that “this one crucial matter extends the appeal of the ‘frog
people’ far beyond that of any one racial or ethnic group.”

So where Camus saw cultural deconstruction as a prerequisite to

ethnic replacement, to be resisted, BAP sees resistance to cultural
deconstruction as something that is unifying various ethnicities.
Economic globalism and cultural deconstruction may have left
France open to ethnic replacement and ethnic conflict, but in the
United States, these same two mega-trends could form a
reactionary and multiethnic solidarity. The difference is that the
Yellow Vest Movement unifies a diverse assortment of factions
based, so it appears, purely on economic grievances. In the United
States by contrast, among the still gestating Bronze Age
resistance, the economic factors are present but equally unifying
are the cultural grievances.

In the long run, France and the United States face very different
challenges with respect to mass immigration. Compared to
America, France is a nation poorly equipped culturally to absorb
and assimilate millions of immigrants, and—can we say this?—the
immigrants entering France are not easily assimilated, insofar as
they are mostly African and mostly Muslim. Moreover, France’s
mostly secular native population will not find much common
ground with the social conservatism practiced by Muslims,
whereas a far higher percentage of white Americans are Christian,
practicing variants of Christianity that overlap almost completely
with those of immigrants to the United States from Latin America.

Until very recently, America’s dominant culture emphasized the

importance of assimilation, and even in its atrophied, discredited
current state, America’s ability to assimilate its immigrants remains
robust. Asian immigrants entering the United States typically come
from successful, developed nations, bringing a strong ethic for
higher education and entrepreneurship. America’s Muslim
immigrants constitute a far smaller fraction of America’s immigrant
population, and on average they have more education and skills
than the waves of Muslim immigrants entering France. For these
reasons, America is far more likely than France to eventually
absorb its immigrants while leaving its culture relatively intact.

But BAP isn’t done. Perhaps he offers further encouraging words

to those conservative nationalists whose demographic awareness
has made them give up when he writes the following:
“Conservatives pretend to be able to recruit Latinos to their cause
with the degraded ideology of Jack Kemp but Latinos see David
French call forced ‘drag queen’ visits for schoolchildren ‘part of
free life,’ and want nothing to do with it. We are far better at
recruiting Latinos, and as the example of Bolsonaro among many
others shows, this new, energetic and popular form of the right is a
Latino movement, and it is the future.”

And where is the Davos-cracy in all of this leftist debauchery and

conservative cowardice? BAP is one with Camus in implicating the
“large monopolies that promote mass immigration, mass
surveillance, and the most bizarre type of speech restrictions, not
only on its own employees, but now on American society at large.”
In America, the NeverTrumpers and Libertarians, and all of what
Michael Anton may have been the first to refer to as
“Conservatism Inc.,” have been worse than useless, they have
been puppets of the Davoisie.

Finally, BAP’s observations are in accord with Camus on how the

meaning of “equality” has been entirely perverted by the replacists.
BAP writes:

It is indeed possible to oppose this vicious and exterminationist

hatred on purely liberal and racially egalitarian grounds. But this
didn’t happen, which puts the lie to the claims that traditional
conservatives care about equality under the law or about any of
the ideals they claim to espouse. We are now faced with a left that
has embraced a dialectic of racial and class destruction in a
context where belief in absolute human equality is professed at
the same time that no one believes in it anymore.

In the 21st century, the United States and Europe, France in

particular, faces increasingly radicalized, politically
disenfranchised, economically abandoned, embittered masses.
What mindset they adopt, what alliances they form, may be the
surprise of the century.

The Solution to Replacism Is a Community of Nations

Camus considers an “orderly and peaceful” remigration of millions

of French immigrants back to their nations of origin to be the only
way to preserve French culture. It is hard to imagine how this
could ever happen. But it is probably true that either assimilation or
remigration will be necessary in France in order to avoid either civil
war or submission to Islam. Houellebecq’s book of that name is not
in the least far fetched, although if it were to happen it prefigures a
larger eventual clash, since an Islamicized West would still have to
deal with China and other Asian nations that remain committed to
preserving their own cultures.

Which begs the question: What does it take for a nation to be

willing to fight to again assimilate its immigrants? In France, the
economic challenges caused by globalization have already
sparked the Yellow Vest Movement, which led to dramatic recent
shifts on immigration policy by Macron. But can France, and the
other Europeans, recover a sufficient belief in their own history and
traditions and identity to demand others assimilate to their ways,
instead of the other way around?

In his 2017 book, The Strange Death of Europe, British

conservative author and journalist Douglas Murray suggests that
those forces still extant in Western societies that resist the leftist
derangements of our time—the secular and the religious—put
aside their differences and unite to save their civilization. That’s an
interesting idea not only because it might enable a critical mass of
resistance to arise, but because it represents a new synthesis of
Western culture that might help defuse the mutual resentment of
Right and Left. They’d better get busy.

Nothing BAP discusses, either in his book or in his essay

addressing Michael Anton’s review, offers a solution. BAP
describes his work as that of a Samizdat, those Eastern Bloc
dissidents who reproduced and distributed censored and
underground publications critical of the regime. Anton, for his part,
adheres to the ideals of the American Founding Fathers. To which
BAP responds, “he [Anton] should admit that this form of
government would today be called white supremacism or white
nationalism, as would Lincoln’s later revision of it, as would indeed
the America of FDR and Truman, not to speak of Theodore
Roosevelt.”

Indeed it is. By the Left.

So where does Camus cross the line? How is Camus the

“ideologue of white supremacy?” Why did Michael Anton have to
use the pseudonym “Publius Decius Mus” when writing candidly
about the Davoisie’s embrace of mass immigration into the United
States? Why is Bronze Age Mindset written by “Bronze Age
Pervert,” instead of whoever lives behind that name?

Camus answers this repeatedly in his book. Anti-racism has come

to mean anti-white. Examining the phenomenon uncovers endless
examples and makes a strong case for the truth of this statement.
Neo-commissars variously described as Chief Equity Officers now
infest public and private bureaucracies in departments of
“Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” They manage aggressive staffs,
expensive and empowered, micromanaging everything from micro-
aggressions to the precise ethnic proportions represented in the
personnel headcounts of every institution in America. This is
authoritarian, totalitarian fascism, bureaucratized and
masquerading as anti-fascism. It is explicitly racist, yet it markets
itself as anti-racist. That is already a reality in much of America,
and it’s spreading fast.

In Europe in general, and France in particular, the same applies. If

you question the future of your nation, based on utterly
indisputable facts—consistent and immutable voting patterns by
ethnicity, leading societal indicators by ethnicity, demographic
reality—you are branded a “white supremacist” and the
consequences are swift. In ascending order: Unwelcome in polite
society. Banned or suppressed online. Fired from your job. Denied
various public and private services. Prosecuted and fined.
Imprisoned.

And yet the movement of anti-replacists isn’t necessarily “white,” at

all. The Yellow Vest Movement isn’t white, and it is ideologically
heterogeneous. The rising Bronze Age reactionaries in the United
States aren’t ethnically pure, and their ideology remains very much
in flux. For these reasons, practical nationalism—centrist but
honest, faithful to culture and tradition, having expectations of
immigrants instead of the other way around, willing to protect
national industries in defiance of the libertarian Davos-cracy, able
to put the national interest first—still could have a future in the
West. And it may have nothing to do with “whiteness” at all.

The alternative, prosecuted by the Left and condoned by a

cowardly Right establishment, is Balkanization based on race and
gender, even though race and gender “are a social construct.” It is
enforced equality according to race and gender, even though all
races and cultures are already equal, and in any case, “race and
gender are social constructs.”

The alternative, prosecuted by the Davos-cracy, is to flatten the

world, erase borders in the interests of commerce, and reduce
humanity to undifferentiated human matter. How does this square
with the “celebration of diversity” that informs every coopted
institution of the Davos-cracy, from mainstream media to
monopolistic multinationals? It doesn’t until you return to one of the
first points Camus makes, where he emphasizes that replacism
isn’t merely to turn humanity into undifferentiated human matter,
but to create simulacrums of culture replacing genuine culture. The
iconic buildings and monuments and historic plazas of Paris or
London will be faint and boring ruins compared to the neon
recreations of those same places around the planet, in cities
turned into theme parks. The commodification of high culture is the
essence of replacism.

Understanding this fact, that replacism is a wholistic repatterning

of all national cultures and a wholesale erasure of national
economies, is crucial to refuting the claim that to be anti-replacist
is to be a white supremacist. The journey into the future, with
technology and globalization whipping forward faster than anyone
can fully track or comprehend, changing everything in decades,
then changing everything yet again, and again, will not be
weathered without the strength of national cultures that embrace
and cherish and share a common faith, tradition, values,
patriotism, being part of something.

Absent intact and confident national Western cultures who know

where they came from and who they are, the immigrant waves that
retain the most confidence in their collective identity will
overwhelm those cultures that do not. And that may not end well
for anyone or anything, including the Davos-cracy, including
modernity itself.

To the extent Renaud Camus fights a lonely battle, with the smug
opinion-makers of the world stigmatizing him and everyone like
him as a “white supremacist,” chances are France will become a
nation of undifferentiated human matter, or an Islamic state, or
some hybrid of the two. But France will no longer be France.