Tuesday, January 12, 2010

This is what it all leads to

Eric Besson is the Minister for Immigration and National Identity in France. Recently he declared,

la France n'est ni un peuple, ni une langue, ni un territoire, ni une religion, c'est un conglomérat de peuples qui veulent vivre ensemble. Il n'y a pas de Français de souche, il n'y a qu'une France de métissage

Which translates to:

France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion, it is a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There is no ethnic Frenchman, there is only a France where the blood is mixed.

So the historic France is erased. There is no French people. There is no French territory. No people or place. France is merely "a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together".

What a loss, what a descent. It is the denial of a real, meaningful, concrete French nation by a minister in the French government.

Again, I'm struck by how cold and grey moderns like Besson are. Nothing of the historic France touches him. He is undisturbed by the prospect of Frenchmen living a rootless existence, disconnected from land or language or culture or tradition.

I can only hope his statement arouses some indignant criticism within France.

Hat tip: Gallia watch


  1. But France has been taking this route all along. It's the precise opposite of multiculturalism - all are French by virtue of their civic status, and no other reason.

  2. The tragedy for the rest of Europe is that the EU and its organs are designed for the French and by the French.

    My fear is that what happens in France will become official EU directives.

  3. So the historic France is erased.

    The purpose of the statement is to eliminate any opposition to the Eurabia project. If there is nothing essentially French about France, who could object to importing millions of Muslims who want to take over and institute Sharia law? By Besson's definition it would still be France.

  4. Liberalism is the Death of Nations

    …. Liberals feel themselves as isolated individuals, responsible to nobody. They do not share the nation’s traditions, they are indifferent to its past and have no ambition for its future. They seek only their own personal advantage in the present. Their dream is the great International, in which the differences of peoples and languages, races and cultures will be obliterated. To promote this they are willing to make use, now of nationalism, now of pacificism, now of militarism, according to the expediency of the moment. Sceptically they ask: “What are we living for?” Cynically they answer: “Just for the sake of living!”

    …. Liberalism has undermined civilization, has destroyed religions, has ruined nations. Primitive peoples know no liberalism. The world is for them a simple place where one man shares with another. Instinctively they conceive existence as a struggle in which all those who belong in any way to one group must defend themselves against those who threaten them.

    From Germany’s Third Empire – Arthur Moeller van den Bruck

    (via Faceright http://faceright.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/from-arthur-moeller-van-den-bruck/)

  5. Its hard to imagine a Frenchman saying that. What is the world coming to? As was stated in the post it hardly seems likely the French will put up with that kind of talk and indignation must be likely. I find it difficult to believe that European countries with such long and proud histories will keel over in one generation.

    Mild Colonial Boy stated this is to create the great international , I agree. However, the international has no form or substance. World Government? These kinds of organisations are so incredibly incompetent. We just saw the utter failure of Copenhagen. Additionally we have enough trouble keeping nationally elected governments accountable, why would anyone want to sign up for rule by faceless committee?

    MCB said that concepts of nationalism are used as a short term measure to promote the international. This is how immigration is publicly sold, as a benefit to the nation, but how much longer will it be accepted when its obvious the benefits are not there? Today voices are starting to be raised, we have to stop immigration to preserve the environment. Personally I hate "the environment". To quote Boston Legal, "Stop talking to me about the 'environment', I'm trying to enjoy nature". I'm inclined to disagree on principle with everything an environmentalist says, "What's that? We can't take 35 million people in Australia. Oh yes we can, Australia can take it!". Then I'll stop and think, what am I saying? We know where those 35 million will be coming from. To me "environmental immigration" arguments are code for, for the love of god no more.

    Randian raised Eurabia. Surely this will only happen if Europeans do (continue to do) nothing? Already countries in Europe are talking about stiffening their border control. It will probably be led in Eastern Europe where those countries feel little 20th century guilt and want to live a national existence.

  6. Jesse 7 @ 8:23

    Some are arguing that Europe has indeed decided against inaction - they have decided to throw the gates wide open.


    Taken at face value - the Eurocrats are simply dickering about the Terms of Surrender.

  7. anon contrarian:

    Wouldn't the opposite of multiculturalism be uniculturalism?

    Recognizing "civic status" to the exclusion of all other qualifiers says nothing directly about the make up of the culture one way or another.


  8. Kevo said:

    "Taken at face value - the Eurocrats are simply dickering about the Terms of Surrender."

    The political class are surely hopeless but won't the populace get sick of it as the facts become clear? Surely you can't write off Europe holus bolus?

  9. As one who had the inestimable privilege of being - all too briefly - in France (Paris and Toulouse) during late 2009, I would wish to sound a note of warning. It's too early to write off the French just yet, whatever individual PC French political zombies might say.

    French traditionalist-conservative magazines like LE SPECTACLE DU MONDE are still going strong (though when I was in Paris no newsagent appeared to be aware as to whether another long-standing traditionalist-conservative magazine, MONDE ET VIE, still existed: maybe it has perished). These periodicals provide material of a quality and an intellectual toughness absolutely beyond anything that the typical cowed Anglo - for whom life is a constant struggle to avoid the racial thought police - can imagine.

    I endeavoured to write about the matter in 2006. Some of what I wrote then (e.g. the remark re Sarko's job title) is obviously out of date, but I reckon most of my commentary, such as it is, remains valid:


  10. It is so corporatist. Strange, as that seems so cold and impersonal to people in general regardless of left or right affiliation. Even liberals would like to conserve some human "warmth."

    But France has been taking this route all along. It's the precise opposite of multiculturalism - all are French by virtue of their civic status, and no other reason.
    Somewhat true, One of the reasons DeGaulle was so popular was the fight for Algeria. The French viewed Algeria as part of France (like a southern prefecture) and the Algerians as French. This was, needless to say, not shared by most non-ethnically French Algerians. On the other hand institutions like the Acadamie Francaise exist to perpetuate French language or culture. I think quite a few French people have a strong sense of what it means historically, ethnically and culturally to be French. Hence, the strong backlash in some areas against immigrants.

  11. I sure hope that "minister" Besson gets well thrashed around by Sarkozy and everybody else - by rights, he ought to be promptly fired from the French Cabinet and made thoroughly unwelcome in their Parlement!!!

    Mettez M. Besson, ce cochon-traître, à la porte aussitôt que possible!!