Free Speech, recent, Regressive Left

Against the Militancy of the French ‘Decolonial’ Movement

The following statement was published in Le Point on 28 November, 2018 and is reprinted here with their kind permission. Translation by Holly Haahr.

The militant initiatives of the “decolonial” movement and its related associations1 are multiplying at the rate of several university and cultural events per month. These different groups are hosted in the most prestigious academic institutions,2 theatres and museums.3 One such example was the seminar “Gender, Nation, and Secularism,” hosted by the Maison des sciences de l’Homme at the beginning of October, which was presented with the racialist references “gender coloniality,” “white feminism,” “racialization,” and “gendered racial power” (i.e: the power exercised by “whites,” which is systematically prejudicial to the individuals they call “racialized”).

However, while presenting themselves as progressive (anti-racists, decolonizers, feminists…), for the last several years these movements have been diverting their efforts away from individual emancipation and freedom in favor of objectives that are completely at odds with republican universalism: racialism, differentialism, and segregationism (according to skin color, sex, and religious practice). They go so far as to invoke feminism to legitimize the wearing of the veil, secularism to legitimize their religious claims, and universalism to legitimize communitarianism. Finally, they denounce, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, the “state racism” of France: a state from which, at the same time, they demand—and obtain—benevolence and financial support through public subsidies.

The strategy of these “decolonial” militants and their fellow travellers is to present their ideology as scientific truth and to discredit their opponents by calling them racist and Islamophobic. Hence, their frequent refusal to engage in debate, and even the demonization of attempts to discuss these issues. Hence, also, the use of methods of intellectual terrorism that recall what Stalinism once did to the most far-sighted European intellectuals.

Thus, after the attempts to ostracize historians (Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau, Virginie Chaillou-Atrous, Sylvain Gouguenheim, Georges Bensoussan), philosophers (Marcel Gauchet, Pierre-André Taguieff), politicians (Laurent Bouvet, Josepha Laroche), sociologists (Nathalie Heinich, Stéphane Dorin), economists (Jérôme Maucourant), geographers and demographers (Michèle Tribalat, Christophe Guilluy), writers and essayists (Kamel Daoud, Pascal Bruckner, Mohamed Louizi), it is now the turn of people in the literary and theatrical world, with Alexandre Gefen and Isabelle Barbéris being targeted. In the cultural world, some of France’s most renowned artists have been persecuted for holding fast to universalist ideals and criticizing differentialism and racialism.

The method is tried and tested: these “non-compliant” intellectuals are placed under surveillance by the enemies of debate, who wait for the slightest pretext to isolate and discredit them. Statements they’ve made are taken out of context and these dissenters are then linked to the extreme Right, accused of all manner of “phobias,” and have targets pinned to their backs. Sometimes, their thought crimes are dredged up by the media, who then put them on trial for racism. At other times, they are mobbed on social media by these “anti-Enlightenment” zealots.

Now our cultural, academic, and scientific institutions (not to mention our high schools) are being targeted. Under the guise of denouncing discrimination of “colonial” origin, these militants seek to undermine the principles of freedom of expression and universality that we’ve inherited from the Enlightenment. “Decolonial” conferences, exhibitions, shows, films, and books resurrecting discredited ideas about “race” continue to exploit the guilt of some and exacerbate the resentment of others, feeding inter-ethnic hatred and divisions. This is the activists’ entry strategy into higher education and culture.

The situation is alarming. The intellectual pluralism that advocates of “decolonialism” seek to neutralize is an essential condition for the proper functioning of our democracy. Moreover, the spread of this ideology in France’s universities has come at the price of renouncing the centuries-old requirement of quality that earned them their prestige.

We call on public authorities, heads of cultural, academic, scientific, and research institutions, but also the judiciary, to pull themselves together. The basic criteria of science must be respected. Robust debate must be allowed to take place. The institutions for which they are responsible must no longer be used against the Republic. It is up to each and every one of them to ensure that this destructive misuse of the values of freedom, equality, and fraternity that underpin our democracy is stopped once and for all.


Waleed Al-Husseini, essayist; Jean-Claude Allard, former research director at Iris; Pierre Avril, professor emeritus of the University Panthéon-Assas; Vida Azimi, research director at CNRS; Elisabeth Badinter, philosopher; Clément Bénech, novelist; Michel Blay, historian and philosopher of science; Françoise Bonardel, philosopher; Stéphane Breton, ethnologist and filmmaker; Virgil Brill, photographer; Jean-Marie Brohm, sociologist; Marie-Laure Brossier, elected official from Bagnolet; Sarah Cattan, journalist; Philippe de Lara, philosopher; Maxime Decout, lecturer and essayist; Bernard de La Villardière, journalist; Jacques de Saint-Victor, university professor and literary critic; Aurore Després, lecturer; Christophe de Voogd, historian and essayist; Philippe d’Iribarne, research director at the CNRS; Arthur Dreyfus, writer, film instructor; David Duquesne, nurse; Zineb El Rhazaoui, journalist; Patrice Franceschi, adventurer and writer; Jean-Louis Fabiani, sociologist; Alain Finkielkraut, philosopher and academician; Renée Fregosi, philosopher and political scientist; Jasmine Getz, academic; Jacques Gilbert, university professor; Marc Goldschmit, philosopher; Philippe Gumplowicz, university professor; Claude Habib, university professor and essayist; Noémie Halioua, journalist; Marc Hersant, university professor; Marie Ibn Arabi, professor of philosophy; Pierre Jourde, writer; Gaston Kelman, writer; Alexandra Lavastine, philosopher; Françoise Lavocat, professor of comparative literature; Barbara Lefebvre, teacher and essayist; Jean-Pierre Le Goff, sociologist; Damien Le Guay, philosopher; Noëlle Lenoir, lawyer at the Paris Bar; Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, professor of public law; Laurent Loty, researcher at the CNRS; Catherine Louveau, professor emeritus; Yves Mamou, journalist; Laurence Marchand-Taillade, president of Forces Laïques; Jean-Claude Michéa, philosopher; Isabelle Mity, professor; Yves Michaud, philosopher; Franck Neveu, university professor of linguistics; Pierre Nora, historian and academician; Fabien Ollier, director of the publishing house QS; Mona Ozouf, historian and philosopher; Patrick Pelloux, doctor; René Pommier, academic and essayist; Celine Pina, essayist; Monique Plaza, doctor of psychology; Michaël Prazan, filmmaker, writer; Charles Ramond, university professor and philosopher; Philippe Raynaud, university professor and political scientist; Dany Robert-Dufour, university professor, philosopher; Robert Redeker, philosopher; Anne Richardot, university lecturer; Pierre Rigoulot, essayist;  Jean-Pierre Sakoun, president of the Comité Laïcité République; Philippe San Marco, essayist; Boualem Sansal, writer; Jean-Paul Sermain, university professor of French literature; Dominique Schnapper, political scientist; Jean-Eric Schoettl, lawyer; Patrick Sommier, man of the theatre; Véronique Taquin, professor and writer; Jacques Tarnero, researcher and essayist; Carine Trévisan, university professor of literature; Michèle Tribalat, researcher and demographer; Caroline Valentin, lawyer and editorialist; André Versaille, writer and publisher; Ibn Warraq, writer; Aude Weill Raynal, lawyer; Yves Charles Zarka, university professor of philosophy.


1 For example: Parti des Indigènes de la République, Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France, Marche des femmes pour la dignité, Marches de la dignité, Camp décolonial, Conseil représentatif des associations noires, Conseil représentatif des Français d’outre-mer, Brigade antinégrophobie, Décoloniser les arts, Les Indivisibles (Rokhaya Diallo), Front de mères, collectif MWASI, collectif Non MiXte.s racisé.e.s, Boycott désinvestissement sanctions, Coordination contre le racisme et l’islamophobie, Mamans toutes égales, Cercle des enseignant.e.s laïques, Les Irrécupérables, Réseau classe/genre/race.
2 For example: Collège de France, Institut d’études politiques, Ecole normale supérieure, CNRS, EHESS, Université Paris-VIII Vincennes-Saint-Denis, Université Paris-VII Diderot, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne Paris-I, Université Lumière-Lyon-II, Université Toulouse-Jean-Jaurès.
3 For example: Philharmonie de Paris, Musée du Louvre, Centre dramatique national de Rouen, Mémorial de l’abolition de l’esclavage, Philharmonie de Paris, Musée du Louvre, Musée national Eugène-Delacroix, scène nationale de l’Aquarium.


  1. Emmanuel says

    Few things make me happier than seeing articles like that (or the ones about Pascal Bruckner), fostering a better cultural dialogue between the French and English speaking world, which I believe to be a real necessity. And I am really glad to see that Quillette is playing a major part in that dialogue.
    However, I am afraid that for the huge majority of readers who are not familiar with the modern French intellectual life, many references in that article will be fairly obscure.

    • Russell says

      I just finished reading the article and am indeed having a hard time understanding the context in which this letter was written (and from that the purpose of quillette publishing it in English). I’d be interested to learn, so if anyone would like to add some info or links that may provide background I’d very much appreciate it.

      • Tersitus says

        The battle for hearts and minds has been narrowed to a battle for minds— a tactical concentration on “re-education. Underlying it is the belief that, since we can’t think without language, to control it is to control thinking. Simply put, old fashion brainwashing. Thus the relentless assaults of the PC thought police.

    • True comments, but a silver lining is that we are being exposed and perhaps over time can sort through the thought and language patterns to learn how best to form our own language in this long term struggle.

      • Tersitus says

        That would be like taking the sterile, clotted-prose thickets of late-Soviet apparatchiks seriously. Spare yourself. “Good writing is good thinking.” (Epstein, I think.)

    • Tersitus says

      Confused by the attribution, “written by Quillette Magazine.” Still, the call for the walking dead to “pull themselves together” is right on target.

  2. Darwin T of BC Humanists says

    Please read Raymond Aron’s, “The Opium of the intellectuals” from 1955 as a great example of how these dogmatic pifflers of yesterday and today poison their own minds, unable to recognize nourishment anymore.

    Of particular note is the great public debate between Albert Camus versus Jean-Paul Sartre. The subtle distinction between them on Stalinism is the key to courage and wisdom.

    Oh St. Carl Sagan save us from these insipid interlopers!

  3. Morgan Foster says

    I’ve never heard of this before. Reviewing the “Decoloniality for Idiots” entry in Wikipedia has given me a headache.

    • David Orr says

      I follow the ____ Studies saga a considerable amount trying to genuinely understand them.

      The wikipedia page is actually incomprehensible.

      • elwood wulf says

        Decolonization is mostly a code word for communism. There is no love for flesh and blood indians in it. It’s a mask for hate, jealousy and revenge against everyone else. Perhaps even existence itself. The belief that everything is a social construct means power is all there is and power is only oppressive, so the game is to take that power by force and turn the tables. It’s the spirit of Cain.

        There is a childish ignorance; as if reality is only corrupt fiat power. It’s impossible then for any reality to emerge from nature itself. Only social constructs are real to this cult. That’s why controlling the canon is so important to them. They believe with fiat on education they can force people to see things their way. As if human culture is bigger than the endless tsunamis of nature. It’s moral relativism as well. Ben Shapiro who is an orthodox jew is a nazi? And Linda Sarsour who indirectly calls for jews to be wiped out is an anti-nazi? These people don’t even understand what they’re talking about. It’s charlatanism wrapped in moral huffing and puffing. Wolves in sheeps clothing.

        • David Schwankle says

          You are correct. And such political ideologues have indeed taken control of the canon and of American universities and have been poisoning the minds of generations of students. We now see the process reaching critical mass. It remains to be seen how this will play out. The rise of alternative media is a step in the right direction, but the forces of totalitarianism are poised to clamp down on this as well, given that all the major communications platforms are run by the same social constructionist power-game creeps.

  4. How long as it been since France had colonies? Fifty years? Today, countries like Algeria enjoy all the benefits of colonialism – cultural transfer, infrastructure, trade, simplified entry to France for its citizens – without actually being owned by France. What do the ex-colonies have to complain about?

    • E. Olson says

      Many black thought leaders in the US are still clamoring for reparations from slavery, which ended in 1863-65, and some Christians are still angry at the Jews for killing Jesus in 0032. Some people have a hard time letting go of past injustices (to their great to the 10th power grandparents) and moving on with their lives.

      • Miles says

        To quote John McWhorter: “it feels good to be a victim, especially when you’re not one”.

      • ccscientist says

        The problem with harboring such historical grudges, of course, is that they are impossible to untangle. In Europe, every group has been a victor and a slave at least a dozen times. Wars swung back and forth across every piece of ground. Who is the victim?

      • Atticus Basilhoff says

        But the Jews killed Jesus for only three days. Seems like a small issue to hold a grudge for almost 2000 years.

    • Ella Freshty says

      France actually has a number of overseas territories and protectorats That they behave in very colonial way towards. For instance, in gold rich South American département of French Guiana they have granted offshore rights Total despite the French govt pledge to not persue fossil fuel extraction. In Amerindian schools in the French Guianese jungle they use the same text books as mainland France talking bout “our ancestors the gauls” and how Columbus “discovered” the land where their ancestors have lived for thousands of years.
      As for former colonies heard about how numerous former French African countries use the franc CFA currency which France mints and charges a tax on?

      • That’s funny, Ella, same thing in Surinam where I used to work in the last sugar-mill. In schools, the children of the Javanese and Hindustani children had to learn where the Rhine was entering “their” country. The weatherforecast in January in the newspaper spoke about frost and light snowfall. For me, then a young man, this was extremely strange and funny. However, in later jobs in other old colonies and new “democracies”, things were not that different. Just ask Emmanuel about French Guyana, he must know all this much better. Probably, these are the things where the new intellectuals such as Houria are so desperately angry about, without much ground, I think, sometimes there is simply no alternative on hand.

        Another hilarious something: if you would tell the teachers there about such strange exotic teaching material, they would probably not even understand what the problem is, that’s the way they have been brought up themselves, nothing to complain about thus, the complainant is another category of intellectuals, not the locals, but the globalists in the far West.

  5. TarsTarkas says

    Descendants of colonialists forevermore must suffer for the sins of their fathers whereas descendants of slavers, pirates, and mutilators of little girls and boys shrug off any responsibility for past deeds. In fact, they glory in having a history steeped in barbarism and support the practices. Time to call wannabe power-hungry bloodthirsty tyrants tyrants, and go after without scruple any apologist for these evil people.

  6. IsiahBerlinWall says

    “Gender, Nation, and Secularism,” hosted by the Maison des sciences de l’Homme

    Just sayin’.

    • Jean-Pierre Demers says

      Homme : 1. Male or female animal belonging to the hominid family of mammals, the only one of its species (Homo sapiens),, etc.

  7. codadmin says

    Whenever the fascist left invent a concept, you can be 100% sure it’s a projection.

    By ‘decolonilsation’, what they actually mean is the ‘colonisation’ of the western world.

    For example, when these fascists talk about ‘decolonising’ the curriculum, their aim is to colonise it with non-white, leftist authors that share their fascist ideas.

    BUT, as the leftists have a near monopoly on cultural power, all others can do is appropriate the terms they invent. The aim of all non-leftists, therefore, is to decolonise the instituations from these racist, fascist colonisers.

    People must adopt an aggressive mindset, otherwise they will win, and the West will turn into giant gulag.

    • Coadmin, well put. The marxist-muslim alliance is not new, and usually (e.g. Iran) the muslims come out on top. Meanwhile many classical libs, possibly/probably including some of the people named in the article, possibly/probably helped lay the foundation for their own destruction through naive optimism, much as rad fems have done by separating sex and gender.

    • Bang On Codadmin.
      The solution is to eschew the left’s Orwellian doublespeak language.
      Everything the left says is true if you allow for their projection by skewing their meaning through 180º.
      ie. Gender Bias – the reaction to SJ bias, Patriarchy – opposition to Matriarchy, Affirmative Action – Racism and Sexism with a warm fuzzy label when practiced institutionally by the left, Micro Aggression – Low resolution blasphemy against SJ Orthodoxy etc.

      • David Schwankle says

        Hear, hear. I am making my own little gestures of defiance by using correct pronoun reference in English, with male and female pronouns agreeing in number with antecedents, rejecting “they” as a singular pronoun. I have also reverted to pre-feminist purge usages like “fireman,” “policeman,” chairman,” garbageman,” etc.

        • Eric Yendall says

          You are playing their game when you reject “they” as a singular pronoun. It is perfectly acceptable and grammatical English when used in the correct context, not a political identifier. You are in effect allowing others to determine your speech.

          • James says

            My answer to “I don’t like gendered pronouns, please refer to me as they” is “You aren’t fat enough to be referred to in the plural, sorry…”

  8. We would understand ourselves, society and our situation far better, if we recognised how the state itself perverts evolved human nature, which is tribal and territorial.

    State and society conflate and confound VERY different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it, with the modern “nation state” now deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment, on a par with the natural environment) to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large.

    The academics we look to as authorities in understanding society and the state are stuck in a pre-Darwinian dark age, concerned subconsciously, like medieval academics, far more with their own self-interest in preserving their own privileged positions in the status quo, than in understanding it.

    I elaborate on these ideas here:

  9. I think it is wrong to put your hope on the effectiveness of “the basic criteria of science” in the struggle for or against decolonialism. Don’t forget that the same (anthropogical) science of a century ago, the high time of colonialism, had put a firm basis and justification of that colonialism: colonialism not as a theft of resources and destruction of souvereign kingdoms and tribal communities, but as a benevolent mission and spreading of civilisation and education. Just visit the anthropogical musea to see how this was (not the modernised ones of course, (Musee de l’homme??) but the old type, like e.g. the anthropogical museum of Madrid, with the phrenological categorisations of the higher and lower races, the Caucasians and others, the natural ethnicities (pygmees, papuas), the half cultures and, at the end, the civilised people,such as the originators and visitors of such musea. All pure, hard science, though a science that is rejected now, as is quite common in the soft and hard sciences.

  10. Johan says

    You need to name the people doing this…An anonymous enemy is no enemy.

  11. This Houria does not look very much an “indigene”, with her proud expression, lipstick and fashionable dress, much more like a self made French intellectual, not afraid to debate and discuss that abominable islamophobia and colonialism(in which her grandparents were still raised, maybe in some mountain village somewhere in the Atlas). But I find her quite attractive! Would love to have a cup of tea with her (what she most probably would not have with me, being an old colonialist).

  12. @ E. Olson

    The Roman occupiers of the province of Judea killed Jesus, not the Jews. On any given day in that era one could find several other crucified rebel Jews surrounding the city of Jerusalem.

      • Elwood Wulf says

        Christians follow Christ who taught peace and forgiveness for enemies. “forgive the father for they know not what they do.” The idea that jews are responsible misses the entire meaning of the cross. He died for you and me. Of his own will. He forgave them. So punishing jews actually voids Jesus own prayer. Christ was Jewish himself. A follower of Jesus would strive to act in alignment with him. People who use the label as cultural christians who are not authentic will not be identified as his sheep when he judges the world. It’s important to remember these things. And he’ll judge the jews as well, fully accounting for all of their cultural contexts justly. His love has helped them survive a long time and he’s promised they’ll be around forever. So it’s also foolish from a christian standpoint to act in a way that seems to try and make Jesus into a false prophet.

        • Elwood Wulf says

          Sorry typo: “forgive them father for they know not what they do.”

  13. Craig WIllms says

    @True Wolff
    Yes, the Romans are the ones that pounded the nails, but it was clearly at the urging of the Pharisees.

    • Farris says

      Who killed Jesus is like saying who is responsible for the resurrection.
      Jesus was killed by crucifixion which was a Roman method of execution. Yet Pilate offered to free Jesus to the Jews and Gentiles. But the crowd chose Barabbas, causing Pilate to wash his hands of the matter. Jesus came to die on the cross for the sins for all mankind and through the resurrection prove that he and belief in him is greater than death. Believing Jesus murdered is not in accordance with Christian teaching. Jesus came to die and overcome death he came to suffer even for those who would reject and spit upon him. Jesus came to show that life through him is eternal. Jesus came to live as a man, suffer as a man, die as a man, live again and show what is possible through faith.

  14. You just wrote down what I had in in mind, peanut g., with that remark about the neanderthalers.

  15. So between being a conservative pseudo-scientific journal and a political neo-conservative journal, Quillette really doesn’t have much surprise to offer? I might as well read the Dailymail, Haaretz or Stormfront directly.

    • northernobserver says

      Ok Bubble Boy. What do you think is going on withe the intellectuals of “decolonization”? Are you a big champion? Is it all sunshine, justice and light? Stop hiding being labels and give us a little exposition, if you dare.

  16. Tersitus says

    I’m sure you can find something from Izvestia in the archives.

  17. Heraklion says

    As a french reader of Quillette, i want to give you a bit of context :

    France has accepted a huge population of migrants in the aftermath of World War II. People from other European countries : Italians, Portugueses, Poles, but also people from Maghreb (Northern Africa) : Algerians, Tunisians and Moroccans, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

    A lot of these people were working in construction jobs, to rebuilt our country torn by the war. Most of them settled in, brought their families in (with the help of the “Regroupement Familial” – Family Reunion policy), and had descendants that are nowadays french citizens just like me.

    Although all these migrants communities experienced “hard beginnings” in France and suffered from xenophobic prejudice, often being treated as outcasts, eventually most of the descendants of european immigrants blended well into the French society. Today, they are indistinguishable from people having older french roots, the so-called “Français de souche”, appart from their last names.

    I am myself the grand grand daughter of an Italian immigrant who came to France in the 50’s to work as a mason. He married a French woman, had two girls whom he gave French names. My grandmother doesn’t speak Italian very well, my father knows a few sentences. I barely know a few words in Italian.

    For the descendants of the Nothern African and Subsaharan immigrants, it is another story. Though a minority of them became “successful” or “regular” French citizens, a lot did not integrated the French culture as their own.
    Indications of this rejection of the French culture are the first names recalling the country of origin (it stirred quite a debate a few weeks ago in France, with right wing intellectual Eric Zemmour being accused of racism for his insistance that immigrants should choose French first names for their children), clothing and societal practices (marriage only between muslim for instances).

    I work in an almost 100 % Arabic area of the city of Toulouse, in Southwest France. You would be astonished by the number of people who have lived here for 10 or + years and who can’t utter a single word in French. Why would they, as the whole neighbourhood speaks arabic ?
    On the other hand, i was absolutely blown away the other day by an Iraqi refugee who has only been here for 6 months and who spoke a very good French.

    Some might says that the failure of the Arabs and African migrants to integrate is the result of the racism of French people, but the perfect integration of Poles, Italians, etc., shows that it is not true.

    In my opinion, this failure is mainly due to a lack of will to do the required efforts (learning the language, discarding outdated usages like forced mariages…), and the continuous flow of migrants from Maghreb through mariage (who come here without having been raised at all into the French culture).

    And so, with this problem of failure of integration which has been smoldering for years, we now see the emergence of “reactionary” groups, or assiocations, such as Les Indigènes de la République (no translation necessary i think) for instance.

    I won’t go into details in this comment, but in France, a major discrepancy with the American situation is that the attacks against the Republic – or the Western Civilization are not fueled by white guilt, but rather by immigrant hatred against a country whom they hold responsible for their failure.

    The recent terrorist attacks in France (Mohammed Merah, Charlie Hebdo, Bastille Day in Nice…) which were perpetrated by young men mostly born and raised in France, underline this problem.

    With this testimony, be sure that i do not intend to “trigger” or shame anybody. I tried my best to explain the situation in my country, but my analysis may not be 100 % accurate.

    Feel free to ask me any questions about the situation in France.
    (I hope my English wasn’t too annoying to read !)

    • E. Olson says

      Heraklion – thank you for the nice history lesson. The “melting pot” process in the US most strongly occurred during the 1923 to 1965 period when there was virtually no legal immigration allowed to the US, which meant no fresh blood to keep Italian, or Polish, or Swedish, etc. communities from integrating into being Americans. Heavy immigration from single areas with a common language and culture typically means they end up settling in the same areas because humans are tribal and tend to want to live with people who they are similar to. Thus as you point out, they don’t need to learn the local language or customs because everyone around them is from Mexico or Morocco. A key difference is that European immigrants to post-war France or to early 20th century America were still products of Western civilization and shared a European history and Christianity (primarily), while many more of the most recent immigrants from Africa, the Middle-East, and Central America are not as culturally compatible, which makes assimilation more difficult and more resisted, and the lack of assimilation more destructive in the form of criminality, unemployment, and terrorism. Another important difference is that earlier immigrants came when unskilled labor was highly needed and the welfare state was much smaller (or non-existent), which meant new immigrants had to get a job in order to survive and had to become assimilated to the degree necessary to get a job. Today the economies of Western nations do not need more unskilled labor, which makes if difficult for unskilled immigrants to get good jobs, while generous welfare states mean unemployed immigrants have little incentive to assimilate and become employable. Yet Leftists somehow think that masses of unskilled and largely unassimilating immigrants on welfare will somehow save the welfare state crisis caused by low birthrates of native citizens. Of course Leftists also tend to be poor at economics.

      • Prior to 1965, the the fuel for the so-called melting pot for immigrants to the US was war.

        The Gaelic Irish and German immigrants who arrived in large numbers before 1860 were assimilated only after the Civil War and only on the strength their collective contribution to the victory of the central government.

        The same was true of the non-Western Europeans immigrants who arrived between 1880-1920. They were subjected to vicious economic exploitation and left to stew in their ethnic ghettos until the end of WWII when they, too, were assimilated; again, based only on their collective contribution to the central government’s war effort.

        Amusing little side notes here are the Wilson Administration’s vicious cultural cleansing of anything German between 1917-1919 and the observation that the malefactors of great wealth in the 1890s successfully used immigration to break all attempts to organize native born wage laborers.

      • Wife of Sinbad says

        E. Olsen. Great comments but I insist “Leftists..think” is an oxymoron. History shows us that.

        • E. Olson says

          Sinbad – I agree – Lefts don’t think, they feel.

    • About these -Francais de souche-, Heraklion, they have been named “Souchiens” by Houria, which brought her in big trouble, for being wrongly understood by the right. As I understand, even in France it is a neologism. Ni modo! BTW,the words souche and quillette are denominating the same thing, literaly and metaphorically. Funny! See also that new twig on the Q of Quillette, here above, since a few days only. We are all growing after sprouting! And ending with a little rhyme:
      – Bouteldja , t’ es foutue-
      – Les souchiens sont dan la rue-

    • Sandra says


      You say:

      ” … in France, a major discrepancy with the American situation is that the attacks against the Republic – or the Western Civilization are not fueled by white guilt, but rather by immigrant hatred against a country whom they hold responsible for their failure.’

      It is precisely the inculcation of white guilt and self-loathing that has facilitated the reception of immigrant hatred, if not encouraged it, as atonement for the original sin of slavery and colonialism.

      Please read Pascal Bruckner’s La tyrannie de la pénitence.

      There is no discrepancy between the French and the American situations.
      Plus ça change …

      • You are completely wrong here, Sandra, there is a tremendous discrepancy, exactly what Heraklion explains, and what this lady Houria has to say about white privilege and such, she has that only from her great heroine Angela Davis, some extremist in the US, it’s really not a continental thing, it’s American, and alien to continental thought and culture.

        • Sandra says

          American slavery and French colonialism are the same moral proposition. If neither the Americans nor the French see it, as I do, being from neither continent, it doesn’t make it not true.
          As a quick example, Central American illegals in the United States are today effectively an Ersatz for black slaves, with all the moral underpinnings and the need for rectifying past ills.
          The analogies are endless.

          • I wonder, Sandra, whether the descendants of the slaves from US will agree, because the price level of un-organised labour is just plain economy, market, the result of demand and supply, a socio-economic phenomenon of European societies until quite recently, unlike unpaid slavery of slaveholders. Heraklions ancestors belonged to that first category, the second never existed in France (for the last 1000 yrs at least). Of course, also the French had slaves in their colonies (though not in Northern Africa), but that was far away, not in their own backyard, quite a difference, I should think.

    • Charlie says

      You have failed to mention the importance of Laicite which means a separation of religion from public life. It is not a matter of criticising Islam but Muslims not accepting Laicite and keeping their religion out of public life and not learning French. When in Rome do as the Romans.

  18. We need white identity politics now! We need to drive these people out of our homelands, by force if need be. This is about our survival. There is no reason for them to be here. None.

  19. Just for fun I dived into the backgrounds of Madame Houria Bouteldja, because was intrigued by her face and self assured expression. She is from NE Algeria, foot of the Atlas. The area has been conquered and dominated in history by Phenicians, Romans, Fatimids, other Arab Caliphates, the Turkish Ottomanes and, finally the French. Now they are on their own, but Houria’s parents chose for France, where she now is an activist and voice for the Parti des Indigenes, on the payrole of a french Arabe Institute. But, now she is free to speak as she likes, finally, for the first time after so many centuries of oppression, and is allowed to spawn her hatred for the imagined oppressor, the colonizing French, to whom she might have belonged if she wanted, but doesnt want so, because ” I’m Algerien, I’m islam, that’s my clan, my race, my quartier,…. l’occident contre l’ indigene……. j’ accuse, like in the case of Dreyfus, auparavant”.
    She studied English language, and Angela Davis,one time Black Panter activist, is her great example (she even came to France to speak at the 10th birthday of her Parti).

    But, but…..the freedom to speak out, Houria, dear, and act like you can do,, and get so much support in France, is that not the best proof how far you have come, after all those centuries, millennia of oppression in your homeland?

  20. My biggest question is why the mainstream/corporate media is fanatically in these maniac’s camp? I get why unelected bureaucrats are. I get why some politicians are (votes, way to control/manipulate to get power). I get why the upper class is (to assuage guilt, to change the Marxist conversation from class – where they would be targets – to race, where there is no cure so they never have to step down from their upper class privilege; and where they also can use the language of this extreme Leftism as a club membership in order to get ahead). It is also appealing to a certain type of individual who is either a) very high in neuroticism/mental health issues b) wants very simple answers in place of religion and c) wants to feel righteous without doing anything or sacrificing anything.

    But what I don’t get is the media. If the media were not so uniformly the propaganda arm of these people – to the point that they may was well be either paid PR or state functionaries – then none of this would work. Social media would not hold any power, since a) most people don’t even look at Twitter and b) the vast majority of the population disagrees with these lunatics. Without the media amplifying and beating the population to death, these people would be powerless.

    So why do they do it?

    I wonder if it’s a combination of several factors. First, the media’s panic at losing power in the wake of social media makes it desperate to get readership no matter what. If it means simply echoing tweets then so much the cheaper and so much the easier.

    Also it’s that the media is in the social class of a certain type of upper class intelligentsia which has long loved dogma, fascism, control, partly out of a sort of seething resentfulness that others earn more and are more respected than they. So the media is virtue signaling to their peers, so they get invited to the right parties and get promotions and money and marry their daughters and sons to the right people.

    But I do think (worry) there is an even more insidious thing going on. In whose interest is this movement? First, interestingly, the whole thing is bizarrely aligned to radical Islam, to the point that if you ask, “If we set up a radical far right Islamic state in Europe, what would it look like? ” we would get these people, down to the tolerance for child rape and mutilation as long as it’s Islam. But second, I do have to wonder if the economic globalists – those billionaires and corporations in whose interest it is to destroy borders and pick from dirt-cheap labor from all over the world, and those politicians who are their toadies in exchange for large pats on the head – I wonder if this is not their doing. A frightened fractured population is far easier to control; so is a population ruled by technology (so they keep buying) where the punishment for thinking and speaking freely is severe (so they don’t rock the boat).

    I think it’s brave and wonderful of these people for speaking out. I pray that we can all rise up against this malignant force threatening to destroy western freedoms.

    • Tersitus says

      So why do they do it? Power? Self-importance. I think you have it mostly right.
      The power-need of the arsonist watching her created chaos, the doubly-satisfying illusion of being “in the action” but free of its consequences (Don’t shoot! I’m a reporter!) Special access, the taste of power without its responsibilities (Here’s my press pass!). The sense of being indispensable defenders of whatever narrative of the cool they’re pushing (thus they wave their patriotic first amendment flags to do whatever they can get away with, and jump to claim its protections when they get caught out, all the while blathering about Woodward and Bernstein and truth to power and the story that somebody has to tell). The sense of invulnerability for their trafficking in lies and half-truths, in being able to take down whomever they fashion their enemies, all the while sheltered in the press of the herd, of the story someone else broke. Voyeurs, exhibitionists, posers, quislings, gossips, tattletales. Spawned in the great American tradition of muckrakers and yellow journalists. Purveyors of sugar highs and cocaine lies.
      We need a Shirer, a Fallaci, a Hitchens. We get— Mika. Jim Acosta.
      Sorry, d— you touched a nerve.

  21. I know one very old member of the UK House of Lords who studied ‘Colonial Studies’ at Oxford. I assume that the focus at the time was preparing students for the humane and efficient administration of foreign colonies.

    Perhaps they could bring these old faculties back to help re-establish balance and opinion diversity in universities ?

    • In the 60s and early 70s, in most European countries with recently decolonized colonies, Colonial Studies ( technical and social) were quite normal C.Y., there were amply financial means for it, from government as well as from the industries and old plantation companies (now called development aid, but all the same) and there were 1000s and 1000s of professionals with ample experience and knowledge, helping these new students in their new career to develop the “developing countries”. I was one of these 1000s, and have only good memories of all that. I must write a book about it all, it was so challenging and funny, but also tragic, of course.

      • One more addition, because my mind is still full of that world of once: these developing countries in my time were called the backward countries.

  22. And second one, after WWII, the name of those colonial studies were changed into tropical studies, so, e.g., no longer colonial agriculture, but tropical agriculture (and economics, sociology, engineering, forestry etc etc), but the studyfield and methods were the same.

  23. Charlie says

    I suggest people read Pascal Bruckner’ s ” Tears of the White Man “. In 1955 China separated from the USSR and created Brown communism- the first world is bad, the the third world is good and all it’s problems are due to the former. France went through massive upheavals due to capitulation and collaboration in WW2, losing in Vietnam in 1955 and Algeria in 1963 followed by student riots in 1968. What evolved was Third Worldism partly inspired to Franz Manon’s ” Wretched of the Earth ” supported by Sartre who became a Maoist . Sartre did not fight in WW2 and I think this produced self hatred. Most of the post Modernism evolves from France post 1968 and is influenced by Third Worldism. Bruckner has recently published ” Tyranny of Guilt “. To understand French political thought one must understand it’s history since the mid 1930s. The capitulation in 1940, was largely due to the conflict between catholic Conservatives and atheistic Marxists which paralysed the country in the mid 1930s. In France , the Left has given up on Laicite and the ideas of The Republic and been captured by western hating Third Worldist communists. As in all Western Countries, the decline in academic standards in humanities departments has combined with people spending more time at universities, often until their mid or late 20s. Consequently, they spend more time shouting in order to attract attention.

    An empty tin makes the most noise. These people are empty of any of the qualities which make any civilisation.

Comments are closed.