In the absence of official statistics, observers interested in the ethno-religious changes of France society must resort to creative methods. One such method is to use the French statistical agency’s (INSEE) annual database of first names given to newborns.

Using this data, the French identitarian news aggregator Fdesouche has charted the dramatic growth of newborns with Islamic first names from around 2.5% in 1969 to 21.5% in 2019. This figure is remarkably congruent with our other sources.

While Fdesouche has been using this method to give annual estimates since 2016, it came to broader attention in 2019 when the mainstream pollster Jérôme Fourquet used the same technique in his remarkable bestseller The French Archipelago: The Birth of a Divided and Multiple Nation. Fourquet had found that in 2015 some 18.5% of newborns were given Muslim first names.

Fourquet is no right-wing ideologue but a senior manager at the venerable Institute of French Public Opinion (IFOP), the nation’s leading polling and market research agency. Indeed, The French Archipelago goes far beyond ethnic issues, discussing dechristianization (the decline of “Marie”), the semi-Americanization of lower class French (the proliferation of “Kevins” and “Cindys” due to 1990s American soap operas), and wider trends of social fragmentation and heightened individualism.

Fourquet’s analysis resonated strongly with the public at a time when the French political landscape was breaking down – with the collapse of the conservatives and the Socialists in favor of Emmanuel Macron and marine Le Pen – and the rise of the yellow-vest protests contesting urban elites.

The figures for Muslim first names are not perfectly precise because of the problem of “mixed names” and the growing percentage of “rare names,” which are difficult to classify and which Muslims seem to have a predilection for. As such, the real percentage of Muslim newborns may actually be around 25%.

The figures are also broken down by département (county). As one would expect, Muslims are concentrated in Greater-Paris, making up an outright majority of Seine-Saint-Denis (54%).

The figures are broadly congruent with another major source for estimating the growing non-European component of the French population: the percentage of newborns tested for sickle-cell disease, something normally done for populations vulnerable to that congenital illness (typically, Africans, Middle-Easterners, Indians, but also southern Italians).

Percentage of newborns tested for sickle-cell disease in France, a proxy for non-European births

Fdesouche had found that 31.5% of newborns were tested for sickle-cell in 2010, rising to 39.4% in 2016. If a fifth of newborns in France are Muslims, it is plausible that around one third of newborns are non-European. After all, a large contingent of France’s non-White immigrants are Christian or otherwise non-Muslim: Blacks and mixed-race from France’s Caribbean and other overseas territories, Christian Africans (who are increasingly replacing the dying breed that are French pastors in our churches), Christian Arabs (especially Lebanese), various Asians, etc.

The agency collecting national sickle-cell statistics was shut down in 2018 and there was talk of universalizing tests regardless of ethnic origin. The French authorities claim these measures have nothing to do with the identitarian Right’s use of these figures – which certainly was causing alarm in official circles.

These data suggest that developments in France are analogous to what we see in the rest of the Western world: very similar to Great Britain (non-Whites made up 24.4% of births in 2014 and Whites are projected to become a minority of the general population by the 2060s) and about 20 years behind the United States of America (Whites make up a minority of under 15s, Whites are projected to become a minority of the general population in the 2040s).

Note: a substantial portion of White births in France are to people of Italian, Portuguese, Polish, or other European origin. As such, if non-Europeans make up a third of births, it may be that the native France proper already only account for about half of births. However, statistics show that European immigrants to France rapidly converge socio-economically with the native French and assimilate. After all, France as a nation is essentially a fusion of European ethnies – Gallo-Roman, Breton, Flemish . . . – united by the French language and culture.

By contrast, recent polls have highlighted the stark divergence in values between young Muslims and Europeans in France: 66% of young Muslims want insulting Islam to be punished by law and 26% do not oppose the assassination of cartoonists mocking Mohamed. Perhaps not coincidentally, around two thirds have French people consistently say “There are too many foreigners in France.”

https://twitter.com/GuiDurocher/status/1316414441630597122

All this data testifies to the reality of an ongoing “Great Replacement” of the native French population, the native British population, and the White American population since the 1960s. For all that, if we consult on Wikipedia, we are told that the Great Replacement is “a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory which states that, with the complicity or cooperation of ‘replacist’ elites, the white French population—as well as white European population at large—is being progressively replaced with non-European peoples . . . Scholars have generally dismissed the claims of a ‘great replacement’ as being rooted in a misreading of immigration statistics and unscientific, racist views.”

Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article for the strange term “Whiteshift” claims that “Whiteshift, white racial shift, or sometimes called white decline is the demographic and social phenomenon of white majorities gradually declining to become a minority group, sometimes labelled majority minority, and increasingly of mixed race heritage, due to consensual intermarriage and natural demographic change in the Western world.”

As the judicial persecution of French dissidents intensifies, it is becoming more difficult to keep track of even the most punitive measures. Thus, I only recently learned that the French civic nationalist and publisher Alain Soral was sentenced last month to pay €134,400 ($158,500) to the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA), the French equivalent of the SPLC.

His crime? Republishing Le Salut par le Juifs (“Salvation Through the Jews) by Léon Bloy, a classic French Christian author, first released in 1892.

A French court had ordered Soral in 2013 to bowdlerize Bloy’s book by removing 15 passages deemed anti-Semitic. One wonders if it will still be legal in France to publish unabridged editions of the works of Shakespeare or Voltaire, both of which, like many classic authors, expressed sharp criticism of the Jews’ behavior.

Soral’s edition of “Salvation Through the Jews.”

Soral’s publishing house decided to release the text again in 2018 and, when this was brought to the court’s attention, it inflicted the $158,500 fine.

The affair is rather dubious in several respects. Firstly, Bloy’s book has been republished several times since 1892 without legal mishap and is freely available on Wikisource. The message is clear: Alain Soral, and only Alain Soral, does not have the right to republish this historic text simply because of his anti-Zionist political activities.

The French Christian mystic and writer Léon Bloy

Secondly, and as the title suggests, it is not even clear that Bloy’s “Salvation Through the Jews” is an anti-Semitic book. As the conservative writer Pierre de Meuse explains:

This book was written by Léon Bloy to respond to [the famous anti-Semite Édouard] Drumont’s La France Juive [“Jewish France”], in order to fight both. It is true that the text contains many invectives, notably against “the Jews’ mercantilism” . . . but as Bloy is a fiery preacher who attacks just about everyone this is of little consequence . . . [Bloy] takes up the old argument of Christian theology on Jews, somewhat schizophrenic truth be told, but inflating this with a mystical movement to the glory of the Chosen People, “forever.” Let us cite: “The Jews block history as a dam blocks a river, in order to raise the level.”

Thus, while denouncing Jewish behavior, Bloy sees the Jews and their fallen nature as part of God’s plan for humanity’s moral elevation.

By contrast, Drumont’s La France juive (also available on Wikisource) is very much a secular critique of Jewish wealth and influence in nineteenth-century France. A French court had previously banned Soral point-blank from republishing Drumont’s book too, and he respected this ruling. But, evidently, Soral considered that publishing a censored version of Bloy’s book would be dishonorable.

While the LICRA claims to be an “anti-racist” organization, it is in fact a Jewish organization overwhelmingly led by Jews and White gentiles. Mario Stasi, president of the organization since 2017, is the LICRA’s first gentile leader. All five previous presidents, from 1927 to 2017, were Jews (Bernard Lecache, Jean Pierre-Bloch, Pierre Aidenbaum, Patrick Gauber [né Goldenberg], and Alain Jakubowicz).

The LICRA has not published a photographic overview of the organization’s leadership in some time, possibly because it was a source of embarrassment. Indeed, not a single melanin-enriched person sat on the “anti-racist” organization’s ruling body.

https://twitter.com/NasNacera/status/1291505355155963904

One Muslim woman commented: “Here’s the [former] Executive Bureau of the LICRA, which evidently chooses its members according to their skin color and family name.”

We must note that the LICRA and other “anti-racist Zionists” are heavily embedded in the French political elite, including the “anti-racist” Left. Aidenbaum has previously served as vice-mayor under the Socialist Mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo. He has since been “me-tooed” and is currently under investigation for rape. Hidalgo currently employs Patrick Klugman, a hardcore Zionist who has also been heavily engaged in the legal persecution of French patriots.

Former LICRA President Pierre Aidenbaum with Shimon Peres and Mayor Paris Anne Hidalgo.

The persecution of Alain Soral has greatly intensified this year. His two popular YouTube channels have been deleted and he has received several other fines and a one-year prison sentence in recent months. Indeed, Soral was briefly jailed in July this year, but was released due to an obscure legal technicality. It seems probable Soral will soon be joining Hervé Ryssen in prison, another French writer who has been locked in a modern-day Bastille for criticizing the Jews. As a free thinker, Soral has always been prepared for this eventuality, knowing full well that one cannot flout convention and denounce the powerful without paying the price.

The French identitarian writer and critic of Jewish power Hervé Ryssen was jailed on 18 September after having been found guilty of hate speech on three occasions. He has exhausted his right to appeal. He faces 17 months in jail and potentially more as he has other trials awaiting him.

Ryssen was found guilty of “insult, provocation, and public defamation due to origin, ethnicity, nationality, race, or religion.” In 2016, he was sentenced to 5 months in jail for passages in his books Understanding Judaism, Understanding Anti-Semitism. In 2017, he was sentenced to 6 months in jail for “anti-Semitic messages” on Twitter and Facebook.

In June 2018, Ryssen was sentenced to 1 year in jail, the maximum penalty, for a YouTube video entitled “The Jews, Incest, and Hysteria,” in which he explained why, in the judge’s words, “the Jews are an incestuous nation.” Evidently the judge was unmoved by the existence of numerous genetic clinics servicing Jews because of their propensity to various diseases as a historically in-bred population. Ryssen also had to give money to litigious ethnic lobbies, 2000 euros going to the National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism and 1000 euros for Lawyers Without Borders, France-Israel, and the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA, France’s SPLC).

Israel’s Billions: Jewish Crooks and International Financiers: How to Pick Money from the Goyim’s Pockets

In January 2020, Ryssen was also found guilty of “contesting the existence of crimes against humanity.”

Ryssen is the author of numerous books on Jewry, with titles like The Jewish Mafia, Israel’s Billions, and The Planetary Hopes. The dissident website Contre-Info wrote:

In a country in which 100,000 jail sentences have not been implemented, even as prisons are being emptied because of COVID-19, they are taking the decision, a political one, to lock up a patriotic writer.

Hervé Ryssen has studied political Judaism in several books – but evidently certain subjects do not suffer “blasphemy.” He was basically sentenced because of tweets and book covers, his writings (which include very many quotes of Jewish intellectuals) being unimpeachable except for the odd sentence. He has never produced revisionist writings regarding the official history of the Second World War, but he simply shared a cartoon on Facebook. But the big media who deign to mention his incarceration present him especially as a holocaust denier [négationniste].

All this comes even as the French political-media class has again celebrated Charlie Hebdo’s right to “blaspheme,” at least where the Christian and Muslim religions are concerned. Je Suis Charlie for thee, but not for me.

I have had no personal contact with Hervé Ryssen. He is remarkable for being both a European identitarian and a critic of Jewish power (in general, French activists tend to focus on one or the other issue). Despite himself being a racial nationalist, Ryssen has managed to keep good relations with the anti-Zionist civic nationalist Alain Soral and the mixed-race comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala.

Hervé Ryssen immortalized on the cover of Paris-Match, quite accidentally used as a symbol of the yellow-vest movement.

Ryssen’s eloquence, erudition, and courage shine through in his videos. He greatly participated in the yellow-vest protests and witnessed their change in nature from a mass movement including ordinary Frenchmen and nationalists, to a leftover leftoid movement riven by anarchists and trade-union officialdom.

Ryssen is being incarcerated at Fleury-Mérogis just outside of Paris, the largest prison in Europe.

Ryssen cannot receive packages, but apparently is receiving numerous letters of support. A representative runs his Gab account and is providing updates on his situation.

Many prominent dissident personalities have denounced Ryssen’s imprisonment, including Jean-Marie Le Pen, Bruno Gollnisch, Alain Soral. Dieudonné M’Bala M’bala, Jean-Yves Le Gallou, Henry de Lesquen, Laurent Guyénot, and many others.

Marine Le Pen has however distanced herself from Gollnisch, who is still an official in her Rassemblement National, retweeting her former partner Louis Aliot saying “Freedom of speech does not authorize every provocation or obscenity . . . Gollnisch’s statements only concern himself.”

Perhaps surprisingly, the right-wing Zionist Gilles-William Goldnadel condemned Ryssen’s imprisonment, telling a Breton nationalist website:

I have the greatest contempt for Monsieur Ryssen and the feeling is mutual. But concerning criminal speech, nothing justifies him being in prison. But we are not in an American system in which anything can be said. We are in a European-style system where freedom of speech is framed by rules. For a time, I thought this system was possible but now I’m receding to the view that the best situation is that of the American system’s First Amendment.

The anti-Zionist civic nationalists at Égalité et Réconciliation were quick to denounce Goldnadel’s “duplicity” given that he has sued many people over the years for hate speech, including Roger Garaudy, Edgar Morin, Dieudonné, Robert Faurisson, Alain Soral, Jérôme Bourbon, Henry de Lesquen, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and . . . Hervé Ryssen. Indeed, Goldnadel is the founder of Lawyers Without Borders, which contributed to getting Ryssen sentenced to jail in 2018.

Finally, I must recall that in France explicit advocacy of French ethno-nationalism is illegal, but since February 2019 the French State considers that anti-Zionism (opposition to Jewish ethno-nationalism) is hate speech.

“It proves that the lobby doesn’t exist.”

https://twitter.com/ClanAssociation/status/1309804853577814016

“Free Ryssen”

A coalition of French think-tanks and pollsters recently published the eighth edition of the Fractures françaises (“French Fractures”) poll, notably showing the evaporation of the “Macron bump” in favor of globalism and the return of the French to their traditional hostility to immigration and to loss sovereignty to the European Union.

Macron’s election coincided with a sharp increase in the number of French who believed “France is not in decline,” rising from 14% to 31%, a figure which is now subsiding. Today, about four fifths of French believe France is in decline and a quarter believe this is irreversible, the usual figures.

Among party supporters, Macronists are the only one for whom a majority (52%) believe “France is not in decline.” This makes sense as Macron supporters tend to be the highly educated high-earners of the managerial class, people who benefit from the globalization of the French economy and are mobile enough to seize the opportunities offered by multinational corporations.

When asked to name their top 3 issues, the French most cited often crime (46% up from 28% last year), the welfare system’s sustainability (42%), the environment (41%), and purchasing power including salaries and taxes (39%). Noteworthy: conservatives (supporters of the center-right Les Républicains [LR]) are significantly more likely than nationalists (Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement national [RN]) to cite crime as a problem (72% to 58%). Both groups agree immigration is a major problem (58% and 64%, respectively).

Two thirds of French consider that “There are too many foreigners in France,” a very consistent finding since 2013. This sentiment is concentrated among conservatives (84%) and nationalists (95%). This is the defining and unifying issue for the French Right. Similarly, since 2013 over 60% of Frenchmen have consistently said that “Today, we don’t feel at home as we did before.”

While Macron has throughout his presidency consistently supported the creation of a larger EU budget and a strengthening of Brussels’ powers, 65% of Frenchmen believe “We need to strengthen our country’s ability to take decisions even if this would limit the EU’s.”

The Franco-German push to create common EU debt has indeed led to the establishment of a 750-billion-euro EU stimulus fund to restart the economy after the coronavirus recession. The fund will particularly target southern Europe, which has been economically devastated, but will inevitably come with innumerable strings attached: “EU governance” and “peer-pressure” will constrain national policymaking and seek to enmesh national elected politicians in a web of bureaucratic procedures, previous commitments, and transnational committees. These will of course also ensnare France.

Nonetheless, a majority of French think EU membership is a good thing.

While the French are skeptical of globalization, their social values are highly variable, sometimes conservative-authoritarian, sometimes liberal-progressive. Around two thirds of Frenchmen say that “In France, things were better before.” Over 80% of Frenchmen continue to believe that “We need a real leader in France to restore order” and that “Authority is a value which is too often criticized today.” Support for the death penalty is apparently increasing, rising to 55% today.

At the same time, 69% consider French society to be “patriarchal” and the French are more or less evenly divided on whether feminist movements have “gone too far” or not. Some 82% of French consider that “racism” has a significant presence in France, 57% believe it is increasing, and 55% say there is racism in the police.

The most consistent trend is probably the rise and fall of support for globalism that coincided with Macron’s election.

Yellow: “Globalization is a threat to France.” Blue: “Globalization is an opportunity for France.”

The Macronist parenthesis – the promise of a jeune et dynamique president breaking through the old party system – has not lastingly affected French opinion, which is one of basic suspicion towards globalization. Indeed, if anything Macron has presided over an emerging protectionist consensus, with 65% of Frenchmen saying “France must protect herself more from the world of today.” Only 35% say “France should open itself up more to the world of today.”

The party-supporters most in favor of “protection” are the nationalists (87%) followed by the conservatives (77%) and the leftists of La France insoumise (“Unbowed France”) and the French Communist Party (62%).

The polarization by class is consistent: managers are the most globalist (58% see it as an opportunity), while two thirds of employees, blue-collar workers, and retirees consider globalization a threat.

There has been a significant shift in favor of protectionism to promote French companies from 50% in June 2017 to 61% today. Indeed, with coronavirus Macron has openly for relocalizing industry in France and EU policymakers claim to want to restore Europe’s economic “strategic autonomy” relative to the United States of America and China.

However, curiously, conservative supporters are among those most in favor free trade (about half supporting, on a par with Macronists, and sharply differing with nationalists, who are overwhelmingly protectionist).

The French are united in their contempt for the political class. Confidence in political parties hovers around 10%. Some 57% of French said they supported moves towards direct democracy, on the model of a recent “citizen’s convention” of citizens drawn by lot who drafted various environmental proposals (in fact, this convention was presided over and shepherded by apparatchiks close to the Greens and the Socialists). The pollsters decided to illustrate this finding with this pie chart:

This is not unusual, French and EU political and media class loves these kinds of illustrations. In their mind, the majority of the French population is already made up of wholesome people of color. And, our elites subliminally add: it’s already worked out really well so far, so what are you complaining about? (Pay no attention to the concrete blocks we’ve put up around our Christmas markets, the bulletproof glass around our monuments, or the recurring Islamists terrorist attacks and more humdrum day-to-day violence and homicide, discussing which all merely play the cynical game of the Far-Right.) We cannot overestimate how untethered our “elites” have become from reality.

Can a force arise to oppose globalism in France? Probably not in the immediate. Despite Marine Le Pen’s years-long efforts at rebranding to be as innocuous as possible, around 55-60% of French consistently consider her party to be “dangerous for democracy” and “xenophobic.” This figure also applies conservatives by the way, who should normally consider nationalists their natural allies.

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde recently spoke with the French business magazine Challenges [sic] on the “revolutionary process” of feminizing of the workplace (actually focusing on female leadership). Her comments were quite instructive on the state of globalist thinking on this question.

Lagarde opens with the following salvo of factoids:

Gender inequality still exists in terms of access to the job market and the pay gap. In OECD countries, the gender wage gap is still 13%. Women are working more and more but are still under-represented in management positions in both the private and public sectors. The coronavirus crisis has made the situation worse for women. Women make up almost 70% of the healthcare workforce; they are at greater risk from a health perspective. During lockdown, they have been active on all fronts, forced to work while caring for their children, not to mention coping with the threat of domestic violence. As in every economic crisis, they are at greater risk of losing their jobs or of having their wages cut.

This kind of hodgepodge needs no detailed rebuttal. Note that the OECD gender wage gap makes no account for the fact that men and women work different jobs (notably well-paid STEM careers). The comment on women being “at great risk” of coronavirus is in particularly poor taste given that men are more likely to die of the disease.

Lagarde ends with a totalitarian flourish that would make the dourest Ceaușesquian apparatchik proud: “The road towards gender parity in the workplace is anything but straight. It is a long-term process that requires vigilance at all times from every segment of society.” There can be no room for spontaneity and natural development in our society. Everything must be monitored, controlled, policed, and sanctioned according to our ideological priors.

When, exactly, did gender equality slip from a commitment to equality of opportunity to a mission of socially engineering equality of outcomes?

Lagarde observes: “We have made some progress [on gender equality], but unfortunately there is a civil society consensus at international level that, given the still slow pace of advancement, any significant gains on the equality front will take decades rather than years to emerge – unless something changes.” Now there’s a mouthful: “international civil society consensus,” referring to the vast network of para-governmental or oligarch-funded organisations that are considered our conscience on this issue. Evidently, there has been a decided shift in opinion in the managerial class, the top 15-20% of our societies, in France embodied by the supporters of Emmanuel Macron.

A curiosity of Official Feminism is that one can make the case for female superiority, but not the reverse. Lagarde argues:

You’ve often heard me say that if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters, the financial crisis of 2008 would no doubt have turned out differently. And the quality of a number of women leaders in the political or economic arena has certainly enabled better management of the unprecedented health crisis which we are now experiencing. But there are still too few women in positions of responsibility. More needs to be done in many areas. Just to give one example: we should encourage men to take paternity leave, and grant it to them for longer periods than their current entitlement of a few days or weeks.

Needless to say, the debate becomes rather one-sided given that anyone making the case for the superiority of male management will face instant professional annihilation and expulsion from polite society. Witness the fates of Larry Summers and James Damore after making more innocuous comments.

Lagarde adds: “And beyond the professional world, too, there is still quite a way to go, as is sadly evident from the prevalence of domestic violence and number of femicides.” This has become a popular and emotive issue in the French media recently, as though it were a recent issue or a worsening issue or something.

[M]en are definitely more accepting than before of women attaining the most senior positions, and corporate behaviour is beginning to change. Not only with regard to career paths, but also in day-to-day interaction between men and women. This is a valuable and necessary transformation; moreover, the younger generations are more aware of these issues. But the real change in mentality will come when nobody, male or female, questions the legitimacy of a woman holding a position of power.

One wonders who she could possibly be referring to in this current year.

The trouble with this whole discourse is that it denies a priori any significant biological differences between men and women. Or rather, feminists want to have it both ways: on the one hand there are no significant biological differences which could lead to legitimate male over-representation in a desirable field, other the other hand sometimes differences are acknowledged and these account for female superiority in some field.

In fact, given their differing roles and incentives through their evolutionary history – men using their physical strength to fight other tribes for instance, women spending much of their lives pregnant and caring for their young – it would be utterly normal for men and women to be attracted to different fields of work. If there is equality of opportunity, inequality of outcomes should be expected in certain sectors and should not be assumed to be because of exclusion or discrimination. It’s obvious that the fact that men are more violent than women by about an order of magnitude has fundamentally biological causes.

Naturally feminism focuses on replacing men in prestigious positions such as government, corporate leadership, and STEM. Few ask: why are all those UberEats bikers delivering food men? Why are nurseries and primary schools overwhelmingly staffed by women? (“Stereotypes,” of course, have probably brainwashed these women to prefer spending time with small children rather than face dismal weather conditions as UberEats bikers.) Why are garbage collectors men?

Actually, I hesitate to tease feminists on this. I have even encountered official government programs mandating the increase in the percentage of female garbage collectors. But the inevitable question: Why? Who cares? Don’t you have better things to do?

Anyway, the growing popularity of transexuality among our thinking class shows that they have become completely unhinged from biological reality, at least wherever some wounded ego is concerned.

The upshot to all this is that, in Europe and much the developed world, systematic and official discrimination against men in politics, management, and science will intensify. Quotas for female politicians already exist in many European countries, notably France, and the EU wants to legally require all corporations to have gender quotas for their corporate boards. Including, obviously, for sectors women tend to avoid, such as IT.

Lagarde concludes: “Female emancipation boosts productivity and economic development. That is an established and documented fact. So, what are we waiting for?”

All this begs the question: what will be the long-term consequence of feminizing leadership?