Is it too late for France?

Guy Millière for (Note – Translated from French)

I would like to think that it is not too late for France. Even if I left without intending to return, if not for short stays, I’m not fully detached from France.

I have my roots there. My Monther tongue is French. I tried for years to fight for France to recover and regain dignity, dynamism, righteousness. I have friends in France, and I know that many French people can not leave and follow the path I took.

Jews can join Israel, but it is not always easy. Those who are not Jewish have few issues. Becoming Canadian is very difficult and requires money and an entrepreneurial spirit. Becoming an American is even more difficult unless you have a lot of money or very high qualifications.

I would like to think that it is not too late for France, yes. But I find it difficult to persuade myself.

The great replacement analyzed by Renaud Camus is in progress and is now very difficult to reverse. Islam is now, in number of practitioners, the first religion in France, and demographics shows that its weight will be even more accentuated. The birth rate in France is around 2 children per woman, which is not alarming in itself, but if we go into the details and we compare the Moslem births and the non-Muslim births (what it is forbidden to do in France but is done elsewhere), we understand Renaud Camus.

Speeches referring to “Islam of France” or “Moderate Islam” carry a pathetic blindness that can reassure those who believe them and want to blind themselves.

Areas of no law (“sensitive urban areas” or No Go Zones in politically correct language) are about six hundred and expanding.

It is almost impossible to be elected to a political office in a growing number of places without having the Muslim vote.

Prisons are places of Islamic recruitment and increasingly difficult to control (the revolt of the prison staff makes sense).

Public educational institutions are under control, and the “Islamically correct” speech is almost hegemonic.

The media are in the same situation. There remain some dissident journalists whose position is increasingly precarious. The other journalists do not even have to receive orders: they have the brains so wrung that they spontaneously hold the inept and deceptive speech required. The information circulates almost no longer in France. Journalists with drained brain are responsible for spinning the brains of the rest of the population.

Emmanuel Macron is the appropriate President in these circumstances. He manages a slow euthanasia.

One tax goes down, another goes up, and the tax burden stays and will remain stable at 45 per cent of GDP, and public spending continues and will continue to be 57 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. The country’s debt is close to 100 per cent of Gross Domestic Product and will soon exceed that figure.

The number of poor, unemployed, permanent assistants is increasing and will continue to increase. At best, the numbers will be disguised.

Large French companies will continue to be very profitable, which will not change anything for the lives of those living with a few hundred euros per month.

As before in the Soviet Union, there will be a nomenklatura, a stratum that will live well, an ocean of poor gradually subject to Islam, who will live badly, and between the two a middle class who will try to keep his head from going under water all the while getting by with less and less.

There will no doubt be more political alternation at the top of the country. It is so that the alternation disappears that Emmanuel Macron was put in place.

There will be a right that will be described with contempt as “populist” because it clings to it a conglomerate of French non-Muslims who would like to escape the great replacement, but do not escape, and a left that we qualify with the same contempt of “populist” because there are those who still think that the solution is the “final struggle” promised by Karl Marx 150 years ago and by Lenin a hundred years ago. Neither the so-called “populist” right nor the “populist” left will gain power. Their role is to channel anger and to serve as défouloirs.

There will be no more Socialist Party: the Socialists have the choice between the “final struggle” and Macron, and those who have understood in what direction blows the wind have chosen Macron.

I see little future for a right called “moderate”. Those who belonged to the “Republicans” and understood in what way the wind blows have also joined Macron, or are doing it.

The others are in what is left of the “Republicans”, and Laurent Wauquiez is their leader.

Laurent Wauquiez seems to me the pathetic hero of an impossible mission.

If he held a fully relevant economic speech, he would quickly be dismissed and condemned to marginality. Journalists with a well-drained brain would treat him as “ultra-liberal” delusional.

If he held a clear speech on immigration, Islam, the evolution of the world and France, he would be dismissed and sentenced to marginality even more quickly. Journalists with a well wrung brain would call him a “fascist”.

It is, therefore, a muffled discourse where the relevant economic elements are seasoned with a large dose of socialism and where immigration, Islam, the evolution of the world is impregnated with a shyness that reveals a willingness not to exceed the very strict limits of the politically correct.

I doubt that this muffled speech allows him to draw a space between Macron and the so-called “populist” right. The near future will tell me if I am wrong.

If the near future tells me that I am wrong, which I doubt, a speech as muffled as the one he is holding, if he were elected President after Macron (pure school hypothesis), what would happen? would not be anyway alternating, but a simple inflection in a very heavy trend that shows that it is too late, very likely.

I have no false hopes to offer to those who read me. I do not mean to despair. I hear them say that lucidity is better than blindness.

Am I pessimistic? I remember the words of a Jewish friend many years ago. In the 1930s in Europe, the pessimistic Jews, he told me, left or at least showed extreme vigilance and took precautions. The optimistic Jews ended up in Auschwitz.

Today, far beyond the Jews, pessimistic Europeans leave or, at least take their precautions, optimistic Europeans prepare to end up destitute and disarmed in a cloaca. The members of the nomenklatura will keep their heads out of the water, the others will not. Alas.

PS The Heritage Foundation in Washington publishes an index of economic freedom every year. France is seventy-one, which is overwhelming. The French who still have illusions can console themselves by saying that countries are worse: North Korea is one hundred and eighty, preceded by Venezuela.