Renaud Camus, the French writer who formulated ‘The Great Replacement’, according to which indigenous European populations are being replaced by non-European populations through a process of mass immigration, has been banned from entering the UK where he was due to deliver a speech on immigration. The Home Office informed Camus that his ‘presence in the United Kingdom is not considered to be conducive to the public interest’.
This is evidently gross hypocrisy from a government that allows entry to hate preachers and criminals of all kinds, not to mention illegal migrants of whom we know nothing who arrive in their thousands on small boats to be lodged at public expense – indeed, one wonders whether Camus would have been better advised to arrive by small boat.
But what our liberal elite really deem ‘unacceptable’ about Camus is that he questions the new secular religion of diversity and multiculture. He dares to argue that that before the current era of mass immigration, Europe was populated by indigenous populations who possessed distinctive national cultures; that these are being erased; and that the social breakdown we are now witnessing, the fracturing of what were once cohesive societies adhering to shared norms and values, is the direct result of Europe importing non-European peoples whose cultures and civilizations are alien to the Judaeo-Christian-Classical tradition. In other words, the nations of Europe are committing cultural and civilizational suicide.
This is heresy of the most grievous kind. However, the curious thing is that in France, where unlike here people talk openly of the indigenous population (les Français de souche), the national culture, the threat posed by mass immigration, Islamification, and even anti-white racism, some two thirds of the public, according to a recent survey, believe that the Great Replacement is taking place. Are they too to be excluded from this country on the grounds that they constitute a danger to public order? Former president Nicholas Sarkozy, who has also warned of the dangers of mass immigration, recently said that the French ‘want to live in a country that they recognise as their own, the bearers of a culture that they have inherited from their ancestors and that they wish to transmit to their children’. Should he not be excluded for promoting ‘cultural nationalism’? And the French interior minister, Bruno Retailleau, another outspoken critic of mass immigration, has warned that ‘a multicultural society caries the risk of becoming a multi-racist society’. Should he not be excluded for promoting hatred?
We ought to acknowledge that there is good reason for the terms ‘indigenous people’ and ‘national culture’ to be taboo in this country. For if the English were to recover from their carefully orchestrated collective amnesia and remember that they still exist; furthermore, that they possess a distinct culture and civilization that was, within living memory, the common culture of these islands into which past immigrants were assimilated; then they might realise that they have been deprived of an inheritance of inestimable value. They might start to question the unalloyed benefits of diversity and multiculture. And that would constitute a threat to public order. In which case, the English themselves would have to be excluded from these islands.
