Jean Renaud Gabriel Camus, co-founder and President of the National Council of European Resistance, is a French writer and political theorist known for having coined the syntagm “great replacement”—referring to the colonization of Western Europe by immigrants from North Africa, Black Africa, and the Middle East. He was to be a speaker at the 2020 American Renaissance conference, which was canceled because of Covid.
Grégoire Canlorbe: Your caustic, disillusioned outspokenness led you to a series of court appearances. How do you sum up the tale of your mishaps with the Prosecutor’s Office alongside the American public, accustomed to freedom of expression?
Renaud Camus: Oh, it is more than the prosecutor’s office. It is a never-ending series of appearances before a whole hierarchy of different courts, usually on charges of incitement to racial hatred. It is also under that heading that I am usually condemned. Of course, from my point of view, hate has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are none in my writings, nor any attacks on people. But hatred is the very effective name that the replacist power has chosen to give to any opposition to genocide by substitution, to any resistance to the Great Replacement, to the slightest objection to the change of people and civilization. By the way, when people start to speak of your hatred, you have to be wary: it is usually that they want to kill you, or at least to end you, to silence you.
As an example, here is the tweet that earned me the most recent lawsuits:
“A box of condoms offered in Africa it is three less drowned in the Mediterranean, a hundred thousand euros in savings for the family allowances fund, two prison cells freed and three centimeters of sea ice preserved.”
A joke, not the slightest hatred, no reference to the slightest race, and a simple reflection among others of my constant concern as for the population explosion everywhere, Europe eminently included, which makes all ecological policies pointless. Well that joke could very well get me in jail, since it will undoubtedly lead to my conviction, too, and since I was sentenced last time to a suspended prison sentence, a suspension which a new unfavorable verdict would overcome.
A young novelist, Thomas Clavel, has just published a novel, Un traître mot [A single word], which roughly accurately describes the current state of freedom of expression and repression in France today. The book is alternative history, but hardly. The imposed sentences are barely heavier than those we undergo in reality, for a wrong word one sees oneself being inflicted years of prison and re-education, but one or two years will be probably enough so that we definitely arrive, in the reality, to what is shown there. Reading A single word in Paris in 2020 it is, relatively speaking, like reading Kafka’s The Trial in Moscow in 1936. In both cases, the literary exaggeration is minimal. And in Clavel one is much more heavily condemned for words than for deeds. Power is taking out of prisons criminals by action in order to replace them in cells with criminals by opinion. We are pretty much there. As I am speaking to you, the new minister of Justice is releasing, under the pretext of coronavirus and prison overcrowding, hundreds or thousands of people convicted of theft, rape, armed assault or blood crimes. Is it in order to make room, and to fill the liberated cells with people like us, who oppose the industrial crushing of races? The Keeper of the Seals said, during his assumption of duty, that his ministry would be that of anti-racism and the fight against hate. The hatred that he slays, as we have just seen, is the opposition to the change of people. As for the anti-racism he promotes, it is the desire to mix and confuse all races, therefore to make them disappear, starting with the white-one will even say, one already says, that it has never existed, that it is a fantasy, a creation of the mind.
Grégoire Canlorbe: The late Guillaume Faye spoke very highly of you in his last published book Ethnic Apocalypse, commending your initiative to launch the NCER [National Council of European Resistance] and the speech you pronounced on this occasion in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises. He also praised your choice of words—Undifferentiated Human Matter—to qualify the way the native ordinary people is supposedly perceived by the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie. How much is your own reflection beholden to the syntagms that Faye invented—especially ethnomasochism and archeofuturism?
Renaud Camus: Oh, ethnomasochism is quite precious. I have a little more trouble with archeofuturism which is so precisely fayan, or fayesque, that it becomes difficult to handle by anyone other than its creator. But I do not despair, not admittedly to appropriate it, but to be led to make personal use of it.
Grégoire Canlorbe: You claim to disapprove all acts of violence—including those perpetrated against the perceived occupying authorities by autochthonous terrorists like Brenton Harrison Tarrant and Patrick Crusius, both of whom have made use of the syntagm “the great replacement” in their respective manifestos. What do you reply to the claim that we are presently at war with some extra-European races (alongside whom Islam serves as a rallying banner); and that in a time of war one cannot gain victory without resorting to violence against the enemy?
Renaud Camus: Brenton Harrison Tarrant used the syntagm of the great replacement without any reference to my books or to me, whose existence he probably does not even know. The appellation must have seemed relevant to him, that is all, during his stay in Europe; and seemed to accurately describe the situation he was seeing with us, all the more than it is an obvious one. The syntagm is now everywhere on the continent, it is a household name [in English in the original text]: he adopted it, good for him, although it has complicated my life a lot. As for Patrick Crusius, he refers to Tarrant and his manifesto The Great Replacement, and not in the least to me, whom he probably knows even less than Tarrant knows me. Their actions are enough to prove that they did not read me. They are as far removed as possible from in-nocence [neologism by Renaud Camus, synonymous of harmlessness], which is the central concept of my thinking. And their views are contrary to mine in almost every way. Tarrant is for example an ardent natalist, while population growth is in my opinion one of the most serious threats to the planet; and more than a threat, since it is already destroying everything there is to destroy.
But more generally your question seems to me to confuse two similar things, certainly, but all the same quite different: violence and war. I repeat, one of the central concepts of my thinking is in-nocence non-nocence, non-nuisance, the fact of not harming. The in-nocence pact seems to me to be the nodal point of civilization and, incidentally, of ecology. I am therefore non-violent and that all the more so since I see in nocence, the fact of harming, the small and large violence, the very instrument of Afro-Muslim territorial conquest in France and in Europe, the means of the ethnic cleansing in progress, the Great Replacement. By nocence the colonizer makes streets, districts, entire towns uninhabitable to the indigenous populations, who are obliged to evacuate them. It is the title of one of my first public speeches, at least in the political sphere: “Nocence, an instrument of the Great Replacement.” Nocence, or if you prefer delinquency, big and small, from the snatching of old lady’s bag to mass terrorism, is the military means of conquest. Nocence is what we have to fight with all our might: it is absolutely not what we have to adopt. Nothing would be dumber than to imitate the methods of our adversaries, even if they are successful to him: we must find our own.
However, if as a promoter of in-nocence I am completely non-violent, on the other hand I am absolutely not a pacifist. Pacifism led to Munich, to the surrender to totalitarianism, to Vichy and to the collaboration with Nazism. And just as surely we see today, exactly on the same structural model, anti-racism leading before our eyes to genocide by substitution, to the destruction of Europeans in Europe, to the hateful eradication of whites and the civilizations they have built.
I am therefore totally opposed, it goes without saying, to the blind and indiscriminating acts of violence by Tarrant or Crusius. On the other hand, if unfortunately we had no other choice than submission and war, I would prefer war, then, without hesitation. It was even that part of my speech in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, at the founding of the National Council of European Resistance, which earned me my most recent two-month suspended prison sentence:
“That said, if unfortunately it happened that the only alternative left to us is submission or war, then war, a hundred times.”
That was interpreted as a call for violence, which it is by no means. The paradox is that the judges today condemn exactly the attitude which has led the heroes of the history of France to see their names being given to streets and statues being raised in their honor. It is true that many of those statues are now under threat of overthrow, and that the streets are renamed: the Great Replacement is also, of course, a replacement of history.
Grégoire Canlorbe: It is not uncommon to envision the cosmopolitan and replacist agenda of the political elite as the consequence of their alleged desire for repentance for the Holocaust—a proposition which is known as the “theorem of the great replacement,” and that basically conceives of the sacralisation of the Holocaust as the cause of the anti-racist legislation, and the latter as the cause of mass immigration.
Another line of thought—which is widespread throughout the spectrum of dissidence, from Eric Zemmour to Alain Soral through Martin Peltier—claims the political elite to be substantially confused with the economic elite (from the executives of multinationals to bankers and financiers); and the economic elite’s cosmopolitan ideology to be an indispensable tool at the service of its objective economic interests—purportedly the servility of the consumer and the mobility of human capital. In that Marxist frame of thought the dominant cosmopolitan ideology boils down to the necessary “superstructure” of the “infrastructural” globalized, financialized market; and the Muslim word—just like East-European Catholicism and the Orthodox-Slavic world—is envisioned as a fierce resistant to the cosmopolitan subversive march of the market. In linking to a “deculturation” process the docility towards the genocide by substitution, which of those two lines of thought do you feel closest to?
Renaud Camus: Phew, here is a tremendous dish, and there would be a thousand things to clarify, or correct. I will not speak of a “sanctification” of the Shoah but I do indeed believe that the very legitimate “never again!”, about the death camps, founded the legitimacy and the formidable power of anti-racism, probably the most powerful ideology in the world today, as a superstructure of global replacism, of which it is the most precious instrument. It is what I called, in a small book of this title, The Second Career of Adolf Hitler: his career upside down, his career as an obsessive ghost, stopper of all sentences and reference of all references, universal Godwin point. That second career is less blatantly criminal than is the first, but it is of even greater consequence, suggesting for it, over time, the maddening nature of a rehearsal.
It must be seen that there have been two successive anti-racisms, for three quarters of a century; and that the word, passing from one to the other, has totally changed its meaning: it no longer designates the same thing at all. The first anti-racism was devoted to the very necessary protection of certain races particularly threatened or tested: the Jews, the blacks, the gypsies, the Indians, etc. The second anti-racism, born with the solemn proclamation of the dogma of the non-existence of races, in the mid-1970s, contradictorily argues that races do not exist and that they are all perfectly equal. The first of those precepts conceals all the genocidal implications that carries this name, anti-racism: because if, in theory, “scientifically,” races do not exist, then they must disappear, they must be eradicated, in case they have the bad taste of existing anyway, despite dogma; and that is especially true for the white race, the oldest, the most expensive, the fewest, the most hated, the one which, for better or for worse, has played successively, in the social hierarchy of the world, and in its division of labor, the conquering role of the military nobility, first, then that, hardly less vexatious for the rest of the world, of the merchant bourgeoisie (and of the cultivated class which was linked to it). The history of the world is that of the eradication of aristocracies, be they those, often partially confused, of birth, fortune or spirit. And for the whites we are in 1793.
However contradictory the two precepts of dogma, inexistence and equality, they are perfectly suited to global replacement, the davocracy, the system of management of the human stock by Davos and by finance, the FAANGs, the pension funds, the banks, which want for their business and for those of the industries of the man an undifferentiated human matter (UHM), mixed, crushed, free of those white clots which unnecessarily increase costs: they demand a matter whose each segment is freely replaceable—it is the human Nutella, or Nutelluman [Nutellom in the original text].
The big financial interests were once a bit beta, they believed that the right-wing parties were their best defenders. But they have become much smarter and see that these are the leftist values, equality and anti-racism, that best serve the demands of the industries of man and general interchangeability. It is what makes davocratic global replacism such a formidable adversary: it has on its side both the power of money and the intellectual and moral prestige of the democratic and anti-racist virtue. It is as if Doctor Mabuse had bought the image of Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela.
We are witnessing, as often, a reversal by chiasmus. Since the second anti-racism henceforth plays, unlike the first, and as its name bore it, the role of the villain—an enemy no longer of racism, but of the races, that is to say a zealous servant of the general interchangeability, of the Undifferentiated Human Matter, of the industries of man—the second racism should consequently, and by symmetry, be able to assume in its turn, in that double reversal in x, and similarly as its name bore it, the role of the good, of the defender of races, of all races, and of course the least numerous and the most threatened among them, the most hated, the most vilified, the white one. That new virtuous racism is the champion of human biodiversity and, as such, the only coherent ecologism.
Grégoire Canlorbe: You fully assume your flamboyant past as a homosexual libertine, henceforth settled. In terms of masculine erotic attraction were you rather receptive to French actor Alain Delon or to Austrian bodybuilder, turned actor and politician, Arnold Schwarzenegger? Does your homosexuality prevent you from appreciating the recognized masterpieces of Japanese erotic cinema that are, for instance, Nagisa Ōshima’s In the Realm of the Senses and Empire of Passion?
Renaud Camus: I assume, I certainly do… I do not make a big deal out of it either. And as for your strange question, Schwarzenegger, no, really not at all, and as far as Alain Delon is concerned, no more than that either, except in The Leopard, which happens to be one of my favorite movies. I preferred Robert Redford, in the days of Butch Cassidy and the Kid, Franco Nero, or, to stay in France, Marc Porel, or the Gérard Blain of Chabrol’s Le Beau Serge, which in addition had the great advantage of taking place in the Creuse and to show it a lot, although it was sinister in it. That said, I do not really see why my homosexuality, now largely “honorary,” would prevent me from appreciating this or that masterpiece of cinema, Japanese or otherwise. On the other hand, the transgression being on me completely without effect, and especially without libidinal effect, I have always been very bored by eroticism, especially when sadomasochistic. I preferred pornography a thousand times. But those times are far away.
Grégoire Canlorbe: What may be termed the PPCM—the Plan of Promotion of Congoids and Miscegenation—is increasingly manifested into literature, fashion, and motion picture. In tune with the wishes of the occult elite many men and women of the Caucasian race are indulging into miscegenation—and marveling before mulatto babies. Does the predilection for Negroes, Maghrebis, and Arabs show up as well among white homosexuals?
Renaud Camus: Oh, I presume so, yes, but I am not really an expert on that question. As I once wrote a four-handed little book, Incomparable, with an Arab named Farid Tali, and immediately afterwards went on television with an interviewer who made a big deal out of it, the urban legend now wants me to have a particular passion for Arabs. It is all the more comical than, having written earlier that I was hardly interested in Arabs, precisely, and that I believed I could notice their sexuality in general was hardly compatible with mine, I had suffered the wrath of Edwy Plenel, already, and had been called a racist, of course, according to custom. All that, those media constructions of “image,” always reminds me of this apologue where I see the very allegory of error: a visitor, in my house, who, in entering the library, and immediately spotting, to the right of the entrance, a department of books in Italian, which made up about half a hundredth of the whole, cried out: “Ah, the owner is Italian!” (as if one had to warn him).
Grégoire Canlorbe: You make clear your social and doctrinal distancing from Nazism. How do you assess the popularity of Nazism among the new guard of right-wingers? When a young person exhibits a swastika on his T-shirt does it truly reflect an endorsement of the Nazi program—from socialism, ecologism, and genocidal anti-Semitism to the unification of Europe and its restoration to Europeans? Or does it only mean a desire to see France and Europe being freed from extra-European settlers—and from the numerous anti-racist terrorist organizations involved in orchestrating the great replacement?
Renaud Camus: I do not have to highlight my social and doctrinal “distancing” from Nazism, since never having had the slightest affinity with it, to say the least. On the contrary I believe that the antireplacists of my kind, furiously opposed to the industries of man, that is to say to the assembly lines of death, to the camps, to the gulag, to the universal slum which is the unsurpassable horizon and the constant secretion of global replacism, are the only consistent anti-Nazis, just like they are the only consistent ecologists. When I discovered that there was on the list that I was leading for the European elections a young candidate whom a photograph showed having fun drawing a swastika in the sand of a beach, as I could no longer remove the candidate, at that point, I have withdrawn the list.
Grégoire Canlorbe: You like to present Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford as key figures in the implementation of the Industrial Revolution’s alleged dehumanization process—and to describe the fight against the great replacement as solidary with the one against growth and industrialization. As I see it Taylorism, which is not necessarily dehumanizing (but has systemically allowed for unprecedented consumption possibilities and leisure time), above all expresses the European Faustian genius in the domination of nature—in this case the first of the natural resources that is the resource in labor power—; and saving the European peoples, their Faustian soul on their Caucasian biological plinth, implies saving the Promethean (or Faustian) ethos which notably gave rise to Taylorism, Galton’s eugenics, and the Industrial Revolution.
More precisely the struggle against ecologism (and therefore, against degrowth and deindustrialization) is actually solidary with the fight against the great replacement—for the good reason that both are an integral part to the rationalizing Promethean (or Cartesian) gesture via which the white man makes himself the master and possessor of nature. The scientific organization of labor (which rationalizes the management of labor, an eminent natural resource, via the application of Frederick Taylor’s principles), but also the eugenic politics of Francis Galton (which is fundamentally the scientific management of the white race’s genetic quality), are both additional expressions of the European Faustian spirit that discovered and devised modern growth—namely growth based on coal and nuclear power and therefore rationalized in that it gets rid of meteorological fluctuations and intermittent energies. From this Faustian spirit precisely also arises, at least in part, the fight against miscegenation and migratory submersion—insofar as, in accordance with Francis Galton’s and Richard Lynn’s principles, it intends to preserve the white race’s genome and its genetic and mental quality. Are you not afraid to throw out the Faustian baby with the bathwater of modernity?
Renaud Camus: As the extreme length of your question shows, it is more of a statement of your views than a questioning of mine. For my part, I am not in the least an antiecologist, quite the contrary; and if I find a fault with environmentalists, it is they are environmentalists too little, precisely. So long as they do not care about population growth, which is the root cause of nearly all environmental ills that the Earth suffers (and many others), anything they can suggest is utterly futile. They pose as defenders of biodiversity, and they would be right to be so, but they attach no importance to its most precious side, human biodiversity, that of races, civilizations, cultures; worse still, being almost all antiracist and immigrationists, they are determined to destroy it, that human biodiversity, through mass immigration, which they promote, and through the ethnic substitution that it implies. They assiduously practice occupying preference [pun parodying the expression “national preference”], like journalists and judges in the service of davocracy. And, to top it off, they put no value on the beauty of the world, what ends up rendering all their efforts pointless and all their ideas meaningless. Thus, on the grounds of supporting renewable energies, and of course we cannot too much, and instead of campaigning for example for the generalization of photovoltaic tiles (tiles, not plates), they destroy all landscapes by sowing their damned wind turbines everywhere, which tell man that there is no way out, especially upwards; which even rob him of the sky, and cut him off from any spatial representation of transcendence, which no longer has any refuge except in books and thought, having been driven out of sensible space. In that world of the false which is by definition global replacism, that universe of replacement, substitution, of the fake, they usurp their name, as do in France the so-called “natives,” who are precisely those who are not native; and the no less so-called “indigenists,” who are those who claim to replace the real natives (us) by transported, imported invasive populations; or the insolent and cynical “decolonials,” who are our colonizers. In what I called [in French: faussel] the falseal (the world of the fake, the real being put upside down), what lies most is language. The only natives are us, the only decolonials too, the only anti-colonialists, the only anti-totalitarians, the only environmentalists.
I am in no way hostile to degrowth, me; not even to deindustrialization, starting with the deindustrialization of culture, that of the self-contradictory “cultural industries.” I think that man has gone to the very end of himself and that he can see it is not very pretty. Now he must go back, as best as he can.
The Faustian momentum involves a pact with the devil which, for my part, I am absolutely not ready for. The face of the Nemesis is more and more clear. If there is momentum it henceforth must be a momentum towards measure, in full conformity with the foundational Greek ideal. Race is far from being purely genetic, as claimed the worst racists and the stupidest anti-racists after them. First of all, it has the merit of being, and it must be preserved as such. IQ issues are certainly crucial, and the recent collapse is of course maddening, although I believe it to be as much due to the collapse of school systems, to the failure of transmission, to the change of cultural reference, with the passage from culture to cultural industries (the Small Replacement), as due to the change of people (the Great Replacement).
I must say that I suspect a bit Richard Lynn not to be otherwise distraught by the recent proposal of Boris Johnson, who offered the hospitality of Great Britain to three million Hong Kong people who would be driven out of Hong Kong by the communist repression. That proposal is the object of a certain favor which amazes me, even in anti-antiracist circles: ah, one cries out, a tremendous coup, this time here are good immigrants, the Hongkongers, endowed with strong IQ, hardworking, little inclined to delinquency, violence and nocence, and who should integrate themselves wonderfully. But I have no desire that they do integrate themselves, me! The Great Replacement despairs me as much in Great Britain as in France. And that the British are being replaced by Chinese instead of Sudanese or Pakistani, I find it to be very little consolation. Why do they need to be replaced? Because of your Faustian ideal of perpetual growth and development? Cannot they stay English? Whether they are replaced by Mandarins or Hottentots, the crime will be no less, and the loss will be no less great.
Grégoire Canlorbe: Among the numerous literary genres in which you have distinguished yourself ranks the topography. Do you intend to take advantage of your coming trip in America—on the occasion of the next American Renaissance conference—to exercise your talents in this field? When it comes to the evolution of America do you sense that the contemporary visage of the country is an insipid and corrupted “replacement” of the Founding Fathers’ original vision?
Renaud Camus: Ah I do not know what will happen about the next American Renaissance conference, I have not heard of it. I had been very kindly invited to that year’s one, and I was to go, but the coronavirus decided otherwise. As I have been very severely ill myself, and barely come out of long hospital stays, I cannot presume how strong I will be in the future. But certainly the homes of mind are not lacking in America. They are generally admirably kept. However, they risk becoming the museums of vanished civilizations if, in changing its people, the country also changed its civilization, as it is inevitable in such cases, one necessarily involving the other. Already the links with Europe are stretching singularly, as the nation is less and less populated by Europeans. It was observed in Barack Obama’s time as much as much as it is under Donald Trump, who probably could not map Austria or Portugal. The Great Deculturation clearly increases the phenomenon of de-Europeanization: the culture of North America being essentially European, as the museums testify, the less there is culture the less there is Europe. The United States is less and less an Atlantic power and more and more a Pacific state. It is the Pacific, henceforth, the inland sea of trade (and probably conflict). It will be so as long as Europe, traumatized by the Second World War (The Second Career of Adolf Hitler, always…), does not decide to re-enter history, in becoming a military power and in overthrowing, by decolonization and remigration, the change of people of which it is the object.
Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. Is there something you would like to add?
Renaud Camus: The genocide by substitution, or Great Replacement, or change of people and civilization, in short the destruction of the Europeans of Europe, is the XXI century’s crime against humanity. It is arguably the worst monstrosity in history: perhaps not the most criminal, for it is largely mechanical, automatic, accountable; but the fullest, the widest, the most cataclysmic in its effects. It was carried out in two stages: the Small Replacement [the change in culture with the rise of the little bourgeoisie who replaced the great bourgeoisie, just like the former had replaced the aristocracy] which was in a way the preliminary anesthesia, the numbing: then the Large one, which is the operation itself, and is proceeding well as we speak.
That conversation was initially published (in a slightly abridged version) by American Renaissance, in August 2020