France rises again

It is interesting to see that even the globalist expats are observing precisely the same nationalist phenomenon growing that I have observed across Europe. The key difference, of course, being that they disapprove of it whereas I wholeheartedly approve of this eminently predictable development:

PARIS — It is difficult to go more than a day in France without hearing
someone express the conviction that the greatest problem in the country
is its ethnic minorities, that the presence of immigrants compromises
the identity of France itself. This conviction is typically expressed
without any acknowledgment of the country’s historical responsibility as
a colonial power for the presence of former colonial subjects in
metropolitan France, nor with any willingness to recognize that France
will be ethnically diverse from here on out, and that it’s the
responsibility of the French as much as of the immigrants to make this

In the past year I have witnessed incessant stop-and-frisk of young
black men in the Gare du Nord; in contrast with New York, here in Paris
this practice is scarcely debated. I was told by a taxi driver as we
passed through a black neighborhood: “I hope you got your shots. You
don’t need to go to Africa anymore to get a tropical disease.” On
numerous occasions, French strangers have offered up the observation to
me, in reference to ethnic minorities going about their lives in the
capital: “This is no longer France. France is over.” There is a
constant, droning presupposition in virtually all social interactions
that a clear and meaningful division can be made between the people who
make up the real France and the impostors….

Equality is of course one of the virtues on which the French Republic
was founded, yet critics of the Enlightenment philosophy behind the
Revolution have long noticed a double standard: when equality is
invoked, these critics note, it is understood that this is equality among equals.
Political and social inequality is allowed to go on as before, as long
as it is presumed that this is rooted in a natural inequality….

The American approach to immigration is plainly rooted in historical
exigencies connected to the appropriation of a continent, and it is this
same history of appropriation that continues to induce shame in most
Euro-Americans who might otherwise be tempted to describe themselves as
natives. America has to recognize its hybrid and constructed identity,
since the only people who can plausibly lay claim to native status are
the very ones this new identity was conjured to displace. But in Europe
no similar displacement plays a role in historical memory: Europeans can
more easily imagine themselves to be their own natives, and so can
imagine any demographic impact on the continent from the extra-European
world as the harbinger of an eventual total displacement.

The writer is an idiot multiculturalist, of course, but he does correctly identify the fundamental difference between European attitude towards mass migration and the American attitude. Where he is completely wrong is in forgetting that Europeans don’t have to “imagine themselves to be their own natives”, as they are quite literally the indigenous people of Europe, they have the same rights to protection in Europe that are afforded to indigenous peoples elsewhere, and they cannot permit any displacement there because they have literally nowhere else to go.

Israel for the Jews. Japan for the Japanese. Europe for the various nations of Europe. And France for the French. Nationalism is not a difficult or dangerous concept, it is a moral imperative and a divine decree. The globalist, multicultural dogma is not merely impractical, it is immoral and overtly anti-Biblical, being Babel writ large.