In the first part of this essay we bemoaned how the French philosopher Renaud Camus, originator of the term ‘The Great Replacement’, a phrase used to describe the systematic demographic shift taking place against white populations throughout Europe, has been barred from entering the UK as an “undesirable influence” by the Home Office – largely because he dares tell the self-evident truth about such matters and the complete and total disaster they have been.
For this, he is often condemned as some kind of neo-Nazi; even though, as we have already demonstrated by providing quotes from his 2023 anthology of essays Enemy of the Disaster, Camus explicitly blames Adolf Hitler for the continent’s current demographic shift. The Nazis’ anti-Jewish 1940s Holocaust, Camus says, triggered a subsequent extreme moral overreaction from generations of post-war white European politicians who naïvely dismantled all of the continent’s necessary borders in the impossible dream of thereby creating some post-racial brotherhood of man.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Betrayed on immigration, betrayed on energy, betrayed on jobs – the treachery and treason of three decades of Enemy Within, currently incarnated as Sir Two-Tier’s Labour misgoverning maladministration.
The Western Roman Empire collapsed as a consequence of poor government. That resulted in high taxation and a bloated incompetent bureaucracy.
Its consequent weakness coincided with a period of low temperature across Europe which drove tribal populations out of the colder northeast into Western Europe.
The only thing missing at the moment is a mini ice age.
In its place, we have a severe demographic decline in the east creating an entirely different motivation for military expansionism.
Whatever, the socialist fascist system of government throughout Western Europe is doomed.
If eastern expansionism is not checked, socialist fascism will be replaced by a more brutal form of government: totalitarian fascism and today reminds us of that.
Even if that is checked, islamo-fascism is already upon us.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall:
‘The number of ministers, of magistrates, of officers, and of servants, who filled the different departments of the state, was multiplied beyond the example of former times; and (if we may borrow the warm expression of a contemporary) ‘when the proportion of those who received exceeded the proportion of those who contributed the provinces were oppressed by the weight of tributes.’
George Finley, Greece under the Romans, pp. 221, 222):
‘At last the whole wealth of the empire was drawn into the imperial treasury; fruit trees were cut down and free men were sold to pay taxes; vineyards were rooted out, and buildings were destroyed to escape taxation….’
The changes described by Gibbon were introduced by the emperor Diocletian quite some time before the Western Roman Empire ceased to be. It didn’t “collapse” but met a violent end when Odoacer, its top military leader, led a revolt of foreign mercenaries against the last emperor Romulus Augustus in 467 AD. The Eastern Roman Empire, administrated and governed in the same way, continued for almost another thousand years¹, making it one of the longest existing states in human history.
¹ Ended by conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453.
‘Rome’s fall, as historians are more and more inclined to agree, came about not so much from any overwhelming pressure from without as from weaknesses and dry rot within, which finally made the decayed empire easy prey for the onrushing barbarians of the North.’
https://fee.org/articles/bureaucracy-kills-a-lesson-from-rome/
‘The problem with Byzantium post Manzikert was simple. A centralized beuracratic state became captured by a small group of powerful elites/noble families and these families bickered with each other and wasted their resources not on investment and development but on vanity projects’
https://www.thecollector.com/byzantine-economy-collapse-medieval-times/
To people with a preconceived political opinion, absolutely everything which ever happened or will ever happen proves them right. I’m not in the mood for reading any of these texts as they don’t address the two points I made:
The Chinese empire, still ruled by its traditional bureaucratic class, lasted even longer as it continues until today under the guise of ‘communism’.
‘China’s economic crisis is not a story of sudden collapse. It is a slow-burning structural unraveling.
A high-debt, deflation-prone, demographically aging, and policy-constrained economy can no longer rely on the tools that once delivered breakneck growth.
The engine is running, but the transmission is broken. Output exists, but momentum is gone.
The deeper danger lies not in volatility but in stagnation that drags on, is difficult to reverse, is resistant to reform, and is increasingly visible on the world stage.
China’s problems are already shaping global trade patterns, supply chain shifts, capital flows, and commodity demand. Its inability to revive domestic consumption or contain financial risks now poses a global threat.
The world once feared a relentlessly rising China. It must now contend with a fragile, inward-looking, and financially constrained one.’
I watched Camus interviewed in UnHerd. There was one thing that he said that was very disturbing to me.
Speaking of returning migrants to their original country, Sayers pressed him on where he would draw the line. And on the question of whether he thinks a second generation immigrant, born in the UK, who considers himself British and is essentially culturally British – someone like, for example, ex-Arsenal footballer Ian Wright – should be sent back to his “homeland”, his answer was yes.
Sorry, but that’s just fucked up.
Is there a problem? Yes. It’s not as if Camus is some kind of visionary in identifying the problem. Millions of Brits and French and Germans etc see the problem just as clearly as he does.
His solution to send back all immigrants, including second and third generations, is insane. And the idea that this can somehow be achieved without violence – I don’t know through extreme passive aggressiveness, perhaps? – is of a level of stupidity that even his arrogant demeanour can’t hide.
But, I would still defend his right to say what he has to say, horrible as it is.
Indeed it cannot be achieved without violence or without “extreme passive aggressiveness” as you put it. One could use “encouragement” – financial bribes. I doubt that would achieve anything like 100% coverage. I suppose it might weed out those who don’t really like it here that much and who have not bought into our culture, but it risks pissing everybody off, including people who very much have bought into our culture – this might make the “problem” much worse than it is now. There is also the question of whether it’s morally acceptable to try and push people out who are here legally. It’s probably not. Perhaps you could say that any first generation immigrant who still has citizenship of their home country will be deported if they commit a serious crime.
This is why I think it’s so important to stop all immigration, legal and illegal, completely, now, and leave a period of decades or centuries to allow things to settle down. I am not convinced they ever will – I think some of the changes are irrevocable and the problems intractable, and there is evidence for this – but at least they would stop getting worse.
I agree he should be allowed to say this.
The problem with those here “legally” is by whose definition of legal? We have witnessed the most grotesque abuses of our legal systems since Kneel took over and our once internationally venerated judicial processes have been turned inside out.
Without a complete clear-out of our judiciary we are up the creek without a paddle. Nevertheless wholesale exports are the only way.
It’s a mess.
I guess by “legally” I was mainly thinking of all the Commonwealth citizens who started coming after WW2, EU citizens who settled in the UK, and all of those who have come here on work visas and subsequently applied for ILR or citizenship. And their children, especially if born here.
It is indeed a mess.
The starting point would therefore require a new definition of British citizen and how citizenship can be obtained. However, these measures would require a wholly reconstituted body of defined British law and by British I mean without ANY foreign interference. None of the ECHR garbage.
Not sure if you’ve seen any of the footage coming out of France after the Arsenal match but it really is like playing ‘spot the white person’, but what’s the betting these young chavs are all ‘French’, very likely second and third generation immigrants? They celebrate the defeat of Arsenal by causing mayhem and trashing the place, apparently. Don’t most normal people just go for a drink?
”Absolute chaos in France
After the PSG-Arsenal football match in Paris, riots and arson attacks broke out.
In this shot, crowds looted an entire moving truck, threw all its good onto the street, and started dancing inside.
French police completely lost control.”
https://x.com/RMXnews/status/1920402550664093731
https://x.com/RMXnews/status/1920254762253009305
https://x.com/RMXnews/status/1920423209754562596
Bloody hell.
Second and third generation immigrants are here legally, I don’t care what anyone says.
And if anyone was insane enough to try to force them back to the country of their ancestors – assuming even that all their ancestors were from that same country and not just some of them – it would trigger a civil war.
And you know what, I would fight on their side if it came to it. Because to try to kick out people that were born here and consider this and no other place their home, just because they don’t fit with Camus’ ethnocentric ideas of what constitutes nationality would be grotesque.
I would focus on stopping the current massive influx of people, putting more people to work by taking away all state benefits from people of working age and see where we are then before adopting any of Camus’ highly intellectual and highly impractical ideas.
I agree. I think we also need to be a lot more robust in defence of free speech, stop worrying about things like “Islamophobia”, shut down the professional race grievance industry. If that happens, those who truly despise the country in which they live may be tempted to go elsewhere. Locking up serious criminals for a long time should also help. Where we will be if we do all the above is surely better than now, but not as good as it should be. But I see no other reasonable choice, for the reasons you state. If we had more land we could set up different countries, as they did in the US.
3 of the 4 7/7 bombers were 2nd generation immigrants. Who has to die or be injured to keep you happy?
How large is the percentage of second-generation immigrants who committed terror attacks? How many people are to be punished for crimes they never committed to keep you happy?
So your argument is that if any 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants commit a bad crime, they all have to go?
Do you understand what it means to expel all 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants?
How.many people are we talking about?
Do you also include the ones that have an “indigenous” parent or grandparent (by whatever definition you have)?
What’s the order of magnitude we are talking about?
How many people will need to be expelled from Britain to keep YOU happy?
You must be a 2nd or 3rd generation Third World immigrant yourself, to defend them so vehemently.
There you go. Ignore the questions and go ad hominem.
As if who I am has any bearing on the value of the arguments.
So, are you prepared to answer the question how many people do you need to expel to be satisfied?
It’s no good evading the detail, which is exactly what Camus did when interviewed, and talking about vague principles. How many?
All first generation? Second generation? Third? How many immigrants parents? One? Both? How many grand parents?
Can you give any idea of the numbers you would like expelled?
And yes, I would defend the right of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants who feel British to remain in Britain. I would not hesitate to stand with them because to expel them would be abhorrent to me.
That’s what a clear, untarnished answer looks like.
Now you have a go. How many do you need to expel to be satisfied? Are you “brave” enough to actually state clearly what you believe?
Excellent point. Well and bravely said!
Yes, I watched the Unherd interview too, and it’s really good if you want to understand exactly what Camus thinks about turfing out second generation immigrants (which Tucker doesn’t even mention). I agree that bit of his thinking is bonkers.
Tuckers’s article is very shallow but Mary Harrington goes much deeper into Camus’ philosophy in Unherd. Camus reckons what is happening more broadly is that with mass immigration we are being treated as mere interchangeable human units, rather than individuals with distinct national, cultural values. When it comes to welfare for example he asks who is more worthy of support? Someone who arrived in France yesterday from Sudan or a family who can trace their lineage back generations in that land?
When it comes to welfare for example he asks who is more worthy of support? Someone who arrived in France yesterday from Sudan or a family who can trace their lineage back generations in that land?
The nice thing about contrived examples is that they can be made up to suit anything. So, let’s make it the following: A guy from Sudan who arrived five years ago and has been working and paying income tax until six weeks ago, when he lost his job and didn’t yet find a new one despite looking. Or a ‘homeless’ native drug addict, aged 50, who has been living on welfare since ever and can trace is lineage back to ‘generations’ of addicts and petty criminal with similar careers?
And how many generations is generations, anyway, and why?
It’s always better for discourse to be factually accurate, so to that end, the two articles on Camus are welcome and useful.
I do however have reservations about what seem to be the premises behind them.
Article 1 – Camus is not a racist (whatever that word means these days, very much in the eye of the beholder), so should be allowed to speak freely.
Article 2 – Camus is not a conspiracy theorist* (whatever that phrase means these days, very much in the eye of the beholder), so should be allowed to speak freely.
I think he should be allowed to speak freely because everybody should.
*There are some “conspiracy theories” that I find far-fetched. However I do recall lots of other viewpoints that were labelled as such that are now generally accepted as true. So I am reluctant to bandy this phrase about. It just seems like a lazy way to shut down debate.
Many, many, many of us on DS were labelled “conspiracy theorists” going back as far as 2020…
…there is no pandemic
…the “vaccines” are dangerous / designed to kill
…it’s a globalist takeover
…the government is determined to destroy Britain and its history
…the immigrants are an invading army
…Nut Zero is a disaster and will cripple the country
…our pubs are being destroyed, deliberately
And of course lots of other examples. How many on here would now refer to any of the above statements as examples of fake news as opposed to straight forward facts?
Conspiracy theorists are frequently unacknowledged conspiracy realists given time.
100%
This! Racism = Tribalism is NOT A CRIME.
It is a perfectly natural part of being human. It is how humanity have managed to survive for millennia, by preferring to live and work in peace among their own People, their own Tribe, their own Ethnic Group.
Put a pair of round eyed spectacles on Monsiuer Camus and it’s Alf Garnett.
I couldn’t resist.
No criticism intended.
Comment after reading the first paragraph: Why does this guy blame a dead man for politics enacted by those who terminated his rule with a ‘classic’ war of conquest (and an exceedingly brutal one as it was open season for all Germans, regardless of they were soldiers or not or if they ever had any association with Germany beyond their ancestors having lived there centuries ago).
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to blame the people implementing these policies for them?
In his essay The Second Career of Adolf Hitler Camus doesn’t actually blame Hitler for our anti-white rulers’ current policies. What he describes is the Establishment’s dread of acknowledging the ethnic base of Western Civilisation because Hitler acknowledged it. Camus’ point is that our rulers have set us on the course to race-suicide and civilisational destruction because Hitler wanted to avoid them.
That’s a very short-sighted statement as Hitler didn’t fall from the sky but his rise to power was fuelled by the humiliation of Germany in 1919 and the end of the third Reich in 1945 cames because the same powers (plus Stalinist Russia) who had devised and implemented this humiliation wanted to restore Europe the status before Hitler.
Hitler himself already decried the French concept of a multi-ethnic state and that the new boss who is the old boss again would have done anything differently without him is a conjecture which cannot be proved. Since 1939/38, accusing others of “Nazism” has become the universal political ‘argument’ in Western societies but that’s just a tool our ruling castes liberally employ to justify whatever they meant to do anyway.
There are also a lot of states eastward of Germany in Europe whose rulers are much less immigration-happy than the Western ones. They’re obviously being accused of “Nazism” (more-or-less covertly) but don’t seem to mind that.
I think there’s more of these incidents, at least in Germany, than is being widely reported. How many are legitimate accidents where the driver has lost control, I wonder, or should we now always just assume it’s a media/government cover-up?
”Yesterday at noon, an SUV drove into a group of people at a tram stop in downtown Munich . According to police, seven people were injured, three of them seriously. The driver was a 52-year-old man. Authorities are currently assuming that the accident occurred “as a result of driving.” There is currently no indication of a political or ideological cause, they said. Around 25 police officers, about 30 firefighters, and a large number of volunteer disaster relief workers were deployed at the scene. However, pictures and videos of the “accidented” vehicle were circulating online, showing the clearly recognizable name of an Ottoman sultan on the rear window (see the enlarged section of the above image below). Eyewitnesses also said the driver was a man of Turkish and/or Arab appearance.
Remarkably, this is the second incident of this kind within a few days. Just last Friday a car plowed into a crowd in Stuttgart. Eight people were injured, and a woman succumbed to her serious injuries. “Based on the current status of the investigation and the information available so far, our colleagues at the Olgaeck incident believe this was a tragic traffic accident. There is currently no indication of an attack or a deliberate act,” police said. In this case, a 42-year-old driver lost control of his car while turning.
Despite all official statements to the contrary, speculation has grown in both cases, wondering why they were so hastily classified as accidents, given the strong similarities to terrorist attacks of recent years. Given the government’s information policy in such cases, this is hardly surprising. When the terrorists involved had a migrant background, everything was done to conceal this fact until the incidents disappeared from the headlines, which, thanks to the left-wing ideological bias of many media outlets, quickly happened. Next, they resorted to hastily declaring the perpetrators “mentally ill,” and then suddenly the Russian secret service was cast as the sinister perpetrator of migrant terror.
Many now fear that terrorist attacks are being hastily classified as accidents in order to conceal the extent of the danger. Even if many of these claims ultimately prove to be unfounded, the obvious and legitimate concerns of citizens nevertheless demonstrate the extent to which this state has lost the trust of large segments of the population. ”
https://journalistenwatch.com/2025/05/08/naechster-suv-unfall-in-muenchen-spekulationen-ueber-islamischen-anschlag/
As a shrink of mine¹ once said : “In principle, personality itself is a disorder.” Everybody can somehow be classified as “mentally ill” when trying hard enough.
With regards to actual terrorists, it’s probably going to be quite hard to find one one would classify as mentally sane, as it certainly takes some extreme disposition of the mind to commit acts like this (Unless they’re white. obviously. Anders Breivik is pretty obviously deranged but classified as ‘sane’ for political reasons [IMHO]).
¹ I made a useless foray into this area in the hope to learn something about myself —- but autism hadn’t yet become fashionable enough to give people an idea why someone would either spend his day playing mouthorgan alone in a stairwell or with banging his head against a wall until it started to bleed, my then favourite way to deal with social overload.