Paris Burns as the Great Replacement Reaches Its Inevitable Conclusion

Well, good evening and welcome. If you've got internet access, you may have spent part of the weekend looking at horrifying violent images from Europe, particularly from France and its capital city, Paris, where protests turned, as they so often do, into riots, and then chaos and stores burning and people assaulted and mobs of blackclad, apparently young people with face masks running through the streets setting things on fire. basically just hellish chaos that you wouldn't want in your hometown. And in the days since, there's been a lot of analysis over what this is and what it means for France and Europe and honestly for the United States and the rest of the West. And it does mean something. And we'll tell you what we think it means in just a minute. But before we get to that, before we get to the analysis and superimposing our worldview on a world event, just to the facts of it, because those are real, too. So the riots you're watching in France were originally organized and maybe even conceived as protests. And the organizers were not just fringe groups, but they were all kinds of different groups, including the country's largest labor union, which is hardly fringe. In France, labor unions are still powerful. So they are stakeholders. They may be crazy, but they're not nihilistic. They don't want to burn it all down because well, they live off GDP like everybody else in the nation of France. And so they began as protests specifically uh about France's education system and the lack of funding and the poor state of its schools supposedly which honestly not having checked we can believe but really they were protests against the nature of the French economy and we know this because that's what they said they were but also because almost simultaneously protests of a similar nature broke out across Europe in a whole bunch of different countries. Italy and Belgium and Serbia, even Albania had similar protests. And all of them, though they call themselves different things, were basically expressions of outrage against the one thing that unifies all of those countries and maybe every western country, which is the boomer economy. These are all economies in which the majority of wealth is held by people who are much older and a vanishingly small and in fact diminishing percentage of wealth, household wealth is held by young people. And that's not necessarily natural. Hasn't always been that way, but it is that way now. And a big percentage of these economies, particularly the French economy, is absorbed by payments to retirees. So something like 30% of the entire French education budget goes not to teaching or schools or lunches but to the retirement of retired teachers, teachers who no longer teach there. Now they signed up and signed on the dotted line to terms that you know are still in place like no one's arguing that their pension should be taken away from them. On the other hand, when you get to a system where 30% of your education expenditure is really retirement fees, that's not working correctly. That's dysfunctional. That can't last. In fact, what you're really doing is shafting the next generation. And they are. And again, not just in France, all through Europe. And by the way, all through the West, including in this country. So in the United States, we have a boomer economy, too. The majority of household wealth is held by boomers, people born between 46 and 65. The post-war generation, the generation of Woodstock, the generation of the civil rights movement, the generation of basically every defining fact of modern life, those people, the ones who can't stop talking about themselves, celebrating themselves. And in the end, we shouldn't be surprised to learn that they turned out to be on average, not all of them, but as a group, the greediest and selfish, most selfish generation really in American history. So, they own the majority of household wealth. And no one's saying it's ill gotten or they stole it or anything, but it's just a fact. They have the majority. And people under 40 have about 6.5% of total household wealth in the United States. Not under 20. These aren't kids. These are under 40. So, these are almost middle-aged adults themselves. And so, it shouldn't surprise you that the media named for first-time home buying in this country is 40. And that's because, not that houses have gone out of style or people don't want to own their own place. They do as much as they ever have, which is a lot. That's because they can't afford it because all the money is tied up in an older generation or a couple generation, the Fox News viewer generation, the boomers. And it's also probably not a surprise that every president we've had since 1992, with one exception, Joe Biden, they've all been boomers. All of them. So, we live in a boomer culture. It's going away not quickly enough, but we definitely live in a boomer economy. And when you have an economy like that, of course, people who are left out of it, who feel unfairly excluded by it, are going to be mad. And in the current world, they have even more reason to be mad. Not simply because they don't have the money that older people do, but because older people just don't care. And that's obvious in every public opinion poll on the subject. If you were to ask boomers, and this has happened a lot, in a public opinion poll, "What do you think of this arrangement?" They will tell you, well, this is money that we deserved. In fact, there was a recent poll in the United States of Boomers who again hold the majority of the household wealth in the country, and they were asked, would you support higher taxes on young people, people under 40, the ones who own 6.5% of household wealth in America, in order to keep your social security benefits going? Now keep in mind this is the richest segment of the population talking about the poorest segment of the population and 89% of them said, "Oh yeah, of course I would. Yeah, this is our money. We deserve it." The Woodstock generation deserves it social security. And if that means, I don't know, moving the median home buying age to 50, well, sorry. And again, it probably shouldn't surprise you that the generation that has never stopped talking about itself would have these attitudes, but they're ugly attitudes. And again, they're on display everywhere. You see them in our ruling class. You see elderly billionaires whose motivating impulse is to make more money. Well, if you're a billionaire, particularly a billionaire, say over 60, let's say you're an 80-year-old billionaire, and your main goal is to make more money, you have to ask like what is that? Make more money for what? You're a billionaire. Why do you care about making money in your 80s? Maybe you think you're going to live forever thanks to Neuralink or something, but probably not. Maybe it's just a disease. Maybe it's something called greed. Maybe it's an unfillable void like lust or gluttony. Maybe it's just a very recognizable character defect. In fact, a sin. And maybe it's infected everybody in charge in the West. possible. In any case, that's the perception and young people are mad about it. And so, again, you probably shouldn't be surprised if that's the system you have that at some point you're going to get protests. And whenever you have lots of young people gathered, those protests are apt to become violent. And they did across Europe, but particularly in France for reasons that we'll describe in a minute. But first, to video of the protests we're talking about. Here's a montage. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. If you haven't seen that tape, you may have thought to yourself when you heard there were riots in France or big demonstrations in France that got out of control. You may have dismissed it in your own mind as something you have heard before because of course you have heard it before. The French are always protesting. The French love to protest often for reasons the non-French mind can barely comprehend. There's some sort of theoretical reason we need to take to the streets. And they've been doing this for a very long time. Well, hundreds of years of course the French Revolution began this way. But there's something a little different about these protests. One, they were legitimately chaotic. These were not yellow vests on tractors going down the shs le demanding more attention to French agriculture or something that seemed fine and very French. These seem like protests that were from the beginning riots which is to say they were not organized. They were chaotic and they were violent and they were taking place in central Paris which is not only the capital of the country and has been for more than a thousand years but is really the center of the country in a way Americans may find hard to understand. There's no American city that represents to France what Paris does to France. You wouldn't want New York to go away, but if it did, it wouldn't take with it the soul of America. It would be our biggest city. And that's sad in some ways. It's already gone. And that is sad. But it's not like America ceases to exist. Paris is really the core of France. It's in the center of France and it's in the center of the French mind. But it's also or was for centuries anyway the center of Western culture. France. I mean fashion week in Paris. Everybody goes to Paris. It's another way of saying that the scenes you're watching are unfolding in places you probably have been personally. Many Americans have. even ones who don't travel very much. They want to go to Paris. And of course, the French authorities know that. Of course, they know that because France doesn't really have much of an economy anymore. They make weapons and they make high-end consumer goods. France itself is a high-end consumer good, really, if you think about it. And so to allow that kind of chaos and violence in recognizable places in front of landmarks in downtown Paris, pretty wild thing to allow if you think about it. Where were the French authorities? Well, this is something else you should know about France. The French authorities are not maybe quite as incompetent as you may assume they are. If you get your news about France from the Simpsons and imagine the French are fundamentally cheese eating surrender monkeys kind of buffoonish and absurd and full of themselves and baguettes and gwis and and all the rest and of course all of that's true and they work about 20 hours a week and cliche cliche cliche cliche. You may not know that there are parts of the French French state which are ruthlessly and famously efficient and that would include their internal security services. French intelligence is not a joke. And anyone familiar with the topic will tell you that French intelligence assassinates as many people as any other intelligence service. Maybe more, probably more. France has nuclear weapons. And if you talk to anyone in the nuclear weapons business, they will tell you that of all nations in Europe, France is by far considered the most likely to use those nuclear weapons. Lots of countries have been protested by say Greenpeace, but it was only France that blew up a Greenpeace ship in Auckland Harbor in 1985 called the Rainbow Warrior. They sunk it right to the bottom of the harbor with limpit mines and killed a guy on board. Britain didn't do that. Spain didn't do that. France is kind of a serious place. It was only a couple of years ago that France grabbed Pavle Durov, the guy who owns Telegram, the social media app, the messaging app. And they were mad that they didn't have a back door into Telegram. And so they just arrested him at an airport where he was refueling and they held him for over a year in France. They didn't ask anybody's permission. They just did it. Well, that's disgusting, of course, authoritarian, obviously, but that's the way they are. And if you doubt that, read any account of the Algerian wars of the 1950s where the French colonial authorities tried to crack down on separatist independence movements in North Africa. They were tough and brutal and decisive. And so it's only worth noting that to say that if the French authorities wanted to crack down on these protests at the very beginning, well, they certainly could have. They have the technology for sure. They have the will and they have the personnel. It's like the most functional part of the French state is its internal security services. But they didn't. In fact, the French president, Emanuel Mccron, was at a it's hard to believe we're not making this up, but we're not. He was at a Selen Dion concert when this all happened. Literally, I mean, like that just that had to be scripted. That can't be real. speaking of the Simpsons, but he was he was a Selen Dion concert as a half a million people and they knew this was going to happen gathered in central Paris in anger. So what is that? Why would they allow? Of course, we don't have an answer for that other than to note the obvious, which is they've been allowing this kind of thing for 40 or 50 years, probably since de Gaul. And we know that because we've been to Paris recently, and it's filthy and it's full of people from other countries making a mess. It's covered in graffiti and everyone can see that. So what you're watching now probably is just the most obvious expression of what has been happening for decades, which is the implosion of a nation overseen by its own authorities. They know what's happening. You can't allow graffiti in your downtown for decades without having the whole thing fall apart. The broken windows theory is real. Minor displays of disorder lead to greater displays of disorder which leads to chaos and collapse. That's just the nature of life in this world and everybody knows it intuitively and that's why functional cities like Tokyo or Moscow or Abu Dhabi or pick one there are a lot Singapore they don't allow that but France does and serially does which is to say lots of French leaders over many many years have allowed their country to degrade which suggests over time that that's kind of what they wanted or being paid to allow or whatever but it's not an accident so we probably shouldn't be surprised that the French authorities sat back and watched their own capital city burn, which they have. So, those were kind of the newsre clips just to give you an overview. Here is a much tighter shot on an individual facing the mob. This is the street level view of the riots in Paris this weekend. Watch. Wow. Welcome. >> Well, what is that? That doesn't look like a protest against education funding or a boomer economy, both of which seem pretty legitimate. Actually, the economy is ridiculous in the way that it's structured and everybody knows that. And if young people are poor, it doesn't work by definition. So, it's okay to protest it. But that wasn't protest. That was looting. And that was roughing up some woman. Now, apparently that woman, we have read, is some sort of left-wing activist or fashion icon or something. And people are saying that she deserved to get roughed up by the mob. Okay. No, she didn't. Actually, no matter what her views are, no one deserves that. No one deserves to be intimidated by people in black masks in their own city. That's awful. And more than awful, of course, you're watching the collapse of a civilization, of civil society. That's what that is. Even people with stupid political views are allowed to have the expectation they can walk down the street without being tossed around by rioters. You can never allow that. Okay, so that's the first thing you notice. This is really bad. No matter how you feel about the protest or the politics of it or whatever, that's the first thing. The second thing you notice is not many people in that video seem to be very French at all. The girl who's getting roughed up is obviously French, kind of pretty French. you know, their women famously are, but most other people seem to be non-French, non-European, and no one really wants to say that. It's considered bad to say that. But why is it bad to say that? It's obvious and it's meaningful and it also reflects a reality that cannot be avoided by anyone who visits Paris or any other European capital these days, which is these cities don't seem very European because the majority of the people you see in the street are not from Europe. And you know that sorry by looking at them. So people in the United States have noticed this and because we're in such a politically polarized time and because there's so much lying and everyone's working out some agenda usually has to do with the farway Middle Eastern conflict people are motivated to make pmical points on the basis of clips like that. And the one that you're hearing a lot is that well the Muslims took over Paris. And there's definitely some truth in that. France had a bunch of different colonies in North Africa, which are Muslim countries. And after they gave up those colonies, as a lot of colonial powers did, they allowed people from those countries to move to France for the cheap labor. And that turned out to be a pretty bad deal over time, both for the French economy and for France itself, for the culture, for everything about France. But it's also true that that's not the whole story. So people are using this to tell you that Muslims are bad. Well, of course, any Muslim who's behaving like that is bad. But if you look carefully, it's not just Muslims. Actually, Paris is a little different from other European cities in that there is a huge population of subsaharan Africans, not North Africans, subsaharan Africans. And they're there for a simple reason, which is that they speak French. There are more than 20 countries in Africa that are Frenchspeaking. A lot of them are former French colonies. And the people there speak French. when they show up in mainland Europe and speak French and no one else does, if you're in Frankfurt and you speak French, you probably want to get to Paris where other people speak French. And so France has an awful lot of subsaharan Africans living in it, particularly in Paris. And it's very noticeable, not noticeable in a bigoted way, but there is a difference. And anyone who tells you there's no difference between people from different countries hasn't been to other countries. There's a massive difference. And so you hear on American television, this is a Muslim invasion. Okay? But it's also a little more simple than that. It is the result of mass migration in this case from subsaharan Africa. And if you don't think that matters, ask yourself, would you be willing to take your family on vacation in Marrakesh, Morocco? Probably. A lot of people do spend a lot of money doing it. Would you bring your family on vacation to Wagadugu Bkina Fasa? Probably not. And you probably wouldn't because it's a dangerous place like almost every single city in subsaharan Africa outside of Cape Town. That's just a fact. Now why that's a fact, why that is a consistent fact across the continent, unknown, and we're not going to speculate, but it is a fact. And so when you import a lot of people from dangerous, chaotic places that have always been dangerous and always chaotic, that have no history of stability, you're probably going to replicate the conditions they left over time if it's a big enough group of people. And that's exactly what has happened in Paris. Now, the extent to which it's happened, we don't know because in 1978, the French government banned counting people within the borders of France by race. That was 1978, which kind of happened to be the beginning of a massive ramp up in immigration into France. Kind of weird. There were something like 11,000 immigrants admitted that year. There are now millions and millions and millions and hundreds of thousands admitted every year still into France and a lot of them from subsaharan Africa. So again, it's not to say that there aren't troublesome Muslim immigrants in France. Well, of course there are. Those no-go zones you keep hearing about. But to make a clean and fast political point about it, h and then it also raised the question, how did these people get there? How did they make it to France in the first place or any other European country or for that matter the United States? Was it the Muslim lobby that got them here or there? In the United States in 2001 on the eve of 911, there were about a million Muslims in the entire country. 320 million people probably in the US then and there were about a million Muslims. There are now about six million Muslims after 911. And the lesson of 911, we're told, is that 19 Arabs with box cutters committed the greatest act of terrorism in American history. Muslims are bad. And yet somehow we got an extra 5 million Muslims in 25 years. Was it the Muslim lobby that did that? How did that happen? It might be worth finding out. In fact, we definitely should find out. And we need to find out what happened to Europe because this is the effect of it. Not because all the people who came are bad. A lot of them aren't bad, doubtless, because most people aren't bad. But if you move a huge population of completely different people into your ancient country, you are going to have conflict. And it almost doesn't matter what the population is. What matters most is its size. But that is always and everywhere a recipe for disunion. And if you're bringing people in from violent countries where they express disagreements with say machetes, you're going to get machete attacks. And of course all these European capitals have. So this was never the plan. And if you raise this question, which you're not invited to ever, but if you dare to, you will hear that the people who are you're watching on the screen are every bit as French as anybody else. But of course that's demonstrabably untrue. It's not true in any sense. They are not the historic French population. They don't share a common history with the rest of the French nation. And there was a time not that long ago when people could just say that out loud that there was a balance in any society between the willingness to welcome people from the outside and the obligation to keep a stable population. An obligation not simply to your ancestors but to your grandchildren. Don't change the country overnight. It's not your right to do that. And in fact, it was Charles de Gaulle, who was not any kind of lunatic or whatever. He was in fact the founder of the modern French state, the fifth republic, who made that point in 1959. In fact, we have the quote, and it might be worth reading it because when you first hear this, it might be sort of titillatingly fringe, but if you think about it, it's entirely reasonable and decent, and it represented the majority public opinion in 1959. And we would bet, though no one would ever pull it, it represents the majority opinion in every country on the globe at this point in history. Here's the quote. It is very good that there are yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen. They prove that France is open to all races and that she is a universal mission. All right. But it is good on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are after all primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture and the Christian religion. So if you find yourself in a place where saying something like that is controversial or hateful, and by the way, if you do say something like that, if you ever dared to, you'd be immediately attacked by the Anti-Defamation League as a supremacist of some kind. Evil. But if you come to a place where that happens and people take the attack seriously, where you're not allowed to acknowledge that different people behave at least on the margins differently, they may have identical value in the eyes of God and we believe they do, each imbued with a soul. You can't kill them or mistreat them. But you also are under no obligation to mix them all up and pretend that it's a coherent country because that's not how things work or ever have. And in fact, it's an act of great hostility to do that to a nation. And as we'll show you in a minute, it has been done to the nation of France and to the surrounding nations and to every country in the west, but no other country, which is kind of interesting. Well, in any case, at this point, we're not exactly sure what percentage of the French population or the population of Paris is non-white, but it's huge. It's obviously huge. In fact, it's so big, and this is also part of an inevitable process, that there are elements of the French political system who are no longer complaining about it, but instead embracing it. In fact, the leader of the French left, who will be facing off to in the coming elections in France to vive for the presidency, he'll likely lose, but said recently that he doesn't want France to be French. He would rather it be Creole. And he described this process of changing historic France into something new and different and less white as, and we're quoting now, the great replacement, which made us laugh. Only the French dare say the obvious out loud because of course the term the great replacement is totally verboten in the United States. It's considered a racist or somehow anti-semitic conspiracy theory. The idea that the populations of white countries are being intentionally turned non-white. that countries when you were a kid that had white majorities no longer do. And that that's not organic. It's not an accident. Someone decided to do that, which is of course true. Obviously, none of this happens by accident. Nobody actually wants this, but it happens nonetheless. And you're not allowed to note it or else you're the criminal, which is a kind of consistent theme in the modern world. You catch someone doing something wrong, committing genocide in Gaza, for example, and noting that they're committing a crime makes you the criminal. Shut up. You're a hater. No, I'm not the one who's killing people. I'm not the one who's replacing historic indigenous populations with foreigners against the will of the population, which is to say in violation of the precepts of democracy and decency. I'm not the one committing war crimes in Europe. But that's not kind of how it works right now. You say it, you're the bad guy. But at this point, it's so obvious and it's so obviously non-hateful to note what is right in front of your face or to cite census numbers that why not just say it? And why not also straighten out the kind of moral hierarchy here? The people who note what's happening are not the bad guys. The people who are doing it are the bad guys. The people who commit the crimes are the ones who should hang their heads in shame, not the ones who object to those crimes. And make no mistake, this is a crime. And one of the reasons it's a crime, and this is really no one's fault. It's just kind of the nature of it, is that once you change the population of a country, the new population will want that country. It will believe and have reason to believe, by the way, that this is their country, too. And by country, we mean not simply the infrastructure of the country or the economic machinery of the country. We mean the culture of the country. And that would include the history of the country. So people want to look out their door and say, you know, my ancestors had a role in building all of this. There's a continuity to my life which is limited. I was preceded by my parents and grandparents and unback to the generations and I will be followed by my children and grandchildren etc. I am part of a continuum. That's the most human desire to want that. This is why people visit or used to visit their ancestors graves before somehow we were all convinced to incinerate them and toss them into the wind and pretend they never existed in the first place. That's called cremation, which is now