by Falko Baumgartner
Geographically one finds France in Europe, but demographically the country is swiftly drifting towards Africa as recent data indicates. France, unlike America, does not hold censuses on ethnicity, but follows instead its ideal of the color-blind republic. This, obviously, does not change one bit the ethnic reality on the ground, but it certainly helps to keep its citizens in the dark about it. No official figures exist on the size of the immigrant population and the native French – until now. Pertinent material has come from quite an unexpected source, medicine, and it has all the hallmarks of allowing us for the first time an adequately precise and unbiased look into the strong growth of the non-White population in France.
Since 2000, the country has conducted a nationwide program of neonatal screening for sickle cell disease (SCD). SCD is a genetic disease by and large peculiar to non-European people. However, due to Third World immigration it has become the most common genetic disorder in today’s France. To provide early medical treatment for the illness, the French public health authorities have defined risk groups which are liable to screening. These comprise primarily people of African origin, from North and sub-Saharan Africa as well as ethnic Africans from the Americas. A second risk group consists of persons with a Near or Middle Eastern background (Turkey, the Arabian peninsula and the Arab lands in between) and from the Indian subcontinent. The rest is made up of migrants from a comparatively small coastal rim in Southern Europe, namely Portugal, Southern Italy, Greece and the isles of Corsica and Sicily.
Newborn babies in France are defined as “being at-risk for SCD when at least one parent originates from a risk region” where the responsible gene is prevalent. This national screening policy based on the ethnic origin of the parents permits us to see the full extent of the rapidly expanding demographics of the non-white French population:
In 2000, 19 percent of all newborn babies in mainland France had at least one parent originating from the regions above. This share rose to 28.45 percent in 2007 and to 31.5 percent in 2010 or, in total numbers, 253,466 out of the 805,958 babies born. In other words: within a decade, the number of (partly) extra-European babies has risen on the mainland from about one fifth to almost one third.
The medical survey provides us with even more data, namely a breakdown per region (see map below). We learn that in 2010, 60 percent of newborns in the Ile de France, essentially Paris, descended from non-Europeans. In Provence Alpe du Sud, where Le Pen’s Front National is particularly strong, the non-White share was 43.2 percent; in neighbouring Languedoc Roussillon 41.6 percent. The lowest share was recorded in the Bretagne, 5.5 percent. In every single of the 22 Metropolitan regions of France the portion of immigrant babies rose between 2007 and 2010.
What can be said against the accuracy of these figures? Not much actually, they seem to hold water to all appearances. While the authors of the study point out that the screening of newborn babies is not applied universally, they regard missed cases to be “relatively infrequent”. These would, in any case, not reduce, but increase the share of non-White babies among the total population. This leaves the Southern European immigrants, who are not independently accounted for in the statistics, as the dark horse in the equation. How high is their share in the studied risk group? Do we have to significantly adjust the number of non-white babies downwards to accommodate their share in the risk group? I would argue by far not enough to blur the trend: although descendants from Italian people reportedly number into the millions in France, most of them have immigrated generations ago. The screening, however, was employed in my understanding only for babies whose father and/or mother had immigrated from one of the risk zones, thus covering recent immigration only.
The authors of the medical survey themselves leave no doubt as to what they view the main cause of the rise of sickle cell disease. They squarely attribute it to the rise of African immigration or, in their words, “as a result of population growth in African-Caribbean regions of overseas France, and now immigration essentially from North and sub-Saharan Africa to mainland France.”
Now my concern here is not with the spread of sickle cell disease as such, but with the sharp demographic decline of white France which these figures reflect and the impossibility to be allowed to talk about it in Europe’s current multiculturalist climate.
Being a political scientist by profession I look with envy on how freely these medical scientists, biochemists and geneticists, not burdened by the expediencies of political correctness and apparently completely unaware of the huge demographic implications of their findings, can go on discussing to what presumably amounts to the profoundest demographic change of France since the Frankish conquest and the creation of the French state itself.
It’s stunning: One only needs to substitute their discussion of the “screened babies” with “African-Oriental newborns”, take a look at the SCD prevalence maps of France they provide, and get a fairly complete picture of what enlightened France has been persistently denying to communicate to its people: that white France, the original France, the France which made France, is being phased out, making place for a hybrid Eurafrican society. Mass immigration has evidently become a self-defeat for La Grande Nation. One could argue that even for the immigrants themselves it produces diminishing returns: the more white France disappears, the less the country retains its character which had attracted all these immigrants in the first place.
When I said fairly complete, this was not entirely correct. In fact, the demographic situation of white France is even worse for two reasons: first, the discussion has not touched so far its overseas departments which have always been home to an ethnically diverse population. Their newborns, the medical survey tells us, are in their entirety subjected to SCD testing. By including their numbers, 38,575 babies in 2010, the share of non-White births increases from 31.5 percent for mainland France to 34.6 percent in all of France (292,041 out of 844,533 newborns). Second, the screening figures do not cover all those extra-European immigrant groups to the mainland which do not have a genetic disposition to SCD, like East Asians and Hispanics. Adding their birthrates further reduces the white French share of the total by an unknown margin.
The bitter irony is that these population figures suggest that France has been more radically changed by its former colonies than it ever changed the face of them. Unlike its maritime rival Great Britain, France was never a successful colonizer. Its only permanent settler colony of note is Québec to which it sent no more than 10,000 settlers. If there is a “revenge of the colonies,” as the White guilt trip of Western leftist thought has it, then France certainly gets more than its share back.
France, like America, has always prided herself as champion of modern, “culture-neutral” Republican values to the whole world. Her historical achievement in spreading enlightment around the globe is undeniable. But her lighthouse role has blinded her for the negative effects at home: it never fully realized that the total propagation of these ideals also gave rise to a culturally and ethnically gutted citoyen, someone dispossessed from his own roots and denied the right to have them. It never quite understood that a strong sense of cultural and ethnic identity is not the enemy of democratic values, but rather its necessary and natural complement. It forgot that the French Revolution, its gift to the democratic world, was not created in an ethnic and cultural vacuum but by people with an identity and history – a white European identity.
It may therefore be no coincidence that France, again like America, is among the first Western countries to fell demographic victim to its own negation of culture and ethnicity. In a way, history has come full circle: what France originally exported as an idea, the radically culture-blind republic, leaves her now helpless to come to grips with its own rapid de-Europeanization – the revolution devours its children, for good.
Sources:
J. Bardakdjian-Michau, M. Bahuau, D. Hurtrel, et al.: “Neonatal screening for sickle cell disease in France”, in Journal of Clinical Pathology, January 2009, Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 31-33 (http://jcp.bmj.com/content/62/1/31)
J. Bardakdjian-Michau, M. Roussey: “Le dépistage néonatal de la drépanocytose en France” (Newborn screening for sickle cell disease in France), in Bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire: “La drépanocytose en France: des données épidémiologiques pour améliorer la prise en charge” (Sickle cell disease in France: epidemiological data to improve health care management), July 2012, Issue 27-28, Pages 313-317
(http://www.invs.sante.fr/content/download/40267/186491/version/2/file/beh_27_28_2012.pdf)
Since 2000, the country has conducted a nationwide program of neonatal screening for sickle cell disease (SCD). SCD is a genetic disease by and large peculiar to non-European people. However, due to Third World immigration it has become the most common genetic disorder in today’s France. To provide early medical treatment for the illness, the French public health authorities have defined risk groups which are liable to screening. These comprise primarily people of African origin, from North and sub-Saharan Africa as well as ethnic Africans from the Americas. A second risk group consists of persons with a Near or Middle Eastern background (Turkey, the Arabian peninsula and the Arab lands in between) and from the Indian subcontinent. The rest is made up of migrants from a comparatively small coastal rim in Southern Europe, namely Portugal, Southern Italy, Greece and the isles of Corsica and Sicily.
Newborn babies in France are defined as “being at-risk for SCD when at least one parent originates from a risk region” where the responsible gene is prevalent. This national screening policy based on the ethnic origin of the parents permits us to see the full extent of the rapidly expanding demographics of the non-white French population:
In 2000, 19 percent of all newborn babies in mainland France had at least one parent originating from the regions above. This share rose to 28.45 percent in 2007 and to 31.5 percent in 2010 or, in total numbers, 253,466 out of the 805,958 babies born. In other words: within a decade, the number of (partly) extra-European babies has risen on the mainland from about one fifth to almost one third.
The medical survey provides us with even more data, namely a breakdown per region (see map below). We learn that in 2010, 60 percent of newborns in the Ile de France, essentially Paris, descended from non-Europeans. In Provence Alpe du Sud, where Le Pen’s Front National is particularly strong, the non-White share was 43.2 percent; in neighbouring Languedoc Roussillon 41.6 percent. The lowest share was recorded in the Bretagne, 5.5 percent. In every single of the 22 Metropolitan regions of France the portion of immigrant babies rose between 2007 and 2010.
 |
| Screening of sickle cell disease in newborn babies in mainland France in 2010; the values are per region and in percent of the total number born that year. As this genetic illness is mostly confined to non-Europeans, primarily Africans, the ethnic origin of newborns can be derived from the data. (J. Bardakdjian-Michau, M. Roussey: “Le dépistage néonatal de la drépanocytose en France”, July 2012, Issue 27-28, Page 315, Figure 3; for full reference see bottom) |
What can be said against the accuracy of these figures? Not much actually, they seem to hold water to all appearances. While the authors of the study point out that the screening of newborn babies is not applied universally, they regard missed cases to be “relatively infrequent”. These would, in any case, not reduce, but increase the share of non-White babies among the total population. This leaves the Southern European immigrants, who are not independently accounted for in the statistics, as the dark horse in the equation. How high is their share in the studied risk group? Do we have to significantly adjust the number of non-white babies downwards to accommodate their share in the risk group? I would argue by far not enough to blur the trend: although descendants from Italian people reportedly number into the millions in France, most of them have immigrated generations ago. The screening, however, was employed in my understanding only for babies whose father and/or mother had immigrated from one of the risk zones, thus covering recent immigration only.
The authors of the medical survey themselves leave no doubt as to what they view the main cause of the rise of sickle cell disease. They squarely attribute it to the rise of African immigration or, in their words, “as a result of population growth in African-Caribbean regions of overseas France, and now immigration essentially from North and sub-Saharan Africa to mainland France.”
Now my concern here is not with the spread of sickle cell disease as such, but with the sharp demographic decline of white France which these figures reflect and the impossibility to be allowed to talk about it in Europe’s current multiculturalist climate.
Being a political scientist by profession I look with envy on how freely these medical scientists, biochemists and geneticists, not burdened by the expediencies of political correctness and apparently completely unaware of the huge demographic implications of their findings, can go on discussing to what presumably amounts to the profoundest demographic change of France since the Frankish conquest and the creation of the French state itself.
It’s stunning: One only needs to substitute their discussion of the “screened babies” with “African-Oriental newborns”, take a look at the SCD prevalence maps of France they provide, and get a fairly complete picture of what enlightened France has been persistently denying to communicate to its people: that white France, the original France, the France which made France, is being phased out, making place for a hybrid Eurafrican society. Mass immigration has evidently become a self-defeat for La Grande Nation. One could argue that even for the immigrants themselves it produces diminishing returns: the more white France disappears, the less the country retains its character which had attracted all these immigrants in the first place.
When I said fairly complete, this was not entirely correct. In fact, the demographic situation of white France is even worse for two reasons: first, the discussion has not touched so far its overseas departments which have always been home to an ethnically diverse population. Their newborns, the medical survey tells us, are in their entirety subjected to SCD testing. By including their numbers, 38,575 babies in 2010, the share of non-White births increases from 31.5 percent for mainland France to 34.6 percent in all of France (292,041 out of 844,533 newborns). Second, the screening figures do not cover all those extra-European immigrant groups to the mainland which do not have a genetic disposition to SCD, like East Asians and Hispanics. Adding their birthrates further reduces the white French share of the total by an unknown margin.
The bitter irony is that these population figures suggest that France has been more radically changed by its former colonies than it ever changed the face of them. Unlike its maritime rival Great Britain, France was never a successful colonizer. Its only permanent settler colony of note is Québec to which it sent no more than 10,000 settlers. If there is a “revenge of the colonies,” as the White guilt trip of Western leftist thought has it, then France certainly gets more than its share back.
France, like America, has always prided herself as champion of modern, “culture-neutral” Republican values to the whole world. Her historical achievement in spreading enlightment around the globe is undeniable. But her lighthouse role has blinded her for the negative effects at home: it never fully realized that the total propagation of these ideals also gave rise to a culturally and ethnically gutted citoyen, someone dispossessed from his own roots and denied the right to have them. It never quite understood that a strong sense of cultural and ethnic identity is not the enemy of democratic values, but rather its necessary and natural complement. It forgot that the French Revolution, its gift to the democratic world, was not created in an ethnic and cultural vacuum but by people with an identity and history – a white European identity.
It may therefore be no coincidence that France, again like America, is among the first Western countries to fell demographic victim to its own negation of culture and ethnicity. In a way, history has come full circle: what France originally exported as an idea, the radically culture-blind republic, leaves her now helpless to come to grips with its own rapid de-Europeanization – the revolution devours its children, for good.
Sources:
J. Bardakdjian-Michau, M. Bahuau, D. Hurtrel, et al.: “Neonatal screening for sickle cell disease in France”, in Journal of Clinical Pathology, January 2009, Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 31-33 (http://jcp.bmj.com/content/62/1/31)
J. Bardakdjian-Michau, M. Roussey: “Le dépistage néonatal de la drépanocytose en France” (Newborn screening for sickle cell disease in France), in Bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire: “La drépanocytose en France: des données épidémiologiques pour améliorer la prise en charge” (Sickle cell disease in France: epidemiological data to improve health care management), July 2012, Issue 27-28, Pages 313-317
(http://www.invs.sante.fr/content/download/40267/186491/version/2/file/beh_27_28_2012.pdf)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.