Jean-Yves Le Gallou: No European Salvation Without Remigration
In this interview with Éléments, Jean-Yves Le Gallou presents remigration not as a fringe provocation, but as a civilizational imperative.
There is only one alternative, not two — remigration or the Great Replacement? To be or to disappear. That is the assessment drawn by Jean-Yves Le Gallou. But to grasp its full weight, one must first accept the need to reverse our perspective and break free from the migratory fatalism in which we have settled. Remigration is not merely a slogan — or not only that — but a comprehensive vision: historical, political, juridical, civilizational.
ÉLÉMENTS: You speak of a “Copernican revolution”: in what sense does remigration allow us to radically rethink the migration question?
JEAN-YVES LE GALLOU: It is quite simple: until now, the migration question has been posed exclusively from the point of view of the immigrants themselves — of those arriving. What was good for them? How would they be welcomed, housed, cared for, educated? I am not saying these questions do not exist, but they unfortunately push to the background another question that is, in my view, far more essential: the perspective of the native population, the perspective of the indigenous people, the perspective of those already on the ground.
The priority questions to ask are therefore: What are the consequences of immigration for them — in terms of quality of life, peace and quiet, security, access to housing, quality of schooling, taxation? One is compelled to observe that in all of these areas, immigration is not a boon but a burden, a scourge, a catastrophe. This is what emerges from daily experience (”open your eyes,” Renaud Camus tells us) as well as from the remarkable statistical studies produced by the Observatoire de l’immigration et de la démographie (Observatory of Immigration and Demography) and by Marc Vanguard.
ÉLÉMENTS: In short, you are saying: our own people before others?
JEAN-YVES LE GALLOU: Yes — “Big Us” rather than “Big Other,” but viewed within the long arc of history. If we do not today remigrate those who are foreign to us, then demographic evolution — additional arrivals, the demographic pyramid, differential fertility rates — will be such that young white Europeans will become a minority on the land of their ancestors. And I do not wish upon our descendants the fate of white South Africans, who have been reduced to seeking political asylum in the United States. Remigration is indispensable because it is doubly legitimate.
First, because we are not obliged to accept a settler colonization — with all due respect to Monsieur Bagayoko, the new mayor of Saint-Denis, for whom Saint-Denis belongs more to Black people than to kings.1
Second, because Europeans are the original people of Europe. Our ancestors shaped and landscaped the land of Europe. Europeans are the descendants of a long ethnogenesis: they are the heirs of the hunter-gatherers of the Ice Age — Chauvet Cave, Lascaux — who have occupied European territory for 40,000 years; they are the heirs of the Anatolian farmers (the Megalith builders) who arrived 7,000 to 8,000 years ago; and of course the heirs of the Indo-Europeans, who arrived 5,000 years ago — Indo-Europeans who themselves descended from the hunter-gatherers, and who brought us our languages, our worldview, and our social organization.
Thus, for 5,000 years — 200 to 250 generations — European peopling remained stable, right up until the beginning of the migratory invasion in France and Great Britain from the 1960s onward. The primary objective of remigration — and its most legitimate one — is to defend the right of the historical people not to be subject to the Great Replacement, and to keep alive its civilizational framework, built on harmony, balance, and a spirit of enterprise and adventure. Long live European civilization!
READ MORE from Arktos — and enjoy 20% off during the Spring Sale until March 31:
ÉLÉMENTS: Is remigration first and foremost a concrete political project, or a “mobilizing myth” designed to structure action and the collective imagination?
JEAN-YVES LE GALLOU: As I conceive it, remigration is first and foremost a mobilising myth: recovering our consciousness of ourselves, of our ethnic inheritance, and of our cultural, religious (Christianity), and civilisational heritage. In political matters, the why is always more important than the how. Before knowing by what means immigrants will depart — by boat or by plane, by Airbus or by Boeing, willingly or by force — one must first articulate the principal reasons why they must depart: for the peace and tranquillity of Europeans today, and out of fidelity to the heritage received from our ancestors. So that our children may live peacefully on the land of our forebears. That is the justification for the legitimacy of remigration. The why is the precondition of the how. Let us not forget that politics is not the art of the possible, but the art of making possible what is necessary — and remigration is infinitely necessary.
ÉLÉMENTS: How does one move from the diagnosis — demographic change, and so on — to a realistic implementation that is juridically and politically viable?
JEAN-YVES LE GALLOU: One must adopt an approach that is at once progressive and radical.
ÉLÉMENTS: Explain yourself! What do you mean by a progressive approach?
JEAN-YVES LE GALLOU: One must distinguish between different stages according to different situations. Let us proceed by degrees.
• Act 1: The immediate halt of all new immigration as an indispensable prerequisite, in order to stabilise the situation.
• Act 2: Priority given to the juridically clearest cases — undocumented migrants, foreign offenders, expired residency permits.
• Act 3: Review of the residency permits of those foreign nationals living on welfare or unemployment benefits.
• Act 4: Review of the situation of those dual nationals who are simultaneously unassimilated and hostile, and who in effect do not possess an “effective nationality,” in the terms of international conventions.
• Act 5: Encouragement of voluntary return for unassimilated — though not hostile — dual nationals, with financial or administrative incentives.
ÉLÉMENTS: And assimilated dual nationals?
JEAN-YVES LE GALLOU. They are obviously outside the scope of remigration.
ÉLÉMENTS: That seems reasonable. Where, then, is the radicalism?
JEAN-YVES LE GALLOU. In the politico-juridical diagnosis. Today, in whichever European country you look, it is not the people who decide on immigration through their elected representatives (or directly by referendum) — it is the deep state, acting through its administrative apparatus and above all through its judges. Family reunification was not decided by politicians; it was imposed by judges — in France, by the Conseil d’État since 1978. The right of asylum is likewise not determined according to the popular will, but by judges over-interpreting the 1951 Geneva Convention (which was conceived at the time solely for Europeans), thereby making it possible for entire tranches of population to enter the country: (all) Afghan women, (all) Somali women, (all) Togolese or Ugandan homosexuals, (all) Sri Lankan Muslim women, (all) Congolese albinos, not forgetting (all) Peruvian transsexuals. That amounts to quite a crowd! The Observatoire de l’immigration et de la démographie has calculated that on one ground or another, 600 million people could claim asylum in France. To accommodate them, one would need to turn half the national territory into one vast Seine-Saint-Denis.
The rule of law, in this form, is a ship of fools. The judicial dictatorship must be broken. We must exit the religion of the rule of law, which is nothing other than the dictatorship of judges, and return power to the people. The solution to the migratory invasion is not technical — it is political. I call this the JUGEXIT [Translator’s note: a portmanteau of “juge” (judge) and “exit,” modelled on “Brexit”] — it is a key chapter in the book. And this applies to every European country, as I demonstrate therein.
ÉLÉMENTS: Can remigration become a shared horizon at the European level, or does it remain dependent on national sovereignties?
JEAN-YVES LE GALLOU: Let us first recall that, as regards non-European immigration, nothing has been worse for Great Britain than Brexit. Let us be clear-eyed about that! In the current state of affairs, pretending to seek salvation in “national sovereignties” is a pleasant sovereignist fiction: from the North Sea to the Strait of Gibraltar, it is the same small oligarchy of judges, media figures, and senior civil servants that implements the migratory invasion in every country and opposes any reasonable policy.
We must therefore neither lay everything at the door of the European Union (a convenient alibi for inaction), nor — above all — set peoples against one another. On the contrary, we must call upon all the peoples of Europe to rise together and struggle against the dominant oligarchies — media, judicial, and administrative.
Faced with the deep states that seek to impose immigration upon them, salvation can only come from a revolt from below, provided that each person becomes aware that without remigration today, the Europe of tomorrow will no longer be European. European identitarians of all nations, unite! Think of your children. Men of the West, rise to defend the continent-civilization of your ancestors…
Originally published on Éléments on March 19th, 2026.
Translated by Alexander Raynor
ORDER Remigration NOW, brought to you by Arktos:
Translator’s note: “la ville des Noirs plus que des rois” is a wordplay on Saint-Denis’s identity as the traditional burial site of French kings (rois) and its current demographic character (Noirs — Black people).
 | A guest post by
|