not a native english so i'm not sure what you mean by delusional ?

We can't legally compile ethnics statistics in France, so all we have to rely on is our personal feeling, which is of course very subjective ( and this has been the counter argument to my type of argument for a very long time). But it has reached such a level now that nobody is contesting that diagnosis. People give it different names depending on their political orientation ( "creolisation" for the left, "grand remplacement" for the right), but it's basically the same conclusion.

>We can't legally compile ethnics statistics in France

This is bullshit, because even if France made it illegal (it's obviously not) other groups would definitely still do it. France is still 86% white people, mostly french. Nobody is being replaced anywhere, because immigration is tiny everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

From your own article :

"Due to a law dating from 1872 at the start of the Third Republic, France has prohibited the collection of data on a citizens race, ethnicity or their beliefs such as religion through national censuses,[47][48] however estimates have been made of the ethnic and racial demography of the country in the present"

We're talking estimation as it is indeed illegal, no matter how crazy it may sound like. Estimation is highly dependant on who's doing the estimation, and for what purpose, and as you can see in the article itself, the topic is highly controversial among specialist.

Now, if you were living in france for the past 40 years, and had regularely travelled across the country, you would see that in that particular case, the situation is very obvious, and the only circle left still debating the issue is demographic specialists.

Politicians and media used to deny the issue and flagged anyone mentioning it as racist, but things have recently changed and we finally start talking about it like grown ups.

I have lived and travelled in France for around 40 years and I don't at all recognize what you are describing.

Your claims appear to be based on suggesting that you (and, in a laughable falsehood, the wide range of opinion in French society) knows for a fact that this situation exists, but if anyone does not agree with you, that is merely their opinion, since it is impossible to measure.

may i ask where you have lived and travelled in france ?

Have you ever been to any suburb, not just in Paris ( which already has some suburbs with close to 99% non-french inhabitants) but in pretty much any average sized city in the country ?

based on your saying I can only assume you only lived in the central part of paris, and went on holidays in the west coast such as bordeaux or brest. Because all the rest of the country is pretty much in transition.

What do you mean by "non-french"?

The same i would mean if i said "non-japanese ", only applied to france.

I understand your reluctance to answer a straightforward question: you know exactly what you are, and yet you are ashamed to admit to it.

This is not the political culture of Vercingetorix, nor of Charles de Gaulle ;)

You'd be surprised. Since we seem to have moved to ad-hominem argumentation :

I think your categories and your political reflexes prevent you from thinking straight. Everybody in the world would have a broad understanding of what "french" means (or "japanese", "americans", "italian", etc). For some reason you pretend to ignore there are some cultural norms that are associated to a nation ("cultural" in the broadest sense, which includes the way you look). I believe because this fact scares you or have been associated to a taboo.

Those taboos prevent you from addressing questions, and not addressing the issues don't make them magically disappear. Worst, you risk leaving those questions to people that have a political agenda.

You seem to be the one subject to taboos. You don't want to say what you mean by 'French' or 'non-French'.

I am perfectly capable of understanding and discussing what can be meant by 'Frenchness', and what I mean by it.

I've already had this conversation many times with people arguing against the obvious situation, and it inevitably leads to absurd conclusions that defy the immediate cognitive conclusions and intuition of anyone looking at a given city landscape (you could tell just by looking at a picture if a city looks european, african or asian, for example).

However this is most of the time a total waste of time, because the reason the person is arguing against the obvious is not because of intelligent caution, but rather out of scare.

So sorry if i'm not going this route with you. If you're sincerely curious i suggest you go on a bike ride in Argenteuil on a friday.

What do you mean when you say "French" or "non-French"?

What are the words you are scared of using if you answered this question?

Why won't you use them?

not sure you understood my point. I rely on immediate cognitive understanding of what "french" means.

It's a mix of the way you dress, your body features (yes, skin color is one of them obviously but that's far from the only one), your language, all your daily habits, the food you eat, author you've read, etc.

It's the general picture people have in their mind when they think of an archetypal "french". Doesn't mean all french are like that, obviously. Much like i'm pretty sure you could find japanese with natural blond hair who never eat raw fish.

You may also argue that this image of french people is completely outdated, and that the metropolitan french population has evolved in the past 50 years. But that's precisely my point.

"France is still 86% white people, mostly french." Now look forward 30-50 years, and see who is more: the native population who has no kids or very few ones, or the immigrant cultures that encourage 3-5+ kids per family. It's just basic population maths.