Guillaume Faye at the 2006 American Renaissance Conference
1,679 words
Few postwar thinkers in my view have played a greater role in ideologically resisting the forces assaulting Europe’s incomparable bioculture than Guillaume Faye. This was publicly evident at the international conference on “The White World’s Future” held in Moscow in June 2006, which he helped organize. It’s even more evident in the six books he’s written in the last seven years and in the innumerable articles, interviews, and conferences in which he’s alerted Europeans to the great challenges threatening their survival.
In this spirit he has developed an “archeofuturist” philosophy that takes its inspiration from the most primordial and Faustian urgings of our people’s spirit; he has incessantly warned of the threat posed by the Third World, specially Islamic, invasion of the former white homelands; he has promoted European collaboration with Russia and made the case for a white imperium stretching from Dublin to Vladivoskov; he privileges biopolitics over cultural or party politics; he’s developed a theory of the interregnum that explains why the existing system of subversion will soon collapse; and he’s successfully promoted anti-liberal ideas and values in a language and style that transcends the often ghettoized discourse of our movement. But despite his incomparable contribution to the forces of white resistance, he has always remained suspiciously silent on certain key issues, particularly regarding the Jews, the so-called Holocaust, and the interwar heritage of revolutionary nationalism — even though he is routinely referred to in the MSM as a fascist, a racist, and a negationist. On those few occasions he has spoken of Israel or the Jews, it has been to say that their cause is not ours and that we need to focus on the dangers bearing down on us. To this degree, his silence was tolerable. Recently, however, he’s broken this silence and taken a stance likely to alienate many of his supporters.
The occasion was an interview granted to the Zionist France-Echos — now posted at subversive.com. When asked in the interview about anti-Semitism in the “identitarian” movement he leads, Faye responded in explicitly philosemitic terms:
Anti-Judaism (a term preferable to anti-Semitism) has melted away like snow in the sun. There are, of course, pockets of resistance . . . . But this tendency is more and more isolated . . . because of the massive problem posed by Islamizaton and Third World immigration. In these circumstance, anti-Judaism has been forgotten, for the Jew no longer appears as a menace. In the milieux I frequent, I never read or hear of anti Jewish invectives. . . . [A]nti-Judaism is a political position that is obsolete, unhelpful, out of date, even when camouflaged as anti-Zionism. This is no longer the era of the Dreyfus Affair. Anti-Jews, moreover, are caught in an inescapable contradiction: they despise Jews, but claim they dominate the world, as if they were a superior race. This makes anti-Judaism a form of political schizophrenia, a sort of inverted philosemitism, an expression of resentment. One can’t, after all, detest what one aspires to . . . . My position is that of Nietzsche: To run down the Jews serves no purpose, it’s politically stupid and unproductive.
Besides ignoring the fact that Jewish influence has never been more dominant and more destructive of white existence, three questions are raised in this quote:
(1) Is it that the problems posed by immigration and Islam have trivialized those once associated with the Jews?
(2) Or is it that Islam and immigration reveal that the Jews are not (and never were) a problem, that the anti-Judaism of the Dreyfus era, like other historical expressions of anti-Judaism, was simply a product of a culture whose traditionalism or resentment “stupidly” demonized the Jew as the Other?
(3) Or is it that one can’t have two enemies at the same time, that the threat posed by Islamic immigration is greater than whatever threat the Jews might pose, making it strategically necessary to focus on the principal enemy and to relegate the other to a lesser degree of significance?
Faye tends to conflate these questions, leaving unsaid what needs to be said explicitly. He assumes, moreover, that the Islamic or Third World threat (both in the form of the present invasion and internationally) is somehow unrelated to the Jews. He acknowledges, of course, that certain Jews have been instrumental in promoting multiracialism and immigration. But the supposition here is that this is just a tendency on the part of certain Jews and that to think otherwise is to commit the error of seeing them in the way that “old-fashioned” anti-Semites once did. At first glance, his argument seems to be that of Jared Taylor and American Renaissance, being a tactical decision to take the path of least resistance (which many of us don’t support but nevertheless can live with). Faye, though, goes beyond Taylor, making claims about the Jews that will inevitably compromise our movement.
The anti-Islamism and philosemitism that Faye here combines reflect a deep ideological divide in French nationalist ranks. This divide is symptomatic of a larger schism that is rarely discussed by white nationalists, but has had worldwide ramification for our movement. Since 1945, when the anti-white forces of triumphant American liberalism and Russian Communism, in alliance with Zionism, achieved world hegemony, the hounded and tattered ranks of the nationalist right, in Europe and America, split into a number of divergent, if not contradictory tendencies. With the advent of the Cold War and the formation of the Israeli state, these tendencies tended to polarize around two camps. One tendency, including certain ex-Nazis, allied with postwar anti-Communism, viewing the Russian threat as the greater danger to Western Civilization. Given Israel’s strategic place in the Cold War alignment, these anti-Communists treated organized Zionism as an ally and downplayed the “anti-Semitism” that had traditionally been part of their anti-liberal nationalism. This tendency was opposed by another, which also included former Nazis, but it saw Russian Communism in terms of Stalin’s alleged anti-Semitism and nationalism. This led it to assume an anti-American, anti-Zionist, and pro-Third World position.
The legacy of this polarization continues to affect white nationalist ranks, even though elements of it have been jumbled and rearranged in recent years. As ideal types, however, neither tendency is completely supportable nor insupportable. White nationalism, I suspect, will succeed as a movement only in synthesizing the positive, pro-white elements in each tendency. For a long time, I thought Faye represented this synthesis, for he was both pro-Russian without being hysterically anti-American, anti-Third World without supporting the globalist super-structure dominating the “West.” More impressive still, his orientation was to a revolutionary, racially conscious, and archeofuturist concept of the European race that refused any accommodation to the existing regime.
Recently, however, his anti-Islamism seems to have morphed into a Zionism that cannot but trouble our movement. In the France-Echos interview he says in reference to his nationalist critics that it is nonsensical to call him a Zionist since he is not a Jew. But in the same breath he adds:
How could I be anti-Zionist . . . . Unlike Islamism, Communism, Leftism, human rights, and masochistic, post-conciliar Christianity, Zionism neither opposes nor restrains in any significant way the ideals I defend, that is, the preservation of [Europe’s biocultural] identity. How would the disappearance of Israel serve my cause? For a European identitarian to think that the Hebrew state is an enemy is geopolitically stupid.
He goes on to argue that those who are viscerally anti-American and anti-Zionist are implicitly pro-Islam, pro-Arab, and immigrationist, allies in effect of the Left’s Third-Worldism. Pointing to Alain de Benoist’s GRECE, Christian Bouchet’s revolutionary nationalist movement, and those “Traditionalist” European converts to Islam, all of whom are fascinated by Iran’s new leadership and by Hezbollah, he claims, with some justice, that these anti-Zionists are in the process of abandoning their commitment to Europe.
Faye’s contention that Islam (the civilization) is a mortal threat to Europe is solidly grounded. While one might appreciate Amadinehjad’s critique of Zionist propaganda, especially as it takes the form of the Holocaust, or Nasrallah’s humbling of the IDF, to go from there to supporting Iran’s Islamic Republic or Islamic insurgents in general (think of the Paris Ramadan riots of November 2005) is, for white nationalists, a betrayal of another sort. Faye here acts as an important bulwark against those in our ranks who would leave it to others to fight our battles — others, if history is any guide, who won’t
hesitate to subjugate us once the opportunity arises.
Where Faye crosses the line in my view is in arguing that Jews ought to be considered part of European civilization, that the defense and reinforcement of the Israeli state is a vital imperative for Europe, and that Israel is the vanguard in the struggle against “our common enemy.” The collapse of Israel, he claims, would “open the door to the total conquest of Europe.” He concludes by declaring that he is no Judeophile. “I consider the Jews allies, as part of European civilization, with a very particular and original status as a people apart.” He rejects anti-Judaism “not because it is immoral, but because it is unuseful, divisive, infantile, politically inconsistent, out dated.” For ostensively strategic reasons, then, he rejects anti-Judaism.
It is not my intention here to critique Faye’s new-found Zionism (which I find insupportable) — that would require a format different from this report. It is also not my intention to put his other ideas in doubt, for I continue to believe that he has made an incomparable intellectual contribution to the cause of white resistance. I do, however, question how Faye can consider a non-European people like the Jews to be part of our biocivilization; how he can ignore the destructive role they have played in European and especially American history; how he can dismiss their role in fostering the anti-white forces of multiculturalism, globalism, and the existing regime; and how he can think that Israel is not a geopolitical liability to Europe and Russia?
Finally, I can’t help but recall an earlier occasion when Faye argued that our survival as a people depends on “ourselves alone” — and not on appeals to those whose interests are inevitably served at our expense.
From VNN, July 31, 2006
9 Comments
Thanks for reprinting this. I think O’Meara’s analysis holds up very well, five years later.
As the trends exemplified by Counter-Currents become stronger and more articulate, they will inevitably attract the attention of Jewish and philo-Semitic commentators. They are often very good at what they do, which is sow confusion and division among us, and look out for Jewish interests as they are presently perceived.
O’Meara’s approach (in this piece) shows a mature balance of outlook, lauding Faye for his contributions yet deploring his blind spot WRT the JQ.
“Jew-wise” we must all become–the fact that Faye falls into a mode of analysis that does not distinguish being Jew-wise to being crudely anti-Semitic does him no credit.
“It’s time for Europeans to reject the three desert religions”
Yes, we’ve already received our just deserts.
The Muslim threat to Europe is not a fictitious Jewish meme. The “commies” were never a genuine threat whereas the non-Whites Muslims are swamping Europe. The Muslim threat is real.
Michael O’Meara in blockquote:
I think this explains, at least to a degree, why Faye makes common cause, in the fulfillment of a common purpose, with the Jews. It might be that the Jews are a part of Western Civilization, as Judas was with the Apostles, yet are different enough to pose issues that can be resolved at a later time, after the overwhelming common enemy has been dealt with.
A large part of self-identified White Nationalism has addressed Judaism from the adolescent position of oppositional defiance, when, in fact, we can learn from them while not becoming them. Currently, we have become the tools of Judaism, particularly in the framing of issues, and the limits to effective (or even allowed) inquiry.
Let’s not mince words: in large part, the Judeo-Christianity of the evangelicals consists of the worship of Christ to the exclusion of God, Jesus to the exclusion of Christ, and Jews (“Israel”) to the exclusion of Jesus. Having conflated Judaism with Christianity, removing the tares from the wheat would be a truly exciting exercise. More on point, by the time we began to make headway on this, Al-Jazeera English would be covering the Opening Ceremonies at the Mosque of Notre-Dame.
Rather than wasting energy in futile acts of oppositional defiance to Jews, Faye MIGHT believe the learning offered in dealing with Islam will help us to open our eyes to the influence of Judaism in Western Culture. This could present possible ideas as to how to deal effectively with Judaism, “in an apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
All of this, of course, is the price we have to pay for this part of the foundation of a framework for a White Imperium that would rule from Madrid to Vladivostock. If that end requires these means, it is a small price to pay.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
It’s a shame Mr.Faye has such sympathetic views for the people who are actually responsible of the immigration debacle in Europe. His book ‘Why We Fight’ is essential. Only if he replaced the words ‘America’ for ‘Zionism’ in said book. Everything would fall into place rightfully. That book would be a masterpiece.
Helvena:
Thank you for your considered reply. It thoughtful, and addresses substantial issues substantially. Hopefully, my reply will be equally substantial.
Helvena in blockquotes:
That is a more considered definition of the Adversary than most have adopted. I am trying to not attack the strawman, “the Jews,” and lower counter-currents to the impotent “news and views about the Jews” standard of discussion that has been the hallmark of so many self-identified White Nationalists, so many Charlie Browns. It is best to identify what we CAN learn from them, and can DO about them, with intelligent, considered, responses, all in an “apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles) What they are doing works for them; the same principles can be applied to work for us, and that is where Harold Covington comes in.
What does “White” mean? There is such a range of definitions that I prefer “Western,” to denote the process of Civilization at its highest and best. “The Brand Called White” has had its market value pretty much destroyed in the eyes of the mediacorps, and the educational systems. How do we add value? By being valuable, individually, and collectively, and organizing around the themes of Family, Culture, and Race as the living bridge between Family and Culture.
Agreed, and a good place to start is the analytical work of Steve Keen. As well, the ecological economics of Hermann Daly, et. al., seems a good place to start thinking more deeply about the issues of the allocation of resources. Bolton’s comments on Social Credit are excellent, and Social Credit is a great place to start seeing economics as an organic means to an organic social end, and not the false worshipping of the fallacy of the mechanistic “free market.”
Respectfully, I disagree. They went the benefits of living in Civilization, which only one Race, the White Race, can create, and develop. Cheaper food than they could find in Andar Pradesh is the least of it. Cradle to grave welfare, and free public health, are strong motivators, as is going to schools only the White Race can make effective, much less great. Paris is the second capital of Algeria for just this reason. None of the Muslims in the banlieus wish to return to the countries Islam makes possible; they DO want to make our countries Muslim. Not for a minute do they consider Islam a part of the problem, and the Christian West as part of the solution. That’s THEIR cultural xenophobia, for which they have no tolerance for “multiculturalism” whatsoever. Neither should we.
Islam denies the exist of the identity of “countries,” much less the nation-state. Islam sees the world as under Muslim control, and soon to be under Muslim control. In this, they mirror their desert brethren, the Jews, and the Judeo-Christians.
The answer, it seems, would be to reject the formulations of both parties, and do what works for us, alone. The trite formulations of those who propose, magically, the removal of the Jews and Muslims in America, reflect the Child-like quality of magical thinking. Yet, the Jews see the advantage to them of keeping us afloat, if only to suck more marrow from our bones. The Muslims pretty much wish only to see us fail, by any means necessary, in’sh’allah.
I don’t see how attacking the Jews, AS JEWS, has brought us benefit. Judaism, yes, needs to be removed from the Culture, and that is pretty straightforward. Yet, looking at the pictures of the fun and games in Formerly Great Britain, I do not see Jews forcing dhimmitude on the Whites. I do see Muslims forcing dhimmitude on the Whites, knowing that, once the Pattern has been established, it is very challenging to convert them back to what they were. The blacks, it would seem, are simply doing it to keep in practice.
The only transcendent element of The Solution is the only religion both parties fear, and that is Christianity. Absent that, the process of demoralization Bezmenov described will continue apace, and dhimmitude will be instroduced under the rubric of multiculturalism; introduced, and then mandated. The genocide of the White Race shall be complete, except in the Christian areas from Madrid to Vladivostock, including the Northwest Republic. Reduced to out Core, with no illusions about the depth of the Challenge before us, we can do much better than our forbearers, fairly quickly. Martel would be proud of us.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
We need to assess the situation the way the non-White Muslims do. The non-White Muslims understand that it is possible to have more than one adversary at the same time. They understand it possible to face have more than one threat at the same time. In their case, the view Jewry as an enemy, and they view us as an enemy — and they act accordingly by invading our lands with the intent to loot, plunder and seize power and cleanse Europeans as soon as they can possibly do so. They are doing so now.
I really don’t see how WNists who take position outlined in your comment differ in principle from Faye’s positions. They both commit what amounts to a failure to appropriately identify our enemies. Faye fails to recognize the Jewish threat, while a determined core of nationalists fail ignore the Muslims threat.
Many WNists love to offer sympathy to the Muslims. When has this sympathy ever been returned? Ever? Which Imam, secular leaders, head of state, member of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban or the Iranian Muslims has ever expressed sympathy for Whites?
I agree with you Jews are the principal threat. It’s hard for me to see how anyone can regard Muslims as no threat to Europe just because Jewry likes to exploit Muslim European tension for their own benefit.
Helvena in blockquote:
I don’t believe that, either. Years ago, I argued for the (discreet) development of a counterpart, a dynamic living Islamic counterpoint, to Qom.
I agree. The Muslims take the consagunious family structure to new heights. The Palestinians are simply pawns.
I agree. A country which does not make the distinction between the Persians and the Arabs – us – fails to see things as they are. Raphael Pattei’s “The Arab Mind” is a good place to start.
If memory serves, the Saudis fund the delivery of the Muhammad Ali translation of the Koran to American prisoners. One important distinction is a verse all other translators translate as “bleary-eyed devils”; if memory serves, the Muhammad Ali translation uses the words “blue-eyed devils.” Remarkably, this translation finds many a home in many of our correctional facilities. Pure coincidence, I suppose.
Yet, Muslims are trivial threats compared to the transformation of our Culture into a JUDEO-American Culture. That is a very long road back, indeed.
As for the reading, the best place to start is “For the Common Good” by Daly and Cobb. The ecological economics people also have their own organization, and website.
Thanks for your very helpful comments on this very complex issue. I do see the Jews encouraging the Muslims to attack us at all points, to keep us further distracted, from looking at the much deeper damage done, and beingdone by, the Jews.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Helkvena in blockquote:
Thanks for catching my oversight. I agree, and should have been more explicit when I stated: “…dhimmitude will be introduced under the rubric of multiculturalism; introduced, and then mandated.”
We all know who is behind “multiculturalism,” of course. Faye’s example provides an excellent opportunity for us to be in the System, but not of the System. Sadly, self-identified White/Western Nationalists (W2/N) have based their actions in what they are nominally opposed to, but have not defined what they want to DO about it, other than remonstate with their usual Charlie Brown impotence. Full marks to Faye for doing what we can, where he can. Ideological purity can be saved for after we have formed the Imperium. The Fourteen Words will do for now.
First, the Northwest Republic!
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!