1,357 words
Guillaume Faye
Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance
London: Arktos Media, 2011
Available from Counter-Currents and from Amazon.com
Guillaume Faye’s newly translated Kampfschrift aims to rally Europe, “our great fatherland, that family of kindred spirits, however politically fragmented, which is united on essentials, favoring thus the defense of our civilization.” He sees even nationalism as a kind of sectarianism which European man cannot afford at present: “when the house is on fire domestic disputes are put on hold.” For this reason, Faye has never belonged to the Front National, but has more recently lent support to the French Euronationalist organization Nationality-Citizenship-Identity (see www.nationalite-citoyennete-identite.com).
Over three-quarters of the present volume is devoted to what a Confucian philosopher would call “the rectification of names.” It is interesting to observe how revolutionary ideologies are never able to express themselves in ordinary language. Being based upon a partial and distorted view of reality, they necessarily create a jargon all their own. Once they succeed in imposing it upon a subject population, they have won half their battle. Who exactly decided that loyalty to one’s people, known since time immemorial as patriotism and considered as one of the most essential virtues, would henceforth become the crime of racism? Faye’s “metapolitical dictionary” is a blow directed against such semantic distortion.
Here follows a brief sample:
Aristocracy: those who defend their people before their own interests. An aristocracy has a sense of history and blood lineage, seeing itself as the representative of the people it serves, rather than as members of a caste or club. Not equivalent to an economic elite, it can never become entirely hereditary without becoming sclerotic.
Biopolitics: a political project oriented to a people’s biological and demographic imperatives. It includes family and population policy, restricts the influx of aliens, and addressed issues of public health and eugenics.
Devirilisation: declining values of courage and virility for the sake of feminist, xenophile, homophile and humanitarian values.
Discipline: the regulation and positive adaptation of behavior through sanction, reward and exercise. Egalitarian ideology associates discipline and order with their excesses, i.e., with arbitrary dictatorship. But just the contrary is the case, for freedom and justice are founded on rigorous social discipline. Every society refusing to uphold law and order, i.e., collective discipline, is ripe for tyranny and the loss of public freedoms.
Germen: a people’s or civilization’s biological root. In Latin, germen means ‘germ’, ‘seed.’ If a culture is lost, recovery is possible. When the biological germen is destroyed, nothing is possible. The germen is comparable to a tree’s roots. If the trunk is damaged or the foliage cut down, the tree can recover—but not if the roots are lost. That’s why the struggle against race-mixing, depopulation and the alien colonization of Europe is even more important than mobilizing for one’s cultural identity and political sovereignty.
Identity: etymologically, ‘that which makes singular’. A people’s identity is what makes it incomparable and irreplaceable.
Involution: the regression of a civilization or species to maladaptive forms that lead to the diminishing of its vital forces. Cultural involution has been stimulated by the decline of National Education (40% of adolescents are now partially or completely illiterate), the regression of knowledge, the collapse of social norms, the immersion of youth in a world of audio/visual play [and] the Africanization of European culture.
Mental AIDS: the collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of its decadence and its enemies. Louis Pauwels coined the term in the 1980s and it set off a media scandal. In general, the more the neo-totalitarian system is scandalized by an idea and demonizes it, the more likely it’s true.
With biological AIDS, T4 lymphocytes, which are supposed to defend the organism, fail to react to the HIV virus as a threat, and instead treat it as a ‘friend’, helping it to reproduce. European societies today are [similarly] menaced by the collapse of their immunological defenses. As civil violence, delinquency and insecurity explode everywhere, police and judicial measures that might curb them are being undermined. The more Third World colonization damages European peoples, the more measures are taken to continue it. Just as Europe is threatened with demographic collapse, policies which might increase the birth rate are denounced and homosexuality idealized. Catholic prelates argue with great conviction that ‘Islam is an enrichment’, even as it clearly threatens to destroy them.
Museologicalization: the transformation of a living tradition into a museum piece, which deprives it of an active meaning or significance. A patrimony is constructed every day and can’t, thus, be conserved in a museum. Modern society is paradoxically ultra-conservative and museological, on the one hand, and at the same time hostile to the living traditions of identity.
Populism: the position which defends the people’s interests before that of the political class—and advocates direct democracy. This presently pejorative term must be made positive. The prevailing aversion to populism expresses a covert contempt for authentic democracy. For the intellectual-media class, ‘people’ means petits blancs—the mass of economically modest, non-privileged French Whites—who form that social category which is expected to pay its taxes and keep quiet. On the subjects of immigration, the death penalty, school discipline, fiscal policies—on numerous other subjects—it’s well known that the people’s deepest wishes as revealed in referenda and elsewhere never, despite incessant media propaganda, correspond to those of the government. Anti-populism marks the final triumph of the isolated, pseudo-humanist, and privileged political-media class—which have confiscated the democratic tradition for their own profit.
Resistance and Reconquest: faced with their colonization by peoples from the south and by Islam, Europeans, objectively speaking, are in a situation of resistance. Like Christian Spain between the Eighth and Fifteenth centuries, their project is one of reconquest. Resistance today is called ‘racism or ‘xenophobia’, just as native resisters to colonial oppression were formerly called ‘terrorists.’ A semantic reversal is in order here: those who favor the immigrant replacement population ought, henceforward, to be called ‘collaborators.’
Many of our false sages claim that it’s already too late, that the aliens will never leave, that the best that can be expected is a more reasonable form of ethnic cohabitation. [They] do so on the basis not of reasoned analysis, but simply from their lack of ethnic consciousness.
Revolution: a violent reversal of the political situation, following the advent of a crisis and the intervention of an active minority.
For Europeans, revolution represents a radical abolition, a reversal, of the present system and the construction of a new political reality based on the following principles: 1) an ethnocentric Eurosiberia, free of Islam and the Third World’s colonizing masses; 2) continental autarky, breaking with globalism’s free-trade doctrines; 3) a definitive break with the present organization of the European Union; and 4) a general recourse to an inegalitarian society that is disciplined, authentically democratic, aristocratic and inspired by Greek humanism. (Faye has previously written of the need for Euronationalists to reclaim the idea of revolution from the poseurs of the left.)
In a brief closing chapter, Faye answers the question posed by his book’s title:
We fight for Europe. We fight for a Europe infused with ideas of identity and continuity, of independence and power—this Europe that is an ensemble of ethnically related peoples. We fight for a vision of the world that is both traditional and Faustian, for passionate creativity and critical reason, for an unshakable loyalty and an adventurous curiosity, for social justice and free inquiry. We fight nor just for the Europeans of today, but for the heritage of our ancestors and the future of our descendents.
Faye’s writing has a bracing quality which never lapses into elegy or pessimism:
Nothing is lost. It’s completely inappropriate to see ourselves in the nostalgia of despair, as a rearguard, a last outpost, that struggles with panache for a lost cause. World events give us cause to believe that the situation is heading toward a great crisis—toward a chaos from which history will be reborn.
Two years after Why We Fight (2001), Faye published his analysis of the coming crisis under the title The Convergence of Catastrophes. This will be the next of Faye’s works to be brought out in English translation by Arktos.
16 comments
There’s a tired cliche among reviewers of saying something along the lines of “Ironically, for a critic of X, the author proves to be the biggest Xist of them all” or the like. Sort of like what we used to say in my teens, the ones that talk the most about getting laid are the ones who never do.
So speaking of “cultural AIDS”, I would offer the paragraph on homosexuality in the book under review [I can’t afford $45, thank you, but like me you can search and read it on Amazon] as revealing M. Faye as suffering from a virulent form of the disease. All this huffing and puffing about “Western Culture” and “defending the West” and in the center [I mean, ‘centre’] of it all, Little Willie breaks down and crawls, weeping, before the Cross.
What in Archeofuturism seemed a rather Islamic view [keep in private and no nonsense about “marriage”] has now putrefied into a full fledged case of the Judaic Virus: “It’s an abomination! The enemy of civilization! Exterminate the brutes! Thank you, YHVH-1, for enlightening us!”
Sorry, Willie; like Albert Nock, I take Athens as my model of Western Civilization, not Kansas City. But I suppose some of us are still impressed by French accents.
And before anyone comes up with “the Stoics condemned it” or “Plato changed his mind” etc, yes, I am well aware that every culture puts ‘restrictions’ as the Liberals would call them of one sort or degree on every kind of activity; that’s what human culture is, as Hans Bluher himself emphasized.
But by analogy with the “one drop rule” of race, I distinguish cultures where The Symposium could be written and published [while imposing all kinds of rules on what Willie would call ‘homophilia” along with making marriage compulsory] and those where it would be burned. One is what I would call Aryan, the other Judaic.
I like to imagine the look on Rick Santorum’s face when General Alcibiades comes up to him and endorses his stand on ‘gay marriage’, and then explains that “that sort of thing is strictly between a man and boy, right Rick?”
And its not a matter of ‘taste’ or ‘style’. “Family values” cultures are incapable of creating States, as Bluher demonstrated and Evola, at least, on the Right knew. [Say, who’s that “rootless” people, cosmopolitans — hey, there’s the Stoics! — without a state for 2000 years, dependent even now on the Aryan Golem, the cultural parasite par excellence, hmm?]
You can have Western Culture or you can have “Family Values.” As the Rev. J C Crawford said in his legendary introduction of the MC5, and as quoted as the epigraph in my forthcoming book, The Homo and the Negro, “You must choose, brothers, you must choose.”
And don’t think the Other Side doesn’t know it. Read The Pink Swastika [it’s free online!] where the Christian Zionist authors prove, to their own satisfaction, that not only where the Nazis faggots, but they were evil BECAUSE they were fags, and they were fags BECAUSE they were ‘pagans’, i.e, White. Yup, the whole thing, from Parmenides on, just a bucha faggots hatin’ the True Lord.
So no, hypocrite lecteur, you can’t have Faye and Western Culture. It’s the real Cultural AIDS: Once you let the Jew’s nose under the tent, it all goes, and it’s Hello, Savonarola!
Once the Judaic Virus is allowed in, it burrows right to the center and renders the entire project useless as a fundamental, lasting critique. As Marx said about imposing Communism on a pre-capitalist society: “That would be nothing but the socialization of poverty, and then the same old shit would start again.”
No wonder the “New European [sic] Right” never caught on here. We have our own “cultural critics” like Harold Bloom and William Bennett to give us a nicely circumcised version of “Western Culture,” rather like those old translations of the classics with the naughty bits left in Greek. And like them, completely useless.
A righteous rant James.
I have booked marked The Pink Swastika.
Harold Bloom says Northrope Frye was one of his influences. The latter a Canadian academic who really was a Christian liberal apologist who declared all Canadians were afraid of nature and that was our literary identity. All this while sitting in Toronto, the wasp center of Canada, now being inundated with immigrants. I do not regret to say, they deserve it.
My form of altruistic punishment or maybe a pure spirit of revenge, having suffered the insufferable pursed lip puritan Wasps.
I am very partial to the myth of Psyche and Eros which some Jungians see as a spiritual hieros gamos within one.
Let the spirit of the Mannerbund live.
Ah, Toronto! Where I went to school, almost every professor had attended Toronto, either the U itself and or the Pontifical Institute [the Toot]. One who didn’t, whenever anyone mentioned it, would affect a kind of nasally Bertie Wooster voice, lean back his head and say “Ah, Toronto, centre of the universe!”
Don’t know if I’ve been influenced by Frye, but certainly read some of his later stuff; I even reviewed one of his books on the Bible, one of my first publications, for Judaica Book News!
I think Wulf Grimsson, or maybe I’m thinking of that Gnostic Workbook floating around the internet from that Australian group, talks about the inner marriage vs. the merely external heterosexual marriage.
So Homosexuality is the essence of Western Culture? Or was it just part of the fin de siecle of the Ancient Greek world and later the Roman? And has it not played a part in the end of many Civilizations – as it is in our’s now? Whitaker Chambers describes the many similarities between spying and cruising – the furtive glance, the excitement of the secret assignations, the feeling of importance, of being superior, etc. It’s not at the Centre. Men are and Heterosexuality is. I mean you can’t imagine a fight club/warrior band without it? I can. And I think the large bulk of the Neo Traditionalist School would agree with me.
Little Willie? Who dat? Slick Willie though – he had the answer: don’t ask, don’t tell. Let it go back to being a private thing. Gays hate that though – they want to be in the Centre as Gays. And that can never be. They can be in the Centre, but as Men.
I do think there are two kinds of men. Those attracted to men and those attracted to women. As a female I would prefer that those men attracted to men say so, rather than con me into a relationship they don’t want just because society says that is the norm and you had better comply. Besides I do not believe that the mannerbund is all about sex, but more about masculinity that has nothing to do with women. This is exactly what has been co-opted by jews and cultural marxism. They use the white Christian distaste and fear of sex to condemn men who enjoy the company of men whether it is sexual or not. There is this great fear that even if it is not sexual, enjoying the company of men means you are gay. That happens with women too and it is extremely annoying. It is a covert brainwashing. Some gays have indeed made the whole thing about them and their rights, all the way to challenge the concept of marriage. I have no respect for them at all. They are simulated heterosexuals as as far as I am concerned. That whole gay marriage thing is a sham. Another covert subversion of Western culture. I also think all the negative stuff about gay behaviour really needs some ethnic analysis. Just who does the cruising and who go climb mountains together.
“They are simulated heterosexuals as as far as I am concerned.”
The idea is to use the Left’s notion of ‘we are all the same’ to subvert the subversive — but non-Leftist — potential of homosexual men.
The previous, post-Stonewall idea was to get them to adopt the “gay’ identity — the infamous Chelsea Clone — as another form of unification, but the inevitable desire for elitism and hierarchy [the natural Rightism of the homosexual, as in pre-War Germany] kept popping back — royal courts based on fashion houses, restricted guest lists based on fashion, etc. As I say in my book, the most Fascist institution in America was the gay dance club of the 80-90s.
The technique also involved plenty of anonymous sex — the bathhouse culture — which again attacked notions of hierarchy. Of course, AIDS put a damper on that, hence the about-face from “smash monogamy” to “gays really want to marry and have children just like you.”
All in the Left tradition of all-out demands that are entirely disposable when the wind shifts; Hitler and Stalin, allies against Capitalism! Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania!
“was it just part of the fin de siecle of the Ancient Greek world and later the Roman?”
Well, no, actually the beginning. See Percy’s Pederasty and Pedagogy in Ancient Greece. And for the ubiquity of h., at all levels and stages of cultures worldwide [except you know who] see Campion’s Homosexuality and Civilization.
As for cultural decline, consider for instance the effect of the domination of the anti-homo Jew in modern art; as Dr. Darkmoon has documented over at Occidental Online, the Jew is notoriously inept at visual art, and hence has fomented a no-technique, no-talent school of “modern” art. I think both you and most Traditionalists would prefer the nancy boys of Athens and Florence to what comes out of the jew-approved galleries today.
But I exaggerate for effect. My point is not that homosexuals are better at everything — though mostly they are. It’s more general, and thus more important. If every homo disappeared tomorrow, that might bring down the general level of things. But the situation we have now is, that the demonization of homosexuality brings all forms of masculine association into suspicion and disrepute, thus stRiki-Eiking at the heart of Aryan culture. Every institution — schools, the Church, Boy Scouts, gymnasia, intelligence in general [‘nerds’ or ‘acting White] etc. is sniggered about. Any cultural production embodying Traditionalist or New Right values — from Hitler Youth to films like Fight Club or 300 — is instantly mocked, even, or especially on the Left, as ‘homoerotic’.
And since the opposite of the Homo is the Negro, the sure-fire way to avoid any ‘suspicions,’ the easiest way to ‘be a man’ is to be like the Negro. The results of this ‘no homo!’ culture are all around us. Hardly suggestive of any Aryan culture at its heights.
Thus it is Aryan values themselves that are in question, not the level of comfort of one type of person.
As for the bulk of Traditionalists, you may be right. I would refer you to what I’ve written here and in my book on Alain Danielou, the only one of the original Big Shots of Tradition who actually lived in a traditional society, rural India, which he did so in a Silverstream trailer with his ‘long time companion.’ Since it was Guenon who submitted his works to Danielou for approval, not vice versa, I’ll take him for my guide too.
I’ve read a few – an interesting man and a fine scholar. I’ve always meant to study his book on the Hindu Gods more intensely. But since he called Ramana Maharishi an “insignificant fat man” one can question his actual spiritual attainment and intuition. Perhaps the ashram wasn’t traditional enough or perhaps Ramana wasn’t? After all, the Sabbath was made for man and not vice versa. But many Traditional People cling to eternals – as do Gays strangely eneough (could this be the basis of an alliance – nah!).
Guenon lived an Islamic Life in Egypt from early middle age I believe. And he was married in that Culture. I doubt if Danielou’s immersion was any deeper. That he submitted his work on Hinduism to a man of greater expertise speaks well of him. I remember that he got Buddhism wrong, seeing it as merely a Hindu schism and that he was willing to change when his colleagues showed him his error.
You are probably right: Homosexuals probably do average higher in IQ and Aesthetics. But not character, unfortuanately. It is a sickness of our age, a deep and mysterious one. But some are fine men, men who certainly didn’t ask for it. Trying to find a “perfect” solution drags us into the extremes of high brow and light brow White Nationalism. The low brows want them banned, beaten, and expelled – at best. And the high brows want to take over – as I’m learning here (thank you for your candor). The anwer is in the middle. Awkward? Imperfect? You bet. And that’s the best we can do. It’s like Watt’s Square Zen, Beat Zen, and Zen.
Of course Watts knew nothing about real Zen and towards the end he admitted it. And that real Zen had a passing resemblence to Square Zen. Or as Ramana said, make all effort to become Effortless. Beat Zen, an old libertine tendency, was an imitation by ordinary men of the Grace and Freedom of the Masters. One must not imitate but become. Watt’s decades of pontificating was Beat Zen, being a Religious Entertainer. His admission of being a fraud as his health failed was an intimation of Real Zen.
I believe the penalty for Homosexuality among the ancient Germans was death. Watts didn’t like them either. The Primoridal Tradition is our’s. We must make allowance in this Dark Age for the sickness of our Brothers. But let them know their place – and by all means have their own places and traditions that intersect with the greater culture in a carefully measured way. And let them know the penalties of overstepping and usurping.
Whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up in conversation it always reminds me of the quote, “Gay people have a right to be as miserable as everybody else!”
I can’t remember who said it though.
Possibly Justin Raimondo, who predicted that gay marriage would be a non-issue precisely because it would be followed by a wave of gay divorces, which indeed is happening, although you won’t see it on the news, as Justin also predicted.
Yes, the Lavender Mob has grown strong indeed, as it tends to do in decaying Civilizations. We are also unlikely to hear about Gay Officers persecuting straight servicemen in the armed forces. But it is likely. It happened in American Seminaries – see Michael Rose’s “Goodbye Good Men” about straight seminarians being sexually harrassed and then persecuted by Gay Priests and Feminist Professors.
Let me play Christ’s Advocate, for the moment. I will even tie my analysis to the book under discussion, and the importance of defining correct relationships, which was a core outcome sought by the Moists. Why define “names” correctly? To correctly define the relationships. Only in denenerqate time do names fail to define their objects adequately, such as n the religion of political correctness we see in the Kali Yuga. Ny foundation for Confuciain philosophy in Dr. Fung Yu-lan, whose book is widely considered to be the preeminent undergraduate survey.
James J. O’Meara in blockquote:
A common misunderstanding among critics of Christianity, and the role Christianity write large played in the development of Western Civilization, is to reduce the work of Christ to the Institutions bearing His name. The Work is much greater than that.
The elegant simplicity and moral clarity that Islam offers lends itself to the model of Conquest. The Judaics have an absolute certainty that they will, indeed MUST, rule over the animals, Humanity. The Muslims have the absolute certainty that the world will revert to Islam, defining the world as under Islam,” and “not YET Under Islam.” The model of Islamicism Faye seemed to be working with in Archeofuturism was not “Islam” per se, but a kind of moral system based on Islamic models. Ironically, Confucianism is, above all, a moral and legal system.
As someone who is really trying to become part of Isaiah’s Remnant, let me note that Athens was surpassed by Rome, and Rome was conquered by an Idea – Christianity. The outworking of Christ has moved Western Civilization forward, enhancing the process of Civilization for all.
Both cultures (small “c”) would allow The Symposium to be published, one in the name of the intellectual honesty of the search of Truth, and the other for profit.
Santorum’s followers are working, albeit in a rather inchoate manner, against what the American Cultural Moment in the history of Western Civilization has become. Their concern with “gay marriage” is based, in good part, not on the Bible per se, but as part of an Agenda that is imposed without regard for them in the slightest. Given the chance to vote on “gay marriage,” people vote against it – overwhelmingly. Just as forced busing to achieve racial equality in public education was forced on them from above – at gunpoint! – so do they see that, once again, their rights to choose have been ignored. Their rights, and they, themselves. Anger is to be expected.
Israel controls America in all matters that manner. As “Spwengler” of Aisa Timnes noted, Jewish “family values” – i.e.; RACIAL Tribal Values – seem to have worked spectacularly well for them.
You can have both – one without the other is meaningless.
They are entitled to their opinion; while I certainly disagree with them, I maintain their misunderstanding of the positive role Masculine Pagan (“Christianity”) had on redeeming Christianity from the softness it was falling into, can not be more misunderstood, or overstated.
If we are so easily conquered by Judaism, perhaps its because, politically, you can’t beat something with nothing. It is worth bearing in mind at all times that Judaism only fears Christianity. There is an excellent reason for that. Confident at having manipulated Rome into the administrative murder of Jesus, they were shocked to see the Living IDEA of Christianity triumph over Rome, to the point that Rome exists today primarily as a tourist destination for Christians.
And what, alone, defeats Judaism? What, alone, do the Judaics fear? Christ, Triumphant. One good Templar Knight, masters of intolerance, they, scared the Judaics beyond words. They did so then, they will do so again. This is what we have to do – go on the offensive, intelligently, in an “apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT” Jim Giles)
“In THIS Sign Conquer!”
We over at the-spearhead.com have rightfully excoriated Bennett for supporting the gelding of Men, which, as jewish men will tell you, is part and parcel of Judaism, a very Feminine social system.
And, the NANR never “caught on” because, in part, it was up against tremendous inertia, and because it requires a great deal of willingness to ruthlessly engage in the rectification of names, resolving misunderstandings that allow Wordism to triumph over clear thinking.
As to “gay marriage,” let me note a simple demographic fact.
“Gays” do not want to marry.
Father Himself, Tom Leykis, Of Blessed Name, said, in effect, “Sure. Let them get married. Let them see what Hell it has become.”
This is a topic we discuss all of the time over at the-spearhead.com.
Don’t get me wrong. I am in total support of the right of the rainbow-thong wearing mountain climbers to practice Evola’s preachings.
However, the rectification of names in all places is of primal importance, particularly in the Kali Yuga. At the-spearhead.com, we are engaged in one massive project of rectification of names regarding relationships, and marriage. Currently, the main page deals with ancient cultures you might recognize.
F of C,
I appreciate your point by point reply; please allow me to merely make a couple of random remarks in response!
It may just be a matter of taste, but Christians always seem to want to shift attention to the Christ of Faith rather than the historical or institutional Church. Usually it’s when something like the Borgias or the Inquisition comes up. But you can’t have it both ways, I should think. If the “idea of Christ” had “conquered Europe” then it [Europe] would have looked like primitive Christianity, sharing all in common and attending ‘love feasts’. Or, speaking of the Borgias, Florence under Savonarola. But it didn’t. All the stuff people want to have when they talk about ‘saving European culture’ is institutional; it’s the Borgia cathedrals, not Savonarola’ss bonfire of the vanities.
Christianity may have ‘saved’ Antiquity but only in the sense that they ‘saved’ Steve Austin [“We can make him better! We have the technology!”] or better, McMurphy in Robocop. Or Hitler’s Brain! Thanks, doc, but on the whole, I’d rather be in Philadelphia. And, along the way, as discussed here before, there was a heaping helping of Teuton added later. No wonder the evangelicals call the Roman Church ‘pagan’!
In short, I go along with Evola; the “Christianity” that people say ‘saved Rome’ or ‘created Europe’ is really the remnants of the Roman idea, not the primitive Faith – your “idea of Christ” — that has never created anything but little groups of mutually anathematizing heretics.
There was a great scene on The Sopranos where Tony and his boys are beating up some slow-paying Orthodox Jew, who says “I don’t care what you do to me. My people are still here, and where are the Romans” and Tony looks around in mild surprise and says “The Romans? We’re right here, asshole!” Bing, pow!
And Islam; a similar process, but keeping a lot more of the culture of antiquity than the Christians. Along with science and philosophy [most of that ‘preserving’ done by the Church was in the form of re-cycling ancient manuscripts for monkish scrap paper, rather than actually studying ‘the foolishness of the Greeks”] and of course bathing [another ‘decadent’ habit frowned on by the ‘creators of Europe’] there came at least an echo of the tradition of pederasty, and consequently a relaxed attitude on the part of the ‘Arab street’, as documented by John Bradley, for excerpts of which see my blog.
“Gay bashing” only appears after Western interlopers have tried to import their ideas of ‘liberation’ [after the colonizers imposed their Christian Puritan laws on the ‘savages’] and the subject becomes ripe for ‘fundamentalists’ to exploit. As Amadenijan said, there are no homosexuals in Iran; meaning, no flaming queens demanding that society be torn down, admit its homophobia, and provide special rights and affirmative action.
And Islam reminds us of the Templars, indeed. But were they not a little… odd? A little light in the stirrups? Especially after their contacts with the Moslems. With Evola, I think we need to distinguish the Albigensians and other “gnostics” so loved by our feminized New Agers, who were a threat to the Papacy because they were TOO Christian, and the Templars, who were Too….Roman.
And as for the Teutons, let’s say as usual the evidence is a little sketchy. Would New Jersey seem to future historians as a very upright and Puritanical place, with its laws against sodomy, marijuana, and even adultery? Wulf Grimsson has done most of the heavy lifting in this area. I would, however, like to quote something someone on a WN board said years ago: “That’s why we call them barbarians.”
I believe it is a waste of energy to discuss homosexuality.It is divisive and detract from the crucial issue of survival of white race.There is no doubt that many who contributed to the European culture were homosexuals,just to mention Plato and Shakespeare.We will have some disagreements on multiple issues but all those disagreements should be subordinated to the vital issue of survival.
Exactly. That’s why the Elite promote Homosexuality and Homosexuals – to divert, divide, and demoralize. And that’s why the Russians crush Gay Pride marchs – because such things demoralize the People.
In the spirit of changing the terms of the debate, two other terms I’ve seen people floating are:
Genophilia: Love of one’s own race
and
Genophiliast: A lover of one’s own race.
When one accuses you of being a “racist,” say, “No, I’m a genophiliast.”
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.