Guillaume Faye & the Battle of EuropeGreg Johnson
Czech translation here
Guillaume Faye and the Battle of Europe
London: Arktos, 2013
Guillaume Faye is a brilliant and prolific French social and political philosopher and polemicist who is one of the leading lights of the French New Right. Faye’s reputation as a visionary and iconoclast created a global interest in his writings long before they became available in translation. Thus, for the past decade, Michael O’Meara has earned the gratitude of many by serving as the principal interpreter of Faye’s writings for the English-speaking world and far beyond, now that English is the global lingua franca.
O’Meara’s new book Guillaume Faye and the Battle of Europe collects ten essays, reviews, and introductions dealing with Faye’s principal books. The volume also includes three short translations and a newly-written Introduction: “Why Read Guillaume Faye,” which succinctly explains the strengths and weaknesses of Faye’s writings. This slender anthology of 130 pages is an ideal introduction to Faye’s work, and it can easily be read in an afternoon.
Faye, like New Rightists and White Nationalists in European societies around the globe, is motivated by a sense of danger: the reigning system — liberal, democratic, capitalist, egalitarian, globalist — has set the white race in all of its homelands on the path to extinction through declining birthrates and race replacement through immigration and miscegenation. If we are to survive, we must understand this system, critique it, and frame an alternative that will secure the survival and flourishing of our race. Then we need to figure out how we can actually implement these ideas.
I like Faye’s approach for a number of reasons.
First, he thinks big. He wants to take all of Europe back for Europeans. Furthermore, to secure the existence of Europe against the other races and power blocs, he envisions the creation of a vast “Eurosiberian” Imperium, stretching from Iceland to the Pacific, with a federated system of government and an autarkic economy. Only such an imperium will be equal to the challenges posed by the other races in a world of burgeoning populations and shrinking resources.
Second, he thinks racially. His answer to the question “Who are we?” is ultimately racial, not cultural, religious, or subracial: white people are a vast, extended family descending from the original inhabitants of Europe after the last Ice Age. There are, of course, cultural and subracial identities that are also worth preserving within a federated imperium, but not at the expense of the greater racial whole.
Third, he is not an a luddite, primitivist, or Hobbit. He values our heritage, but he is attracted less to external social and cultural forms than to the vital drives that created them and express themselves in them. He also wishes to do justice to European man’s Faustian drive toward exploration, adventure, science, and technology. His “archeofuturism” seeks to fuse vital, archaic, biologically-based values with modern science and technology.
Fourth, Faye turns the idea of collapse into something more than a deus ex machina, a kind of Rapture for racists. We know a priori that an unsustainable system cannot be sustained forever and that some sort of collapse is inevitable. But Faye provides a detailed and systematic and crushingly convincing analysis of how the present system may well expire from a convergence of catastrophes. Of course, we need to be ready when the collapse comes. We need a clear metapolitical framework and an organized, racially conscious community to step into the breach, or when the present system collapses, it will simply be replaced with a rebranded form of the same ethnocidal regime.
Fifth, Faye is a strong critic of Christianity as the primary fount of the moral universalism, egalitarianism, and individualism that are at the root of our decline.
O’Meara’s principal criticisms of Faye are fourfold.
First, O’Meara thinks that Faye is a bit too Faustian and futurist, specifically his interest in transhumanism, genetic engineering, and eugenics, which no longer take man’s nature as a fixed reality and standard, strikes O’Meara as nihilistic. (This is the argument of C. S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man, for instance.) O’Meara also thinks Faye is too empiricistic in his approach to knowledge and too ready to dismiss traditional notions of the sacred. These are, of course, rather broad objections, too broad to be really satisfying, and I wish O’Meara would put his specific metaphysical and moral cards on the table. Is he a Christian, a dualist, a Traditionalist, a Platonist, or something else?
Second, O’Meara thinks that Faye focuses too narrowly on Islam as the enemy of Europe, thus downplaying the roles of globalist, liberal, American, and Jewish forces in opening Europe to Islamic colonization. O’Meara’s objections here are dead on.
Third, because Faye thinks that Islam is the principal enemy, he has embraced Israel and global Jewry as an ally, which has had a devastating effect on his credibility in nationalist circles. He has also become softer on America, which is the citadel of globalism, capitalism, liberalism, and Jewish power. I completely agree with O’Meara on this point as well.
Fourth, O’Meara has reservations about Faye’s critique of Christianity, going so far as to claim that Christianity “created and civilized Europe” (as if Greece and Rome were not civilized) and “conserved much of the Greco-Roman tradition” (i.e., what it did not see fit to destroy outright or allow to perish through neglect).
I was recently rooting for a black pope so I would never again have to suffer Catholic apologists quoting Belloc’s preposterous claim that “Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe.” Christianity is a universalistic religion, not an ethnic religion. It was never confined solely to Europe. Most of its followers today are non-whites, and it is growing primarily in non-white countries.
Furthermore, European man existed before Christianity, and we will continue to exist even if Christianity becomes as dead as Mithraism. But if our race outlives Christianity, it will be no thanks to Christianity itself, which now is overwhelmingly and actively hostile to our race’s survival. Christianity is in desperate need of a racial Reformation.
So when racially-conscious Christians seek to muddle anti-Christian discourse on the Right by waxing nostalgic about that olde tyme religion, or to promote self-censorship by arguing, in effect, that Christians would rather see our race perish than tolerate criticism, my response is twofold: (1) The existing churches, which are objectively anti-white, will not cease being anti-white unless they feel that their survival is threatened by sustained criticism from people like Faye and plenty more like him. Thus anti-Christian New Rightists are de facto allies of Christian New Rightists, provided that they really want to reform their churches. (2) Racially conscious Christians need to focus their energy on combating anti-white attitudes in their churches rather than anti-Christian attitudes among whites.
Pagans and neo-pagans do not lack a sense of the sacred. Nor do they lack an appreciation of Christianity’s contributions to white culture. One does not need to be a Christian to treasure Bach’s Saint Matthew Passion any more than one has to believe in Zeus to treasure Aeschylus and Sophocles. They are supreme expressions of our race’s genius, regardless of their associations with dead or dying religions. And Faye himself has said that he will fight the transformation of Europe’s cathedrals into mosques — even as the bishops are trying to hand over the keys. And aside from a few church-burning teenage hooligans, I think that most neo-pagans would do the same.
These quibbles aside, I highly recommend Guillaume Faye and the Battle of Europe. Long after Arktos has published translations of all of Faye’s books, prospective readers will be turning to O’Meara for an preliminary overview and orientation before plunging in. Every library should have this book.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 527 Machiavellianism & More
Buddha a Führer: Mladý Emil Cioran o Německu
The Machiavellian Method
Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema
A “Novel” Approach to the Understanding of Evil
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 526 Cyan Quinn Reports from CPAC & More
John Fante’s Ask the Dust
The British Brass Band
‘O’Meara is critical of Faye’s critique of Christianity, going so far as to claim that Christianity “created and civilized Europe” (as if Greece and Rome were not civilized) and “conserved much of the Greco-Roman tradition” (i.e., what it did not see fit to destroy outright or allow to perish through neglect).’
If Christianity “created and civilized” Europe, why would it be a good thing that it also “conserved much of the Greco-Roman tradition”? What would be worth preserving in all that barbarity of non-civilized non-Europe? Those sound like contradictory notions.
‘I was recently rooting for a black pope so I would never again have to suffer Catholic apologists quoting Belloc’s preposterous claim that “Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe.” ‘
And aside from a few church-burning teenage hooligans, I think that most neo-pagans would do the same [fight the transformation of Europe’s cathedrals into mosques].
Anybody know if Varg has repented of the burning of some very old churches in Norway?
I don’t think so Stronza. Why should he? He is not a Christian. He paid his dues. He spent 16 years in jail.
I don’t think he would do it again. His reason was that they were built upon Pagan Sacred sites. Not that I approve of what he did, but I certainly know the anger. He does discuss some of this on his new site, posted below.
Every pro-White movement currently or in the past has been officially pro-Christian whatever Hitler or Himmler might have said over afternoon tea about Christianity, in public they were pro-Christian they held that position because they were serious men trying to lead their people to a better future and not alienate them because of some unresolved childhood issues regarding past religious upbringing. I am a born again Christian that can work with non-believing White Nationalists as long as they adopt the proper attitude regarding their White brothers who are Christians to see what I mean by right attitude:
I’ll let you dictate the terms on which you wish to associate with non-Christian whites when you show me some evidence that you have laid down similar conditions on how you wish to be treated as a white man by your born-again minister.
I would argue that the proper attitude of Christians and Pagans towards each other is mutual respect and tolerance, especially in our present-day situation. It should also be expected that critiques of the other religious group will come from each side, which are simply going to have to be allowed to occur as long they do not lead to significant hostilities. On the other hand, the two groups do not have to estrange themselves from each other entirely, since a Christian could accept that a Pagan’s viewpoint is simply an alternative understanding of the Sacred – which is the transcendant force(s) which all genuine religions are guided by – just as a Pagan could accept the same of Christianity. This would be easier to accomplish for a Pagan because it is a natural tendency in Paganism, but this view has also been taken up by a number of Christians as well (Mircea Eliade being a notable example). It is probably the only true basis for reconciliation today.
“I was recently rooting for a black pope so I would never again have to suffer Catholic apologists quoting Belloc’s preposterous claim that “Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe.”
Are you sure?
I love this guy’s name, in any case.
We know a priori that an unsustainable system cannot be sustained forever and that some sort of collapse is inevitable.
With respect, no, I’m afraid we don’t know that a “collapse” is inevitable. Plenty of unsustainable systems morph into something else without “collapse”-style consequences (e.g. the “collapse” of the USSR).
I will be happy to take a look at Faye’s collapse scenario, but I have to say C-C needs the imagination and rigor to be willing to consider other possible “non-collapsing” futures and discuss strategies for them too.
Putting scare quotes around the “collapse” of the USSR doesn’t make it any less of a collapse. Whatever you want to call it, I fully expect a USSR-type event in the West before mid-century.
Perhaps you can supply the “imagination and rigor” we need to consider other alternatives. And do you realize what a dick you sound like?
Vick may simply have reservations about the terminology used.
Human history has never seen, in its entire timespan, the kind of apocalyptic, brutal, Mel Gibson-style collapsa that some low-brow “doomers” (mostly found on WN or Christian fundamentalist forums) promise to us. Therefore, by analogy, it is highly unlikely that such things will happen in the future.
States, countries and civilizations do not abruptly collapse. Rather, there are always five steps, each of which lasts for decades and even centuries; a metaphysical collapse, a cultural collapse, an economic collapse, a military collapse, and finally a political collapse. None of this step can happen without the preceding having already happened in order. It is therefore better to talk of civilization decay rather than civilization collapse.
Those who announce to us a coming collapse are naive and over-optimistic. The United States of America as a Nation, as a political system and as a symbolic will still exist far away in the future. Diminished, but will still exist.
The thing that matters is that it will no longer be the first superpower in this planet quite quickly.
I would agree with Greg Johnson that some sort of political or structural change will occur in our lifetime (especially since changes have a tendency to occur more rapidly in modern societies than in older civilizations). The current system in America and in other “Western” nations does appear to be somewhat comparable to the Soviet Union in that it will internally decay (a process which seems to be already occurring) and this will then lead to a kind of collapse or change of some sort, which does not necessarily have to be as dramatic as some imagine it (although we cannot really be sure of what its nature will be). Tomislav Sunic has also made this comparison between modern “Liberalism” and Communism; both are totalitarian systems (the former “soft” and the latter “hard”) and as such tend to increasingly cause dissatisfaction and disillusion over time.
However, I think Vick has an important point since we always have to take into account various possibilities. I have often thought about the very real possibility that the current system will not collapse or change at any recent time, that things will go on largely as they are at the moment. In such a situation, one of the few things we can do is continue our metapolitical fight; to increasingly improve our intellectual base and increasingly educate people, both our own and outsiders. This would consolidate our worldview among an increasing number of people and thus, even though the process is apparently slow, “artificially” increase chances of system change in the near future.
Alex Kurtagic is associated with the New Right and has addressed collapse scenarios.
Speaking of collapses, I suppose that’s a possibility in a form of Tom Chitum’s Civil War 2, i.e., breakup of USA along racial lines.
Preposterous? Who would argue otherwise? However, one must not be guilty of an anachronism, and one must understand, as best as one can, the milieu of the writer. One must try to understand these men as they understood themselves. Hilaire Belloc does not deserve casual dismissal, if that is indeed what is being offered (which I’m not sure is–it is hard to tell from the context). In any case, the understanding of the world at the turn of the last century was quite different from our understanding of that world, today.
Perhaps an excerpt of Europe and the Faith may be permitted, and then one can understand the depths of loss felt by the rejection of an organic process for something new, something quite artificial to traditional minds:
“These processes filling the last three hundred years have been as follows: (1) A rapid extension of physical science and with it of every other form of acquaintance with demonstrable and measurable things. (2) The rise, chiefly in the new Protestant part of Europe (but spreading thence in part to the Catholic) of what we call today “Capitalism,” that is, the possession of the means of production by the few, and their exploitation of the many. (3) The corruption of the principle of authority until it was confused with mere force. (4) The general, though not universal, growth of total wealth with the growth of physical knowledge. (5) The ever widening effect of skepticism, which, whether masked under traditional forms or no, was from the beginning a spirit of complete negation and led at last to the questioning not only of any human institutions, but of the very forms of thought and of the mathematical truths. (6) With all these of course we have had a universal mark–the progressive extension of despair.”
And let us not forget what sentence directly preceded “The faith is Europe…” That was the most important, and perhaps the most prescient insight of Belloc’s essay.
Sure, there are all sorts of problems with modernity, but none of that justifies the preposterous assertion that Europe is identical to Christendom.
I don’t think that it was preposterous at the time that Belloc put it forward. Further, Catholic universality needn’t be seen exclusively as a source of anti-European subversion, though it has undoubtedly become that today.
I’m not pleading. I speak as someone who, if I could, would cast as many Christians to the lions as I could get my hands on.
The universalism Belloc wrote about flowed from the Latin Roman empire, where a citizen, in spite of his origin, was integrally associated with Rome. The subsequent hegemony of the Catholic church served a similar purpose, but on both a secular and a spiritual level, the latter missing under the Caesars (where spirituality was often expressed locally, apart from any official religion).
Finally, as I read him, his major theme was that Europe could rightly be considered whole under the auspices of the Church, and once the church no longer held sway in both civil and spiritual matters, at least beginning from the time of St. Thomas of Canterbury, the end of Europe as an integral organic species was immanent.
How about the white race is Europe and Europe is the white race?
“Race” alone is not enough, it is just raw material. I am unable to worship the White race as such only though I certainly identify with it and will always remain partial; but what really matters to me, is what a race is doing, thinking, creating. I think Christianity’s part of creating what we call today Europe (and I am not thinking of today’s Europe, but Europe – and Christianity – before the decline) can hardly be underestimated. 80% of our art history alone is informed by it, and I am unable to admire all this on merely formal terms, as if there was no soul and no idea about God and Man, about history and nature in these works of art. These images were talking to us for centuries. The old formula, that Europe was founded on the pillars of Athens, Rome and Golgatha seems undeniable to me. So, for my part, I am quite pleased about Mr. O’Meara’s stance.
80% of our art history is informed by Christianity for two reasons:
1. Christianity destroyed much of the artistic legacy of the ancient world either through outright destruction or simple neglect.
2. Chistianity exercised a quasi-totalitarian control over society such that most white creativity had to be channeled through the church.
Just how much gratitude do you think that merits?
“How about the white race is Europe and Europe is the white race?”
Now you’re talkin’.
Petronius, I agree that (biological) race alone cannot be the sole factor in what constitutes Europe. What is European is an amalgamation of biological form or race, a particular general psychological style, related cultural traditions and creations, and a number of other, spiritual factors. However, I should point out that it is simply untrue and also unfair to limit what constitutes Europe to simply Greece, Rome, and Christianity. While these three forces had a significant role, the unique cultural traditions of the various ethnicities and communities across Europe which are neither Greek, Roman, or specifically Christian need to be taken into account. The fact is that our Pagan ancestors were just as European as we are today, and in many cases, especially in Northern Europe, Christians consciously inherited cultural products of Pagans (both those related to religion and those unrelated), some of which are still present today in some form or another. When people refer to Christianity’s influence on Europe, they are thinking not only of its religious values and beliefs but also of the Greco-Roman ideas and customs that it carried. However immensely important this has been in influencing European culture, all reasonable people must recognize that it was never the very thing that “created” what we call Europe in the fullest sense of the term; and O’Meara would agree with that as well.
I respect Belloc, but when you write off Greece and Rome in such broad strokes your credibility has to take a hit.
As usual a great essay followed by some interesting comments. In the interests of White solidarity my two cents worth is that I once had the chance to be a priest in a traditional Episcopalian Church and grabbed it with both hands. I thought that if these people wanted to be traditional it would be a breeze to nudge them into a recognition of racial differences. Was I wrong. After seven years I decided enough was enough and retired to the pews of a regular Anglican church and to my dying day will be jealous of the adoration shown a Chinese pagan who openly admitted that he attended church only to learn English.
I still believe in God and any Identity/historicist out there will know why but sad to say Christianity is THE problem of the day and until we Christians can articulate the issue (and perhaps even after)Greg says it best with: So when racially-conscious Christians seek to muddle anti-Christian discourse on the Right by waxing nostalgic about that olde tyme religion, or to promote self-censorship by arguing, in effect, that Christians would rather see our race perish than tolerate criticism, my response is twofold: (1) The existing churches, which are objectively anti-white, will not cease being anti-white unless they feel that their survival is threatened by sustained criticism from people like Faye and plenty more like him. Thus anti-Christian New Rightists are de facto allies of Christian New Rightists, provided that they really want to reform their churches. (2) Racially conscious Christians need to focus their energy on combating anti-white attitudes in their churches rather than anti-Christian attitudes among whites.
A most interesting story, Sandy. Basically, I am a religiously tolerant person, but the impaired White church mindset that you describe is emblematic of the depths of the self-destructive, supernatural delusions held by those living in that segment of the White fantasy world. Walking White paradoxes are everywhere to be seen in our warped society, but especially amongst the so-called religious faithful.
Brilliant talkers who are willing to subordinate white interests to Jewish interests aren’t rare.
I’m willing to listen to what Michael O’Meara has to say, but by default a book on the political thought of Guillaume Faye has the same appeal to me as a book on the political thought of the Norwegian Defence League.
Faye is not thinking that he is subordinating white interests to Jewish interests. He thinks there is a genuine harmony of interests. He is naive about that, but I don’t think he is evil. Groups like the EDL and NDL, or the Counter-Jihad movement, are another thing entirely. They are controlled opposition fronts which are all about keeping white interests subordinate to Jewish interests.
A few days ago I was part of a small demonstration against illegal asylum seekers, including sex predators. At this sort of gathering, the more talkative people want to vent. (Since they rarely get to address their concerns in their private life, and at work is right out.) They will hammer their opinions into the ears of their fellow demonstrators for hours, and the best thing to do is let them.
My heart sank when a particularly motor-mouthed and dogmatic lady got onto the topic (which she did not soon leave) of a brilliant, brilliant Jewish speaker she’d listened to recently, who had enlightened her that the problem was not mass immigration after all, but only Islam. She thought we needed more people like that, and they needed to be in charge everywhere, speaking to us and for us. And any “questioning” looks merely made her talk louder and faster.
I accept that she thinks sincerely that the interests of her brilliant Jewish speaker and us white peons are identical, and that it makes perfect sense to her that our interests will be better served when people like him are always and everywhere in charge of us and setting our agenda.
I don’t need an introduction to her political thought.
Although I personally don’t think Faye’s work is as valuable as that of other “New Right” thinkers, my impression is that his stance towards the Jews is not as unreasonable as some people make it out to be. Some people too easily assume that as soon as someone considers some sort of alliance with Israelis or conservative Jews, that this person is automatically subordinating the interests of his own people to the interests of the Jews. On the contrary, an alliance does not mean surrenderning one’s interests but rather merely working together to some extent. Faye would probably leave the Jews behind as soon as he saw that it is no longer in European interests to have an alliance with them. And frankly, even I would advocate forming an alliance with right-wing Jews if I saw that they are seriously willing to work with us and that we could gain an advantage from it. Jews are not necessarily ideologically homogeneous, and there is a possibility that in the near future some right-wing Jews would want to work with us. That being said, in such a situation we should naturally keep ourselves detached and be sure that we actually gain worthwhile benefits from such an alliance.
I have laid out my views on White Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism is a couple of places:
Consider this from the latter:
If I think that counter-jihadist provocations like Innocence of Muslims can serve white interests, does that mean that I would consider alliances with Jews, as such European Nationalists as Nick Griffin, Guillaume Faye, Geert Wilders, and others have done? Absolutely not, for the following reasons.
1. Jews are our enemies too. Moreover, Jews may be a less visible enemy than Muslims, but they are a more fundamental enemy. The Jewish role in opening white countries to non-white immigration is substantial, although of course it varies from country to country. What does not vary, however, is the fact that the organized Jewish community is the primary opponent of any form of European nationalism, including attempts to halt and reverse non-white immigration. There is no way out but through the Jews. Thus it is superficial to focus on Muslims and ignore Jews. It focuses on the symptoms, not the cause. It focuses on the symptoms, but ignores the primary impediments to actually curing the disease.
2. The very idea of a good faith alliance between White Nationalists and Jews is absurd on the face of it. First of all, nobody makes an alliance with the powerless, and White Nationalists have no political power. Second, Jews are the most powerful nation in the world. If they really wanted to change the immigration policies of European countries, it would happen virtually overnight. They would not need the assistance of marginal White Nationalist groups to do it, either. Instead, immigration reform would immediately become a mainstream issue endorsed by all parties.
If White Nationalists are pretty much politically powerless, then why do some Jews make overtures to White Nationalists? What is in it for them? I think that they have two aims here.
First, although White Nationalists have no political power, we do have one asset that the mainstream political parties lack: the truth about race and the Jewish question. Nationalists who form alliances with Jews, however, are compelled to cease speaking the truth about the Jewish question and instead work to obscure or excuse the Jewish role in white dispossession. This silence or collusion advances the Jewish agenda and impedes white liberation.
Second, the Jews have attained hegemony over white societies by infiltrating, subverting, and transforming the whole political spectrum into defenders of Jewish interests. Thus, in terms of vital Jewish interests, it really does not matter which party attains power. It is sheer folly to think that Jews will not seek to do the same thing to all forms of European and White Nationalism. Since there is no sure way to tell a sincere Jewish sympathizer or ally from a mere agent of subversion, we simply must exclude all Jews and go it alone.
Thus it simply does not matter if a Jewish counter-jihadist or would-be White Nationalist protests that he is genuinely concerned to promote white interests, because that’s what any infiltrator would say. And we need not fear hurting the feelings of any sincere Jewish well-wishers. They will understand our mistrust and refusal to work with them, since they know their people better than any of us could.
What line should White Nationalists take regarding Jews and Muslims?
1. Neither group has any place in our societies. Thus our aim is the most complete separation possible from Jews and Muslims.
2. However, we need to deal forthrightly with the sticky question of how these groups are defined. Islam is a religion, thus anybody who thinks of himself as a Muslim is a Muslim, including white converts. White Muslims, however, have to be seen as vectors of Islamization and thus excluded. By the same token, though, we should have no problem with genetically white Muslim apostates.
3. With Muslims, the essential issue here strikes me as one of consciousness, rather than ancestry. There are groups that we recognize as European that have some Near Eastern admixture. We should have no more problem, then, with non-Muslims with some Near Eastern Muslim ancestry as we have with any other whites with some Near Eastern ancestry.
4. The issue is different with Jews, because they are not a religion but a nation. This nation has an ethnic genetic core as well as a national consciousness that takes both religious and non-religious forms. This national consciousness has extended beyond the Jewish ethnic-genetic core to assimilate other groups into the Jewish collective. Thus genetic non-Jews can become functional Jews, e.g., by converting to Judaism or becoming Christian Zionists, Marxists, neocons, Straussians, Libertarians, Objectivists, etc.
5. But if non-Jews can become Jews, can Jews become non-Jews? Since Jewish identity is not merely a matter of religion, Jewish apostasy cannot be simply a matter of changing religions. Lawrence Auster, for instance, is a convert to Christianity, but his primary loyalty is still to the Jewish nation. One can, however, renounce one’s nationality. Pamela Geller, for instance, could get splashed with some holy water and then solemnly swear that she has renounced her “citizenship” in the Jewish nation. But we’d be fools to believe her. So whites should never accept such Jewish apostates as “us,” even if they might be genetically no more Near Eastern than your average Greek.
6. There is, however, a form of Jewish apostasy that whites should recognize: In the past, Jews have married out of the Jewish religion and national community and into the white race. Thus there are whites today who have some Jewish ancestry but no Jewish ethnic or religious consciousness. Genetically, they may be no more Near Eastern than many Greeks or Italians. A white ethnostate might wish to know who these people are and keep an eye on them, but unless they choose to identify as otherwise, it seems reasonable to consider them whites, not Jews.
7. Recognizing that some whites might have some non-European ancestry is not, of course, an argument against rigorously preventing any more such hybridization. As a general rule, I think we should be less focused on the race that we have been and more focused on the race we wish to become. If it really bothers us, someday we will be in the position to edit out alien genetic code. But we will never reach that day unless we halt miscegenation in the here and now, the sooner the better.
8. It is possible that white nations might have amicable relations with Jewish and Muslim communities. It is possible for whites to feel sympathy for the suffering of Muslims and Jews (indeed, all too much). It is possible that Jewish and Muslim interests might overlap with white interests from time to time, in delimited ways. Such commonalities of interests can be the basis of limited, mutually beneficial political alliances.
9. But not today. Not in this world. There should be no talk of amicable relations, sympathy, or political alliances with Jews or Muslims as long as they are occupying our nations, oppressing our people, and threatening our long-term biological and cultural survival.
10. First, we must attain separation. Only then we can talk about good relations. If, however, out of excessive idealism or pragmatism we entangle ourselves with our enemies, we will never be able to separate ourselves. Thus White Nationalists should do everything in our power to encourage polarization between whites on the one hand and Muslims and Jews on the other.
The alliance of hens and foxes ends only one way.
Also, step one of this brilliant plan for an alliance is: defame and repudiate whites who warn of the danger. FAIL!
And no, he can’t have a super-intellectual idea that fixes this later.
If phase one of your plan is like the Republican alliance with the “neocon” Jews, phase two does not matter. Before your new allies are finished with their phase one, your suspicious friends will be purged and “your” organization will be a shell hostile to your interests, and phase two of your master plan is waste paper, because other people with different interests, sentiments and abilities will be implementing their master plans instead. What was once your organization is now in essentials a Jewish organization, and your old thinking doesn’t apply to it.
If you have a master plan for the interaction of the races in South Africa, which you call “apartheid”, and phase one involves letting in many millions of blacks to do all your work and letting them swell their numbers tremendously with access to “first world” medicine and so on, phase two of your plan for your country does not matter, because it will no longer your country. And are more civilized races thriving under black rule anywhere in Africa? No. Game over.
You cannot have brilliant plans for how “we” are supposed to act, when a likely outcome of your first moves is that who “we” are and how “we” think and act will undergo a modification that makes the rest of your so-deep thoughts moot.
You cannot have brilliant plans that ignore the ways that different groups of people with different natures typically interact, because then your plans wouldn’t be brilliant they’d be stupid, and you would be a shill, knowingly or not.
It is particularly stupid – or dishonest – when you ignore that your own actions are part of a typical pattern of interactions that ought to call your plan into doubt. Let’s see: whites defaming whites skeptical of Jewish goodwill in a possible alliance – how often does that happen? It’s like a ritual. And how often do the Jews purge those of their own tribe who are skeptical of white gentile goodwill? It doesn’t happen. And how does this game end? Badly. If you want an alliance of whites and Jews to create a vast quasi-empire (and then worry about “purity” after Leviathan is built) we’ve already go that, and it is genociding whites across the world, through mass immigration and forced integration. (Plus cultural corruption and economic exploitation.)
People of ordinary intelligence can often figure out that dealing with someone who is much smarter than them and dislikes them will be dangerous. The reasoning goes: “even if I can’t see how this could hurt me, he probably can, and he doesn’t like me. No, I shouldn’t take out this loan. I don’t need the money that badly. No, I’m not going to sign this paper.”
But Guillaume Faye is brilliant. He fears neither the millennia-long record of how Jews and white non-Jews typically interact (hey, it’s just antisemitic lies anyway, right?) nor some silly inconsequential footnote in the contract of the loan, mentioning “interest compounding daily”.
I have more time for an EDL guy who’s gone to prison for his cause than I do for brilliant, fearless intellectuals like Guillaume Faye.
Since most of the comments here seem to be directed at me (rather than Faye), I should clarify some things concerning my comment because it seems that some assumptions were made about it which I think are a bit unjust. Firstly, I did not imply that we should accept Jews into our society; even if a group of Jews were to seek an alliance with us, they would have to be aware that we desire mutual territorial separation. Secondly, I was not thinking of elite Jews who basically support the existing systems we live under and would never have any interest in working with us in any case; it would be insane to think that the same Jews who support the current system would want to work with us any more than Gentile “liberals” who do the same.
What I meant was that it is conceivable that an organization of right-wing Jews would be interested in an alliance at some point in the future. Again, here I was not at all thinking of Jews who currently have strong political influence and who would hardly have any interest in being friendly with us (after all, the majority of Jews do not have much power in the first place; it is rather an elite minority which does). Finally, making an alliance does not mean that all suspicions drop; on the contrary, every intelligent leader should be aware that an uncertain ally could change positions or take an undesirable action (esepcially when this ally is racially and culturally foreign). Concerning the rest of what Daybreaker said: once again, making an alliance does not mean surrendering one’s interests to that ally, but simply working together to some extent (“some” necessarily means “limited” when it has to). As soon as one stops benefiting from the alliance, it would be broken, and I think Faye would say the same.
The main drawback to the anti christian polemic within the new right is that it effectively gives the field over entirely to the opposition, which has redefined Christianity as a anti national religion that supports pharisaic Judaism. If one understands the first thing about the new testament and church history this appears as an absurd lie. Unfortunately this falsehood is being perpetuated on our own side. Christianity is ours, not theirs; why would we just give it over to the opposition to define?
It should be borne in mind that two of our major popularizers of paganism Tolkien and Wagner considered themselves Christians. At this point in time there is no reason for an either/or position on this question. Neither christianity or paganism is coming back so why not appropriate what we like from our entire cultural heritage?
Where are the WN Christians in your little scenario? Apparently they have no agency whatsoever. The Left has conquered the churches, and New Right pagans argue that this is no accident on tiny websites and in the pages of low-circulation books and magazines. But where are the pro-White Christians?
Oh, wait, they are here, trying to shut down anti-Christian discourse on the Right. Because that is what you are saying: shut up; stop agreeing with the Left that Christianity is a universalistic, egalitarian, individualistic religion. Which it is.
Again, I have to ask: show me evidence that you are actively combatting anti-white hate in the churches and I will take you seriously as a white advocate rather than merely a christian apologist.
As for the either/or: that comes from the Bible. Yahweh is the only god, and all the others are false. Christianity actively wiped out paganism. Those Christians who incorporated elements of paganism killed it before they ate it.
I regard Christianity as part of my cultural heritage too. But I don’t regard it as true. I try to focus on the things the Christians created, rather than the things they destoyed. And I look at Christian art as merely the ideological channel through which white genius was forced for a long time to flow.
But Petronius’ comments above shouldn’t be taken lightly. He is so right. Except I would say that in addition to Europe being founded on the “pillars of Athens, Rome and Golgotha”, our Germanic past is very much a part and parcel of that formula, too.
Geeze, people, you don’t have to believe that somebody called Jesus Christ pushed a giant rock away from his cave and emerged alive & well on Eastern morning after being crucified 2 days earlier. 2000 years of Christianity, no matter what sect or how rotten it is, was not some little forgettable side-trip in our history. My mum thought it was all baloney but made us go to church anyway. The liberals in my family are that way because they have “issues” not because they went to catechism.
Stronza: The liberals in my family are that way because they have “issues” not because they went to catechism.
They will acquire objectively anti-white attitudes from catechism whether they have “issues” or not.
The good of whites displaced or forced over generations to “integrate” out of existence are a total non-factor in Catholic thinking. White collective interests in our continuing survival do not exist. It is all broadly consistent with white genocide through mass non-white immigration and forced integration in all and only white countries.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
Catholic Social Teaching
The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.” Catholic Catechism, 2241.
The second duty is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good. Sovereign nations have the right to enforce their laws and all persons must respect the legitimate exercise of this right: “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” Catholic Catechism, 2241.
In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on migration entitled, “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope.” In their letter, the Bishops stressed that, “[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.” No. 35. The Bishops made clear that the “[m]ore powerful economic nations…ave a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows.” No. 36.
I have nothing to add or subtract – just a hearty Amen. You just gave a Magisterial Summation of the Jewish Problem in as few words as possible. Amazing how many WN’s cling on to the status quo and want to change things as little as possible, speaking of alliances with those who want to end us as long as they agree to change. Whole lotta crazy. Let’s take a leaf from the most successful Nationalists of our Age: the Jews themselves. Their famous paper is entitled, “Securing the Realm, a Clean Break”.
where are the pro-White Christians? That is a really good question Greg and I would suggest going straight to the horse’s mouth.
Richard Kelly Hoskins retired recently but at the age of 83 is still getting literature into the prisons and raising money to support an orphanage in South Africa. His newsletter is in its 38th year although it is no longer monthly. Perhaps you or Robert Stark could interview him. He can be reached at Ph:434.384.3261
email: [email protected].
I have no intention of fighting anti white racism within the churches because 1) This is a lost cause and pointless anyway because the church has collapsed and is not coming back (as I mentioned above). 2)I am not really a christian although there is a lot that I find admirable in that religion in it’s classical form; (I love the middle ages.) My parents are atheists and I never went to church. When I have gone to look I have found it unbearably creepy and cloying: (ergo it would be too painful for me to go in there and try to reform them.) Therefore all I know about Christianity comes only from history books.
However when one looks at the cathedrals of Europe it appears that they were built by a completely different religion, one that has little to do with the church of today. Instead of being ugly, they are beautiful.
I am fully aware that the either or came from the bible itself and this of course makes little sense given the intellectual climate and state of knowledge today. Anyone informed about religion and it’s origins will have a lot of difficulty believing in this today. I think two things have to be borne in mind though; Europe embraced this religion at one time with an incredible enthusiasm, the either or inherent in this religion provided a lot of unity on this continent and Christendom was once almost synonymous with ‘the white world’, and Europe had a really great run of 1500+ years under this religion. During this time there was a great deal of nationalism etc… and no one ever imagined any of the bizzare leftist interpretations that are now put on this religion.(Similarly, the Arab world became much more powerful after it adopted monotheism) Finally, the repeated sayings of Jesus kept the depradations of Pharisaic Judaism at bay for a long time.
Which brings me again to the point I was trying to make in my post above. Christianity is something that can be used attack the left if it is understood in it’s classical sense. The NT is full of all the traditional virtues of loyalty honour and sacrifice. Is it perfect? far from it, but it looks a lot different than when it is read through the sallow interpretations of the subversives which have captured the churches.
Daybreaker gives us some alarming quotations from wolf in sheep’s clothing bishops of today. If I had time I would quote encyclicals from less than eighty years ago that would completely contradict this attitude. Remember that General Franco was totally supported by the church in the pre vatican 2 era. Corneliu Codreanu is another example of a great nationalist Christian. So the choice we have is between siding with the left and condemning these leaders as false Christians, and siding with them and admitting that theirs was probably a more true expression of that religion. This does not at all entail becoming Christians ourselves.
One final observation; most people who go by the name pagan are the flakyest pinkos I have ever met. This does not reflect at all on paganism. What I would advocate for is the authentic expression of both paganism and christianity (not to mention hinduism, buddhism etc… which were apparently started by bona fide aryans) as strengthening elements within our discourse and cultural creativity. I could not give a better example of this than the work of Richard Wagner.
I sincerely hope that you would consider me a comrade rather than just a christian apologist.
Daybreaker, I like your comments that begin with the reference to “alliance of hens and foxes”.
Now on the other topic, I went to catechism too along with my brothers and sisters. What’s your version of why I “turned out” different? Maybe Ma saw a snake during gestation, as they say in the old cowboy films, because I don’t buy the nurture-is-everything business.
Anyway, thank you for the information on the church’s immigration policy. One could argue that it’s all irrelevant, that the Catholics who gobble up that swill do so because of pre-existing genetic/biological “issues” (i.e., they are weaklings, susceptible to following the degenerate herd around them) and will just as quickly ignore the Church’s teachings on other things such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc. As they do, in large numbers.
Stronza: Daybreaker, I like your comments that begin with the reference to “alliance of hens and foxes”.”
Stronza: “What’s your version of why I “turned out” different?”
I don’t know.
Speaking of Guillaume Faye and the jews, didn’t he describe the jews as “eskimos” when he answered David Duke’s jewish question at Jared Taylor’s AmRen conference back in 2006?
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Edit your comment