1,110 words
Translated by Greg Johnson
Spanish translation here
Genocide has been practiced since ancient times. In the recent past, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, Rwanda, and Cambodia under Pol Pot (auto-genocide) come to mind. Genocide can take two forms: eliminating a targeted population directly or making it disappear indirectly by other sorts of criminal actions. Indirect genocide has been committed many times in history. The current “migrant crisis” is part of such a project: the demographic swamping of European peoples.
Soft Genocide: Voluntary and Nihilistic
European nations are victims of a surreptitious attempt at genocide, demographic and cultural elimination, driven by their own ethnomasochist and xenophile elites. A first in history. The French and Belgian authorities are the most involved in this enterprise of soft genocide. This is both physical and cultural.
Decked out in anti-racist ideology, it nevertheless pursues a racial and racist aim: the gradual elimination of Europe’s — and especially France’s — indigenous populations. It eliminates them in five ways: (1) by promoting the migration of non-European settlers; (2) discouraging indigenous birthrates and penalizing middle-class families; (3) causing the exile of young indigenous forces by punitive taxation measures; (4) socially, economically, legally, and culturally privileging non-European populations over the natives; and (5) penalizing and punishing any opposition to the overall immigrationist project and its ideology.
Some on the Right reiterate that the “system,” the power, the state, the EU authorities, are powerless to stop massive and uncontrolled immigration. Powerless? They are very powerful and rather effective in achieving their goal: the ethnic cleansing of Europe, starting with France.
In France, the Trotskyist ideology plays a central role in this endeavor. The bourgeois and Leftist Socialist Party and its advisers, the think tank Terra Nova, are the spearheads. One of its leaders recently said that we should not worry too much about the National Front because it would decline in power for demographic reasons. This is a subtle, cynical, conscious strategy. The evil-minded voters will disappear in favor of new ones. This ethnic “great replacement” is what they want.
Terra Nova (“new earth,” new country, new people) is a very effective metapolitical lobby, which influences all spheres of power. Its electoral calculation (attract immigrants and ignore the popular and middle classes) is motivated by its animosity against “ethnic” France. This hostility comes from the Marxist-Trotskyist ideology, of which “proletarian internationalism” is the heart: to destroy national affiliations, above all those of Europeans.
That Islam is sexist, reactionary, anti-democratic, etc. is not a problem for the Trotskyite ideologues of the Socialist Party and Terra Nova, who are not the least “Republican.” Their obsessive goal is the eradication of the ethnic peoples of Europe and especially France. This Trotskyist ideology, “internationalist” from the start, is it not suicidal for even those who advocate it? Yes. But so what? They do not care. Because they are logical with themselves, they are nihilists. Their goal is to destroy what they hate — European civilization — not building a new world in which they themselves do not believe.
The Strategic Axes of Soft Genocide
The means used, particularly in France, a laboratory, are as follows. Obviously we find them at the level of the European Union. They are simultaneously ideological, economic, judicial, and police measures.
1) Encourage immigration. Allow it to happen or cynically promote every means of colonization. The “migrant” crisis is the latest demonstration. We went into high gear. After 30 years of immigration (a leak) comes a flood of millions of migrants, under the humanitarian label of “refugees.” The European authorities are not “powerless” to stop migration flows; on the contrary, they want to accentuate them. (For example the angelic folly of Mrs. Merkel.) Any expulsion is declared impossible.
2) Promote Islamization. Anything Arab-Muslim is sacred and untouchable by the authorities, despite Islamic attacks and military posturing against ISIS. Favoritism towards Islam is state policy. And, therefore, “Islamophobia” is a capital sin, an unforgivable offense.
3) Impoverish and tax the indigenous working and middle classes. Make them pay for others. All fiscal policies of the Socialist government go in this direction: welfare for even illegal immigrants (a suction pump) financed by increasing demands on the native French.
4) Conduct an anti-family and anti-natal policy. By deconstructing the system of family allowances, the government managed to reduce the birthrate of ethnic French in 2015. It was calculated. The large family of French descent is not very popular . . .
5) Practice positive discrimination. This is foreign and ethnic preference in employment in the name of “anti-racism.” Private companies and government administrations are strongly encouraged to systematically use low-skilled employees.
6) Ensure the judicial impunity of foreign offenders. This policy, inaugurated thirty years ago at least, was accentuated by Mrs. Taubira’s appointment to the Department of Justice. Her ideological orientation (otherwise schizophrenic) is perfectly clear: animosity towards anything that is labeled “French-European.”
7) Destroy cultural transmission in education. Blaming the history of France, dismantling the teaching of Greek and Latin, demolishing grammar and spelling, degrading the teaching of the French language, uprooting, promoting, and praising the cultures of immigrant populations — Islamic, African, and others. This de-Frenchization and de-Europeanization is state policy. Ms. Vallaud-Belkacem, “Socialist” Minister of National Education and pseudo-feminist, is the smiling actress, after many other ministers and unionists of the Trotskyist persuasion.
8) Suppress and punish all resistance to the dominant ideology. In the Calais jungle and surrounding areas, illegal immigrants who commit abuses go unpunished; the French who resist, demonstrate, and try to protect themselves are clubbed, jailed, and prosecuted. Repressions against the “Demonstration for All” obeyed the same logic. All that defends French identity is threatened and punished by the “French” State. The same repression is observable in the media, print, audiovisual, or internet. The courts and police are tolerant towards the invader and occupier and merciless towards resistance. You could call it the Vichy syndrome, right?
Collabos vs. Resisters
Both camps are fairly well defined. The state, media, judiciary, and law enforcement have the mission of containing and neutralizing the resistance of the indigenous people and its defenders. They would be wrong to believe they have won.
Those who sow the wind of civil war will come to reap the whirlwind. It will probably be bloody. It is neither stupidity nor idealism that motivated them. It is a conscious hatred and the desire for war; it is collaborating with the invader and betting on his victory. But they also risk losing the war they caused. The resisters have more chance of winning because they are motivated by loyalty to their roots, while the collaborators are subject to masters that they can still betray.
We will see who will win, but I think it will be just like the Army of Shadows.
Source: http://www.gfaye.com/un-projet-de-genocide-des-peuples-europeens/
10 Comments
Faye really is a mainstreamer, isn’t he. Throws in the obligatory bit of Hoax reverence, ignores Jews and blames “our own” elites, talks about Muslims as if the problem were essentially a religious, not a racial one, says nothing in solidarity with Germany and then stupidly pushes it further by aligning nationalism with the Gaullist traitors of yesteryear. Don’t get me wrong, I hope he stokes the fires of resistance in pusillanimous souls, but actually I see the equivalent of a Star of David-waving EDL member, only wearing a beret and smoking a Gaulloise.
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, but the perfect really is the enemy of the good. And the work that Faye does is quite good. He provides interesting and potentially useful ways to think about the difficult decades that lie ahead, even if he is, as appears to be the case, invincibly ignorant with regard to the Jewish Question. Faye’s prediction in Archeofuturism–first published in 1998–of a European civil war sometime in this decade certainly looks to be right on schedule, as the Sons of Odin begin to square off against the Sons of ISIS
(Your work is quite good too. I eagerly await more stories from you.)
Thanks Bob.
Of course I forgot that one has to make allowances for Europeans who have to circumvent hate speech laws. Still I hate to hear echoes of “the left are the real nazis”. It’s so gratuitous.
The most charitable thing one can say about Monsieur Faye’s analysis is that it subtly hints at the real enemy – by mentioning the Trotskyist ideology. I’d like to think that his average reader would be aware of Lev Bronstein’s ethnic background as well as the ethnic background of the ideology that he promoted.
This article names the evil (‘soft genocide’) and explains some of process, but it does very little to prove intent.
“Soft Genocide: Voluntary and Nihilistic”
Voluntary on whose part? If a blind man is fed a poison pill which he thinks is a vitamin, is he voluntarily allowing himself to be killed? I don’t think so.
“European nations are victims of a surreptitious attempt at genocide, demographic and cultural elimination, driven by their own ethnomasochist and xenophile elites.”
Jews could certainly be described as inherently schizophrenic: on the one hand obsessed with the shiksa (xenophilia), on the other hand feeling jealousy and hatred (xenophobia); on the one hand making Jewish jokes at their own expense (masochistic), on the other hand extremely ethnocentric.
Some Europeans, like Leni Riefenstahl in her later years, develop a xenophilic obsession with the “other”. Other Europeans, brainwashed in sociology classes, genuinely hate their own race. But these are exceptions. Most whites marry white and feel no racial guilt. They simply try to say the right things and avoid bad thoughts because they feel vulnerable as individuals.
I really don’t think elites like Merkel actually are xenophilic. They just love power and status. They don’t hate their own race, they’re just apathetic to it. Faye has to invent “elitist xenophilia” and “elitist ethnomasochism” as a placeholder for “elite Jewish rational self interest.”
I used to think the term genocide was a bit over the top when used to refer to what is happening to peoples of European extraction, but today I am convinced it’s accurate. It’s not as though the military is rounding us up en masse to re-locate us or kill us off all at once, rather there is instead a “dirty war” (to use David Duke’s term in his piece titled “The Darker Side of Diversity”) being waged against us since the days of de-segregation and open door immigration.
Faye has done a good job of outlining the ways this “soft” genocide is being conducted. I for one had the impression that the problems were far worse in England and Germany, but I now understand that France is in very bad shape as well. I have read that jews are leaving France in large numbers in recent months, but the White collaborators are still in place. I hope he is right that the resisters have a greater chance of winning.
I appreciate his optimism.
Our enemies are liars, thieves, and murderers. We are the righteous guardians of the truth and life. We need to embrace our identity, not as a subversive element (the language of our enemy), but as the only force that is fighting the evil that is destroying both the West and the world. We MUST internalize our moral superiority, and we must base all organizing activities on a shared system of values that includes a fierce defense of beauty, justice, truth, excellence, and the sacred mystery of life.
If you guys here on CC don’t think Holocaust revisionism is a worthy pursuit, then by all means, steer clear from it. But DON’T perpetuate the myth. You’re doing the Jew’s bidding.
I seem to remember reading an article by Greg (Greg please correct me if I am wrong) defending historical revisionism. I believe I read the article as a link from Kevin McDonald’s website.