PDA

View Full Version : Guillaume Faye: 'Pre-War: Account of an Impending Cataclysm'



Nordhammer
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 08:46 AM
Pre-War: Account of an Impending Cataclysm

Guillaume Faye - Paris: L’ Æncre, 2002 (24 Euros) 382 pp.

Reviewed by Michael O’Meara


Readers of The Occidental Quarterly are probably unfamiliar with the work of Guillaume Faye, but his ideas are increasingly those of Europe’s nationalist vanguard. An early associate of Alain de Benoist and one of the architects of the European New Right, the young Faye left politics in the late 1980s to pursue a career in media. In 1998 he returned, instantly re-establishing himself as the intellectual force on the nationalist right.

He has since published five books, each of which has had a major impact on the struggle against multiculturalism, Third World immigration, and globalization.1 (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_edn1) Unlike Benoist and other New Right theoreticians, whose defense of the European ethnos is waged almost exclusively on the cultural terrain, and unlike Le Pen's National Front, which favors the assimilation rather than the forced repatriation of non-Europeans, Faye claims that race is not only primary to cultural identity, but that race and culture are, at root, inseparable. For this reason he argues that the struggle to preserve Europe's cultural patrimony is no less a struggle to defend its genetic heritage and the ethnic integrity of its Lebensraum.2 (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_edn2)

His latest work—Avant-Guerre: Chronique d’un cataclysme annoncé (Pre-War: Account of an Impending Cataclysm)—is reminiscent of Spengler’s Hour of Decision. Like Spengler, Faye looks at the storm clouds on the horizon and predicts that within ten years a coming era of world-altering tempests will descend on the white race, determining if it is to have a future or not.

In his view, these cataclysms will be neither ideological nor economic in character, but (à la Huntington) racial and civilizational, involving clashing continental blocs and warring ethno-racial groups. They are thus likely to engender unprecedented violence and destruction, forcibly shaking white people from the stupor that is leading them toward extinction. Although presently unprepared to fight such wars and alienated from all that is distinct to their race and heritage, the struggles of the twenty-first century, he believes, will give Europeans on both sides of the Atlantic a final chance to throw off the forces that have denatured and debilitated then over the last half century.

Europe and America

Like most "nationalists" who fight in Europe’s name, Faye is extremely critical of the American government and the role it has played in repressing the worldwide forces of white solidarity. But unlike many on the anti-American right, Faye does not believe the U.S. is Europe’s principal enemy, even if its Judeo-liberal New Class has been responsible for eroding European autonomy and demonizing its culture. An enemy, he contends, does more than corrupt and intimidate, it threatens one’s biological existence. Taking his cue from Carl Schmidt, he thinks it is more accurate to characterize the U.S. as Europe’s "adversary"—an adversary that needs to be opposed if Europeans are ever to re-assert the Faustian project distinct to their ethos—but nevertheless one with whom a life-and-death struggle is not at all inevitable.

The real enemy threatening the white homelands comes, he claims, from the Third World. Accordingly, the terror attack of "9/11" suggests one form his predicted cataclysm will take. But while Islam is Europe’s principal enemy, it is not, paradoxically, America’s. Based on the work of General Gallois, Alexandre Del Valle, and a new generation of European geopoliticists, Faye argues that Islam has long served the U.S. in furthering the hegemonic ambitions of its global village, specifically in dividing Europe and weakening Russia. That its recruitment and arming of Islamic fanatics to fight in Afghanistan and Chechnya and in Bosnia and Kosovo at last boomeranged ought not to detract from the fact that for a quarter century the U.S. systematically incited Islamic insurgencies for the sake of its strategic aims.

In Faye’s view, America’s principal Third World enemy, and thus the power it will face in World War III, comes not from the Middle East (even if militant Islam continues to target it), but from a rapidly developing and technologically armed China bent on contesting its dominance in the Pacific. In this potential Sino-American conflict, Faye believes the future lies entirely on the Chinese side. Unlike the Middle Kingdom, the U.S.’s disparate mix of race and cultures has left it without a coherent heritage and thus a destining project worth dying for. This makes it not a nation in the European sense, but simply une symbiose étatico-entrepreneuriale. Because such an entity is likely to fly apart if challenged by a determined enemy, in the great cataclysms to come it will be Europe (and Russia), not the U.S., that will stand at the center of the struggle to defend the white West from a hostile non-white world.

Islam

While America’s future holds out the prospect of an interstate war with China, Faye believes Europe faces an intrastate war with the forces of an insurgent Islam—a war, to repeat, that will resemble 9/11 more than the conventional military engagement the U.S. can expect in the Pacific.

In the four decades since 1962, when Africa broached Europe’s southern frontier, the continent, especially France and Belgium, has been inundated by successive waves of Third World immigrants. The amplitude of this immigration, involving masses not individuals, is such that not a few demographers contend that it is more accurately described as "colonization." Due to disproportional birthrates, the unrelenting influx of non-white, unassimilable, and largely Muslim immigrants has already begun to "de-Europeanize" Europe. For example, virtually everywhere they have settled in France they have succeeded in "ethnically cleansing" former neighborhoods, establishing not ghettos, but conquered territories, from which future conquests are being prepared. With their seven to eight million inhabitants, these territories have become, in effect, hostile African/Middle Eastern encampments within an increasingly besieged France.3 (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_edn3)

This immigration is creating an extremely volatile situation, for Europe lacks the massive police apparatus and vast geographical expanses that have kept ethnoracial tensions ‘manageable’ in the U.S. Typically, in urban areas where neighborhoods have been lost to Islamic civilization, Europeans have come to experience not only escalating levels of violence and insecurity, but the loss of their laws and institutions. There are now more than 1400 zones de non-droit in France (including eleven towns), and in nearly a hundred of these, republican jurisdiction has been supplanted by the shari`a (Islamic law).4 (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_edn4)

Within such zones, whose deteriorating conditions politically correct public officials persist in describing in socioeconomic rather than biocultural terms, it is nearly impossible for a Frenchman to reside in the public housing estates (HLM) built for the French working class, to find a café serving wine or ham, or for his wife to dress or behave in public as do European women. In contrast to the Little Italies and Germantowns arising in many American cities in the last century, these non-European enclaves have not the slightest intention of assimilating into the dar-al-Harb (the "impious" non-Islamic world, which Muslims view as the "world of war"), and have, in fact, begun to assert their autonomy vis-à-vis it. In recent years, hardly a week passes without a newspaper report of a riot or bloody incident provoked by clashes between police and Muslim gangs.

Since 1990, urban violence has grown five percent annually—since 2000, by ten percent—as the anomie, violence, and disintegration associated with America’s inner cities becomes an increasingly familiar European reality. In fact, in 2000, for the first time in history, French criminality, whose ethnoracial character is overwhelmingly non-European, surpassed that of the U.S. crime rate; and Paris, once the City of Lights, became the least safe of the major European cities.

In the face of these threats to the continent’s demographic, cultural, and institutional foundations, the media, the academy, and the established "anti-racist" organizations (mostly controlled by Zionists) attempt to silence whoever criticizes such changes, all the while making the term "multiculturalism" emblematic of the mobile postmodern society of optional values and fashionable identities that comes with globalization. Instead, then, of mobilizing the Christian West against such threats, these New Class forces preach cowardice, resignation, escapism, and a self-destructive humanitarianism.

An ethno-masochistic response of this kind has naturally emboldened the more militant members of France’s Muslim community, who now call for jihad against the "white cheese." Public authorities, though, persist in distinguishing between violent fundamentalists (who number perhaps 40,000) and the "peace-loving" Muslim community, unable or unwilling to acknowledge Islam’s inherent hostility to Europe’s secular society. Between orthodox and fundamentalist Islam, Faye, though, claims there is solely a difference in temperament. And even this is increasingly compromised by fundamentalist aggressions. Years before the 9-11 attack on the symbols of U.S. hegemony, this "monstrous offshoot of Judaism" had already begun its third great offensive against the dar-al-Harb, targeting Europe as a future Muslim homeland.5 (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_edn5) Buoyed up by U.S.-protected strongholds in Southeast Europe (Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo), U.S. pressure to admit Muslim Turkey to the EU, and large stockpiles of sophisticated arms, Islamists have already begun organizing for a new conquest.

It is not surprising, then, that Faye interprets the growth of European Islam as the opening salvo in a larger struggle for the continent’s future.6 (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_edn6) Faye’s militant opposition to Islam does not, however, bear a resemblance to that of President Bush’s handlers. The struggle against Islam, he insists, is a struggle to free Europe from a dire threat to existence—not a justification for further Zionist aggression.

What War Will Bring

In the coming cataclysms—likely to involve street battles between rival racial communities, guerrilla skirmishes, mega-terrorism, perhaps even small-scale nuclear exchanges with "dirty bombs," along with conventional-style invasions from neighboring Islamic armies—Faye believes Europe will either perish or experience a rebirth. In any case, the confrontations ahead will create a situation in which the present politically correct delusions are impossible to sustain.

For like every great struggle affecting human’s natural selection, war privileges the elemental and the vital. With it, the subtleties and distractions that sophists and simulators have used to misdirect Europeans cannot but cease to count, as will those minor differences that have historically divided them. Then, as "money and pleasure" cede to the imperatives of "blood and soil," only the traditions, the way of life, and the genetic principles defining them as a people will matter.

The situation the white race finds itself in today may therefore be unconditionally bleak, but in that hour when everything risks being lost, Faye believes a final opportunity for renaissance will present itself.

In this vein, he predicts that the dominant musical theme of the twenty-first century will be neither an orchestral ode to joy nor the doggerel of an urban savage, but rather a solemn military march based on ancient hymns. Europeans on both sides of the Atlantic, he advises, would do well to keep step with its strong, marked rhythm.

Michael O’Meara is a scholar who resides and teaches on the West Coast of the United States. He is the author of numerous articles and book reviews.

End Notes

1. (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_ednref1) L’archéofuturisme (1998); Nouveau discours à la nation européenne, 2nd ed. (1999); La colonisation de l’Europe (2000); Pourquoi nous combattons (2001). All these works have been published by L’Æncre and can be purchased at the Librairie Nationale, 12 rue de la Sourdière, 75001 Paris, or on the Internet at www.librairienationale.com/ (http://www.librairienationale.com/)</SPAN>.

2. (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_ednref2) See Michael Torigian, New Right, New Culture: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003).

3. (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_ednref3) The number of non-Europeans in France is not officially known. The cited figure is the estimate of one of the country’s leading demographers. See “L’avenir démographique: Entretien avec Jacques Dupâquier,” in Krisis 20-21 (November 1997). Another academic (J. P. Gourevich) claims it is closer to 9 million. Some put the figure as high as 14 million, while the media usually refer to 4, 5, or 6 million. But more alarming than these figures is the fact that one-third of the population under 30 is now of non-European origins and has a birth rate four or five times higher than the European one.

4. (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_ednref4) Jeremy Rennher, “L’Occident ligoté par l’imposture antiraciste,” in Écrit de Paris 640 (February 2002). Even the politically correct editor of Violences en France (Paris: Seuil, 1999), Michael Wieviorka, acknowledges that the explosion of violence and criminality since 1990 is an outgrowth of Islamic power. Because the French government keeps most data on immigrant crime and racial terror securely under wraps, the little that is known has been surreptiously leaked by frustrated officials. The publication with the best access to these leaks is the monthly J’ai tout compris! Lettre de désintoxification, edited, not coincidentally, by Guillaume Faye.

5. (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_ednref5) The first, Arab wave of the seventh century brought the Muslims to Poitiers, and the second, Turkish wave of the twelth through the seventeenth centuries led to the destruction of Christian Byzantium and the seige of Vienna. The third wave, in the form of the present colonization, is stealthy in character, but potentially even more catastrophic.

6. (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html#_ednref6) Accordingly, the more militant Europeanists now invoke the need for a new reconquista. This is especially evident in Philippe Randa’s novel Poitiers demain (Paris: Denoël, 2000) and the album Reconquista by the group Fraction (Heretik Records).

AngryPotato
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 09:29 AM
I have to say that I thought this was going to be about a race war in America and was going to bring up the problem with China. A war with China truly frightens me as an American and most people do not see it as a possibility. With the Chinese increasing their military spending in double digit percentages every year, they are gearing up for something big. I for one do not want to fight for Taiwan. I would be one for the defense of NZ/Australia & Japan. Japan would not survive such a conflict with China. I don't think the land is worth the resulting war, but they're good allies with a solid culture that doesn't promote racemixing. At a certain point WNs must decide if they're for full scale genocide of all races or if they're for separation of races. I for one am OK with the Japanese existing in the world, on their island. I've said it before and I will continue to say that I do not see an invading force destroying America and occupying it without the use of some sort of WMDs. We may only be 1/4 the citizenry of China, but we are armed to the teeth citizens. Such a war would end up with the destruction of our coastal cities. I don't know if Russia and Canada would side with us or not. They will need to protect their interests. I don't see the EU nor NATO coming to our assistance. Perhaps a handful of nations, but no universal commitment and almost no troops if any at all. The US would end up using Mexican conscripts as fodder. The jew will just scamper to South America.

The article also brings up something that doesn't affect my daily life. Muslims in Europe. We do not have such a widespread problem here in the US. I will need to keep this in mind when discussing the Muslim question in the future. We do need such a subforum on Skadi.


In this vein, he predicts that the dominant musical theme of the twenty-first century will be neither an orchestral ode to joy nor the doggerel of an urban savage, but rather a solemn military march based on ancient hymns. Europeans on both sides of the Atlantic, he advises, would do well to keep step with its strong, marked rhythm.

I would welcome this.

xakep
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 10:40 AM
If war happens it will most likely involve the use nuclear weapons which would target West coast. I should consider moving to Central States soon, just in case.

ThisMeansWar
Sunday, June 20th, 2004, 12:02 AM
A interesting text I might say, although nothing new for me as an European citizen. The author of the text specify on two (not so)different things and combines them to one. In short: The next world war if the west and its norms still exists will be all about USA against China and Europe against Islam and the bond across the Pacific ocean bethween the whites.

As I see it the world war will come even if Europe and the white race will perish and we, the white race just as the two wars before will play the key part in all of it. But as a proud european i bet my life in that if the west fails to "rebirth" and falls we will not give up without draging the muslims with us.

Telperion
Sunday, June 20th, 2004, 12:32 AM
The article raises so many good points that it would take a long time to comment on all of them. But, one point in particular stands out:


unlike many on the anti-American right, Faye does not believe the U.S. is Europe’s principal enemy, even if its Judeo-liberal New Class has been responsible for eroding European autonomy and demonizing its culture. An enemy, he contends, does more than corrupt and intimidate, it threatens one’s biological existence. Taking his cue from Carl Schmidt, he thinks it is more accurate to characterize the U.S. as Europe’s "adversary"—an adversary that needs to be opposed if Europeans are ever to re-assert the Faustian project distinct to their ethos—but nevertheless one with whom a life-and-death struggle is not at all inevitable.

The real enemy threatening the white homelands comes, he claims, from the Third World.

In my view, this is absolutely correct. The US suffers from incompetent (or worse) leadership, but that does not make it the enemy of Europe, let alone its principal enemy. It is perhaps an adversary or rival, but that might not be so if the current multiculturalist clique were not in charge of it.

The Islamic threat is indeed the real threat to Europe's future, on a racial and cultural level. They are nearby, aggressive, and invading the continent with breathtaking speed. It is as if they determined to redress their defeat by Charles Martel in 692 AD. Europeans need to hand these barbarians a second defeat if they are to survive in their own homeland.

I would also agree that China is a very serious rival and threat to the US. As China continues to grow more powerful, pushing its sphere of influence outward until it touches on Japan and Australia, while a declining US seeks to hold on to what it has, a trans-Pacific clash between these countries seems inevitable. I am not so sure which country is likely to win, because the nature of modern weaponry (if it came to the use of WMDs) makes this unknowable in advance - it is quite possible neither country would survive such a war in any recognizable form. But, that is purely speculative.

A crucial question that the article didn't really touch on, though, is the role of Russia in all of this. Russia can play a crucial role for good or ill. If it sides with Europe against Islam, then the preservation of Europe is assured. However, one does come across those who advocate some sort of Russo-Chinese-Islamic alliance against the US (perceived as the world's principal enemy), with Europe as a sort of junior partner in such an alliance. That, in my view, would be a disaster that would tear the white race apart, largely for the benefit of Muslims and Chinese - it surely could not be to Europe's benefit, as it would leave the forces of Islam stronger than ever.

Jove
Tuesday, July 6th, 2004, 09:55 AM
The article is certainly interesting, but I’m still to be convinced that an (imminent) Islamic rebellion in Europe would have any real motor on it. First of all, no country is likely to invade or otherwise direct an assault (in the conventional sense) on any European country because in our nuclear age it’s simply unrealistic as it would constitute a nationwide suicide to any country that would attempt it.

Moreover, given the slow but sure Americanization, democratization and globalization of (west-central) Asia, there would be no nations with dictatorial regimes left in the entire region that would be in the position to simply ‘attack’ Europe, because they would be economically dependant on the American occupied nearby nations like Iraq, and soon perhaps Iran and Syria (i.e. although this is a long shot, I don’t believe America has invaded Iraq to “institute democracy and free the people;” Iraq is but a stronghold to further US expansion in the region). With US economic monopoly of the region, oil transfers would become increasingly controlled by the States, and, although I cannot support this claim by any ‘empirical’ evidence as such, I do believe that the main reason behind US expansion into the Middle East is for reasons of establishing a throttlehold on any future military actions undertaken by countries in the ME, and later countries outside the ME because significant military action in any one country consumes ca. 10 times more minerals than everyday social transfers in any continent as a whole. Thus Europe and intra-European Islam will clash as separate political entities, with religious ties to the outside world at best.

This scenario would undeniably leave Russia a significant role to play in European struggle against intra-continental Islam, as Russia possesses a comparatively extravagant mineral and oil reserves in its enormous territory. However, I strongly doubt that Russia’s role will be that of the ‘knight in shining armour’ because this notion is simply too idealistic / simplistic. It’s not unlikely that tribulations within NATO will arise because of the Russo-Latvian civil conflict that will simply be, well… a pain in the arse (for lack of better a term) for the western European coalition within NATO. Hence Russia’s role is far from determined in this continental drama.

Islam will unquestionably continue to rise in Europe to an ultimately extremely volatile state, and there will be lots of casualties (mainly of European nationals) as far as I can tell. But the rise in Muslim identity in European political and social arenas will produce a state of affairs that will coerce ethnic Europeans to flock in collective opposition to the Islamic threat, and, as this will unfold, all the current distinctions between ‘Muslim terrorists’ and ‘Muslim peace-lovers’ will be abolished and the road for military action against Muslims will be paved clean (in all probability there will be massive concentration areas / ghettoes before en masse repatriation).

Unfortunately, the abovementioned scenario is but one of a few I have in mind, and this one is the least consequential I could personally come up with. Faye is undoubtedly correct about one thing; the dominant European musical theme will no longer conflict with its sociopolitical reality.

Strengthandhonour
Sunday, July 11th, 2004, 11:38 PM
I always wonder about what Europe's role would be in a new world war. As many of us have noticed, Europe isn't as powerful as it once was, and the only way of Europe challenging any type of massive army such as China or the USA would be for Europe to unite as a whole under an union. China's army is beyond big, and it's all male as well which gives them an advantage.
I think that warfare is so advanced that it would kind of go back. See, countering missiles over and over again would end up in soldiers having to fight in battlegrounds once again.
The US army as of now, I would consider it the best worldwide, as they have so many bases throughout the world giving them a huge tactical advantage.

Adolar II
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 04:22 AM
Another review which might be of interest is the review of "L'archeofuturisme" by Guillaume Faye, which appeared in issue 21 of The Scorpion magazine:



http://thescorp.multics.org/21faye.html



I believe it was Faye who coined the terms "xenophilia" and "ethno-masochism" to describe the Zionist-liberal induced self-hate which infects much of the West today.



A. II













[QUOTE=Nordhammer]
Preparing for World War III









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Avant-Guerre: Chronique d’un cataclysme annoncé
(Pre-War: Account of an Impending Cataclysm)

Guillaume Faye
Paris: L’ Æncre, 2002
24 Euros

382 pp.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewed by Michael O’Meara

[Source (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/mo-worldwara.html)]

Readers of The Occidental Quarterly are probably unfamiliar with the work of Guillaume Faye, but his ideas are increasingly those of Europe’s nationalist vanguard.

An early associate of Alain de Benoist and one of the architects of the European New Right, the young Faye left politics in the late 1980s to pursue a career in media. In 1998 he returned, instantly re-establishing himself as the intellectual force on the nationalist right.

He has since published five books, each of which has had a major impact on the struggle against multiculturalism, Third World immigration, and globalization.1 Unlike Benoist and other New Right theoreticians, whose defense of the European ethnos is waged almost exclusively on the cultural terrain, and unlike Le Pen's National Front, which favors the assimilation rather than the forced repatriation of non-Europeans, Faye claims that race is not only primary to cultural identity, but that race and culture are, at root, inseparable. For this reason he argues that the struggle to preserve Europe's cultural patrimony is no less a struggle to defend its genetic heritage and the ethnic integrity of its Lebensraum.2

- snip -

Sunne Æcern Bær
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 10:40 PM
There is no WWIII coming it is the continuation of WWII, and the end of it and many other things....

ogenoct
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 10:47 PM
Another anti-Islamic piece of garbage, deflecting away from the real enemy.

Constantin

Ogmios22188
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 07:15 PM
To all of you who agree with this propaganda, I must say that you are indeed truly insecure individuals. As long as you stay true to your culture and beliefs and defend them, you will not be destroyed. Likewise, do not attempt to destroy the cultures and beliefs of others. I live in a highly diverse area, and we have no racial or cultural problems. And if you're so worked up about the preservation of the white race, Middle Easterners are white too. If you feel that you should embrace every white person simply based upon their whiteness, then embrace your brothers.

The notion of the war with the Chinese is interesting though. I'm a bit of an isoliationist. I do not believe America has the right to push its weight around in the world when we are far from an ideal, let alone perfect, society. Let's make sure everyone has health care, an education, and a home, and then we can tell people how to run their nations. However, with this isolationism wouldn't come anti-immigrationism. If you want to come to our country, good. It would just be political isolationism. Leave Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. We're only there to imperialize and exploit anyway, which I do not support in any way. After we've got our act together, then we can help the rest of the world with our new-found strength.

Oskorei
Friday, September 23rd, 2005, 02:20 PM
Avant-Guerre: Chronique d’un cataclysme annoncé
(Pre-War: Account of an Impending Cataclysm)
Guillaume Faye, Paris: L’ Æncre, 2002, 24 Euros, 382 pp.
Reviewed by Michael O’Meara

Readers of The Occidental Quarterly are probably unfamiliar with the work of Guillaume Faye, but his ideas are increasingly those of Europe’s nationalist vanguard.

An early associate of Alain de Benoist and one of the architects of the European New Right, the young Faye left politics in the late 1980s to pursue a career in media.? In 1998 he returned, instantly re-establishing himself as the intellectual force on the nationalist right.

He has since published five books, each of which has had a major impact on the struggle against multiculturalism, Third World immigration, and globalization.1 Unlike Benoist and other New Right theoreticians, whose defense of the European ethnos is waged almost exclusively on the cultural terrain, and unlike Le Pen's National Front, which favors the assimilation rather than the forced repatriation of non-Europeans, Faye claims that race is not only primary to cultural identity, but that race and culture are, at root, inseparable.? For this reason he argues that the struggle to preserve Europe's cultural patrimony is no less a struggle to defend its genetic heritage and the ethnic integrity of its Lebensraum.2

His latest work—Avant-Guerre: Chronique d’un cataclysme annoncé (Pre-War: Account of an Impending Cataclysm)—is reminiscent of Spengler’s Hour of Decision.? Like Spengler, Faye looks at the storm clouds on the horizon and predicts that within ten years a coming era of world-altering tempests will descend on the white race, determining if it is to have a future or not.

In his view, these cataclysms will be neither ideological nor economic in character, but (à la Huntington) racial and civilizational, involving clashing continental blocs and warring ethno-racial groups. They are thus likely to engender unprecedented violence and destruction, forcibly shaking white people from the stupor that is leading them toward extinction.? Although presently unprepared to fight such wars and alienated from all that is distinct to their race and heritage, the struggles of the twenty-first century, he believes, will give Europeans on both sides of the Atlantic a final chance to throw off the forces that have denatured and debilitated then over the last half century.

Europe and America

Like most "nationalists" who fight in Europe’s name, Faye is extremely critical of the American government and the role it has played in repressing the worldwide forces of white solidarity. But unlike many on the anti-American right, Faye does not believe the U.S. is Europe’s principal enemy, even if its Judeo-liberal New Class has been responsible for eroding European autonomy and demonizing its culture. An enemy, he contends, does more than corrupt and intimidate, it threatens one’s biological existence. Taking his cue from Carl Schmidt, he thinks it is more accurate to characterize the U.S. as Europe’s "adversary"—an adversary that needs to be opposed if Europeans are ever to re-assert the Faustian project distinct to their ethos—but nevertheless one with whom a life-and-death struggle is not at all inevitable.

The real enemy threatening the white homelands comes, he claims, from the Third World.? Accordingly, the terror attack of "9/11" suggests one form his predicted cataclysm will take. But while Islam is Europe’s principal enemy, it is not, paradoxically, America’s. Based on the work of General Gallois, Alexandre Del Valle, and a new generation of European geopoliticists, Faye argues that Islam has long served the U.S. in furthering the hegemonic ambitions of its global village, specifically in dividing Europe and weakening Russia. That its recruitment and arming of Islamic fanatics to fight in Afghanistan and Chechnya and in Bosnia and Kosovo at last boomeranged ought not to detract from the fact that for a quarter century the U.S. systematically incited Islamic insurgencies for the sake of its strategic aims.

In Faye’s view, America’s principal Third World enemy, and thus the power it will face in World War III, comes not from the Middle East (even if militant Islam continues to target it), but from a rapidly developing and technologically armed China bent on contesting its dominance in the Pacific. In this potential Sino-American conflict, Faye believes the future lies entirely on the Chinese side. Unlike the Middle Kingdom, the U.S.’s disparate mix of race and cultures has left it without a coherent heritage and thus a destining project worth dying for. This makes it not a nation in the European sense, but simply une symbiose étatico-entrepreneuriale. Because such an entity is likely to fly apart if challenged by a determined enemy, in the great cataclysms to come it will be Europe (and Russia), not the U.S., that will stand at the center of the struggle to defend the white West from a hostile non-white world.

Islam

While America’s future holds out the prospect of an interstate war with China, Faye believes Europe faces an intrastate war with the forces of an insurgent Islam—a war, to repeat, that will resemble 9/11 more than the conventional military engagement the U.S. can expect in the Pacific.

In the four decades since 1962, when Africa broached Europe’s southern frontier, the continent, especially France and Belgium, has been inundated by successive waves of Third World immigrants. The amplitude of this immigration, involving masses not individuals, is such that not a few demographers contend that it is more accuratelydescribed as "colonization." Due to disproportional birthrates, the unrelenting influx of non-white, unassimilable, and largely Muslim immigrants has already begun to "de-Europeanize" Europe. For example, virtually everywhere they have settled in France they have succeeded in "ethnically cleansing" former neighborhoods, establishing not ghettos, but conquered territories, from which future conquests are being prepared. With their seven to eight million inhabitants, these territories have become, in effect, hostile African/Middle Eastern encampments within an increasingly besieged France.3

This immigration is creating an extremely volatile situation, for Europe lacks the massive police apparatus and vast geographical expanses that have kept ethnoracial tensions ‘manageable’ in the U.S. Typically, in urban areas where neighborhoods have been lost to Islamic civilization, Europeans have come to experience not only escalating levels of violence and insecurity, but the loss of their laws and institutions. There are now more than 1400 zones de non-droit in France (including eleven towns), and in nearly a hundred of these, republican jurisdiction has been supplanted by the shari`a (Islamic law).4

Within such zones, whose deteriorating conditions politically correct public officials persist in describing in socioeconomic rather than biocultural terms, it is nearly impossible for a Frenchman to reside in the public housing estates (HLM) built for the French working class, to find a café serving wine or ham, or for his wife to dress or behave in public as do European women. In contrast to the Little Italies and Germantowns arising in many American cities in the last century, these non-European enclaves have not the slightest intention of assimilating into the dar-al-Harb (the "impious" non-Islamic world, which Muslims view as the "world of war"), and have, in fact, begun to assert their autonomy vis-à-vis it. In recent years, hardly a week passes without a newspaper report of a riotor bloody incident provoked by clashes between police and Muslim gangs.

Since 1990, urban violence has grown five percent annually—since 2000, by ten percent—as the anomie, violence, and disintegration associated with America’s inner cities becomes an increasingly familiar European reality. In fact, in 2000, for the first time in history, French criminality, whose ethnoracial character is overwhelmingly non-European, surpassed that of the U.S. crime rate; and Paris, once the City of Lights, became the least safe of the major European cities.

In the face of these threats to the continent’s demographic, cultural, and institutional foundations, the media, the academy, and the established "anti-racist" organizations (mostly controlled by Zionists) attempt to silence whoever criticizes such changes, all the while making the term "multiculturalism" emblematic of the mobile postmodern society of optional values and fashionable identities that comes with globalization. Instead, then, of mobilizing the Christian West against such threats, these New Class forces preach cowardice, resignation, escapism, and a self-destructive humanitarianism.

An ethno-masochistic response of this kind has naturally emboldened the more militant members of France’s Muslim community, who now call for jihad against the "white cheese." Public authorities, though, persist in distinguishing between violent fundamentalists (who number perhaps 40,000) and the "peace-loving" Muslim community, unable or unwilling to acknowledge Islam’s inherent hostility to Europe’s secular society.? Between orthodox and fundamentalist Islam, Faye, though, claims there is solely a difference in temperament. And even this is increasingly compromised by fundamentalist aggressions. Years before the 9-11 attack on the symbols of U.S. hegemony, this "monstrous offshoot of Judaism" had already begun its third great offensive against the dar-al-Harb, targeting Europe as a future Muslim homeland.5 Buoyed up by U.S.-protected strongholds in Southeast Europe (Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo), U.S. pressure to admit Muslim Turkey to the EU, and large stockpiles of sophisticated arms, Islamists have already begun organizing for a new conquest.

It is not surprising, then, that Faye interprets the growth of European Islam as the opening salvo in a larger struggle for the continent’s future.6 Faye’s militant opposition to Islam does not, however, bear a resemblance to that of President Bush’s handlers. The struggle against Islam, he insists, is a struggle to free Europe from a dire threat to existence—not a justification for further Zionist aggression.

What War Will Bring

In the coming cataclysms—likely to involve street battles between rival racial communities, guerrilla skirmishes, mega-terrorism, perhaps even small-scale nuclear exchanges with "dirty bombs," along with conventional-style invasions from neighboring Islamic armies—Faye believes Europe will either perish or experience a rebirth. In any case, the confrontations ahead will create a situation in which the present politically correct delusions are impossible to sustain.

For like every great struggle affecting human’s natural selection, war privileges the elemental and the vital. With it, the subtleties and distractions that sophists and simulators have used to misdirect Europeans cannot but cease to count, as will those minor differences that have historically divided them. Then, as "money and pleasure" cede to the imperatives of "blood and soil," only the traditions, the way of life, and the genetic principles defining them as a people will matter.

The situation the white race finds itself in today may therefore be unconditionally bleak, but in that hour when everything risks being lost, Faye believes a final opportunity for renaissance will present itself.

In this vein, he predicts that the dominant musical theme of the twenty-first century will be neither an orchestral ode to joy nor the doggerel of an urban savage, but rather a solemn military march based on ancient hymns. Europeans on both sides of the Atlantic, he advises, would do well to keep step with its strong, marked rhythm.

Michael O’Meara is a scholar who resides and teaches on the West Coast of the United States. He is the author of numerous articles and book reviews.

http://www.originaldissent.com/forum...ad.php?t=17376

Metaposos
Saturday, July 29th, 2006, 07:14 PM
INTERVIEW of Guillaume Faye with France-Echos :
27-08 on Subversiv.com (http://forum.subversiv.com/index.php?id=190644 (http://forum.subversiv.com/index.php?id=190644))


1 Franche-Echos: Mister Faye, what was your part in the founding of the New Right or GRECE?

Guillaume Faye: From 1970 to 1986 I was first an adherent, and then one of the directors of the association, GRECE, which was reputedly one of the intellectual centres of the "New Right" or the "extreme right" depending on the names given to it by the journalists involved, although I would prefer the term " European identitarian
nationalism". I was even GRECE's number two, as "Secretary for Study and
Research", at the time. Today, this so-called "New Right", and GRECE, are no
more than the shadows of their former selves and have abandoned the identitarian
struggle. They have abandoned any idea of defending the European identity and
become fake rebels, avid to be recognised by the system (though vainly so),
totally aligned with the positions of the left wing and of Monde Diplomatique,
positions such as : islamophile, pro-third-world, silence in radio broadcasts
concerning immigration (the avoidance strategy - avoiding above all anything
that might shock anyone), anti-capitalism, ineffective anti-americanism,
hate-filled anti-zionism, etcetera.

2 France-Echos: Besides, you were a great humorous journalist, notably in the Filipacchi Group ... in the eighties, then you vanished. Is it true that your comrades in GRECE had something to do with your demonisation?

Guillaume Faye: It was a mixture of things ; between 1980 and 1986 I published a number of political and ideological books (1). The situation was quite different from what it is today and my ideas have evolved considerably. Then, from 1986 onwards,
seized by what the Romans called the vis comica, I plunged into show business :
radio, TV, cinema, music, specialist press, etc. I did all this under
pseudonyms, obviously. I also wrote some rather light books (2). This period
taught me a lot, because, unlike the Paris intellectuals who see everything
through their readers' clubs, I got into the habit of going to the heart of
things. In 1998, driven by some internal demon ... I went back to the task of
writing my ideological books and giving conferences. Then, in 1999, some little
ill-wishers, who could only have come from the old milieu in which I had been
previously, discreetly told my employers who I really was, purely out of
jealousy. These latter then stopped giving me any work. One mustn't, after all,
feed the Devil ... To get away from all this I founded my own review, I Have
Understood All - which in its new format is now called Alarm Signal - and like a
stakhanovite I multiplied my books, articles, and ideological conferences.

3 France-Echos: Since your return to the centre of debate in the circles of right wing thought you have not ceased denouncing the pro-Arab, anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist, even Third-World-ist, turn of the New Right and of your erstwhile friends in GRECE.
What is it all about?

Guillaume Faye: I parted company with GRECE and the New Right in 1986, because even then I could quite clearly perceive this ideological development. Since then polemic with them has never ceased. One important detail : most of the original guiding spirits of GRECE eventually came to the same conclusions as I had, and left the organisation, which is nowadays reconstituted solely around the writer Alain de
Benoist and his court, whose positions are absolutely the same as those of
Dieudonné and the insane Iranian Mullahs. I note that the aforementioned Alain
de Benoist, forgetting all concepts of honour, has gone so far as to describe me
in the Italian press as a "super-racist" (Area, Review, May 2000) ... He has
chosen his camp, that of the politically correct, the vulgar herd, the poor
man's analysis, the tactics of the courtesan (?) And the poor fellow doesn't
even get invited to Paris salons or readers' clubs. It seems to me - and I shall
return to this - that these people have the mentality of collaborators. As if
they are anticipating the arrival of their future masters. They have the
mentality of dhimmis, of "submitters".
Nowadays, I work in close association with the old members of the New Right who
quit, like me, and who have created their own networks and circles of cultural
and ideological influence, throughout Europe, in Russia, in Portugal, in the
USA, and in Canada. And I work, of course, on new books.

4 France-Echos: Have you found, in these new circles with which you work, or in the Front National, which has invited you on various occasions to give speeches, any
hostility against the Jews, any remnants of anti-Semitism?

Guillaume Faye: No, that isn't really the problem. Anti-Judaism (to use a term I prefer to 'anti-Semitism') melts like snow in the sun across a great part of what is known as the "extreme right". Of course, there are significant pockets of resistance ;
one cannot defeat the long anti-Jewish tradition in a day. And there is also a
segment of this "extreme right", to which GRECE belongs, which has turned to a
violent anti-zionism, coupled with an acute Palestinophilia (I shall return to
this). However, this ideological current has become more and more isolated in
the movement I am speaking of, quite simply because of the massive threat posed
by immigration into France ... Under these conditions, anti-Judaism is
forgotten, the Jew no longer seems like a menace at all. In the circles in which
I move, I never hear any anti-Jewish invective. I even come across people (as
one did in the sixties) who approve and support the "Israeli Right". I have
tried to understand (and my conclusions regarding this are finally, little by
little, becoming shared) that anti-Judaism is a politically obselete, useless,
overtaken position, even when it is disguised as anti-zionism. We are no longer
living in the times of the Dreyfuss Affair. Besides, the anti-Judaists have
never escaped from their own terrible contradiction : they seem to despise the
Jews, yet pretend that these latter control the world. So, does this mean that
they think the Jews are a superior race, or not? Anti-Judaism is a form of
political schizophrenia, a sort of inverted philo-Semitism, the expression of a
ressentiment [envy, inferiority complex - RB]. I don't judge anti-Judaism from a
moral point of view ; after all, one can be frustrated and detest whomever one
likes. I never mix the moral and the political. But my position is the same as
Nietzsche's : hating the Jews serves no purpose, it is a politically stupid and
unproductive passion.

5 France-Echos: A number of small extreme right groups who have read your work accuse you of being prejudicially pro-American and "neo-zionist". Why is that, do you think?

Guillaume Faye: Those people are hemiplegic, in addition to being professional liars. To begin with, I have never been "prejudicially pro-American" . One has only to read my essay "Global Coup d'État, an Essay on the New American Imperialism" (which
deconstructs the ideology of the neo-conservatives) to see that. My position,
being strategic rather than manichean, is incomprehensible to these fanatics. I
am neither an anti-American nor a pro-American, but a European nationalist. The
USA is in no way the Great Satan, the number one enemy, but, depending on
circumstances and according to its strategy as a state, it may be an adversary,
a competitor, or even one day an ally. The anti-American dogma (which I call
OHAA, "obsessional-hysterican anti-Americanism") is impolitic, like all dogmas.
I'm sorry, but I prefer McDonalds' to mosques, pom-pom girls to shuttered,
battered, violated women, American universities to obscurantist Islamist
madrassas, etcetera.

Regarding zionism, these people who call me a "neo-zionist" are labelling me
like this quite simply because I am not hysterically anti-zionist, as they are,
and because I can feel no sympathy nor interest in the "Palestinian cause". How
can I defend a Muslim people (who claim to be being "martyred", though I dispute
this), at the very moment that Islam undertakes the conquest of Europe? In what
way does the "zionism" of the Jewish state threaten Europe? It is my fierce,
defensive opposition to Islam, and to the Arabo-Muslim strategy, which explains
why these people, who have become infatuated Arabophiles and Islamophiles, call
me a "neo-zionist".

They cannot bear the fact that I refuse to give the requisite free passage to
their "anti-zionism". How can I be a "zionist" when I am not Jewish? And how
could I become an "anti-zionist" when at no time has the zionist ideology
(unlike Islamism, communism, leftism, rights-of-man-ism, or masochistic
post-conciliar christianism) attacked or threatened either directly or remotely
the idea I defend, which is the maintenance of European identity? In what way
would the disappearance of Israel help my cause? To think of the Jewish state as
an enemy is geopolitical idiocy for European identitarians.

The current GRECE of Alain de Benoist (which has nothing in common with the
original GRECE) the little "national-revolutionary" groups inspired by the
fanatical Christian Bouchet, and the camarilla of "extreme right" militants who
have converted to Islam, all of these being closely interconnected, are really
totally aligned to the positions of the Iranian government, which fascinates
them as a snake fascinates sparrows. For them, I am obviously the absolute
enemy.

This is how I interpret their tortured reasoning : to begin with, there is a
visceral hatred (which needs psychoanalytic explanation) for everything Israeli,
American, or zionist. (Note, I have not claimed that in every case this is a
camouflaged form of neurotic anti-Judaism, analogous to the paranoic and dream
like anti-Judaism of the Third Reich, but in the last analysis, in some cases,
it is so). Secondly, given their obsessional anti-zionism and anti-Americanism,
they arrive through the force of passion and simplistic thinking at
Islamophilia, Arabophilia, and pro-immigrationism. They finish up aligning
themselves with the views of Dieudonné (whom they are actively courting), and in
the circles of the pro-Arab extreme left. Add to this, a third-world-ist,
anti-capitalist rhetoric, derived entirely from the neo-marxist vulgate, of
which Alain de Benoist has been for a long time the exemplar on the "extreme
right". What I find really tragic in these intellectual contortions, is that
these pseudo-European identitarians, because of their anti-zionism (and in some
cases, anti-Judaism) completely sacrifice their defense of the European identity
and hurl themselves into the arms of Islam, pro-Arabism, and third-world-ism.
They focus all their fire on zionism, blinded by their hatred. The destruction,
through immigration, of Europe? For them, this is inevitable anyway, and of
secondary importance. The essential thing is the struggle against the hydra of
zionism and the American Satan, shoulder to shoulder with militant Islam. They
masturbate in ecstacy over the declarations of Ahmadinejad.

The problem is that their new "friends" regard them as collaborators, and
despise them as traitors. I do not envy their future lot. I suspect they look
forward to the Islamisation of Europe, its "future". They want to be on the
winning side. They would love to be cosseted dhimmis ("submitters"). But they
won't be. Another thing, these people hope to conveniently forget their
politically incorrect pasts and to forge for themselves phony passports as
"anti-racists" (they hope in vain, though) - they hope to appear as the greatest
friends of Islam, of the Arabs, of the Palestinian cause, of the poor third
world, oppressed by the "American-zionist capital bloc". All this isn't just
intellectually bankrupt, it needs one term above all - cowardice.


6 France-Echos: What does zionism mean to you?

Guillaume Faye: Zionism is the affirmation of the re-installation of a people in a land which they consider to be their own. Zionism is also a highly composite ideology : it
talks of aliya, which means the "return" of the dispersed Jews, but also, and
right from its inception, it talks of a new form of society.
I know this subject quite well because I am preparing a work, which will make a
certain amount of noise in the "milieu", which will be called "The New Jewish
Question". Zionism, which is a very recent element in Jewish history, theorised
at the end of the nineteenth century by Herzl and Buber (who did not arrive at
the same positions, hence the "Israeli compromise") is the attempt (successful,
uniquely in history) to reconstitute a Jewish state, in fact the mythical
Kingdom of David, starting from the Diaspora, in order to escape from
persecution and renew the post-Mosaic tradition.
One should note that the religious Jews were against this project (and this
opposition still exists) because it seemed to envisage the construction of a
profane state entity. The zionist project is an absolutely unique case in the
annals of "archeofuturism" (this is the name of one of my books,
"Archeofuturism"), that is to say, the reconstruction, the renaissance, the
resurrection and the projection into the future of a political form past but not
forgotten. The reconstitution of the national and state language, Hebrew, has no
historical parallel. It is a major act of political voluntarism. The zionist
movement has a "saga" which, from my point of view as a non-Jewish observer,
corresponds to the values which I defend : attachment to a land, to the lineage
of one's people, to its traditions, to its historical perpetuation, to fidelity
to one's lines of descent, to ethnic homogeneity and collective will. Zionism
therefore constitutes an example of the creation of a political and state form
for a people, which is new, and which should inspire the re-founders of European
identitarianism. However, let it be understood, although I applaud its
principles, zionism is not my own cause, because I do not belong to the Jewish
people. Quite simply, I cannot see what phantasm should cause me to oppose it...

Now, I think (and I take no pleasure at all in this) that the zionist project
and the existence of Israel are menaced by the demographic balance, in favour of
the Muslims, also by the extension of a terrorist war which might provoke the
flight of the élites, and also probably a reduction in international support for
Israel. The great mistake that was made, was to grant Israeli nationality to the
Muslim minority which remained after 1948, instead of organising a clear and
thorough-going partition. This mistake was the result of the "humanistic"
notions of Buber, and of his famous book "I and Thou". One last thing : people
constantly parrot to me the official line, that the Jewish state has conducted
itself in an ignoble, persecutory manner towards the unhappy "Palestinians".
Even if this were true, it isn't my problem. However, in addition, I think it is
an extreme exaggeration. It is in the political interest of European
identitarians that the state of Israel survives. I shall talk about this in my
forthcoming book. My position will shock the retarded ones. So much the worse
for them.

7 France-Echos: Is it true that you have spoken at Senate conferences, at the invitation of the very influential zionist club of Jean Mandelbaum, a circle which has also invited speeches from Chirac, Spiner, and most of the more famous French
zionists?

Guillaume Faye: Absolutely true. In particular, I explained to them that the Jewish
intellectuals and political men who have welcomed immigration and Islamisation,
in the name of a delirious vision of "anti-racism", have been irresponsible. The
public agrees with me. I respond to all the invitations I receive. I have spoken
before the FN, the MNR, the Rotary Club, the PS branch of the 15th
arrondissement, the Republican Party in Washington, the Rodina Party in the
Moscow Duma, the Breton Party Adsav, the University of St Petersburg, and many
French, Belgian, German, Italian, and Spanish cultural assocations, and other
circles in France, Germany, Italy, etcetera. I am a free electron, I affirm my
own ideas without any complexes. I have even been invited by certain Islamist
circles, who wanted to know the thinking behind my anti-Islamist positions. I
spoke alongside old friends from the "New Right" who had converted to Islam, and
alongside obsessional anti-zionists. I sensed that the Muslims had a lot more
respect for me than they had for these obsequious, cowardly converts. I
explained to them that they were in the process of invading Europe, that I was
not fooled by their strategy, that my duty was to fight them, and that - I am
sorry to have to say - I have succeeded in completely cutting the threads of
their propaganda for the "Palestinian cause" and their fable of "Islam, religion
of peace". I explained to them that my task was to oppose their Jihad, that I
was not deceived by their Qur'anic hypocrisy, that they could do what they liked
in their own homelands but not in mine, that they should not take me for an
idiot by talking about the "zionist menace", etc. They heard me out very
courteously, in complete silence, quite discomforted, attentive, and, at the
end, an Algerian intellectual told me with a big grin, "Luckily for us, most of
the French do not possess your lucidity, and don't know us the way you do."

8 France-Echos: Do you accept the label "extreme right", and how do you explain your sulphurous, extremist image?

Guillaume Faye: The expression "extreme right" is blurred and lacking in rigour, in terms of political semantics. My case is a bit special. I created my own ideology, which rather upsets everyone, because it offends the conformist Islamophiles and the
prejudiced anti-zionists, both pro-US and the anti-US, even in the area of
economics and geopolitics.
I have tried to create a new ideology. I wish people would read me, and study my
texts, before leaping to conclusions. In fact, I discomfort all camps, I offend
their senses of etiquette. I am above all myself, but the fact that people treat
me as an "extreme right ideologist" doesn't bother me at all. I am not like
those old crabs which try to hide themselves behind their own claws (?) So why
my sulphurous "extremist" image? Quite simply, because I attack frontally, in my
writings and my public conferences, the Islamisation of Europe, the invasive
immigration, the neo-totalitarianism of the ruling ideology, the reduction in
freedom of expression, and the general decadence of this end-of-cycle
civilisation. And because all this has brought me certain lawsuits and
condemnations, it is normal that the bien-pensants should consider me an
"extremist". The term "extremist" today means the same thing it meant in
Stalin's USSR : a dissident who speaks the truth.

9 France-Echos: You have probably heard about the scandal unleashed by the astounding article written by an old GRECE member who has now apparently become politically correct, Joseph Macé-Scaron, now a journalist for Marianne, promoting a sulphurous, hate-filled book which calls all the thinkers of the right, like
Alexandre del Valle and Guy Millière, who are allies of the Jewish community, or
of rightist zionist Jews like Goldnagel or Kupfer (Likud) - "Fachos". What do
you make of this, and what can you tell us about this astonishing accuser,
Macé-Scaron?

Guillaume Faye: With regard to this article in Marianne signed by Mr. Joseph Macé-Scaron, one passage of which claims or suggests that Mr. Alexandre Del Valle belonged to the aforementioned movement or was ideologically close to it, I can state, quite independently of my opinions of Mr. Del Valle, and even given a certain
disagreement with him, that he never belonged, either closely or even remotely,
to the "New Right", or to GRECE, or to any "extreme right" organisation at all,
nor did he ever take part in any of our meetings during the relevant period. I
would have known of anything of this sort, since I was right at the centre of
this family of thinkers, and I knew every one of its "intellectuals" perfectly.
Mr. Del Valle was never involved with us, nor was he ever asked to debate on our
behalf, nor to write for us. On the contrary, at the conference cited by
Macé-Scaron, he provoked some lively reactions in the chamber when he violently
attacked the ideas put forward on behalf of GRECE by his opponent on the right,
whose name as it happens was Champetier (a man who has himself, moreover, since left that organisation himself). I attest that, like Taguieff, who has since
been lynched for similar reasons in Le Monde, del Valle argued against and not
for the New Right, which changes the whole context, since debating against
someone in no way suggests that one shares his ideas or solidarises with him.

Whenever Del Valle has appeared in debate against the intellectuals of the
neo-pagan New Right, whether they are from GRECE or not, he has always
vehemently attacked the "anti-semitism and anti-zionism" of the obsessional
pro-Arabists in this movement, of whom I spoke earlier. I can attest to the
truth of this, which is completely different to the allegations of this inferior
journalist, Macé-Scaron - I take no positions on Mr. Del Valle himself.
On the other hand, the accuser, Joseph Macé-Scaron, who it seems, wants to make
us forget his own past when he accuses certain others of having taken part in
conferences with people supposedly close to the New Right, is in a very poor
position to attack, especially, Goldnagel or Del Valle, since he himself was
well and truly an adherent of, a partisan for, GRECE, and in fact one of its
most fervent militants and directors between 1978 and 1985! Macé-Scaron worked
during this entire period (in a "permanent" capacity) in the "press corps" of
the New Right (GRECE) after having been initiated, in the company of his friend
the journalist Thierry Deransart, according to the pagano-christian right of
chivalry (??? - RB), during a conclave at which I myself was present, along with
various others. His sponsor and initiator, who is still one of my best friends
and will certainly support my statement, is now a cadre of the MNR (ex-FN).
Another of my close friends, who was at the time secretary-general of GRECE (and
who left the organisation for reasons similar to my own) could equally bear
witness against the grave accusations of Mr. Macé-Scaron. There could be no more
astonishing accuser than Mr. Macé-Scaron, who was himself a product of the
"school of journalism" that we created within GRECE, which at the time allowed
us to infiltrate Figaro Magazine, two of whose successive editors, Mssrs. Valla
and Plunkett, were also members of the directorate of GRECE, and which employed
in addition a significant number of other members of our association and our
movement. I recall perfectly how, within the framework of this "school of
journalism", I helped to form the ideology, the writing skills, and the
propagandist capacity of Mr. Macé-Scaron, who was a very apt pupil ; he started
his virtuoso career in journalism by going to work for Figaro Magazine, entirely
thanks to GRECE.

Subsequently, like many other journalists who, thanks to GRECE and the New
Right, began their professional careers at Figaro, at Valeurs Actuelles, or
elsewhere, he has tried to make us forget this inconvenient geneology and has -
publicly - changed his views. This is human enough, who can blame him for it, in
a time when one needs to show a white paw [this is a French idiom related to
proverbs about rabbits - RB] to pursue one's career?

Having said all that, the ideas circulating within GRECE today, I repeat, are
not at all the strong identitarian positions (what the journalists call "extreme
right" ideas) which it held when Mr. Macé-Scaron was a member and "young
hopeful".
What is unacceptable is that Mr. Macé-Scaron, like a common informer, lyingly
accuses others of being members of a movement in which he himself took part, and
proceeds to demonise this family of thinkers, which itself put his foot on the
stairway to success ... I should add that I am perfectly willing to give details
to support my testimony, if need arises ... and other directing spirits from the
GRECE of the period should be equally ready to confound Mr. Joseph Macé-Scaron.


10 France-Echos: Did Joseph Macé-Scaron maintain and secret relationships with the extreme rightists, neo-pagans, or New Right?

Guillaume Faye: How should I know? My guess would be, no. He must have needed to do everything possible to regain his political virginity and conceal his "traceability". Just like many others, now well ensconced in the media and in business, thanks to our movement, whose entryism, at the time (1975-1985), was extremely effective. But I don't reproach him for this break with his past, not at all, as I say again.
Everyone has the right to change. Ingratitude is blameworthy, but it is not
unforgivable. On the other hand, Mr. Macé-Scaron has committed a very serious
error (a stupidity?) in howling with the wolves and soiling the name of this
family, which once was his, and which helped him so much.

You see, I know this scene by heart. I could give you a list of at least thirty
people of both sexes who were deeply involved with the New Right and GRECE in
its heyday (and even after that) whom we formed, helped, found places for, to a
greater or lesser extent, or who were our militants, whom we regarded as
permanent members. They are all kept nice and snug in my records, which are
extremely well maintained. They all have splendid careers, some very celebrated
by the media. But I shall never reveal their past lives, this would be a
dishonourable betrayal. On the other hand ... if one (male) of them, or one
(female) of them, starts spitting in the soup, spitting on our ideas, spitting
on our movement and demonising us in public, or tries to harm us by any other
means, I shall only be putting things back in their proper perspective if I
reveal their pasts. I do not ask of them courage, but merely silence. As for the
struggle, I vow that I shall continue it.

11 France-Echos: Regarding the central question of revisionism : is it true that GRECE and the New Right in that period were by a large majority, revisionist, and/or
anti-Semitic? This seems to have shocked Joseph Macé-Scaron at the time.

Guillaume Faye: I left GRECE in 1986. Revisionism was never the order of the day. In fact, no anti-Judaism could have been expressed then. Simply, from a sociological or socio-historical point of view, that whole milieu was saturated by an atmosphere
which clearly was not favourable to the Jews, even though quite a few members of
GRECE were of Jewish origin. One must recall that the Jewish-zionist right was
very hostile to us. In 1979 at the Palais des Congrès de Paris our annual
conference was attacked by the OJD, the Jewish Defense Organisation, which
resulted in a great many injuries on both sides. This did not happen by
accident. The ideology we were expressing (and the ideological climate was very
different from today's) greatly displeased these Jewish circles, in particular
Betar. The reasons for this hostility were not especially serious or coherent,
but anyway this was the period in which Mr. Macé-Scaron belonged to GRECE, and
he could hardly not know the grounds on which the Jewish circles opposed us.

12 France-Echos: There are rumours that Joseph Macé-Scaron, who never ceases to assert that his grand-mother was Jewish, made this genealogy up in order to offset the effects of his sulphurous past and his right wing "facho" friends like Deransard. What do you say to that?

Guillaume Faye: I never give any credence to "rumours". In any case, at the time that Mr. Macé-Scaron was a member of GRECE, he never mentioned this mysterious "Jewish grand-mother". Had he done so, this would have been no obstacle to his
membership. In parenthesis, I find the term "facho" polemical and without any
socio-political validity. Consider my own case : the body of ideological thought
I have put together over the last thirty years has no relationship to "fascism",
for the simple reason that I am not acquainted with fascist political doctrine,
and thus cannot be inspired by the thought of the period. I build upon new and
contemporary principles. To return to Mr. Macé-Scaron, one thing is certain : he
is trying, like a hunted hare, to make us forget about his past involvements. He
would do better to keep quiet. You know the Chinese proverb : "Don't pull the
tail of a sleeping tiger."

13 France-Echos: On a related issue, can you confirm that a good many media personalities a lot more sulphurous than you have been favoured, even though they spent time in more right wing circles than you did? Is it true that not speaking of immigration, and not attacking Islam, are the secrets to this sort of favour? Could one
single out Karl Zéro in this connection?

Guillaume Faye: This isn't the secret of getting ahead, but it helps. Karl Zéro was never a GRECE member, but he wrote some articles and did some comic strips which were politically incorrect in the satirical review "Jalons", run by his brother Bruno Thélène, in the '80s. [Jalons are poles used as landmarks - RB]. As it happens I also wrote for this review, which had an "ultra-rightist" editorial committee.
Now this media star never ceases denouncing his old friends and the "extreme
right" in general, in order to clear himself. I suspect him of being one of
those who tried to get me into trouble and get me fired from the "mainstream
media". His case is similar to that of Macé-Scaron. He lost a court case against
an old member of GRECE whom he had accused in the press of being what you call a "facho". I have all this in my files. In any case, Karl Zéro isn't a very
luminous personality.

13 France-Echos: Karl Zéro wasn't a member of GRECE, then? Are there any other anti-semites or fachos who are now getting ahead, and who are they?

Guillaume Faye: I repeat, Karl Zéro was never a member, although he was part of the New Right "movement", the "outer circle" if you like. He came to informal gatherings, soirées. He rapidly realised he had to steer clear of us. Once again, I would not accuse anyone who was part of this movement at the time of having been an "anti-semite". The question simply never came up! Those (female) and those
(male) who are now "singled out for stardom" are so because they have managed to
"show the white paw" [see above - RB], to espouse the vulgate of the hegemonic
ideology, and - above all - because they have carefully camouflaged their
dissident pasts. This past will never be revealed to their masters, by either me
or my friends, unless, obviously, the parties concerned give themselves up to
campaigns and calumnies against us.

14 France-Echos: What do you think about Israel, its future, and the future of Europe in the face of islam?

Guillaume Faye: I have already answered these questions. Israel is principally endangered by its own demographic weakness in the face of the hostile Muslims - much more by this than by the projected Iranian atomic bomb. I do not consider the state of Israel to be hostile or dangerous and I think that "anti-Israelism" is a grave
geostrategic error for European identitarians. One of the strengths of Israel,
among others, is its very high level of science and research (4.9 % of its GDP
is devoted to research and development, the highest percentage in the world).
For Europe, an "alliance with the Arabs" is a dramatic non-starter, and, like
all "third-world-ism", supremely naïve. As for Islam, Europe is now facing the
third attempt, historically, since the eighth century - and doubtless the most
serious attempt - on the part of this "religion-civilisation" to conquer it and
transform it into Eurabia. Europe is at the same time confronted by an
uncontrolled wave of immigration which is practically exchanging its population
for another. To divert one's attention onto a fantasmatic anti-zionism, and a
primary anti-americanism, is the worst possible mistake one could make in
politics, which Macchiavelli condemned : allowing oneself to be ruled by one's
passions rather than by cold and clear reason.

15 France-Echos: Is the USA an adversary, or an enemy, or rather an ally, of Europe, in the face of this Islamic colonisation?

Guillaume Faye: The USA is not a single homogeneous entity, this is something neither the anti-Americans nor the pro-Americans seem to comprehend. Certain forces in Washington (the "neo-cons") have tried to play the Islamic card to weaken both Europe and Russia. Unhappily for them, they have stirred up and attracted
Islamic terrorism and have allowed themselves to fall into the trap of Iraq.
Washington's current policies are stupid and unskillful. However, from their own
point of view, the directing intelligences of Washington have always tried to
obstruct the continental unity of Europe and Russia (what I call "Eurosiberia").
Meanwhile, there are new ideological forces in the USA, with which I am in close
contact, who consider the restoration of European power indispensable, and who
believe completely that we are at the onset of a clash of civilisations which
will oppose the North to the South, globally (to put it schematically, and
whether we welcome it or not) - even if this view shocks the intellectuals of
the system, who mistake their wishes for realities. These new forces also
consider (even those who are anti-Jewish Americans) that a historic compromise
and a fundamental alliance with the Jewish élites is necessary, to bring under
control both uncontrolled immigration and Islamism. They are finally beginning
to understand (like their counterparts in Europe) that the anti-Jewish aversion
is a complete non-starter.

I have always written, and I write today, that the USA may be an adversary but
it is not an enemy. It is essential to convince the American élites of the need
for an ethno-political alliance of all the peoples of European origin. I should
add that the arrogance and imperialism of American rulers has but one cause :
the weakness, the renunciation, the softness, of the European rulers. As for the
Jews, even if they are "a people apart", they manifestly constitute a people in
their own right, and they should be members of this alliance. Clearly, they need
to make efforts on their own behalf. I would use a term, which I repeat ,
"historic compromise".

16 France-Echos: You who made your mea culpa to have said Arab Europe-World formerly even combat, would you say Israel-Occident-Europe today even combat?

Guillaume Faye: Carl Schmitt, the famous German political scientist, whom Raymond Aron has made known and translated for the French, said that it is not you who choose your enemy, but it is your enemy who chooses you as his enemy, whether you like it or not. The fact that the Islamist ideology (which benefits from the enormous sensationalism of its approach to the masses and which does not trouble itself with the subtleties of the Parisian intelligentsia) talks of "Crusaders and
Zionists" as its principal enemy, should make us reflect. I shall answer your
question and my answer will draw its inspiration from my master, Niccolo
Macchiavelli. First off - I do not like the term, "the West", because it
apparently excludes Russia, and because of its superficiality (why "the West"?)
The realpolitik of the twenty first century will have to attempt to regroup all
the peoples of European origin, whose interests are convergent and who confront
the same menaces, whatever their continent of settlement may be. The Jewish
state should join this regrouping, and should place itself under its protection,
integrated without being assimilated, but without pretending to a leading rôle -
with an absolute guarantee that anti-Judaism is an obselete sentiment, and a
counter-productive one, which will be allowed no further influence. In any case,
to deny to the Jews their place within European civilisation (as understood in
its large-scale, multi-continental sense) has always seemed to me to be the
purest delirium, a result of ignorance and of bad faith. In the twenty first
century, Israel will no longer be at the centre of the world's preoccupations,
because the world will be less and less "Western-centred". (The Chinese and the
Indians have very little historical sense of a "Jewish Question"). Many Jews
consider themselves to belong to a "central people", the famous "salt of the
earth". This sentiment needs to be toned down a bit.

All the same, Israel is today one of the primary locations for the struggle
against the common enemy. I consider the Internet texts of the neo-rightist
pro-Islamist groups which exalt the "martyrdom" of a Belgian of European
descent, who converted to Islam and blew herself up in Israel, taking various
innocents with her, to be absolutely pathetic. In terms of first principles,
what do I have to do with this war between Jews and Muslims, between Israelis
and Palestinians? Who is right, who is wrong? It is not my problem, except that
... yes, except that in my opinion the perpetuation and strengthening of the
state of Israel is a vital priority for all Europeans. The destruction of Israel
would present Islam with an open door to the conquest of the whole of Europe. In
brief, I entirely support the state of Israel, while deploring the clumsiness
and soft-heartedness of certain of its current rulers (contaminated by the
humanitarianism of Buber). If I were in their place, I wouldn't wait for
American permission before hitting the Iranian nuclear sites.

17 France-Echos: The positions you express here may provoke an earthquake in your own circle? People might call you a "Jew-lover"?

Guillaume Faye: I am absolutely not a "Jew-lover". I think of the Jews as allies, as partakers
in European civilisation, with a very particular and original status as "people
apart" (this does not mean "superior"), and all this is something very different
from being a "Jew-lover". But I have always felt a certain repugnance for
anti-Judaism ; not because it seems to me "immoral", but because it seems to me
quite simply useless, debauched, infantile, politically self-contradictory, and
out of date. My whole purpose is to cause earthquakes, to make people think, to
dislodge their prejudices, and to make their minds evolve. To free my milieu
from counter-productive anti-Judaism and anti-zionism - with which it is still
imprinted - seems to me to be a strategic necessity. This fact should be taken
into account, dispassionately. To me, the Jews are themselves, proud of their
interior truth, guardians of their own secrets. The Jewish community ought to
reflect actively on the pertinence of my theories, and ought to decide upon its
own ideological evolution. My forthcoming essay, "The New Jewish Question" will
clarify a lot of obscure aspects of all this. I am engaged in digging holes in
the ground, in order to bring about the eruption of volcanoes.

NOTES:
Works written between 1980 and 1986 : "The System For Killing The Peoples"
(translated into Italian), "The New Ideological Joys", "Organic Man", "The New
Consumer Society", "Sex And Ideology", "The West As Decline", "New Discourse On
The European Nation".

Works written between 1986 and 1999 : "The Guide To Invective", "The Abbreviated
Guide To Seduction", "Extraterrestrials From A To Z".

Lusitano
Saturday, July 29th, 2006, 11:17 PM
Good interview. I cannot agree more with faye analisis. Is much ahead in the so-called movement and shows great intelectual courage to put his finger where it hurts the most, naming the beasts by their names.

Least we forget that he was the promoter of the international conference in Moscow about the White World future.

fms panzerfaust
Sunday, August 6th, 2006, 11:26 PM
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=890

Janus
Monday, August 7th, 2006, 12:08 AM
It has already been confirmed that it is a hoax and there has never been an interview with him.