EN LA MUERTE DE GUILLAUME FAYE

EN LA MUERTE DE GUILLAUME FAYE

Ernesto MILA

Ex: https://info-krisis.blogspot.com

Hace cuatro días, el 7 de marzo de 2019, falleció en Angulema Guillaume Faye. Uno de los pocos libros que salvé de la liquidación de mi biblioteca convencional fue el primero que leí de él durante mi exilio francés, Le système à tuer les peuples. Desde entonces he seguido su carrera como ensayista. Al volver a España lo perdí de vista y durante años no volví a saber de él. En un viaje a París -debió ser a finales de los 90- compré la nueva revista que publicaba, J’ai tout compris. Ayudé en la traducción de El Arqueofuturismo que incluía algunas notas sobre su polémica con Alain de Benoist, su exclusión del GRECE (por dos ocasiones, en 1986 y en 2000), y, desde entonces, fui traduciendo algunos libros y artículos que escribió entre 2000 y la fecha de su muerte.

No tengo ningún inconveniente en afirmar que su obra constituyó una inspiración para mí. Sus puntos de vista y la forma en la que los exponía, generalmente provocadores e impactantes, animaron múltiples debates. Fue uno de los que primero denunciaron la “islamización de Europa” y denunció el rostro de la modernidad. La fórmula “arqueofuturista”, síntesis de tradición y revolución, sigue siendo para algunos de nosotros la mejor expresión del pensamiento alternativo, el mejor paradigma contra la corrección política y el resumen del programa contra el Nuevo Orden Mundial.

Nunca dejó de creer en la idea europea y en el potencial europeo para superar la peor crisis de su historia: la actual.

Su técnica consistía en lanzar andanadas provocadoras que suscitaran debates. Era de los contrarios a cualquier catecismo. Uno de los motivos que me impulsaron a experimentar el mayor respeto y admiración por él fue la crítica que él mismo realizó al “gramscismo cultural” defendido por él mismo y por la “nouvelle droite” en los años 70.

Todos los que lo conocimos, directamente o a través de su obra, sabemos que se trataba de un personaje excesivo, tanto en su vida personal como en sus escritos. A diferencia de otros responsables de la antigua “nouvelle droite”, Faye nunca intentó entrar en los medios de la “respetabilidad intelectual” y optó siempre por el papel, menos rentable, pero más grato desde el punto de vista personal, del eterno “enfant terrible”.

En los medios de extrema-derecha, su libro sobre la cuestión judía resultó muy criticado y se habló de que se había convertido al nacional-sionismo. Es discutible porque la obra de un autor no puede medirse por algunas páginas de uno de sus ensayos, sino por la totalidad de su obra. Como máximo puede reconocerse que Faye compartía la idea de que había que cerrar las puertas al mundo islámico en Europa y que uno de los aliados objetivos para esta cuestión era el Estado de Israel. No era el único en proponer esta idea dentro de Francia, incluso en los medios de extrema-derecha la misma idea había estado presente en los años 50.

Se acusa a Faye de haber sido excesivamente catastrofista en sus previsiones y de haber anunciado una “guerra étnica” que todavía no ha estallado. De hecho, él no la anunció a plazo fijo, pero sí estableció que algunos fenómenos que se están produciendo en la actualidad, suponen los primeros chispazos de esa guerra étnica. Creo, sinceramente, que, en este terreno, Faye acertó plenamente: los nuevos grupos étnicos llegados a Europa siguen sin reconocerse en la cultura europea y mantienen entre ellos el espíritu de tribu aferrados a valores religiosos no europeos y a su propia identidad racial. Si hay momentos en los que están tranquilos es porque el sistema ha comprado la paz étnica mediante un régimen de subsidios. Si nos limitamos a constatar la realidad, cuidadosamente ocultada por medios y tertulianos, veremos que una parte muy importante de los problemas y molestias que sufre la sociedad europea (incluida la violencia doméstica, las agresiones sexuales y violaciones, la delincuencia, el deterioro de la seguridad ciudadana) están vinculados, en mayor o menor medida, al fenómeno de la inmigración masiva y descontrolada.

Libros como La colonización de Europa o El nuevo discurso a la nación europea, o el mismo Arqueofuturismo con el que regresó a la arena de la polémica, seguirán siendo libros de texto para todos los que muestren una objetividad y una ausencia de prejuicios ideológicos en su intento de ver la realidad tal cual es y no mediante la utilización de prismas y lentes deformantes.

El esfuerzo de Faye, su carácter dionisíaco y carente de prejuicios, lo situaban en las antípodas de los intelectuales pequeño-burgueses que solamente aspiran a que su obra sea reconocida en los foros bienpensantes y de alta difusión.

Faye, como Evola, como el propio Benoist, incluso como Thiriart, Duguin y tantos otros, exigen del lector cierta formación cultural y cierta capacidad para discernir, discriminar y decidir. No son obras que puedan aceptarse o rechazarse en su totalidad, cada una de ellas tiene matices, aciertos y déficits y así hay que tomarlos. Faye ni tendrá ni exigirá, ni siquiera le gustaría que existieran “fayeanos”: lo que sí exige del lector es algo tan simple como que piense por sí mismo. Si en este blog figura en el encabezamiento un paradigma personal, reconozco que parte de él, se debe a escritores como Guillaume Faye, grande entre los últimos intelectuales europeos.

 

Faible participation, déconnexion : le premier bilan peu reluisant du grand débat national

Faible participation, déconnexion : le premier bilan peu reluisant du grand débat national

par Bastien Gouly

Ex: https://echelledejacob.blogspot.com 

 

L'initiative lancée il y a plusieurs mois par Emmanuel Macron pour contrer la mobilisation des Gilets jaunes a-t-elle convaincu ? Selon Le Parisien, les catégories sociales les plus défavorisées compteraient parmi les grands absents du débat. 

Les jeunes et les pauvres, exclus du grand débat national ? Dans une étude diffusée le 9 mars, Le Parisien explique avoir décortiqué les 334.000 propositions citoyennes enregistrées dans le cadre de l'initiative macronienne, qui touche à sa fin. Une bonne partie de celles-ci provient de la plateforme internet du grand débat, non protégée du parasitage des activistes, anonymes et autres trolls, comme avait pu le constater RT France.

«C’est une France urbaine, socialement favorisée et retraitée qui s’est exprimée, du moins sur internet», analyse pour le quotidien de la capitale Jérôme Fourquet, directeur du département opinion publique à l'institut de sondage Ifop. Plusieurs médias ont, eux aussi, noté la faible réactivité des jeunes face à l'initiative gouvernementale.

«La France qui a participé est celle qui a voté Macron»

«La France qui a participé à cette vaste enquête est celle qui a voté pour Emmanuel Macron au premier tour de l’élection présidentielle», ajoute d'ailleurs Jérôme Fourquet. Par voie de conséquence, il note des disparités entre la participation des départements les plus riches et celle des moins aisés. L'illustration est faite avec l'Ile-de-France, Paris et les Hauts-de-Seine, qui en sont à plus de six contributions en ligne pour 1 000 habitants, loin devant la Seine-Saint-Denis – où le taux de pauvreté est le plus élevé de France métropolitaine – avec moins de quatre contributions en ligne pour 1 000 habitants.

Aussi, le grand débat initié par Emmanuel Macron, et organisé par le gouvernement en dehors d'un cadre indépendant (comme le souhaitait à l'origine la Commission nationale du débat public) semble être, d'abord, une affaire macronienne.

«La carte des non-contributeurs correspond à celle du non à Maastricht», résume par ailleurs Jérôme Fourquet qui constate «une fracture civique et démocratique».

Moins de contributeurs que de Gilets jaunes ?

Le Parisien affirme en outre que seuls 160 000 internautes auraient répondu à un ou plusieurs des quatre formulaires sur le site internet. Peu flatteur pour une démarche qui souhaitait éteindre la contestation des Gilets jaunes. Les macroniens ou partisans d'Emmanuel Macron ont beau avoir fait part, dès le premier acte le 17 novembre, de leurs réserves quant à la réussite du mouvement citoyen, force est de constater que celui-ci avait réuni, selon les chiffres du ministre de l'Intérieur (source pourtant accusée par les manifestants de minimiser la mobilisation) plus de 280 000 manifestants. Une mobilisation bien supérieure sur une journée, au nombre de participants du grand débat en ligne sur près de trois mois.

Le député de La France insoumise (LFI) Eric Coquerel a de fait rappelé le 12 mars à l'Assemblée nationale que le grand débat n'avait mobilisé sur son site que «0.25% des Français [...] moins d'un adhérent sur deux revendiqué par En marche». «A croire que même vos fidèles n'en ont pas voulu, de votre grande propagande nationale», a ajouté l'élu LFI à l'attention du Premier ministre Edouard Philippe.

Pourtant, le gouvernement et les élus de La République en marche comptent bien s'appuyer sur certains chiffres, manipulables, pour montrer le succès de leur opération. Par exemple, la secrétaire d'Etat auprès du ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Emmanuelle Wargon, le ministre chargé des Collectivités territoriales Sébastien Lecornu ou la députée LREM d'Ille-et-Vilaine Laurence Maillart-Méhaignerie se félicitent en effet d'avoir obtenu environ 1,5 million de contributions individuelles sur la plateforme en ligne.

Sur les réseaux sociaux, la députée LREM de l'Ain Olga Givernet se vante pour sa part d'une «importante participation avec 16 000 cahiers de doléances ouverts [et] 10 000 réunions d’initiatives locales».

La macronie est donc en rang serré, pour présenter le grand débat comme une réussite du quinquennat.

Que se passera-t-il dans les mois suivants ?

Après la fin de la récolte des contributions le 15 mars, l'exercice se poursuivra avec des conférences régionales de citoyens tirés au sort. Ils livreront leur diagnostic sur deux week-end, soit le 15-16 mars, soit le 22-23 mars selon les endroits.

Des débats au Sénat et à l'Assemblée nationale auront également lieu début avril sur les quatre thèmes (transition écologique, fiscalité et dépenses publiques, démocratie et citoyenneté, organisation de l'Etat et services publics). Selon une source parlementaire, contactée par l'AFP, le gouvernement devrait ensuite faire le 9 avril une déclaration devant l'Assemblée nationale, sans vote.

Sébastien Lecornu affirme d'ailleurs dans Le Journal du dimanche du 10 mars que des propositions se «déploieront jusqu'à l'été».

Le 12 mars devant le Conseil économique social et environnemental (Cese), Edouard Philippe annonce en outre que le grand débat devait aboutir sur plusieurs points à un «compromis démocratique». Cependant, difficile de rendre plausible cette éventualité lorsque, dans le même temps, La République en marche et son délégué général Stanislas Guerini confirment avoir pour proposition de faire travailler les salariés un jour supplémentaire, gratuitement, afin de financer la dépendance des personnes âgées. Il s'agirait d'une deuxième journée de solidarité après celle mise en place par le gouvernement Raffarin en 2004 pour financer... la dépendance.

Avant l'issue définitive du grand débat, la macronie n'est-elle pas déjà en train de jeter de l'huile sur les braises de l'actuelle contestation sociale ?

Bastien Gouly

Source

City of Xi’an and Why the New Chinese Silk Road Terrifies the West?

by Andre Vltchek

Ex: https://journal-neo.org

 

Snow is falling on the wide sidewalks of the historic city of Xi’an, but people don’t seem to be troubled by the bitter cold.

One of the oldest cities in China, Xi’an, is now vibrant, optimistic and stunningly beautiful. Sidewalks are paved with expensive stones and have more than enough space for pedestrians, electric bicycles, plants, trees and bus shelters.

Attempts by the Communist Party to turn China into an ‘Ecological Civilization’ are visible at every step: trees are revered and protected, comfortable walking is encouraged, while heavy duty, efficient and super modern public transportation is extremely cheap and ecological: the metro, and electric buses. All scooters are also electric, and so are the tricycles that are intended to transport passengers between the metro stations.

Compared to most Asian cities, but even to those in the United States and Europe, Chinese metropolises, including Xi’an, look like sort of urban areas of the future. But they are not ‘impersonal’, nor atomized. They are built for the people, not against them.

Xi’an is where the old Silk Road used to begin, connecting China to India, Central Asia and the Middle East.

It has a special significance and deep symbolism in Chinese history, and it is essential for China’s present and future.

Xi’an is the oldest of the four ancient capitals, and home to the Terracotta Army of Emperor Qin Shi Huang. This tremendous world heritage site is a titanic symbol of loyalty, endurance and optimism. According to the legend, the entire tremendous army followed its commander to the other life, ready to defend him, to fight for him and if necessary, to offer the ultimate sacrifice. What does it all really mean? Is it just an emperor that these brave warriors are ready to sacrifice their lives for, with smiles on their faces? Or is it the nation, or perhaps even the entire humanity they are determined to defend?

Whatever it is, it is enormous, and seeing the sheer size of the monument sends shivers all over my body.

*

Some fifty kilometers away, at the North Station of Xi’an City, an army of the fastest trains on earth is lined up at countless platforms. These beautiful bullet trains connect Xi’an with Beijing, Shanghai and soon, Hong Kong. Some of them are already speeding towards the city of Zhangye, which is the first step on the new rail Silk Road that will soon continue all the way towards the north-western tip of China, at Kashgar. And Kashgar is only 100 kilometers from the border with Kyrgyzstan, and 150 kilometers from Tajikistan.

If someone thinks that China is simply a north Asian country, far away from the rest of the world, they should think twice. In the center of Xi’an, there is a bustling neighborhood, similar to those found in any bustling city of the Middle East. There is a Grand Mosque, a bazaar, and endless lanes of colorful stalls, jewelry workshops, restaurants and halal eateries. Many women here wear colorful clothes and headscarves, while men cover their heads with skullcaps.

The western part of China is a vibrant mix of cultures from the north, as well as Central Asia. And the ancient capital of China – Xi’an – is well known and admired for its multi-cultural identity. Like the former Soviet Union, Communist China is an enormous and diverse country.

*

And the West doesn’t like what it sees.

It hates those super high-speed trains, which, at tremendous speed, as well as cheaply and comfortably, cover distances of thousands of kilometers. It hates where they are going: towards the former Soviet Central Asian republics, and soon, hopefully, towards Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and one day, maybe even India.

It hates the optimistic spirit of the people of Xi’an, as well as the wise and at the same time, avant-garde environmental policies of China.

It hates that in cities like Xi’an, there are no slums, no homeless people, and almost no beggars: that instead of advertisements, there are beautiful paintings with messages highlighting socialist virtues, including equality, patriotism, respect for each other, democracy and freedom. It hates that most of the people here look determined, healthy, in good spirits, and optimistic.

The West passionately hates the fact that China is essentially Communist, with a centrally planned economy and tremendously successful social policies (by 2020, China will eliminate the last pockets of extreme poverty), even strive for the ecological civilization.

China defies Western propaganda, which hammers into the brains of the people that any socialist society has to be drab, uniform and infinitely boring. Compared to such a city as Xi’an, even the European capitals look dull, depressing, dirty and backward.

Yet China is not rich, not yet. At least on paper, (read: using statistics produced and controlled predominantly by the countries and by the organizations controlled by Washington, London and Paris), its HDI (Human Development Index, compiled by UNDP), is the same as Thailand’s. While the contrast between two countries is striking. Thailand, a feudal society glorified by the West, because of its staunch support during the Vietnam War and because of its anti-Communist drive, is suffering from collapsed infrastructure (no public transportation outside Bangkok, awful airports and train system), monstrous, almost ‘Indonesian-style’ city planning (or lack of it), urban slums, endless traffic jams and basically no control of the government over business. In Thailand, frustration is everywhere, and the murder rate is consequently even higher than in the United States (per capita, according to INTERPOL data), while in China it is one of the lowest on earth.

But above all, the West hates China’s growing influence on the world, particularly among the countries that have been for centuries brutalized and plundered by European and North American corporations and governments. And it is scared that they will, eventually, fully understand that China is determined to stop all forms of imperialism, and to eradicate poverty in all corners of the world.

*

Xi’an is where the old and new Silk Roads have their starting points. The new one is called the Belt Road Initiative (BRI), and very soon it will account for tens of thousands of kilometers of railroads and roads connecting and crisscrossing Asia, Africa and Europe, pulling out of misery billions of men, women and children. Once completed, everybody will benefit.

But that is not how the West likes it. ‘Everyone benefiting’ is a totally foreign, even hostile concept, at least in the Western capitals. Only the West, plus those few ‘chosen’ and highly obedient countries (including Japan, South Korea and Singapore) have been, until now, allowed to prosper, forming a strictly ‘by appointment only’ club of nations.

China wants everyone to be rich, or at least not poor.

Most Asians love the idea. Africans love it even more. The new elegant train station in Nairobi, Kenya, is a new symbol, a promise of a better future. Tram lines in Addis Ababa, the construction of a high-speed train line that will go through Laos, all these are marvels unimaginable only a few years ago.

The world is changing, mainly thanks to the determined efforts of China and Russia to finally destroy Western colonialism (the ‘project’ that began so well right after WWII, but, except on paper, was never fully completed).

*

Xi’an is rising. In the West, they used to say that life in China is improving, but only for Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong.

Later they said, for the Pacific coast, OK, life is better, but go further West… Xi’an, Chengdu, Kunming and other cities followed.

Then, the propagandists regrouped: ‘Chinese cities are doing well, but the countryside is suffering’. Then came President Xi’s brainchild – ‘Ecological civilization’, and decisive reforms aimed at improving the standards of living and quality of life all over the most populous country on earth. In 2018, for the first time in modern history, there was a reverse migration from Chinese cities, to the rural areas.

One has to repeat again and again, until it sinks into people’s brains: After 2020, there will be no extreme misery in China.

In our upcoming book “China and Ecological Civilization”, a dialogue between me and leading philosopher John Cobb Jr, John who has been working very closely with the Chinese government on issues of environment and education, explained:

“As I compare China’s success in giving serious attention to the well-being of its natural environment and needy citizens with that of European countries, my reason for betting on China is that I have some confidence that it will maintain governmental control of finance and of corporations generally.  If it does this, it can also control the media.  Thus, it has a chance of making financial and industrial corporations serve the national good as perceived by people not in their service.  Less centralized governments are less able to control the financial and other corporations whose short-term interests may conflict with the common good.”

That may be the main reason why the West is horrified, and trying to antagonize China by all means: If China succeeds, colonialism will collapse, but also corporatism, which, like a fairy-tale monster devours everything in its sight.

*

Facing thousands of determined Terracotta soldiers, I felt the enormity of China.

I imagined hundreds of millions of men and women building the nation; millions of construction sites, not only in China itself, but also abroad. I recalled my neighbors in Nairobi, when I used to live in Africa – optimistic, well-natured but tough Chinese engineers, who used to power-walk, together, every night. I liked, I admired their spirit.

To me, they were like present-day Terracotta soldiers: brave, determined and loyal. Loyal not to the emperor, but to humanity. Not military men, but people who are constructing, building a much better world in all corners of the globe, often with their own hands. Despite the vitriolic spite and nihilism unleased against them by the West.

In Xi’an, I stood in front of the old gate, where everything began, many centuries ago; the old Silk Road. Now, everything was returning here, in a grand circle. The new beginning.

It was cold. It was beginning to snow. But I was immensely happy to be here, and I felt alive and full of optimism for the future of humanity.

I made a few symbolic steps. Millions did before me. Millions will, again, soon.

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, and a writer that penned a number of books, including China and Ecological Civilization. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
https://journal-neo.org/2019/02/20/city-of-xi-an-and-why-...

Vier maal Vierling: Guillaume Faye

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vier maal Vierling:

Guillaume Faye 

Nogniet Bekend

 

Vraaggesprek van Alfred Vierling met Guillaume Faye uit 2003.

 

Uit het beoogde vierluik Vier maal Vierling.

 

GUILLAUME FAYE: HERO OF EUROSIBERIA

GUILLAUME FAYE: HERO OF EUROSIBERIA

by Constantin von Hoffmeister

Ex: https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com 

 

"I know the skies bursting into lightning, and the whirlwind
And the surf and the currents: I know the evening,
The dawn rising like a flock of doves,
And I sometimes saw what men only thought they saw!"
                                    — Arthur Rimbaud, The Drunken Boat

Guillaume Faye entered the gates of Valhalla on March 7, 2019. He leaves behind an impressive body of work. His main vision concerns the creation of a White superpower, which he dubbed Eurosiberia, stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Another term for the same geopolitical construct is Euro-Russia, the merger of Western Europe and the Russian Far East — to herald the beginning of a new European Golden Age, with our continent becoming truly independent of the pernicious influence of the other global players today. 

The theoretical underpinning for this super state is the Faustian philosophy of Archeofuturism, which posits that the old and traditional has to enter a fruitful marriage with the new and cutting edge. Spaceships named after Odin and Hercules will pierce the sky in the search for suitable exoplanets to explore and colonize. Megacities will coexist with quaint villages in a lush landscape. Villagers will marvel at the steel spires from afar while toiling in their fields. The technocratic elite in the cities, meanwhile, will find new ways to make the home of the White race more environmentally sustainable without losing sight of the main goal: The Second Stealing of the Fire.

For Faye, the enemy is very clear: the “masses of aliens who immigrate and settle here with us.” This enemy is symbolized by Islam, which Faye accuses of a colonization that leads to the destruction of native European peoples. America, however, is merely an opponent. According to Faye, it cannot be considered an enemy because it only represents geopolitical interests. America is only strong because Europe is weak.

For Faye it is not class war but the racial struggle for supremacy that drives history. The Nietzschean will to power is an integral feature of the European people. Its current absence is the main cause for the imminent fall of Western civilization.

Faye was opposed to cultural relativism or hippie ideas like “anti-imperialism.” He had no interest in fighting for any people except his own, namely Europeans, because “each people is only responsible for its own identity, and history is a graveyard of peoples and cultures.” The concept of ethnocentrism postulates that the race or ethnic group one belongs to is the cornerstone of all considerations.

Guillaume Faye was neither an angel nor a saint. He was a heavy drinker and smoker, an active participant in porn movies and a womanizer. He was a French poet in the vain of Arthur Rimbaud and Paul Verlaine. He was literally possessed by the exuberant and frenzied spirit of the French symbolists, always uncovering new truths, formulating fundamental axioms and making predictions, which all true Europeans hope will one day come to pass. Burning the candle at both ends like the Absinthe-guzzlers of yore, Faye’s near hallucinatory visions have the same elegance and beauty as Charles Baudelaire’s apocalyptic prophecies, but while the latter’s are uniformly pessimistic about the failure of modernity, the former’s are unequivocally filled with the optimistic joy of a future overcoming. Faye embraces the Age of Rapid Progress and believes creating chimeras in laboratories would be a swell thing to behold.

The White race is the master of Eurasia. Eurosiberians are the inhabitants of Europe and Russia. Only eight million Whites live in Siberia. It is their obligation to multiply and colonize this vast space. Siberia is the new Wild West. Islam is an enemy of Europe. The North is the enemy of the South. A new battlefront has been drawn. In the trenches in the North, the White race, grim-faced and merciless, sits ready with guns cocked and cannons loaded. The West will decolonize itself with the help of fresh blood from the East. West and East will merge and become Eurosiberia. The Eurosiberian identity will give birth to the counterrevolution which will pit itself against the world revolution of the colored peoples.

In his book The New Jewish Question (published in France in July 2007), Guillaume Faye denounces Holocaust “revisionism” (or denial). Prominent Holocaust “revisionist” Robert Faurrison denounced Faye for that transgression against rightist dogma. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that Holocaust “revisionism” is utterly inconsequential and counterproductive to the cause of racial liberation. Naturally, Holocaust “revisionism” is mostly the home of raging anti-Semites (who try to downplay the anti-White policies of the Nazis). Faye was a progressive European nationalist and hence on our side. Most Holocaust “revisionists” are not on our side. Also, it is not “the Jews” who criminalized Holocaust “revisionism” but gentile officials of gentile countries.

Faye was opposed to demonizing and scapegoating Jews, as so many people on the Right are delusionally wont to do. Faye took the position of Friedrich Nietzsche when he stated that “to run down the Jews serves no purpose, it’s politically stupid and unproductive.” Faye also correctly identified anti-Zionism as merely another form of anti-Semitism. He said that “anti-Judaism [a term he prefers to anti-Semitism] is a political position that is obsolete, unhelpful, out of date, even when camouflaged as anti-Zionism.” Faye castigated European nationalists who view Israel as an enemy:

“How could I be anti-Zionist? ... Unlike Islamism, Communism, Leftism, human rights, and masochistic, post-conciliar Christianity, Zionism neither opposes nor restrains in any significant way the ideals I defend, that is, the preservation of [Europe’s racial] identity. How would the disappearance of Israel serve my cause? For a European identitarian to think that the Hebrew state is an enemy is geopolitically stupid.”

RTS = Racialist Tourette's Syndrome: A condition that describes people who can't shut up about "the Jews." Such people are usually not interested in winning.

Guillaume Faye is reviled among the mentally ill RTS crowd. They cannot comprehend that a man of his stature could simply “ignore” what they falsely view as the number one cause of the West’s decline. While Faye was not afraid of criticizing individual Jews and Jewish groups, he made it very clear that “the Jews” as a monolithic group do not exist, as evidenced by the fact that many Jews are also on “our side.”

Guillaume Faye most certainly supported Israel. He made this quite clear in many private conversations I had with him in Moscow. Faye has absolutely nothing in common with the “Jewish conspiracy” theorists, who, unfortunately, still infest the Right. Luckily, though, more and more people are realizing that this way of thinking is anachronistic, counterproductive and definitely not based in reality. Since Faye is possibly the most important thinker of the Right, it seems fair to say that the Right is not a monolithic anti-Zionist beast. Some rightists’ anti-Semitism leads them to embrace Islam as their new identity. Their obsession with “the Jews” leads them directly into the camp of Europe’s deadliest enemies.

Guillaume Faye is a Hero of Eurosiberia precisely because he had a wider vision and an insight that was not limited to insane fringe conspiracy theorizing but rather to levelheaded and fact-based analyses of the current status quo. Faye’s heroic status stems directly from his ability to prophesy and inspire without resorting to lies and falsehoods. Faye, who foresaw a “convergence of catastrophes” (a natural disaster combined with a massive military conflict, for example, could bring about the desired paradigm shift) and preached a return to eternal values while embracing the coming Technological Singularity, was and will always remain the black-pilled prophet of European optimism - a true Promethean soul!

Faye's ideas about racial and cultural struggles as the key to Western self-discovery finally culminated in a book that was published exactly one day after his passing: Guerre Civile Raciale (Racial Civil War). The esteemed American pro-White advocate Jared Taylor wrote the preface. In this book, Faye bemoans the sheep-like passivity of his people in the face of replacement and subjugation, but he also expresses his fervent wish that one day, weary of being deprived of their culture and way of life, they will rise up and, animated by their survival instinct and sense of self-defense, start organizing a counteroffensive which will hopefully lead to a FINAL VICTORY.

 

The author with Guillaume Faye in Moscow, July 2007

È morto Guillaume Faye. Il filosofo che ammise la stanchezza degli eroi

Daniela Rubino

Ex: http://www.litterartour.it 

In questo tempo di nevrosi applicata al nulla anche gli eroi diventano stanchi. Si isolano. Vivono nella nicchia di una saggezza che con quantifica il sapere, ma sa essere saggezza e  silenzio. Da questo silenzio il pensiero è una fortezza. Forse Bastiani. Il deserto accoglie non i Tartari ma i sapienti. Gli uomini che hanno ancora una “razza” da difendere contro il globalismo macchiato dai leopardi e coccodrilli e mai dai gattopardi. La morte si avvicina e avvicina la necrologia della mediocrità che occupa ormai la scena. Nella vita come nella cultura e in quel far ed essere politica. È morto Guillaume Faye.

Era nato a Angoulême il 7  novembre del 1949. Lo scrittore che seppe raccontare la colonizzazione dell’Europa e adottò il sistema di un futurismo del pensiero che sapeva e sa guardare anche oltre le arti.  Un futurismo dell’incipit, ovvero di una archeologia in cui il pensiero è primordiale e il saper fare distinzione è un sistema ancestrale. Inventò movimenti e cercò nella volontarietà dell’Occidente ad essere primato oltre le frustrazioni della stessa colonizzazione. Di filosofia parlò e i suoi maestri nascono nella mai abusata reticenza della potenza scavata nella volontà.

Nietzsche letto e studiato come il filosofo che non accolse mai la lacerazione del modernismo e trasferì il suo tragico vivere in un Heidegger che  non volle mai sciogliere l’enigma greco antico di essere e tempo. Forse anche per questo rimase nel tempo dell’essere come un faustiano principe che insegnò a leggere la contemporaneità con gli svelamenti del passato. Non mi è mai piaciuta l’idea di considerarlo come il fautore di una nuova destra. Non c’entra nulla. Cercò nel principio del tradizionalismo la forza per combattere il “mito” giudaico e occidentale attraverso alcune coordinate di fondo che trovano nella solitudine la universalità del pensiero non in trasparenza, ma vissuto e sacrificato oltre la Croce. Nella roccia che è metafisica proprio di quell’Essere e Tempo che domanda all’uomo di conoscere prioritariamente la libertà e non la contaminazione, la persona e non il gruppo, il personale come proprio immaginario e non l’immaginario come modello globale. Il globalismo ha ucciso l’archeologia del sapere.

Guillaume Faye ebbe il coraggio di scrivere spiegando il suo pensiero “radicale” e non relativo o relativista che: “Le intuizioni di Nietzsche, di Evola, di Heidegger, di Carl Schmitt, di Guy Debord o di Alain Lefebvre — tutte relative al rovesciamento dei valori — si dimostrano infine realizzabili, come la nietzscheana filosofia a colpi di martello. Il nostro ‘stato di civiltà’ e maturo per questo. Lo stesso non era nel recente passato, quando la coppia moderna XIX-XX secolo incubava la sua infezione virale senza ancora subirla. D’altra parte, conviene rigettare subito il pretesto secondo il quale un pensiero radicale sarebbe ‘perseguitato’ dal sistema. Il sistema è stupido. Le sue censure sono permeabili e maldestre. Esso è capace di colpire soltanto le provocazioni folkloristiche e le goffaggini ideologiche”.

Non si iscrisse ad una menzione filosofica ideologica perché forte delle lezioni della memoria scardinò l’omologazione ad un “sistema” perché era fortemente consapevole che il Sistema mira ad uccidere i Popoli, ad annientarli, a globalizzarli attraverso la pratica del globale occidentale “meticciato” con un islamismo di mercato insieme ad una nuova società voluta dal barbarismo cattolico.

Infatti cercò di trafiggere l’utopia con questi incisi: “Le società europee in crisi di oggi sono pronte a essere trapassate da pensieri radicali determinati, muniti da un progetto di valori rivoluzionari e portatori di una contestazione completa ma pragmatica e non utopica dell’attuale civiltà mondiale”. Certo, tra Nietzsche ed Heidigger insiste Carl Schmitt con un “romanticismo” della politica che lo condusse sino a Robert Brasillach e a Vintila Horia. Tra i suoi saggi sono da ricordare: “Gli eroi sono stanchi, in “L’uomo libero” numero 14 del 01/04/1983, “La Nuova Società dei Consumi in “L’uomo libero” numero 20 del 01/01/1985, Per l’indipendenza economica in “L’uomo libero” numero 13 del 01/01/1993, La colonizzazione dell’Europa: la soluzione di Prometeo e del Dottor Faust in “L’uomo libero” numero 58 del 01/11/2004, Il Sistema per uccidere i popoli, SEB, Milano 1997,, Archeofuturismo, SEB, Milano 2000, Per farla finita con il nichilismo. Heidegger e la questione della tecnica, SEB, Milano 2007. Una meta politica, la sua, che penetrò la filosofia come universo della filosofia che non può accettare il moderno se non grazie una “archeologia del sapere”  alla Michel Foucault. Non smise mai di sottolineare che “l’uomo europeo a un tempo come il deinatatos («il più audace»), il futurista, è l’essere di lunga memoria. Globalmente il futuro richiede il ritorno dei valori ancestrali, e questo per tutta la Terra”.

Daniela Rubino

Giornalista Pubblicista – Direttore tecnico di agenzia di viaggi e turismo – Writer – Ghostwriter

Direttrice del Blog LitterArtour

Guillaume Faye e quell’incontro in un lontano pomeriggio d’estate a Parigi

da Manlio Triggiani

Ex: http://www.barbadillo.it 

 

 

Guillaume Faye, uno dei maggiori intellettuali del panorama culturale francese, morto nella notte fra il 6 e il 7 marzo scorsi, aveva lottato a lungo contro un male aggressivo, con coraggio, senza trascurare la scrittura e gli interventi nel dibattito culturale. Diplomato all’Institut d’études politiques di Parigi, aveva conseguito un dottorato in Scienze politiche e fu uno dei maggiori teorici del Groupement de recherches et etudes pour la Civilisation européenne (Grece), e dell’ambiente più tardi noto come Nuova Destra francese, nel periodo compreso fra il 1970 al 1986. In seguito si allontanò per divergenze ideologiche dal laboratorio politico di de Benoist. Era nato ad Angouleme nel 1949 (nella regione Nuova Aquitania) e proveniva da una famiglia dell’alta borghesia parigina. Pubblichiamo il ricordo di un nostro collaboratore.

Quando si aprì la porta della sede del Grece, in un arrondissement popolare di Parigi, mi trovai davanti Guillaume Faye, in camicia e cravatta. “Monsieur Guillaume Faye?” dissi, avendolo riconosciuto. Mi presentai, spiegai che venivo dall’Italia, che ero interessato al laboratorio di idee della Nuova Destra francese e alla loro produzione culturale. Mi fece accomodare ed entrai in un grande ufficio, con un paio di scrivanie al centro, un grosso computer e due signore che stavano lavorando su degli elenchi. Faye fu molto gentile, parlammo un po’ e poi mi condusse in un’altra grande stanza dove c’erano, su tavoli ed espositori, riviste, libri, dépliant, poster.  Parlammo un po’ della situazione culturale e politica in Francia e in Italia. Mi chiese di seguirlo e andammo in una delle stanze meno grandi dell’appartamento, lo studio di Alain de Benoist. Mi presentò il “capo” riconosciuto della Nuova Destra. Lo studio era stretto e lungo, con la scrivania di spalle a una grande finestra e di fronte all’ingresso della stanza. De Benoist era seduto alla scrivania, stava leggendo un quotidiano tedesco. Sul tavolo da lavoro, una pila di libri e giornali francesi, italiani, britannici. Sulla sinistra entrando mi colpì, in una sobria cornice scura appoggiata su un mobile basso, addossato alla parete, una foto in bianco e nero di Alain de Benoist in compagnia di Ernst Jünger e una dedica in tedesco dell’autore delle Tempeste d’acciaio. Faye mi presentò de Benoist e dopo alcuni convenevoli con de Benoist, Faye mi disse che doveva assentarsi per un impegno. Prima di andar via mi dette appuntamento per il giorno successivo, per l’ora di pranzo. Così avremmo avuto modo di parlare.

Il giorno dopo andammo in una brasserie lì vicino, insieme con un suo amico, un certo Michel, probabilmente dell’amministrazione (non si trattava né di Michel Marmin né di Michel Mourlet). Ci sedemmo a un tavolo e Faye cominciò a parlare in maniera fluente in un ottimo italiano, con poche inflessioni. In seguito avrei saputo che la sua amicizia con Giorgio Locchi lo aveva spinto a imparare la lingua di Dante.

Rimanemmo al tavolo per una parte del pomeriggio, dopo la fine del pranzo, e discutemmo quasi sempre della Nuova Destra e di scrittori e di libri. Faye aveva un modo di esprimersi che colpiva, aveva grandi capacità oratorie e discorsive: parlava della strategia della Nuova Destra, del gramscismo di destra, della conquista delle coscienze attraverso il cinema, l’arte, la letteratura, il pensiero politico e citava di volta in volta Nietzsche, Benn, Drieu, Evola, Machiavelli, Hobbes, facendo seguire ragionamenti interessanti, con riferimenti alla filosofia e all’economia. Era accattivante quella forza discorsiva, resa più incisiva da esempi, riferimenti, spiegazioni con paragoni mutuati dalla realtà contemporanea. A esempio, parlava della necessità che l’Europa lottasse contro gli Usa (anni dopo cambiò parere) e mi anticipò che il Grece stava studiando al proprio interno il tema della convergenza teorica fra Europa e Terzo mondo, con riferimenti espliciti al mondo arabo (l’anno successivo, il 1986, uscì il libro di de Benoist, Europe-Tiers monde, meme combat e io pensai a quell’anticipazione di Faye). Alle mie perplessità rispose che si trattava di una alleanza momentanea, “come nei tornei internazionali di calcio – disse – quando si affrontano le varie squadre in ogni girone e qualcuno, di volta in volta, viene eliminato”.

Feci alcune domande sulla sua opera che avevo letto l’anno precedente, Il sistema per uccidere i popoli (Edizioni L’Uomo libero), attacco preciso e ben argomentato contro la globalizzazione, e mi parlò di una nuova edizione che avrebbe preparato arricchendola di ulteriori analisi prevedendo che allora il multiculturalismo era solo all’inizio nell’opera di distruzione svolta contro l’Europa. Mi indicò le riviste italiane che riportavano in traduzione i suoi scritti. Le conoscevo. Parlammo di amici italiani comuni e, quando tornammo nella sede del Grece, mi consigliò due numeri di Nouvelle Ecole, un libro di geopolitica di Jordis von Lohausen, uno di Louis Rougier. Estroso, un diluvio di parole, citazioni, molto colto, mostrava sempre grande energia e partecipazione in quello che diceva, come se ci mettesse un supplemento d’anima nelle cose che asseriva, con uno spirito militante determinato, frutto di un pensiero faustiano, evidentemente nietzscheano, con un sottofondo neopagano, rafforzato da continui richiami alla mitologia greca e romana che amava citare. Amava la tecnoscienza europea che considerava importante se sposata con una visione volontaristica e di destra. Insomma, radici più futuro. Non esitava a utilizzare espressioni polemiche e provocatorie. Era ottimista, nonostante tutto, sul futuro dell’Europa, si considerava un “nazionalista europeo”, in questo forse richiamandosi agli scritti di Drieu che tanto apprezzava.

Ci salutammo e in quell’ormai tardo pomeriggio d’estate uscii dalla brasserie, con il mio pacco di riviste e di libri sotto il braccio. Faye in quell’incontro mi era sembrato differente dal resto degli autori del Grece, certi suoi riferimenti teorici non erano sempre in linea con la Nuova Destra. Almeno quella presentata in Italia dalla Nuova Destra di Marco Tarchi che pure spesso presentava traduzioni dei maggiori teorici della Nd francese. L’anno dopo, infatti, Faye abbandonò il Grece a seguito di polemiche e divergenze su temi di fondo. Una personalità forte, una volontà faustiana, un uomo libero.

Che riposi in pace.