G. Faye: The Transitional Program

The Transitional Program

By Michael O'Meara

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

A propos of . . .

Guillaume Faye
Mon Programme: Un programme révolutionnaire ne vise pas à changer les règles du jeu mais à changer de jeu,
Chevaigné: Les Éditions du Lore, 2012

Following quickly on the heels of Sexe et dévoiement ^[3] (2011), which examined the social-sexual roots of the present European demographic crisis, Faye’s latest is a much different kind of work, addressing quite another, though not entirely unrelated problem.

Theory and Practice

When dealing with political ideas in the largest sense (i.e., as they bear on the life or death of the polis), there comes a time, he argues, when critical and analytical thought, with its commentaries and opinions, has to pass from the abstract to the concrete. The most brilliant medical diagnosis, to give an analogy, is worth little if it does not eventually lead to a curative therapy.

In this vein, his Programme represents an effort to pass from the theoretical to the practical, as it proposes certain concrete policies (political therapies) to treat the ills presently afflicting the French state – and by extension, other European states. The details of this program make little reference to the American situation, but its general principles speak to the malignancy infecting all states of the Americanosphere.

Reform and Revolution

Faye’s program is not, ostensibly, about reforming the existing state. That would only “improve” a political system, whose corruptions, vices, and totalitarian powers are increasing immune to correction. The state’s lack of authority and democratic legitimacy, combined with the entrenchment of the New Class interests controlling it, means that such a system cannot actually be changed in any significant way. Hence the claim of Faye’s subtitle: A revolutionary program (i.e., one that attacks the existing disorder at its roots) “does not aim at changing the rules of the game but at changing the game itself.” The “game” here is the existing political system, which has become an obvious catastrophe for European peoples. For every patriot, this system needs not to be changed, but to be razed and rebuilt – from the ground up and according to an entirely different paradigm.

There is, though, a certain terminological confusion in the way Faye describes his program. He realizes it is something of a pipe dream. No state or party is likely to embrace it — though, of course, this does not lessen the value of its exercise nor does it mean it will not fertilize future projects of a similar sort. We also do not know what is coming and perhaps there will be a moment of breakdown — Joseph Tainter’s “Collapse” — making possible a revolutionary transition. If “we” should ever, then, have the occasion to assume power and restructure the state: how would we go about it?

Faye’s Programme is an effort to start thinking about such an alternative in a situation where a regime-threatening crisis of one sort or another brings a “new majority” to power. He doesn’t specifically spell out what such a crisis might entail, but it is easily imaginable. In 2017, for example, if the present society-destroying problems of unemployment, deindustrialization, massive indebtedness, uncontrolled Third World immigration, etc., are not fixed, and nothing suggests that they will, an anti-system party, like the National Front, could conceivably be voted into power. (Think of what is happening in Greece today.) In such a situation a new majority might submit something like his Programme to a referendum, calling on the “people” to authorize a radical re-structurization of the political system.

I can think of at least two national revolutions that came to power in a similar institutional (legal) way: the Sinn Féin MPs of December 1918 who refused to sit at Westminster and the NSDAP coalition that got a chance to form a government in January 1933.

The Programme anticipates a less catastrophic situation than foreseen in his Convergence des castastrophes (2004) or implied in Avant-Guerre (2002). Perhaps he is suggesting that this scenario is more realistic or likely now; I’m not certain. But it is strange to see so little of his convergence theory — what Tainter calls the ever mounting costliness of complexity — in his program, especially while positing a crisis as the program’s premise.

In any case, his Programme assumes its political remediation is to be administered before the present system collapses, at a moment when a new majority gets a chance to form a government from the debris of the old. For this reason, I think it is better characterized as “transitional” (in the Trotskyist sense).

Unlike a revolutionary program that outlines a strategy for overturning the existing order and seizing state power, a transitional program addresses a crisis in terms of the existing institutional parameters, but does so in ways that reach beyond their limits and are unacceptable to the ruling powers — challenging the system’s logic and thus posing a threat to its “order.” (See Leon Trotsky, The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International [1938].)

The State

In The Politics, Aristotle conceives of the state almost organically: the head of a body (the polis) — the political system that rules the City and ensures order within its measured boundaries.

In his self-consciously Aristotelian approach — which favors individual liberty, responsibility, hierarchy, and ethno-cultural homogeneity — Faye’s program aims at lessening the state’s costly, inefficient administrative functions, enhancing its sovereign powers, and abandoning its appropriation of functions that properly belong to the family and society.

This entails freeing the French state from the present European Union (whose Orwellian stranglehold on continental life is objectively anti-European). He does not actually advocate withdrawing from it, but rather refusing to cooperate with it until its rules are redesigned and national sovereignty is restored. Given that France is the most politically significant of the European states and is pivotal the EU’s existence, it has the power to force a major revamping of its policies and restore the European Idea that inspired the Treaty of Rome (1958).

If achieved, this restoration of national sovereignty would give the French state the freedom to remodel its institutions — not for the sake of undermining the primacy of the state, as our libertarians would have it, but of excising its cancers and enhancing its “regalian” will to “re-establish, preserve, and develop the identity, the prosperity, the security, and the power of France and Europe.”

Faye is not a traditional French nationalist, but a Europeanist favoring continental unity (an imperial family of nations rather than a global marketplace). He believes both the French state and the EU have a liberal-socialist concept of the political, which makes them unable to distinguish between their friends and enemies — given that the individualist, universalistic, and pluralist postulates of their ideology views the world in market and moralist terms, holding that only individualistic matters of ethics and economics are primary. (In traditional, organic civilizations it is the Holy that is primary.)

A restoration of sovereignty would give the French state the freedom to restructure and rebuild itself.

Globally, he proposes measures that would control the nation’s borders, re-vitalize its national economy, improve its efficiency, reduce its costs, amputate its nomenclature, streamline its functions, and concentrate on the national interest, and not, like now, on the special interests. But there is nothing in the Programme that would mobilize the French themselves for the transition. It is strictly a top-down project that ignores what Patrick Pearse called “the sovereign people,” who are vital to the success of every revolutionary movement.

The state, in any case, is too large — which is true almost everywhere. At its top and bottom: its functions and personnel need to be greatly reduced — cabinet positions should fall to six (Defense, Justice, Foreign Affairs, Interior, Economy, and Instruction/Patrimony) and the number of state functionaries cut by at least 50 percent. Faye’s proposals would remove cumbersome, over-regulating, and counter-productive state agencies for the sake of freeing up funds for more worthwhile investments in the private economy.

Toward these ends, he proposes overturning the anti-democratic role of judges, who in the name of the Constitution thwart the popular will (constitutional questions would be left to the Senate); introducing referendums that give the electorate a greater say in major policy decisions; restoring popular liberties, like the right to free speech; introducing “positive” law that judges the crime and not the criminal; abolishing the privileges of higher state functionaries (now greater than those of the 18th-century aristocracy); and eliminating the present confusion of state powers.

The Economy

In the modern world, the power (in a material sense) of a nation-state is in its economy. (The health and longevity of the nation — in the spiritual sense — is another thing, dependent on its demography, the preservation of it genetic heritage, the quality of its culture, and the culture’s transmission.)

Though conscious of the dangers posed by economism, Faye believes “prosperity” is necessary (though not sufficient) for social harmony and national defense. State and economy for him are different realms, operating according to different logics. But he rejects both the Marxist contention that the state’s political economy can do anything it wishes in the market and the liberal-conservative position that it can do nothing. Straddling the two, he advocates a political economy whose guiding principles are non-ideological and pragmatic. “What counts is what works — not what conforms to a dogma.” Sound economic practice is based on experience, not theory.

The great financial crisis of 2008, whose ravages are still evident, was not, he claims, a crisis of capitalism, but a crisis of the welfare-state — and thus a crisis of “statism” (étatisme). The crippling state debt allegedly at the root of this crisis stems, he argues, from the state’s profligate spending, its ever-growing number of functionaries, its bureaucratic mismanagement and cronyism, and its unsupportable social charges, like the Afro-Arab hordes occupying its banlieues. Left-wing talk of ultra-liberalism is delusional in economic systems as regulated as those of Europe. In living beyond its means, the state has acquired debts it cannot afford and now blames it on others.

Faye dismisses those who claim the crisis was created by a conspiracy of banksters and vampire capitalists. Targeting solely the failures of the present political system, he does not see or think it is important that there is something of a revolving door (perhaps greater in the US than France) between the state and the corporations, that the crimes of the money powers are intricately linked to state policies, and thus that the economic interests have a corrupting and distorting effect on the state.

In his anti-Marxism, Faye is wont to stress the primacy of the “superstructure,” rather than the economic “base” (which, most of the time, is probably a reliable rule of thumb). Similarly, he does not relate the current crisis to globalization, which has everywhere undermined the existing models of governance, nor does he consider the often nefarious role played by the IMF, the WTO, and the new global oligarchs.

He blames the crisis solely on the state’s incompetent and spendthrift policies, leaving blameless the money-lenders and criminals, whose bail-out caused the national debt to escalate beyond any imaginable repayment. The state may be primary to a people’s existence, but in the neo-liberal regimes of the West, it is clearly attentive, if not subordinated to the dominant economic interests. The two (state and economy) seem hardly understandable today except in relation to one another — though he wants us to believe the cause of the crisis was purely political. (In my mind, it is civilizational.)

In any case, the French state is over-administrated, “socialist” in effect; it has too many workers (almost 25 percent of the workforce); it pursues social-engineering domestically and economy-destroying free-trade policies internationally, the most self-destroying policies conceivable. Given capitalism’s quantitative logic, its globalist free-trade policies are also destroying Europe’s ability to compete with low-wage Third World economies, like China, and are thus devastating the productive capacity of its economies.

France and Europe, Faye argues, need to protect themselves from the ravages of global free trade by creating a Eurasian autarkic economic zone, from Galway to Vladivostok (what he once called “Eurosiberia,” though there’s no mention of it), and at the same time by liberalizing the domestic economy, throwing off excessive regulations and social charges for the sake of unleashing European initiative and enterprise. He calls thus for changes in the EU that focus on stimulating the European market rather than allowing it to succumb to America’s global market, which is turning the continent’s advanced economies into financialized and tertiarized economies, unable to provide decent paying jobs. The emphasis of his program is thus on national economic growth.

The present policy of budget austerity, he argues, is compounding the crisis, causing state revenues to decline and forcing the economy into depression. Growth alone will generate the wealth needed to get out of debt. To this end, the state needs to radically cut costs, but do so without imposing austerity measures. This entails not just simplifying and rationalizing public functions, but changing the paradigm. The state should not, therefore, indiscriminately reduce public expenses, but rather suppress useless, unproductive charges, while augmenting wealth-creating ones.

Basically, he wants the state to withdraw from the economy, but without abandoning its role in protecting the public and national interests. For those key sectors vital to the nation’s economy and security — energy, armaments, aerospace, and high tech — the state should exercise a certain strategic control over them, but without interfering in their management.

He also calls for a tax revolution that will unburden the middle class, while expanding the tax base. Similarly, he wants the state to encourage enterprise by relieving business of costly social charges, especially on small and middle-size enterprises that create employment; he wants the French to work more — increasing the workweek from 35 hours to 40, and decreasing annual vacations from five weeks to four; he wants a liberalization of the labor market, with a system of national preferences favoring French workers over immigrants; he wants a different system of unemployment benefits that encourages work and rationalizes job placements; he wants a cap on executive salaries and an end to golden parachutes; and he wants state subventions of public worker unions discontinued, along with their right to strike.

As a general principle, he claims the state should not grant rights it cannot afford, that those who can work should, that foreigners have no right to public services (including education), that quotas imposing artificial forms of sexual and racial equality are intolerable, and that only natives unable to work should be entitled to assistance. Social justice, he observes, is not a matter of socialist redistribution, but of a system whose pragmatic efficiencies and competitive industries are able to provide for the nation’s needs. There are, however, no proposals in his program for re-industrialization, state economic planning, or an alternative form of economy based on something other than capitalism’s incessant need to grow and consume.

Closely related to the country’s economic problems is that of the state’s failed politique familiale. The state needs to adopt measures to offset the social problems created by explosive divorce rates and non-reproducing birthrates. The aging of the population is also going to require increased medical services, which need to be expanded and improved.

As for the rising generation, he calls for a revamping of the national education system, which has become a “cretin-producing factory.” France’s Third Republic had one of the finest educational systems in the world, that of the Fifth Republic has been an utter disaster, due largely to Left-wing egalitarian policies catering to the lowest common denominator (the Barbarians at the Gates). The state, moreover, has no right to ‘educate’ youth — that is the role of the family (and, I would add, the Church). The state should instead provide schools that instruct — that convey knowledge and its methods — not inculcate the reigning Left ideologies. Discipline must also be restored; all violence and disorder in schools must be severely punished. Immigrants and non-natives ought to be excluded. Obligatory schooling should end at age 14, and a system of apprenticeship (like in Germany) should be made available to those who do not pursue academic degrees.

The universities also need to be revamped, with more rigorous forms of instruction, dress codes, tracking, and the elimination of such frivolous disciplines as psychology, sociology, communications, business, etc.

There are, though, no proposed measures in his program to strengthen the nation’s ethno-cultural identity, resist the audio-visual imperialism of America’s entertainment industry, or outlaw the NGOs funded by the CIA.

Immigration

The present soft-totalitarian ideology of the French state, like states throughout the Americanosphere, portrays immigration as an “enrichment,” though obviously it is everywhere and in all ways a disaster, threatening the nation’s ethnic fundament, its way of life, and its cultural integrity. Immigration is also code for Third World colonization and Islamization.

Against those claiming it is impossible to stem the immigrant tide, Faye contends that what is needed is a will to do so — a will to eliminate the “pull” factors (like welfare) that attract the immigrant invaders. He proposes zero immigration, the deportation of illegals, the expulsion of unemployed legal ones, the end to family regroupments, the strict policing of student and tourist visas, the abolition of exile rights, visa controls on international transportation links, the elimination of state-funded social assistance to foreigners, national preference in employment, and the replacement of jus soli by jus sanguinis.

Given that Muslims are a special threat, Faye proposes abolishing all state-supported Muslim associations, prohibiting mosque building and halal practices, imposing heavy fines on veiled women, eliminating Muslim chaplains from the military and the prison system, and implementing a general policy of restrictive legislation toward Islam. Surprisingly, he proposes no measures to break up the non-European ghettos presently sponging off French tax-payers and constituting a highly destabilizing factor within the body politic (perhaps because the above measures would prevent these ghettos from continuing to exist).

Even these relatively moderate measures, he realizes, are likely to stir up trouble, for every positive action inevitably comes with its negative effects. But unless measures aimed at stopping the “pull” factors promoting the immigrant invasion are taken, Faye warns, it may be too late for France, in which case more drastic measures will have to be taken later — and Plan B will have no pity.

The World

The state’s defense of the nation and its relationship with other states are two of its defining functions.

To those familiar with Faye’s earlier thoughts on these subjects, they will find the same general orientation — a rejection of Atlanticism, a realignment with Russia, neutrality to the US, withdrawal from the Third World, and an armed vigilance toward Islam. His stance on NATO, the US, and Russia, though, is more “moderate” than those taken in the past.

The Programme depicts the present EU as objectively anti-European, but does not call for an outright withdrawal from it. It similarly recognizes that NATO subordinates Europe to America’s destructive crusades and alliances (impinging on the basic principle of sovereignty: the right to declare war) and again does not call for a withdrawal, only a strategy to diminish its significance. And, finally, though he thinks Russia should be the axis of French policy (which is indeed her only viable geopolitical option), there is little in his program that would advance the prospects of such a realignment or re-align France against the surreptitious war of encirclement presently being waged by the US against Russia. There is also nothing on the present “unipolar-to-multipolar phase” of international politics, brought on by America’s imperial decline — as it goes about threatening war and international havoc, all the while supremely indifferent to the collapse of its own economic fundamentals. On these key policies related to France’s position in the world, he stands to the “right” of Marine Le Pen.

Faye’s program aims at restoring French sovereignty, but, as suggested, on issues relevant to its restoration, his position would greatly modify France’s submission to the anti-sovereign powers, not break with them. At the root of this apparent irresolution, I suspect, is his understanding of Islam. Faye has long designated it as Europe’s principal enemy. And there is no question that Islam, as a civilization, is objectively and threateningly anti-European, and that Muslim immigrants pose a dire threat to France’s future.

But his half-right position has taken him down a wayward path: to an alliance with Islam’s great enemy, Israel, and to an accommodation with Israel’s Guardian Angel, the United States, the world’s foremost anti-white power. For it is the American system (in arming and abetting jihadists to destabilize regimes it seeks to control) that has made Islam such a world threat and it is the American system (in the blight of its leveling commercialism and the poisonous vapors of its human rights ideology) that poses the greatest, most profound threat to European existence.

Faye’s questionable position on these issues seems, more generally, to come from ignoring the nature of the post-1945 nomos imposed by New York-Washington on defeated Europe and the rest of the non-Communist world after the Second World War. America has always had an ambivalent relationship to Europe — being both an offshoot of European Christian civilization and a Puritan (in effect, Bolshevik) opponent of it. Since the end of the last world war — when it formally threw off the Christian moral foundations of the last thousand years of European civilization by morally sanctioning “the destruction of residential areas and the mass killing of civilians as a routine method of warfare” — a new counter-civilization, an empire of liberty and chaos, has come to rule the world (even if during the 45 years of the Cold War the US encouraged the illusion that it was a bastion of Western values and Christianity). (See Desmond Fennell, The Postwestern Condition: Between Chaos and Civilization [1999]; Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth [1950/2003].)

Not just the devastated Germans and Italians, but all Europeans were subsequently integrated into the predatory empire of this counter-civilization — and subjected to its transvaluation of values (consumerism, permissiveness, abortion, the elimination of sex differences, the death of God, the end of art, anti-racism, and the “newspeak” whose inversions hold that “war is peace,” “dictatorship is democracy,” “ignorance is culture,” etc.). European elites have since become not just a comprador bourgeoisie, but home-grown exemplars of the moral and cultural void (the Thanatos principles) animating the American system. It is this system and its poisons that have made Europeans indifferent to their survival as a people and accounts for the increasing dysfunctionality of their established institutions — not the mass influx of Third World immigrants, who are a (prominent and very unpleasant) symptom, though not the source, of the reigning inversions.

Without acknowledging this, Faye can argue that America is only an adversary of Europe — a power that might exploit Europeans, but not one posing a life and death threat to their existence, like a true enemy. He forgets, accordingly, that America and America’s special friend, Britain, rather consciously destroyed historic Europe — that civilization born from the “medieval” alliance of Charlemagne and the Papacy. In the course of its anti-fascist crusade, the imperial leviathan headquartered in New York-Washington threw off the values and forms of Europe’s ancient and venerable Christian civilization for ones based on the sanctioning of mass murder.

Such premises have since inspired on-going campaigns “to abolish and demolish and derange” the world. It is this system that endangers white people today — for it wars on everything refusing to bend to its “liberal democratic” (i.e., money-driven) colonization, standardization, and demeaning of private and social life — as it breaks up traditional communities, isolates the individual within an increasingly indifferent “global world” dismissive of history, culture, and nature, rejects historically and religiously established sources of meaning, and leaves in their stead innumerable worthless consumer items and a whorl of fabricated electronic simulacra that situate all life within its hyperreal bubble. Even in an indirect or transitional way, Faye does not address this most eminent of the anti-European forces, offering no real alternative to the US/EU consumer paradise, whose present breakdown will be recuperated only by a resistance whose political vision transcends the underlying tenets of the existing one.

Conclusion

As an exercise, Faye’s Programme displays much of its author’s characteristic intelligence and creativity, and it stands as a respectable complement to the numerous interpretative and analytical works he has written on various aspects of European life over the last decade and a half — works written with verve and an imagination rich in imagery, lucidity, and urgency. As a brief programmatic redefinition of the French state system, his program is, admittedly, impressive. It is not, however, revolutionary. In some respects, it is not transitional. Above all, it does not get at the roots of the existing disorder: the satanic system that is presently destroying both Europe and the remnants of European civilization in America.

If Faye continues to speak for the rising forces of European identitarianism and populism, he will need to invent a better “game” than his program — for what seems most needed in this period of transition is a worldview premised on the overthrow of the existing nomos.

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/the-transitional-program/

Sex & Derailment

Sex & Derailment

By Michael O'Meara

Guillaume Faye
Sexe et dévoiement[Sex and Perversion — Ed.]

Éditions du Lore , 2011Four years after Guillaume Faye’s La Nouvelle question juive ^[3] (The New Jewish Question, 2007) alienated many of his admirers and apparently caused him to retreat from identitarian and Euro-nationalist arenas, his latest work signals a definite return, reminding us of why he remains one of the most creative thinkers opposing the system threatening the white race.

In this 400-page book, which is an essay and not a work of scholarship, Monsieur Faye’s main concern is the family, and the catastrophic impact the rising number of divorces and broken households is having on white demographic renewal. In linking family decline to its demographic (and civilizational) consequences, he situates his subject in terms of the larger social pathologies associated with the ‘inverted’ sexuality now disfiguring European life. These pathologies include the de-virilization and feminization of white men, the normalization of homosexuality, feminist androgyny, Third World colonization, spreading miscegenation, the loss of bio-anthropological norms (like the blond Jesus) – and all that comes with the denial of biological realities.

At the core of Faye’s argument is the contention that sexuality constitutes a people’s fundament – by conditioning its reproduction and ensuring its longevity. It is key, as such, to any analysis of contemporary society.

As the ethologist Konrad Lorenz and the physical anthropologist/social theorist Arnold Gehlen (both of whom have influenced Faye) have demonstrated, there is nothing automatic or spontaneous in human sexuality, as it is in other animals. Man’s body may be like those of the higher mammals, but it is also a cultural, plastic one with few governing instincts. Socioeconomic, ideological, and emotional imperatives accordingly play a major role in shaping human behavior, especially in the higher civilizations.

Given, moreover, that humanity is an abstraction, there can be no universal form of sexual behavior, and thus the sexuality, like everything else, of Europeans differs from that of non-Europeans. In the United States and Brazil, for example, the Negro’s sexual practices and family forms are still very unlike those of whites, despite ten generations in these European-founded countries. Every form of sexuality, Faye argues, stems from a specific bioculture (a historically-defined ‘stock’), which varies according to time and place. Human behavior is thus for him always the result of a native, in-born ethno-psychology, historically embodied (or, like now, distorted) in the cultural, religious, and ideological superstructures representing it.

The higher, more creative the culture the more sexuality also tends to depend on fragile, individual factors (desire, libido, self-interest), in contrast to less developed cultures, whose reproduction relies more on collective and instinctive factors. High cultures consequently reproduce less and low cultures more — though the latter suffers far greater infant mortality (an equilibrium upset only in the Twentieth century, when intervening high cultures reduced the infant mortality of the lower cultures, thereby setting off today’s explosive Third World birthrate).

Yet despite all these significant differences and despite the world’s great variety of family forms and sexual customs, the overwhelming majority of peoples and races nevertheless prohibit incest, pedophilia, racially mixed marriages, homosexual unions, and ‘unparented’ children.

By contravening many of these traditional prohibitions in recent decades, Western civilization has embarked on a process of ‘derailment’, evident in the profound social and mental pathologies that follow the inversion of ‘natural’ (i.e., historic or ancient) norms – inversions, not incidentally, that have been legitimized in the name of morality, freedom, equality, etc.

Sexe et dévoiement is an essay, then, about the practices and ideologies currently affecting European sexuality and about how these practices and ideologies are leading Europeans into a self-defeating struggle against nature – against their nature, upon which their biocivilization rests.

I. The Death of the Family

Since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, numerous forces, expressive of a nihilistic individualism and egalitarianism, have helped undermine the family, bringing it to the critical stage it’s reached today. Of these, the most destructive for Faye has been the ideology of libidinal love (championed by the so-called ‘sexual liberation’ movement of the period), which confused recreational sexuality with freedom, disconnected sex from reproduction, and treated traditional social/cultural norms as forms of oppression.

The Sixties’ ‘liberationists’, the first generation raised on TV, were linked to the New Left, which saw all restraint as oppressive and all individuals as equivalent. Sexual pleasure in this optic was good and natural and traditional sexual self-control bad and unnatural. Convinced that all things were possible, they sought to free desire from the ‘oppressive’ mores of what Faye calls the ‘bourgeois family’.

‘Sexual liberation’, he notes, was ‘Anglo-Saxon’ (i.e., American) in origin, motivated by a puritanism (in the Nineteenth-century Victorian sense of a prudery hostile to eroticism) that had shifted from one extreme to another. Originally, this middle-class, Protestant prudery favored a sexuality whose appetites were formally confined to the ‘bourgeois’ (i.e., the monogamous nuclear) family, which represented a compromise — between individual desire and familial interests — made for the sake of preserving the ‘line’ and rearing children to carry it on.

In the 1960s, when the Boomers came of age, the puritans passed to the other extreme, jettisoning their sexual ‘squeamishness’ and joining the movement to liberate the libido – which, in practice, meant abolishing conjugal fidelity, heterosexual dominance, ‘patriarchy’, and whatever taboos opposed the ‘rationally’ inspired, feel-good ‘philosophy’ of the liberationists. As the Sorbonne’s walls in ’68 proclaimed: ‘It’s prohibited to prohibit’. The ‘rights’ of individual desire and happiness would henceforth come at the expense of all the prohibitions that had formerly made the family viable. (Faye doesn’t mention it, but at the same time American-style consumerism was beginning to take hold in Western Europe, promoting a self-indulgent materialism that favored an egoistic pursuit of pleasure. It can even be argued, though again Faye does not, that the state, in league with the media and the corporate/financial powers, encouraged the permissive consumption of goods, as well as sex, for the sake of promoting the market’s expansion).

If Americans pioneered the ideology of sexual liberation, along with Gay Pride and the porn industry, and continue (at least through their Washingtonian Leviathan) to use these ideologies and practices to subvert non-liberal societies (which is why the Russians have rebuffed ‘international opinion’ to suppress Gay Pride Parades), a significant number of ‘ordinary’ white Americans nevertheless lack their elites’ anti-traditional sexual ideology. (Salt Lake City here prevails over Las Vegas).

Europeans, by contrast, have been qualitatively more influenced by the ‘libertine revolutionaries’, and Faye’s work speaks more to them than to Americans (though it seems likely that what Europeans are experiencing will sooner or later be experienced in the United States).

Against the backdrop, then, of Sixties-style sexual liberation, which sought to uproot the deepest traditions and authorities for the sake of certain permissive behaviors, personal sexual relations were reconceived as a strictly individualistic and libidinal ‘love’ – based on the belief that this highly inflated emotional state was too important to limit to conjugal monogamy. Marriages based on such impulsive sexual attractions and the passionate ‘hormonal tempests’ they set off have since, though, become the tomb not just of stable families, but increasingly of Europe herself.

For with this permissive cult of sexualized love that elevates the desires of the solitary individual above his communal and familial attachments (thereby lowering all standards), there comes another kind of short-sighted, feel-good liberal ideology that wars on social, national, and collective imperatives: the cult of human rights, whose flood of discourses and laws promoting brotherhood, anti-racism, and the love of the Other are synonymous with de-virilizition, ethnomaschoism, and the destruction of Europe’s historic identity.

Premised on the primacy of romantic love (impulsive on principle), sexual liberation has since destroyed any possibility of sustaining stable families. (Think of Tristan and Iseult). For its sexualization of love (this ‘casino of pleasure’) may be passionate, but it is also transient, ephemeral, and compelled by a good deal of egoism. Indeed, almost all sentiments grouped under the rubric of love, Faye contends, are egoistic and self-interested. Love in this sense is an investment from which one expects a return – one loves to be loved. A family of this kind is thus one inclined to allow superficial or immediate considerations to prevail over established, time-tested ones. Similarly, the rupture of such conjugal unions seems almost unavoidable, for once the pact of love is broken – and a strictly libidinal love always fades – the union dissolves.

The subsequent death of the ‘oppressive’ bourgeois family at the hands of the Sixties’ emancipation movements has since given rise to such civilizational achievements as unstable stepfamilies, no-fault divorce, teenage mothers, single-parent homes, abandoned children, a dissembling and atavistic ‘cult of the child’ (which esteems the child as a ‘noble savage’ rather than as a being in need of formation), parity with same-sex, unisex ideology, a variety of new sexual categories, and an increasingly isolated and frustrated individual delivered over almost entirely to his own caprices.

The egoism governing such love-based families produces few children and, to the degree even that married couples today want children, it seems to Faye less for the sake of sons and daughters to continue the ‘line’ and more for the sake of a baby to pamper – a sort of adjunct to their consumerism – something like a living toy. Given that the infant is idolized in this way, parents feel little responsibility for disciplining (or ‘parenting’) him.

Lacking self-control and an ethic of obedience, the child’s development is consequently compromised and his socialization neglected. These post-Sixties’ families also tend to be short lived, which means children are frequently traumatized by their broken homes, raised by single parents or in stepfamilies, where their intellectual development is stunted and their blood ties confused. However, without stable families and a sense of lineage, all sense of ethnic or national consciousness — or any understanding of why miscegenation and immigration ought to be opposed – are lost. The destruction of stable families, Faye surmises, bears directly on the present social-sexual chaos, the prevailing sense of meaninglessness, and the impending destruction of Europe’s racial stock.

Against the sexual liberationists, Faye upholds the model of the bourgeois family, which achieved a workable compromise between individual desire and social/familial preservation (despite the fact that it was, ultimately, the individualism of bourgeois society, in the form of sexual liberation, that eventually terminated this sort of family).

Though, perhaps, no longer sustainable, the stable couples the old bourgeois family structure supported succeeded in privileging familial and communal interests over amorous ones, doing so in ways that favored the long-term welfare of both the couple and the children. Conjugal love came, as a result, to be impressed with friendship, partnership, and habitual attachments, for the couple was defined not as a self-contained amorous symbiosis, but as the pillar of a larger family architecture. This made conjugal love moderate and balanced rather than passionate — sustained by habit, tenderness, interest, care of the children, and la douceur du foyer. Sexual desire remained, but in most cases declined in intensity or dissipated in time.

This family structure was also extraordinarily stable. It assured the lineage, raised properly-socialized children, respected women, and won the support of law and custom. There were, of course, compromises and even hypocrisies (as men, for instance, satisfied certain of their libidinal urgings in brothels), but in any case the family, the basic cell of society, was protected – even privileged.

The great irony of sexual liberation and its ensuing destruction of the bourgeois family is that it has obviously not brought greater happiness or freedom, but rather greater alienation and misery. In this spirit, the media now routinely (almost obsessively) sexualizes the universe, but sex has become more virtual than real: there’s more pornography, but fewer children. It seems hardly coincidental, then, that once the ‘rights’ of desire were emancipated, sex took on a different meaning, the family collapsed, sexual identity got increasingly confused, perversions and transgressions became greater and more serious. As everyone set off in pursuit of an illusive libidinal fulfillment, the population became correspondently more atomized, uprooted, and miscegenated. In France today, 30 percent of all adults are single and there are even reports of a new ‘asexuality’ – in reaction to the sexualization of everything.

There’s a civilization-destroying tragedy here: for once Europeans are deprived of their family lineage, they cease to transmit their cultural and genetic heritage and thus lose all sense of who they are. This is critical to everything else. As the historians Michael Mitterauer and Reinhard Sieder write: ‘The family is one of the most archaic forms of social community, and at all times men have used their family as a model for the formation of human societies’. The loss of family stability, and thus the family’s loss as society’s basic cell, Faye emphasizes, not only dissolves social relations, it brings disorder and makes all tyrannies possible, for once sexual emancipation helps turn society into a highly individualized, Balkanized mass, totalitarianism (not Soviet or Fascist, but US Progressive) becomes increasingly likely.

II. The Idolization of Homosexuality

Homophilia and feminism are the most important children of the cultural revolution. They share, as such, much of the same ideological baggage that denies biological realities and wars on the family, conforming in this way to the consumerist and homogenizing dictates of the post-Rooseveltian international order that’s dominated North America and Western Europe for the last half century or so.

In the late 1960s, when homosexuals began demanding legal equality, Faye claims they were fully within their rights. Homosexuality in his view is a genetic abnormality (affecting less than 5 percent of males) and thus an existential affliction; he thus doesn’t object to homosexuals practicing their sexuality within the privacy of their bedroom. What he finds objectionable is the confusion of private and public realms and the assertion of homophilia as a social norm. Worse, he claims that in much elite discourse, homosexuals have quickly gone from being pariahs to privileged beings, who now flaunt their alleged ‘superiority’ over heterosexuals, seen as old-fashion, outmoded, ridiculous – like the woman who centers her life on the home and the care of her children rather than on a career – and thus as something bizarre and implicitly opposed to liberal-style ‘emancipation’.

Faye, by no means a prude, contends that female homosexuality is considerably different from and less dysgenic than male homosexuality. Most lesbians, in his view, are bisexual, rather than purely homosexual, and for whatever reason have turned against men. This he sees as a reflection on men. Lesbianism also lacks the same negative civilizational consequence as male homosexuality. It rarely shocked traditional societies because women engaging in homosexual relations retained their femininity. Male homosexuality, by contrast, was considered socially abhorrent, for it violated the nature of masculinity, making men no longer ‘properly’ male and thus something mutant. (To those who invoke the ancient glories of Athens as a counter-argument, Faye, long-time Graeco-Latinist, says that in the period when a certain form of pederasty was tolerated, no adult Greek ever achieved respectability or standing in his community, if not married, devoted to the interests of his family and clan, and, above all, not ‘made of woman’ – i.e., penetrated).

Like feminism, homophilia holds that humans are bisexual at birth and (willfully or not) choose their individual sexual orientation – as if anatomical differences are insignificant and all humans are basically alike, a tabula rasa upon which they are to inscribe their self-chosen ‘destiny’. This view lacks any scientific credibility, to be sure (even if it is professed in our elite universities), and, like anti-racism, it resembles Lysenkoism in denying those biological realities incompatible with the reigning dogmas. (Facts, though, have rarely stood in the way of faith or ideology – or, in the secular Twentieth century, ideologies that have become religious faiths).

Even when assuming the mantle of its allegedly progressive and emancipatory pretensions, homophilia, like sexual liberation in general, is entirely self-centered and present-minded, promoting ‘lifestyles’ hostile to family formation and thus to white reproduction. Homophilia marches here hand in hand with anti-racism, denying the significance of biological differences and the imperatives of white reproduction.

This subversive ideology now even aspires to re-invent homosexuals as the flower of society — liberators preparing the way to joy, liberty, fraternity, tolerance, social well-being, good taste, etc. As vice is transformed into virtue, homosexuality allegedly introduces a new sense of play and gaiety to the one-dimensional society of sad, heterosexual males. Only, Faye insists, there’s nothing genuinely gay about the gays, for theirs is a condition of stress and disequilibrium. At odds with their own nature, homosexual sexuality is often a Calvary – and not because of social oppression, but because of those endogenous reasons (particularly their attraction to their own sex) that condemn them to dysgenic behaviors.

In its public display as Gay Pride, homophilia accordingly defines itself as narcissistic, exhibitionist, and infantile – revealing in these characteristics those traits that are perhaps specific to its condition. In any case, a community worthy of itself, Faye tells us, is founded on shared values, on achievements, on origins – but not a dysgenic sexual orientation.

III. Schizophrenic Feminism

The reigning egalitarianism is always extending itself, trying to force the real – in the realms of sexuality, individuality, demography (race), etc. — to conform to its tenets. The demand that women have the same legal rights and opportunities as men, Faye thinks, was entirely just – especially for Europeans  (and especially Celtic, Scandinavian, and Germanic Europeans), for their cultures have long respected the humanity of their women. Indeed, he considers legal equality the single great accomplishment of feminism. But once achieved, feminism has since been transformed into a utopian and delirious neo-egalitarianism that makes sexes, like races, equivalent and interchangeable. There is accordingly no such thing as ‘men’s work’ or ‘women’s work’. Human dignity and fullfilment is possible only in doing something that makes money. Faye, though, refuses to equate legal equality with natural equality, for such an ideological muddling denies obvious biological differences, offending both science and common sense.

The dogma that differences between men and women are simply cultural derives from a feminist behaviorism in which women are seen as potential men and femininity is treated as a social distortion. In Simone de Beauvoir’s formulation: One is not born a woman, one becomes one. Feminists, as such, affirm the equality and interchangeability of men and women, yet at the same time they reject femininity, which they consider something inferior and imposed. The feminist model is thus the man, and feminism’s New Woman is simply his ‘photocopy’. In endeavoring to suppress the specifically feminine in this way, feminism aims to masculinize women and feminize men in the image of its androgynous ideal – analogous to the anti-racist ideal of the métis (the mixed race or half-caste). This unisex ideology, in its extremism, characterizes the mother as a slave and the devoted wife as a fool. In practice, it even rejects the biological functions of the female body, aspiring to a masculinism that imitates men and seeks to emulate them socially, politically, and otherwise. Feminism in a word is anti-feminine – anti-mother and anti-family – and ultimately anti-reproduction.

Anatomical differences, however, have consequences. Male humans, like males of other species, always differ from females – given that their biological specification dictates specific behaviors. These human sexual differences may be influenced by culture and other factors. But they nevertheless exist, which means they inevitably affect mind and behavior – despite what the Correctorate wants us to believe.

Male superiority in worldly achievement – conceptual, mathematical, artistic, political, and otherwise — is often explained by female oppression, a notion Faye rejects, though he acknowledges that in many areas of contemporary life, for just or unjust reasons, women do suffer disadvantages – and in many non-white situations outright subjugation. Male physical strength may also enable men to dominate women. But generally, Faye sees a rough equality of intelligence between men and women. Their main differences, he contends, are psychological and characterological, for men tend to be more outwardly oriented than women. As such, they use their intelligence more in competition, innovation, and discovery, linked to the fact that they are usually more aggressive, more competitive, more vain and narcissistic than women — who, by contrast, are more inclined to be emotionally loyal, submissive, prudent, temperate, and far-sighted.

Men and women, though, are better viewed as organic complements, rather than as inferior or superior. From Homer to Cervantes to Mme. de Stäel, the image of women, their realms and their work, however diverse and complicated, have differed from that of men. Women may be able to handle most masculine tasks, but at the same time their disposition differs from men, especially in the realm of creativity.

This is critical for Faye. In all sectors of practical intelligence women perform as well as men – but not in their capacity for imaginative projection, which detaches and abstracts one’s self from contingent reality for the sake of imagining another. This holds in practically all areas: epic poetry, science, invention, religion, cuisine or design. It is not from female brains, he notes, that there have emerged submarines, space flight, philosophical systems, great political and economic theories, and the major scientific discoveries (Mme. Curie being the exception). Most of the great breakthroughs have in fact been made by men and it has had nothing to do with women being oppressed or repressed. Feminine dreams are simply not the same as masculine ones — which search the impossible, the risky, the unreal.

Akin, then, in spirit to homophilia, anti-racism, and Sixties-style sexual liberation, feminism’s rejection of biological realities and its effort to masculinize women end up not just distorting what it supposedly champions – women – it reveals the totally egoistic and present-oriented nature of its ideology, for it rejects women as mothers and thus rejects the reproduction of the race.

IV. Conclusion

Sexe et dévoiement treats a variety of other issues: Christian and Islamic views of sexuality; immigration and the different sexual practices it brings (some of which are extremely primitive and brutal); the necessary role of prostitution in society; and the effect the new bio-technologies are going to have on sexuality.

From the above discussion — of the family, homophilia, and feminism — the reader should already sense the direction Faye’s argument takes, as he relates individual sexuality to certain macro-changes now forcing European civilization off its rails. Because this is an especially illuminating perspective on the decline of the white race (linking demography, civilization, and sex) and one of which there seem too few – I think this lends special pertinence to his essay.

There are not a few historical and methodological criticisms, however, that could be made of Sexe et dévoiement, two of which I find especially dissatisfying. Like the European New Right as a whole, he tends to be overly simplistic in attributing to the secularization of certain Christian notions, like equality and love, the origins of the maladies he depicts. Similarly, he refuses to link cultural/ideological influences to social/economic developments (seeing their causal relationship as essentially one-way instead of dialectical), just as he fails to consider the negative effects that America’s imperial supremacy, with its post-European rules of behavior and its anti-Christian policies, have had on Europe in the last half century.

But after having said that — and after having reviewed ^[4] many of Guillaume Faye’s works over the last ten years, as well as having read a great many other books in the meantime that have made me more critical of aspects of his thought — I think whatever his ‘failings’, they pale in comparison to the light he sheds on the ethnocidal forces now bearing down on the white race.

American Renaissance, June 29, 2012, http://amren.com/features/2012/06/sex-and-derailment/ ^[5], revised July 6th

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/07/sex-and-derailment/

Guillaume Faye on Nietzsche

Guillaume Faye on Nietzsche

Translated by Greg Johnson

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

Translator’s Note:

The following interview of Guillaume Faye is from the Nietzsche Académie ^[2] blog. 

How important is Nietzsche for you?

Reading Nietzsche has been the departure point for all values ​​and ideas I developed later. In 1967, when I was a pupil of the Jesuits in Paris, something incredible happened in philosophy class. In that citadel of Catholicism, the philosophy teacher decided to do a year-long course on Nietzsche! Exeunt Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and others. The good fathers did not dare say anything, despite the upheaval in the program.

It marked me, believe me. Nietzsche, or the hermeneutics of suspicion. . . . Thus, very young, I distanced myself from the Christian, or rather “Christianomorphic,” view of the world. And of course, at the same time, from egalitarianism and humanism. All the analyses that I developed later were inspired by the insights of Nietzsche. But it was also in my nature.

Later, much later, just recently, I understood the need to complete the principles of Nietzsche with those of Aristotle, the good old Apollonian Greek, a pupil of Plato, whom he respected as well as criticized. There is for me an obvious philosophical affinity between Aristotle and Nietzsche: the refusal of metaphysics and idealism, and, crucially, the challenge to the idea of ​​divinity. Nietzsche’s “God is dead” is the counterpoint to Aristotle’s motionless and unconscious god, which is akin to a mathematical principle governing the universe.

Only Aristotle and Nietzsche, separated by many centuries, denied the presence of a self-conscious god without rejecting the sacred, but the latter is akin to a purely human exaltation based on politics or art.

Nevertheless, Christian theologians have never been bothered by Aristotle, but were very much so by Nietzsche. Why? Because Aristotle was pre-Christian and could not know Revelation. While Nietzsche, by attacking Christianity, knew exactly what he was doing.

Nevertheless, the Christian response to this atheism is irrefutable and deserves a good philosophical debate: faith is a different domain than the reflections of philosophers and remains a mystery. I remember, when I was with the Jesuits, passionate debates between my Nietzschean atheist philosophy teacher and the good fathers (his employers) sly and tolerant, sure of themselves.

What book by Nietzsche would you recommend?

The first one I read was The Gay Science. It was a shock. Then Beyond Good and Evil, where Nietzsche overturns the Manichean moral rules that come from Socrates and Christianity. The Antichrist, it must be said, inspired the whole anti-Christian discourse of the neo-pagan Right, in which I was obviously heavily involved.

But it should be noted that Nietzsche, who was raised Lutheran, had rebelled against Christian morality in its purest form represented by German Protestantism, but he never really understood the religiosity and the faith of traditional Catholics and Orthodox Christians, which is quite unconnected to secularized Christian morality.

Oddly, I was never excited by Thus Spoke Zarathustra. For me, it is a rather confused work, in which Nietzsche tried to be a prophet and a poet but failed. A bit like Voltaire, who believed himself clever in imitating the tragedies of Corneille. Voltaire, an author who, moreover, has spawned ideas quite contrary to this “philosophy of the Enlightenment” that Nietzsche (alone) had pulverized.

Being Nietzschean, what does this mean?

Nietzsche would not have liked this kind of question, for he did not want disciples, though . . .  (his character, very complex, was not devoid of vanity and frustration, just like you and me). Ask instead: What does it mean to follow Nietzschean principles?

This means breaking with Socratic, Stoic, and Christian principles and modern human egalitarianism, anthropocentrism, universal compassion, and universalist utopian harmony. It means accepting the possible reversal of all values ​​(Umwertung) to the detriment of humanistic ethics. The whole philosophy of Nietzsche is based on the logic of life: selection of the fittest, recognition of vital power (conservation of bloodlines at all costs) as the supreme value, abolition of dogmatic standards, the quest for historical grandeur, thinking of politics as aesthetics, radical inegalitarianism, etc.

That’s why all the thinkers and philosophers — self-appointed, and handsomely maintained by the system — who proclaim themselves more or less Nietzschean, are impostors. This was well understood by the writer Pierre Chassard who on good authority denounced the “scavengers of Nietzsche.” Indeed, it is very fashionable to be “Nietzschean.” Very curious on the part of publicists whose ideology — political correctness and right-thinking — is absolutely contrary to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.

In fact, the pseudo-Nietzscheans have committed a grave philosophical confusion: they held that Nietzsche was a protest against the established order, but they pretended not to understand that it was their own order: egalitarianism based on a secularized interpretation of Christianity. “Christianomorphic” on the inside and outside. But they believed (or pretended to believe) that Nietzsche was a sort of anarchist, while advocating a ruthless new order. Nietzsche was not, like his scavengers, a rebel in slippers, a phony rebel, but a revolutionary visionary.

Is Nietzsche on the Right or Left?

Fools and shallow thinkers (especially on the Right) have always claimed that the notions of Left and Right made no sense. What a sinister error. Although the practical positions of the Left and Right may vary, the values ​​of Right and Left do exist. Nietzscheanism is obviously on the Right. The socialist mentality, the morality of the herd, made Nietzsche vomit. But that does not mean that thepeople of the extreme Right are Nietzscheans, far from it. For example, they are generally anti-Jewish, a position that Nietzsche castigated and considered stupid in many of his writings, and in his correspondence he singled out anti-Semitic admirers who completely misunderstood him.

Nietzscheanism, obviously, is on the Right, and the Left, always in a position of intellectual prostitution, attempted to neutralize Nietzsche because it could not censor him. To be brief, I would say that an honest interpretation of Nietzsche places him on the side of the revolutionary Right in Europe, using the concept of the Right for lack of  anything better (like any word, it describes things imperfectly).

Nietzsche, like Aristotle (and, indeed, like Plato, Kant, Hegel, and Marx, of course — but not at all Spinoza) deeply integrated politics in his thinking. For example, by a fantastic premonition, he was for a union of European nations, like Kant, but from a very different perspective. Kant the pacifist, universalist, and incorrigible utopian moralist, wanted the European Union as it exists today: a great flabby body without a sovereign head with the Rights of Man as its highest principle. Nietzsche, on the contrary, spoke of Great Politics, a grand design for a united Europe. For the moment, it is the Kantian view that has unfortunately been imposed.

On the other hand, the least we can say is that Nietzsche was not a Pan-German, a German nationalist, but rather a nationalistic — and patriotic — European. This was remarkable for a man who lived in his time, the second part of the 19th century (“This stupid 19th century,” said Léon Daudet), which exacerbated as a fatal poison the shabby petty intra-European nationalism that would result in the terrible fratricidal tragedy of 1914 to 1918, when young Europeans from 18 to 25 years, massacred one another without knowing exactly why. Nietzsche the European wanted anything but such a scenario.

That is why those who instrumentalized Nietzsche (in the 1930s) as an ideologue of Germanism are as wrong as those who, today, present him as a proto-Leftist. Nietzsche was a European patriot, and he put the genius of the German soul in the service of European power whose decline, as a visionary, he already sensed.

What authors do you see as Nietzschean?

Not necessarily those who claim Nietzsche. In reality, there are no actual “Nietzschean” authors. Simply, Nietzsche and others are part of a highly fluid and complex current that could be described as a “rebellion against the accepted principles.” On this point, I agree with the view of the Italian philosopher Giorgio Locchi, who was one of my teachers: Nietzsche inaugurated “superhumanism,” that is to say the surpassing of humanism. I’ll stop there, because I will not repeat what I have developed in some of my books, including Why We Fight and Sex and Perversion. One could say that a large number of authors and filmmakers are “Nietzschean,” but this kind of talk is very superficial.

On the other hand, I believe there is a strong link between the philosophy of Nietzsche and Aristotle, despite the centuries that separate them. To say that Aristotle is Nietzschean is obviously an anachronistic absurdity. But to say that Nietzsche’s philosophy continues Aristotle, the errant student of Plato, is a claim I will hazard. This is why I am both Aristotelian and Nietzschean: Because these two philosophers defend the fundamental idea that the supernatural deity must be examined in substance. Nietzsche looks at divinity with a critical perspective like Aristotle’s.

Most writers who call themselves admirers of Nietzsche are impostors. Paradoxically, I link Darwinism and Nietzsche. Those who actually interpret Nietzsche are accused by ideological manipulators of not being real “philosophers.” Even those who want Nietzsche to say the opposite of what he so inconveniently actually said. We must condemn this appropriation of philosophy by a caste of mandarins who proceed to distort the texts of the philosophers, or even censor them. Aristotle has also been a victim. One can read Nietzsche and other philosophers only through a scholarly grid, inaccessible to the common man. But no. Nietzsche is quite readable by any educated man. But our time can read only through the grid of censorship by omission.

Could you give a definition of the Superman?

Nietzsche intentionally gave a vague definition of the Superman. This is an open-ended yet clear concept. Obviously, the pseudo-Nietzschean intellectuals were quick to blur and empty this concept by making the Superman a sort of airy intellectual: detached, haughty, meditative, quasi-Buddhist—the conceited image they have of themselves. In short, the precise opposite of what Nietzsche intended. I am a partisan not of interpreting writers but of reading them, if possible, with the highest degree of respect.

Nietzsche obviously linked the Superman to the notion of Will to Power (which, too, has been manipulated and distorted). The Superman is the model of the man who fulfills the Will to Power, that is to say, who rises above herd morality (and Nietzsche thought socialism was a herd doctrine) to selflessly impose a new order, with two dimensions, warlike and sovereign, aiming at dominion, endowed with a power project. The interpretation of the Superman as a supreme “sage,” a non-violent, ethereal, proto-Gandhi of sorts is a deconstruction of Nietzsche’s thought in order to neutralize and blur it. The Parisian intelligentsia, whose hallmark is a spirit of falsehood, has a sophisticated but evil genius in distorting the thought of annoying but unavoidable great authors (including Aristotle and Voltaire) but also wrongly appropriating or truncating their thought.

There are two possible definitions of the Superman: the mental and the moral Superman (by evolution and education, surpassing his ancestors) and the biological superman. It’s very difficult to decide, since Nietzsche himself has used this expression as a sort of mytheme, a literary trope, without ever truly conceptualizing it. A sort of premonitory phrase, which was inspired by Darwinian evolutionism.

But your question is very interesting. The key is not having an answer “about Nietzsche,” but to know which path Nietzsche wanted to open over a hundred years ago. Because he was anti-Christian and anti-humanist, Nietzsche did not think that man was a fixed being, but that he is subject to evolution, even self-evolution (that is the sense of the metaphor of the “bridge between the beast and the Superman”).

For my part — but then I differ with Nietzsche, and my opinion does not possess immense value — I interpreted superhumanism as a challenge, for reasons partly biological, to the very notion of a human species. Briefly. This concept of the Superman is certainly much more than Will to Power, one of those mysterious traps Nietzsche set, one of the questions he posed to future humanity: Yes, what is the Superman? The very word makes us dreamy and delirious.

Nietzsche may have had the intuition that the human species, at least some of its higher components (not necessarily “humanity”), could accelerate and direct biological evolution. One thing is certain, that crushes the thoughts of monotheistic, anthropocentric “fixists”: man is not an essence that is beyond evolution. And then, to the concept of Übermensch, never forget to add that ofHerrenvolk . . . prescient. Also, we should not forget Nietzsche’s reflections on the question of race and anthropological inequality.

The capture of Nietzsche’s work by pseudo-scientists and pseudo-philosophical schools (comparable to the capture of the works of Aristotle) ​​is explained by the following simple fact: Nietzsche is too big a fish to be eliminated, but far too subversive not to be censored and distorted.

Your favorite quote from Nietzsche?

“We must now cease all forms of joking around.” This means, presciently, that the values ​​on which Western civilization are based are no longer acceptable. And that survival depends on a reversal or restoration of vital values. And all this assumes the end of festivisme (as coined by Philippe Muray and developed by Robert Steuckers) and a return to serious matters.

Source: http://nietzscheacademie.over-blog.com/article-nietzsche-vu-par-guillaume-faye-106329446.html ^[3]

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/07/guillaume-faye-on-nietzsche/

E&R Bretagne rencontre Guillaume Faye

E&R Bretagne rencontre Guillaume Faye

Nietzsche vu par Guillaume Faye

Nietzsche vu par Guillaume Faye

Réponses de Guillaume Faye au questionnaire de la Nietzsche académie. Guillaume Faye, ecrivain engagé, ancien membre du GRECE, ancienne figure de la Nouvelle droite, est l'auteur dernièrement de Mon programme aux éditions du Lore.

Ex: http://nietzscheacademie.over-blog.com/

 

- Quelle importance a Nietzsche pour vous ?

- La lecture de Nietzsche a constitué la base de lancement de toutes les valeurs et idées que j’ai développées par la suite. Quand j’étais élève des Jésuites, à Paris, en classe de philosophie (1967), il se produisit quelque chose d’incroyable. Dans ce haut lieu du catholicisme, le prof de philo avait décidé de ne faire, durant toute l’année, son cours, que sur Nietzsche ! Exeunt Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Marx et les autres. Les bons pères n’osèrent rien dire, en dépit de ce bouleversement du programme. Ça m’a marqué, croyez-moi. Nietzsche, ou l’herméneutique du soupçon... C’est ainsi que, très jeune, j’ai pris mes distances avec la vision chrétienne, ou plutôt christianomorphe du monde. Et bien entendu, par la même occasion, avec l’égalitarisme et l’humanisme. Toutes les analyses que j’ai développées par la suite ont été inspirées par les intuitions de Nietzsche. Mais c’était aussi dans ma nature. Plus tard, beaucoup plus tard, récemment même, j’ai compris, qu’il fallait compléter les principes de Nietzsche par ceux d’Aristote, ce bon vieux Grec au regard apollinien, élève d’un Platon qu’il respecta mais renia. Il existe pour moi un phylum philosophique évident entre Aristote et Nietzsche : le refus de la métaphysique et de l’idéalisme ainsi que, point capital, la contestation de l’idée de divinité. Le « Dieu est mort » de Nietzsche n’est que le contrepoint de la position aristotélicienne du dieu immobile et inconscient, qui s’apparente à un principe mathématique régissant l’univers. Aristote et Nietzsche, à de très longs siècles de distance, ont été les seuls à affirmer l’absence d’un divin conscient de lui-même sans rejeter pour autant le sacré, mais ce dernier s’apparentant alors à une exaltation purement humaine reposant sur le politique ou l’art. Néanmoins, les théologiens chrétiens n’ont jamais été gênés par Aristote mais beaucoup plus par Nietzsche. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’Aristote était pré-chrétien et ne pouvait connaître la Révélation. Tandis que Nietzsche, en s’attaquant au christianisme, savait parfaitement ce qu’il faisait. Néanmoins, l’argument du christianisme contre cet athéisme de fait est imparable et mériterait un bon débat philosophique : la foi relève d’un autre domaine que les réflexions des philosophes et demeure un mystère. Je me souviens, quand j’étais chez les Jésuites, de débats passionnants entre mon prof de philo athée, nietzschéen, et les bons Père (ses employeurs) narquois et tolérants, sûrs d’eux-mêmes.

     

- Quel livre de Nietzsche recommanderiez-vous ?

- Le premier que j’ai lu fut Le Gai Savoir. Ce fut un choc. Et puis, tous après, évidemment, notamment Par-delà le bien et le mal où Nietzsche bouleverse les règles morales manichéennes issues du socratisme et du christianisme. L’Antéchrist, quant à lui, il faut le savoir, a inspiré tout le discours anti-chrétien du néo-paganisme de droite, dont j’ai évidemment largement participé. Mais on doit noter que Nietzsche, d’éducation luthérienne, s’est révolté contre la morale chrétienne à l’état pur que représente le protestantisme allemand, mais il n’a jamais vraiment creusé la question de la religiosité et de la foi catholique et orthodoxe traditionnelles qui sont assez déconnectées de la morale chrétienne laïcisée. Curieusement le Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra ne m’a jamais enthousiasmé. Pour moi, c’est une œuvre assez confuse où Nietzsche se prend pour un prophète et un poète qu’il n’est pas. Un peu comme Voltaire qui se croyait malin en imitant les tragédies de Corneille. Voltaire, un auteur qui, par ailleurs, a pondu des idées tout à fait contraires à cette « philosophie des Lumières » que Nietzsche (trop seul) a pulvérisée.

 

- Etre nietzschéen, qu'est-ce que cela veut dire ?

- Nietzsche n’aurait pas aimé ce genre de question, lui qui ne voulait pas de disciples, encore que… (le personnage, très complexe, n’était pas exempt de vanité et de frustrations, tout comme vous et moi). Demandons plutôt : que signifie suivre les principes nietzschéens ? Cela signifie rompre avec les principes socratiques, stoïciens et chrétiens, puis modernes d’égalitarisme humain, d’anthropocentrisme, de compassion universelle, d’harmonie utopique universaliste. Cela signifie accepter le renversement possible de toutes les valeurs (Umwertung) en défaveur de l’éthique humaniste. Toute la philosophie de Nietzsche est fondée sur la logique du vivant : sélection des plus forts, reconnaissance de la puissance vitale (conservation de la lignée à tout prix) comme valeur suprême, abolition des normes dogmatiques, recherche de la grandeur historique, pensée de la politique comme esthétique, inégalitarisme radical, etc. C’est pourquoi tous les penseurs et philosophes auto-proclamés, grassement entretenus par le système, qui se proclament plus ou moins nietzschéens, sont des imposteurs. Ce qu’a bien compris l’écrivain Pierre Chassard, qui, en bon connaisseur, a dénoncé les « récupérateurs de Nietzsche ». En effet, c’est très à la mode de se dire « nietzschéen ». Très curieux de la part de publicistes dont l’idéologie, politiquement correcte et bien pensante, est parfaitement contraire à la philosophie de Friedrich Nietzsche. En réalité, les pseudo-nietzschéens ont commis une grave confusion philosophique : ils ont retenu que Nietzsche était un contestataire de l’ordre établi mais ils ont fait semblant de ne pas comprendre qu’il s’agissait de leur propre ordre : l’égalitarisme issu d’une interprétation laïcisée du christianisme. Christianomorphe de l’intérieur et de l’extérieur. Mais ils ont cru (ou fait semblant de croire) que Nietzsche était une sorte d’anarchiste, alors qu’il prônait un nouvel ordre implacable, Nietzsche n’était pas, comme ses récupérateurs, un rebelle en pantoufles, un révolté factice, mais un visionnaire révolutionnaire.

 

- Le nietzschéisme est-il de droite ou de gauche ?

- Les imbéciles et les penseurs d’occasion (surtout à droite) ont toujours prétendu que les notions de droite et de gauche n’avaient aucun sens. Quelle sinistre erreur. Même si les positions pratiques de la droite et de la gauche peuvent varier, les valeurs de droite et de gauche existent bel et bien. Le nietzschéisme est à droite évidemment. Nietzsche vomissait la mentalité socialiste, la morale du troupeau. Mais ce qui ne veut pas dire que les gens d’extrême-droite soient nietzschéens, loin s’en faut. Par exemple, ils sont globalement anti-juifs, une position que Nietzsche a fustigée et jugée stupide dans nombre de ses textes et dans sa correspondance, où il se démarquait d’admirateurs antisémites qui ne l’avaient absolument pas compris. Le nietzschéisme est de droite, évidemment, et la gauche, toujours en position de prostitution intellectuelle, a tenté de neutraliser Nietzsche parce qu’elle ne pouvait pas le censurer. Pour faire bref, je dirais qu’une interprétation honnête de Nietzsche se situe du côté de la droite révolutionnaire en Europe, en prenant ce concept de droite faute de mieux (comme tout mot, il décrit imparfaitement la chose). Nietzsche, tout comme Aristote (et d’ailleurs aussi comme Platon, Kant, Hegel et bien entendu Marx – mais pas du tout Spinoza) intégrait profondément le politique dans sa pensée. Il était par exemple, par une fantastique prémonition, pour une union des nations européennes, tout comme Kant, mais dans une perspective très différente. Kant, pacifiste et universaliste, incorrigible moralisateur utopiste, voulait l’union européenne telle qu’elle existe aujourd’hui : un grand corps mou sans tête souveraine avec les droits de l’Homme pour principe supérieur. Nietzsche au contraire parlait de Grande Politique, de grand dessein pour une Europe unie. Pour l’instant, c’est la vision kantienne qui s’impose, pour notre malheur. D’autre part, le moins qu’on puisse dire, c’est que Nietzsche n’était pas un pangermaniste, un nationaliste allemand, mais plutôt un nationaliste – et patriote – européen. Ce qui était remarquable pour un homme qui vivait à une époque, la deuxième partie du XIXe siècle (« Ce stupide XIXe siècle » disait Léon Daudet) où s’exacerbaient comme un poison fatal les petits nationalismes minables intra-européens fratricides qui allaient déboucher sur cette abominable tragédie que fut 14-18 où de jeunes Européens, de 18 à 25 ans, se massacrèrent entre eux, sans savoir exactement pourquoi. Nietzsche, l’Européen, voulait tout, sauf un tel scénario. C’est pourquoi ceux qui instrumentalisèrent Nietzsche (dans les années 30) comme un idéologue du germanisme sont autant dans l’erreur que ceux qui, aujourd’hui, le présentent comme un gauchiste avant l’heure. Nietzsche était un patriote européen et il mettait le génie propre de l’âme allemande au service de cette puissance européenne dont il sentait déjà, en visionnaire, le déclin.

     

- Quels auteurs sont à vos yeux nietzschéens ?

- Pas nécessairement ceux qui se réclament de Nietzsche. En réalité, il n’existe pas d’auteurs proprement “nietzschéens”. Simplement, Nietzsche et d’autres s’inscrivent dans un courant très mouvant et complexe que l’on pourrait qualifier de “rébellion contre les principes admis”.Sur ce point, j’en reste à la thèse du penseur italien Giorgio Locchi, qui fut un de mes maîtres : Nietzsche a inauguré le surhumanisme, c’est-à-dire le dépassement de l’humanisme. Je m’en tiendrai là, car je ne vais pas répéter ici ce que j’ai développé dans certains de mes livres, notamment dans Pourquoi nous combattons et dans Sexe et Dévoiement. On pourrait dire qu’il y a du ”nietzschéisme” chez un grand nombre d’auteurs ou de cinéastes, mais ce genre de propos est très superficiel. En revanche, je crois qu’il existe un lien très fort entre la philosophie de Nietzsche et celle d’Aristote, en dépit des siècles qui les séparent. Dire qu’Aristote était nietzschéen serait évidemment un gag uchronique. Mais dire que la philosophie de Nietzsche poursuit celle d’Aristote, le mauvais élève de Platon, c’est l’hypothèse que je risque. C’est la raison pour laquelle je suis à la fois aristotélicien et nietzschéen : parce que ces deux philosophes défendent l’idée fondamentale que la divinité supranaturelle doit être examinée dans sa substance. Nietzsche jette sur la divinité un regard critique de type aristotélicien. La plupart des auteurs qui se disent admirateurs de Nietzsche sont des imposteurs. Paradoxal : je fais un lien entre le darwinisme et le nietzschéisme. Ceux qui interprètent Nietzsche réellement sont accusés par les manipulateurs idéologiques de n’être pas de vrais « philosophes ». Ceux-là même qui veulent faire dire à Nietzsche, très gênant, l’inverse de ce qu’il a dit. Il faut dénoncer cette appropriation de la philosophie par une caste de mandarins, qui procèdent à une distorsion des textes des philosophes, voire à une censure. Aristote en a aussi été victime. On ne pourrait lire Nietzsche et d’autres philosophes qu’à travers une grille savante, inaccessible au commun. Mais non. Nietzsche est fort lisible, par tout homme cultivé et censé. Mais notre époque ne peut le lire qu’à travers la grille d’une censure par omission.

 

- Pourriez-vous donner une définition du Surhomme ?

- Nietzsche a volontairement donné une définition floue du Surhomme. C’est un concept ouvert, mais néanmoins explicite. Évidemment, les intellectuels pseudo-nietzschéens se sont empressés d’affadir et de déminer ce concept, en faisant du Surhomme une sorte d’intellectuel nuageux et détaché, supérieur, méditatif, quasi-bouddhique, à l’image infatuée qu’ils veulent donner d’eux-mêmes. Bref l’inverse même de ce qu’entendait Nietzsche. Je suis partisan de ne pas interpréter les auteurs mais de les lire et, si possible, par respect, au premier degré. Nietzsche reliait évidemment le Surhomme à la notion de Volonté de Puissance (qui, elle aussi, a été manipulée et déformée). Le Surhomme est le modèle de celui qui accomplit la Volonté de Puissance, c’est-à-dire qui s’élève au dessus de la morale du troupeau (et Nietzsche visait le socialisme, doctrine grégaire) pour, avec désintéressement, imposer un nouvel ordre, avec une double dimension guerrière et souveraine, dans une visée dominatrice, douée d’un projet de puissance. L’interprétation du Surhomme comme un ”sage” suprême, un non-violent éthéré, un pré-Gandhi en sorte, est une déconstruction de la pensée de Nietzsche, de manière à la neutraliser et à l’affadir. L’intelligentsia parisienne, dont l’esprit faux est la marque de fabrique, a ce génie pervers et sophistique, soit de déformer la pensée de grands auteurs incontournables mais gênants (y compris Aristote ou Voltaire) mais aussi de s’en réclamer indument en tronquant leur pensée. Il y a deux définitions possibles du Surhomme : le surhomme mental et moral (par évolution et éducation, dépassant ses ancêtres) et le surhomme biologique. C’est très difficile de trancher puisque Nietzsche lui-même n’a utilisé cette expression que comme sorte de mythème, de flash littéraire, sans jamais la conceptualiser vraiment. Une sorte d’expression prémonitoire, qui était inspirée de l’évolutionnisme darwinien. Mais, votre question est très intéressante. L’essentiel n’est pas d’avoir une réponse “ à propos de Nietzsche ”, mais de savoir quelle voie Nietzsche, voici plus de cent ans, voulait ouvrir. Nietzsche ne pensait pas, puisqu’il était anti-humaniste et a-chrétien, que l’homme était un être fixe, mais qu’il était soumis à l’évolution, voire à l’auto-évolution (c’est le sens de la métaphore du « pont entre la Bête et le Surhomme »). En ce qui me concerne, (mais là, je m’écarte de Nietzsche et mon opinion ne possède pas une valeur immense ) j’ai interprété le surhumanisme comme une remise en question, pour des raisons en partie biologiques, de la notion même d’espèce humaine. Bref. Cette notion de Surhomme est certainement, beaucoup plus que celle de volonté de puissance, un de ces pièges mystérieux que nous a tendu Nietzsche, une des questions qu’il a posée à l’humanité future Oui, qu’est-ce que le Surhomme ? Rien que ce mot nous fait rêver et délirer. Le Surhomme n’a pas de définition puisqu’il n’est pas encore défini. Le Surhomme, c’est l’homme lui-même. Nietzsche a peut-être eu l’intuition que l’espèce humaine, du moins certaines de ses composantes supérieures (pas nécessairement l’”humanité”), pourraient accélérer et orienter l’évolution biologique. Une chose est sûre, qui écrase les pensées monothéistes fixistes en anthropocentrée : l’Homme n’est pas une essence qui échappe à l’évolution. Et puis, au concept d’Ubermensch, n’oublions jamais d’adjoindre celui de Herrenvolk... prémonitoire. D’autre part, il ne faut pas oublier les réflexions de Nietzsche sur la question des races et des inégalités anthropologiques. La captation de l’œuvre de Nietzsche par les pseudo-savants et les pseudo-collèges de philosophie (comparable à celle de la captation de l’œuvre d’Aristote) s’explique par le fait très simple suivant : Nietzsche est un trop gros poisson pour être évacué, mais beaucoup trop subversif pour ne pas être déformé et censuré.

     

- Votre citation favorite de Nietzsche ?

- « Il faut maintenant que cesse toute forme de plaisanterie ». Cela signifie, de manière prémonitoire, que les valeurs sur lesquelles sont fondées la civilisation occidentale, ne sont plus acceptables. Et que la survie repose sur un renversement ou rétablissement des valeurs vitales. Et que tout cela suppose la fin du festivisme (concept inventé par Phillipe Muray et développé par Robert Steuckers) et le retour aux choses sérieuses.

 

Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight

The Rectification of Names:
Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight

By F. Roger Devlin

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Guillaume Faye
Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance
London: Arktos Media, 2011

Available from Counter-Currents ^[2] and from Amazon.com ^[3]

Guillaume Faye’s newly translated Kampfschrift aims to rally Europe, “our great fatherland, that family of kindred spirits, however politically fragmented, which is united on essentials, favoring thus the defense of our civilization.” He sees even nationalism as a kind of sectarianism which European man cannot afford at present: “when the house is on fire domestic disputes are put on hold.” For this reason, Faye has never belonged to the Front National, but has more recently lent support to the French Euronationalist organization Nationality-Citizenship-Identity (see www.nationalite-citoyennete-identite.com ^[4]).

Over three-quarters of the present volume is devoted to what a Confucian philosopher would call “the rectification of names ^[5].” It is interesting to observe how revolutionary ideologies are never able to express themselves in ordinary language. Being based upon a partial and distorted view of reality, they necessarily create a jargon all their own. Once they succeed in imposing it upon a subject population, they have won half their battle. Who exactly decided that loyalty to one’s people, known since time immemorial as patriotism and considered as one of the most essential virtues, would henceforth become the crime of racism? Faye’s “metapolitical dictionary” is a blow directed against such semantic distortion.

Here follows a brief sample:

Aristocracy: those who defend their people before their own interests. An aristocracy has a sense of history and blood lineage, seeing itself as the representative of the people it serves, rather than as members of a caste or club. Not equivalent to an economic elite, it can never become entirely hereditary without becoming sclerotic.

Biopolitics: a political project oriented to a people’s biological and demographic imperatives. It includes family and population policy, restricts the influx of aliens, and addressed issues of public health and eugenics.

Devirilisation: declining values of courage and virility for the sake of feminist, xenophile, homophile and humanitarian values.

Discipline: the regulation and positive adaptation of behavior through sanction, reward and exercise. Egalitarian ideology associates discipline and order with their excesses, i.e., with arbitrary dictatorship. But just the contrary is the case, for freedom and justice are founded on rigorous social discipline. Every society refusing to uphold law and order, i.e., collective discipline, is ripe for tyranny and the loss of public freedoms.

Germen: a people’s or civilization’s biological root. In Latin, germen means ‘germ’, ‘seed.’ If a culture is lost, recovery is possible. When the biological germen is destroyed, nothing is possible. The germen is comparable to a tree’s roots. If the trunk is damaged or the foliage cut down, the tree can recover—but not if the roots are lost. That’s why the struggle against race-mixing, depopulation and the alien colonization of Europe is even more important than mobilizing for one’s cultural identity and political sovereignty.

Identity: etymologically, ‘that which makes singular’. A people’s identity is what makes it incomparable and irreplaceable.

Involution: the regression of a civilization or species to maladaptive forms that lead to the diminishing of its vital forces. Cultural involution has been stimulated by the decline of National Education (40% of adolescents are now partially or completely illiterate), the regression of knowledge, the collapse of social norms, the immersion of youth in a world of audio/visual play [and] the Africanization of European culture.

Mental AIDS: the collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of its decadence and its enemies. Louis Pauwels coined the term in the 1980s and it set off a media scandal. In general, the more the neo-totalitarian system is scandalized by an idea and demonizes it, the more likely it’s true.

With biological AIDS, T4 lymphocytes, which are supposed to defend the organism, fail to react to the HIV virus as a threat, and instead treat it as a ‘friend’, helping it to reproduce. European societies today are [similarly] menaced by the collapse of their immunological defenses. As civil violence, delinquency and insecurity explode everywhere, police and judicial measures that might curb them are being undermined. The more Third World colonization damages European peoples, the more measures are taken to continue it. Just as Europe is threatened with demographic collapse, policies which might increase the birth rate are denounced and homosexuality idealized. Catholic prelates argue with great conviction that ‘Islam is an enrichment’, even as it clearly threatens to destroy them.

Museologicalization: the transformation of a living tradition into a museum piece, which deprives it of an active meaning or significance. A patrimony is constructed every day and can’t, thus, be conserved in a museum. Modern society is paradoxically ultra-conservative and museological, on the one hand, and at the same time hostile to the living traditions of identity.

Populism: the position which defends the people’s interests before that of the political class—and advocates direct democracy. This presently pejorative term must be made positive. The prevailing aversion to populism expresses a covert contempt for authentic democracy. For the intellectual-media class, ‘people’ means petits blancs—the mass of economically modest, non-privileged French Whites—who form that social category which is expected to pay its taxes and keep quiet. On the subjects of immigration, the death penalty, school discipline, fiscal policies—on numerous other subjects—it’s well known that the people’s deepest wishes as revealed in referenda and elsewhere never, despite incessant media propaganda, correspond to those of the government. Anti-populism marks the final triumph of the isolated, pseudo-humanist, and privileged political-media class—which have confiscated the democratic tradition for their own profit.

Resistance and Reconquest: faced with their colonization by peoples from the south and by Islam, Europeans, objectively speaking, are in a situation of resistance. Like Christian Spain between the Eighth and Fifteenth centuries, their project is one of reconquest. Resistance today is called ‘racism or ‘xenophobia’, just as native resisters to colonial oppression were formerly called ‘terrorists.’ A semantic reversal is in order here: those who favor the immigrant replacement population ought, henceforward, to be called ‘collaborators.’

Many of our false sages claim that it’s already too late, that the aliens will never leave, that the best that can be expected is a more reasonable form of ethnic cohabitation. [They] do so on the basis not of reasoned analysis, but simply from their lack of ethnic consciousness.

Revolution: a violent reversal of the political situation, following the advent of a crisis and the intervention of an active minority.

For Europeans, revolution represents a radical abolition, a reversal, of the present system and the construction of a new political reality based on the following principles: 1) an ethnocentric Eurosiberia, free of Islam and the Third World’s colonizing masses; 2) continental autarky, breaking with globalism’s free-trade doctrines; 3) a definitive break with the present organization of the European Union; and 4) a general recourse to an inegalitarian society that is disciplined, authentically democratic, aristocratic and inspired by Greek humanism. (Faye has previously written of the need for Euronationalists to reclaim the idea of revolution from the poseurs of the left.)

In a brief closing chapter, Faye answers the question posed by his book’s title:

We fight for Europe. We fight for a Europe infused with ideas of identity and continuity, of independence and power—this Europe that is an ensemble of ethnically related peoples. We fight for a vision of the world that is both traditional and Faustian, for passionate creativity and critical reason, for an unshakable loyalty and an adventurous curiosity, for social justice and free inquiry. We fight nor just for the Europeans of today, but for the heritage of our ancestors and the future of our descendents.

Faye’s writing has a bracing quality which never lapses into elegy or pessimism:

Nothing is lost. It’s completely inappropriate to see ourselves in the nostalgia of despair, as a rearguard, a last outpost, that struggles with panache for a lost cause. World events give us cause to believe that the situation is heading toward a great crisis—toward a chaos from which history will be reborn.

Two years after Why We Fight (2001), Faye published his analysis of the coming crisis under the title The Convergence of Catastrophes. This will be the next of Faye’s works to be brought out in English translation by Arktos.

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/the-rectification-of-names/

“Le Complexe de Narcisse”, recension de l’ouvrage de C. Lasch

“Le Complexe de Narcisse”, recension de l’ouvrage de C. Lasch

par Guillaume FAYE

Ex: http://vouloir.hautetfort.com/

« Partout, la société bourgeoise semble avoir épuisé sa réserve d’idées créatrices (…) La crise politique du capitalisme reflète une crise générale de la culture occidentale. Le libéralisme (…) a perdu la capacité d’expliquer les événements dans un monde où règnent l’État-Providence et les sociétés multinationales et rien ne l’a remplacé. En faillite sur le plan politique, le libéralisme l’est tout autant sur le plan intellectuel ».

Ce diagnostic porté par Christopher Lasch, l’un des observateurs les plus lucides de l’actuelle société américaine, donne le ton du réquisitoire qu’il a fait paraitre contre la mentalité et l’idéologie décadente des sociétés bourgeoises, sous le titre de The Culture of Narcissism (en traduction française, Le complexe de Narcisse). Dans cet essai, Lasch s’efforce de donner une description aussi précise que possible d’une « nouvelle sensibilité américaine » que l’on retrouve aujourd’hui, plus ou moins atténuée ou déformée, dans la plupart des pays industriels. Conclusion générale de son analyse l’individualisme traditionnel propre à l’idéologie libérale ne se traduit plus aujourd’hui, contrairement à ce qui se passait encore dans les années 60, par une politisation de l’opinion ou une radicalisation de la recherche du bien-être économique, mais par un repli radical sur le “moi” individuel. Ce repli correspond à la poursuite effrénée du “bonheur intérieur”. L’homme contemporain part à la recherche de lui-même, sans illusions politiques, mû par une angoisse qu’il tente d’apaiser par un recours systématique à toutes les formes de sécurité. C’est le triomphe de Narcisse.

Passant en revue l’évolution de la littérature, du système d’éducation, des médias de masse et du discours politique, C. Lasch dresse ainsi la “géographie” d’un narcissisme contemporain dans lequel il n’est pas éloigné de voir, à juste titre, le stade ultime du déclin d’une civilisation.

L’« invasion de la société par le moi » produit, dit-il, une course sans limites vers la « sécurité physique et psychique ». Équivalant à une existence menée dans un perpétuel présent, elle interdit « tout sens de la continuité historique ». Les modes “psy”, les obsessions sexuelles étalées dans le discours public, la frénésie des “expérimentations personnelles”, le désintérêt pour le travail, “l’égotisme” d’une famille nucléaire essentiellement consommatrice, la “théâtralisation de l’existence”, le mimétisme vis-à-vis des “vedettes” de la scène ou de la chanson, sont autant de traits caractéristiques du narcissisme.

« Cette concentration sur soi définit (…) le mouvement de la nouvelle conscience », note Lasch, qui ajoute : « La recherche de son propre accomplissement a remplacé la conquête de la nature et de nouvelles frontières ». Sur le plan politique, un tel comportement s’observe à gauche aussi bien qu’à droite. La gauche était d’ailleurs, depuis longtemps, acquise à une idéologie de refus de la vie-comme-combat. La droite, elle, a peu à peu été gagnée aux valeurs de la pensée rationnelle, calculatrice et bourgeoise. La fuite devant la lutte aboutit ainsi à un psychisme « misérabiliste », que Lasch décrit en ces termes : l’homme « est hanté, non par la culpabilité, mais par l’anxiété (…) Il se sent en compétition avec tout le monde pour l’obtention des faveurs que dispense l’État paternaliste. Sur le plan de la sexualité (…) son émancipation des anciens tabous ne lui apporte pas la paix (…) Il répudie les idéologies fondées sur la rivalité, en honneur à un stade antérieur du développement capitaliste. Il exige une gratification immédiate et vit dans un état de désir inquiet et perpétuellement inassouvi ».

L’origine de ce « complexe de Narcisse », état psychologique ultime de la mentalité individualiste, est à rechercher dans la décomposition d’une société qui, fondée sur l’égalité et l’autonomie individuelle, s’est peu à peu transformée en jungle sociale. « La culture de l’individualisme compétitif est une manière de vivre qui est en train de mourir — note à ce propos C. Lasch. Celle-ci, dans sa décadence, a poussé la logique de l’individualisme jusqu’à l’extrême de la guerre de tous contre tous, et la poursuite du bonheur jusqu’à l’impasse d’une obsession narcissique de l’individu pour lui-même. La stratégie de la survie narcissique (…) donne naissance à une « révolution culturelle qui reproduit les pires traits de cette même civilisation croulante qu’elle prétend critiquer (…) La personnalité autoritaire n’est plus le prototype de l’homme économique. Ce dernier a cédé la place à l’homme psychologique de notre temps — dernier avatar de l’individualisme bourgeois ».

Soumis aux “experts” et dominé par les psychiatres, l’homme contemporain s’est donc anxieusement lancé à la poursuite de son “moi”. Démobilisé dans ses instances profondes, imperméable à toute visée politique de longue durée, inapte à la compréhension d’un destin collectif, indifférent à l’histoire, il planifie, comme un comptable, l’obtention de son bonheur intime. Ce dernier, jusqu’à la fin des années 60, se confondait avec la réussite matérielle et le bien-être du confort domestique. C’était l’époque de la deuxième “révolution industrielle”, animée par une idéologie de la compétition individuelle et caractérisée par l’accession massive des classes moyennes au standing de la bourgeoisie aisée. Mais aujourd’hui, l’idée de bonheur a pris une autre résonance. Elle a dépassé sa connotation purement matérielle pour se doter d’une portée “psychologique”. Il s’agit maintenant de sécuriser son “moi”, de “partir à la recherche de soi-même”, sur la base d’une introspection presque pathologique. À la quête du bonheur économique, dont les limites apparaissent désormais clairement, s’ajoute la recherche du “bonheur intérieur”. L’idéal mercantile du bien-être petit-bourgeois conserve sa vigueur, mais il ne suffit plus à étancher la soif de l’homme contemporain. Celui-ci veut accéder à la “félicité psychique”. Il se tourne vers une série d’utopies nouvelles. L’État-Providence est là pour lui promettre la “bonne vie” sans le stress, le maximum de droits avec le minimum de devoirs, le confort à peu de frais, la prospérité matérielle dans la quiétude du “moi”.

Toutefois, les gourous du mieux-vivre, s’ils ont rejeté les valeurs de compétition et de risque, n’ont pas abandonné pour autant les aspirations matérialistes de la bourgeoisie traditionnelle. Narcisse, obsédé par son désir d’apaiser ses “tensions” psychologiques, de réaliser ses “pulsions” libidinales, n’entame pas une critique sur le fond de la société de consommation. Il veut l’abondance, mais sans avoir à se battre pour l’obtenir ; la richesse, mais sans effort, et, en plus, la plénitude sexuelle et l’apaisement de ses conflits quotidiens.

L’impossibilité évidente de satisfaire en même temps ces exigences contradictoires donne à la mentalité narcissique une conscience à la fois infantile et douloureuse. Plus l’individu se replie sur lui-même, plus il se découvre des “problèmes” nouveaux et insolubles. La recherche du bonheur débouche sur une angoisse qui n’est plus regardée comme un défi, mais comme une menace. La nouvelle bourgeoisie narcissique est une classe fragile, inquiète, hypersensible, superficielle, instable.

Une autre cause du narcissisme contemporain, qui « recroqueville le moi vers un état primaire et passif dans lequel le monde n’est ni crée ni formé », réside dans la permissivité sociale et la bureaucratisation. La permissivité détruit les normes de conduite collectives. Loin de libérer, elle isole. Elle fait exploser le sens. Privé du cadre éducatif et des institutions hérités, l’individu ne sait plus comment se comporter. Il s’en remet alors ans injonctions éphémères que lui distillent les médias, la publicité, les “manuels” d’éducation sexuelle, etc. Les conseils (intéressés) des magazines ou de la télévision se substituent à l’expérience intériorisée de la tradition familiale ou communautaire. Les règles de vie ne sont plus trouvées que par fragments ou par accident, dans le champ anonyme et frustrant du “discours public”. Le “surmoi” social s’est effondré. Les normes de comportement, auxquelles nulle société n’échappent, ne proviennent plus que des structures dominantes, économiques et techniques, de la société, Privé d’autodiscipline, puisqu’il n’intériorise pas les règles sociales, l’individu se heurte brutalement aux interdits socio-économiques qu’il découvre en arrivant à l’âge adulte : règles bureaucratiques, pratiques bancaires, impératifs commerciaux, etc. Élevé dans le mythe d’une “liberté” formelle, il supporte de moins en moins bien ces contraintes et réagit en se renfermant d’autant plus sur lui-même.

La bureaucratisation des activités sociales accentue la tendance. Déchargeant les hommes des soucis de la lutte quotidienne, elle donne aux hommes l’illusion de l’irresponsabilité. L’individu se découvre étranger à ceux qui l’entourent, à ceux qui partagent son existence quotidienne et à qui, désormais, plus rien ne le lie. La mentalité d’assistance, le recours perpétuel à des “droits” que rien ne vient plus fonder, la sécurisation de la vie privée par la bureaucratisation de l’État-Providence décharge l’individu de son rôle actif. Que lui reste-t-il à faire alors, puisque rien ne l’attache plus aux autres, sinon à se passionner pour lui-même ?

Le déclin des idéaux révolutionnaires et du marxisme orthodoxe a fait perdre l’espoir d’une transformation radicale de la société. L‘idéologie égalitaire a reporté ses visées dans le domaine des contre-pouvoirs insignifiants et des micro-aménagements quotidiens. L’égalitarisme ne laisse plus entrevoir de “paradis social”, mais seulement des “paradis individuels”. L’utopie du bonheur s’affaiblit sur le plan collectif et se rétracte au niveau intime et personnel. Nous en sommes à l’ère, prévue (et voulue) par l’École de Francfort, des “révolutions minuscules”.

La “fin de l’histoire”, elle aussi, est recherchée sur le plan individuel après l’avoir usé sur le plan social et collectif, Même la société “bonheurisée” et privée de véritable histoire politique que nous connaissons actuellement apparaît comme trop astreignante. Elle ne constitue pas encore un refuge suffisamment sécurisant contre le stress. Elle n’endort pas encore assez. L’individu, en se repliant sur sa sphère psychique, prend mentalement sa retraite dès l’âge de 20 ans. La société n’entend plus sortir directement de l’histoire ; c’est l’individu qui se retire de la société.

Oublieuse de toute notion de continuité historique, de toute perception dense des liens sociaux, la société narcissique incite à vivre pour soi-même et à n’exister que dans l’instant. Tel est d’ailleurs le sens de la plupart des messages publicitaires. Tel est aussi le “discours” distillé à longueur de temps par des magazines, de plus en plus nombreux, qui se spécialisent dans la résolution “catégorielle” des problèmes individuels (parents, enfants, jeunes femmes, amateurs de vidéo, etc.) et l’étude “micro-dimensionnelle” de la vie quotidienne. Dans cette recherche, nulle place n’est laissée à l’accomplissement personnel dans le sens d’un style aristocratique ou d’un dépassement de soi. On en reste aux fantasmes stéréotypes, à la planification “micro-procédurière”, à l’introspection complaisante d’un “moi” de plus en plus étiolé. « La survie individuelle est maintenant le seul bien », observe C. Lasch. Le XXIe siècle, à ce rythme, ne sera pas un siècle religieux, mais un siècle thérapeutique.

Dans cette perspective, le culte de la fausse intimité, l’intensification artificiel le des rapports subjectifs, la simplification primitiviste des “rituels” de séduction et d’approche, constituent des formes maladroites de compensation par rapport au cynisme social et à l’absence de valeurs partagées. L’existence de liens entre l’individu et des valeurs de type communautaire reste en effet une nécessité inéluctable dans toute société, quand bien même la conscience individuelle les refuse. Les liens affectifs individuels demeurent insuffisants pour donner aux individus un sens à leur existence. Ainsi, paradoxalement, la vague actuelle de “sentimentalité” qui tend à isoler l’individu à l’intérieur du couple, et le couple à l’intérieur de l’ensemble de la société, débouche sur la mort de toute affection authentique et sur la fragilisation des rapports d’union. L’amour comme l’amitié, pour être durables, doivent s’insérer dans un cadre plus large que celui défini par leurs protagonistes immédiats. Or, c’est cette dimension communautaire que le “narcissisme” attaque dans ses racines. Lorsque l’individu ne peut plus ni percevoir ni “idéaliser” le groupe, la cité, la communauté à laquelle il appartient, il est obligatoirement conduit à intensifier ses rapports infimes de façon si hypertrophique qu’il finit en fait par les détruire. C’est ainsi, par ex., que la vague récente de “néoromantisme”, évoquée par Edouard Shorter (Naissance de la famille moderne, Seuil, 1979), ne débouche pas sur l’amour, mais sur l’égotisme et sur l’obsession de soi.

De même, les fausses expérimentations vitales, qui ne reposent sur aucune habitude culturelle, sur aucun besoin intériorisé, dépersonnalisent l’individu au lieu de le recentrer, le “débranchent” en quelque sorte du monde vécu sans lui fournir “l’autre dimension” souhaitée. N’ayant pas trouvé le bonheur dans la consommation matérielle et le confort économique, la nouvelle bourgeoisie “narcissique” tente de l’atteindre dans une consommation de “produits spirituels”, dont la qualité laisse, évidemment, fort à désirer. Les États-Unis, et plus spécialement la sphère “californienne”, sont particulièrement en pointe dans ce style d’entreprises, dont certains essaient de nous persuader qu’elles constituent la naissance d’une nouvelle culture ou la source possible d’un renouveau de la spiritualité.

La description que donne C. Lasch est convaincante de bout en bout. Pourtant, Lasch semble ne pas tirer toutes les conclusions de son propos, probablement parce qu’il se trouve lui-même immergé dans une société américaine dont il n’ose pas remettre en cause les idéaux fondateurs (dont le “narcissisme” est pourtant l’aboutissement). C’est pourquoi il propose, de façon assez peu crédible un retour à des valeurs anciennes auxquels il n’envisage à aucun moment de donner un nouveau fondement. (Certains pourront voir là un essai de réactivation du puritanisme américain traditionnel).

Ce n’est pourtant pas, à notre avis, dans un quelconque “ordre moral” que réside la solution au “mal de vivre” de Narcisse. La solution ne peut procéder d’une manipulation sociale, d’une transformation des institutions, d’une évolution mécanique des codes sociaux ou d’un discours purement moral, Pour en finir avec “l’idéologie de la compassion” et la mentalité de “l’avoir-droit narcissique”, toute attitude répressive ou, au contraire, de simple lamentation, ne peut que se révéler sans effet. Seuls peuvent mobiliser les individus en tant que parties intégrantes d’un peuple, des projets d’essence politique et culturelle, fondés sur des valeurs (et des contre-valeurs) entièrement opposées à celles qui ont présidé à la naissance de la “république universelle” des États-Unis d’Amérique. Ce n’est pas, bien entendu, d’outre-Atlantique, que l’on peut les attendre.

◘ Le complexe de Narcisse : La nouvelle sensibilité américaine, traduit par Michel Landa, Robert Laffont, coll. Libertés 2000, 1981. [Version remaniée : La Culture du narcissisme, Champs-Flam, 2006]

► Guillaume Faye, Nouvelle École n°37, 1982.

Pequeño léxico del partisano europeo

Pequeño léxico del partisano europeo

Publicado por edicionesnuevarepublica

Pequeño léxico del partisano europeo

NOVEDAD

De G. Faye, P. Freson y R. Steuckers

Colección «El Partisano Europeo» /7

● 1ª edición, Barcelona, 2012

● 20×13 cms., 88 págs.

● Cubierta a todo color, con solapas y plastificada brillo

● PVP: 10 euros

Orientaciones:

El Petit lexique du partisan Européen (Pequeño léxico del partisano europeo) fue editado por primera vez en 1985. Sus autores, Guillaume Faye, Pierre Fresón y Robert Steuckers pertenecían —o habían pertenecido— a la deno­minada “Nueva Derecha”, etiqueta política muy al uso en Francia e Italia, pero incomprensible en España.

Su finalidad al escribir este léxico era la de dotar de un corpus doctrinal claro, eficaz y directo al “activista europeo”, proporcionarle una batería de ideas alternativas al discurso dominante de las ideologías de lo “políticamente correcto”, formarle y clarificarle en un léxico propio, un léxico para militantes de la Europa disidente.

[...] es el intenso compromiso político que distingue al partisano de otros combatientes. [...] el partisano lucha en un frente político, y precisamente el carácter político de su actividad revaloriza el sentido originario de la palabra par­tisano. La palabra se deriva de partido, e indica los vínculos con un partido o un grupo que lucha o hace la guerra o actúa políticamente de alguna forma. Y es en esta definición de Carl Schmitt donde encaja perfectamente el com­promiso del militante europeísta. Su carácter de soldado político le convierte en un Partisano, en un miembro de la resistencia europea contra el Nuevo Orden Mundial.

[del prólogo de Juan Antonio Llopart] 

Pedidos:

[e-mail]

Tlf: 682 65 33 56

Guillaume Faye: Sexe et dévoiement

Guillaume Faye:

Sexe et dévoiement

Sexe et dévoiement

Sexe et dévoiement

Les éditions du Lore viennent de publier Sexe et dévoiement, un nouvel essai de Guillaume Faye.

Ex: http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com/

Figure de la Nouvelle Droite dans les années 70-80, auteur d'essais importants, servis par un style étincellant, comme Le système à tuer les peuples (Copernic, 1981) ou L'Occident comme déclin (Le Labyrinthe, 1984), Guillaume Faye est revenu au combat idéologique en 1998 avec L'archéofuturisme (L'Æncre, 1998), après dix années d'errance dans les milieux de la radio et du show-businness. Dans cet essai, premier d'une nouvelle série d'écrits de combat, il a su développer des idées stimulantes telles celles d'archéofuturisme, de constructivisme vitaliste et de convergence des catastrophes. Par la suite, l'auteur s'est enfermé, au nom d'un anti-islamisme rabique, dans une surenchère dans la provocation qui semble lui avoir fait perdre de vue l'ennemi principal et l'avoir amené à opérer des rapprochements surprenants. On lira donc avec intérêt, mais non sans circonspection, cet essai qu'il consacre au thème de la sexualité, thème qu'il avait déjà abordé de façon percutante, il y a plus de vingt-cinq ans, dans Sexe et idéologie (Le Labyrinthe, 1983).

 

"Dans son nouvel essai, comme toujours, Guillaume Faye brouille les pistes. Véritable électron libre de la Nouvelle Droite européenne, aussi inquiétant que controversé, il sévit à nouveau autour d’un sujet devenu sulfureux : le voici traitant de la sexualité, thème central à la croisée de tous les chemins. Est-il judicieux de préciser que ce livre fera polémique ?...

Pornographie, famille, amour, homosexualité, métissage, mariages, natalité, féminisme, érotisme, morale chrétienne, islam, prostitution, manipulations génétiques, surhomme, intelligence artificielle : tous ces thèmes d’une brûlante actualité sont abordés ici par Faye de son point de vue archéofuturiste. Parfois excessives, totalement décomplexées car impeccablement documentées, les théories de l’auteur nous amènent à réfléchir armés notamment de munitions aristotéliciennes.

Voici une remarquable étude sociologique exécutée par un homme de terrain ; il convient de la lire à la manière d’un roman, mais un roman qu’on ne saurait mettre entre toutes les mains."

Guillaume Faye - La ragnatela mondiale del sistema

Guillaume Faye

La ragnatela mondiale del sistema

Il conflitto dei tempi a venire — Verso un unico modello umano — Un pianeta senza poesia — L'infezione del sistema — Spoliticizzazione della società — La tecnica e l'autoaffermazione dei popoli — Il falso mito dell'occidente.

Ex: http://www.uomolibero.com/

Un avvenimento considerevole si produce nel mondo contemporaneo, un avvenimento lento, silenzioso, invisibile: le culture, le civiltà, le nazioni, i paesi vengono fusi progressivamente in una struttura tiepida che trascende le divisioni destra/sinistra, est/ovest, nord/sud, che assorbe le distinzioni politiche e ideologiche, che pialla le geografie, che pietrifica la storia.

Questa struttura è il Sistema planetario. « Sistema », e non « civilizzazione ». Non esiste una civilizzazione mondiale, a dispetto delle fantasticherie di Léopold Senghor, giacché una civilizzazione rimane pur sempre culturale, organica, umana. Ora, il Sistema appare come la metamorfosi mostruosa della civilizzazione occidentale in un gigantesco meccanismo tecnoeconomico.

Il grande conflitto dei tempi a venire non opporrà più il capitalismo al socialismo, ma l'insieme delle forze nazionali, culturali, etniche, alla macchina cosmopolita del sistema occidentale, che sostituisce ai territori le sue « zone », alle sovranità le sue regioni economiche, alle culture il suo discorso massificante. La Terra diventa così un grande circo in cui il Sistema è il domatore.

Esso non ha niente di un impero mondiale, poiché non emerge da una potenza politica, ma dalla cancerizzazione della società dei consumi che si spande su tutta la planisfera. Non ha altro sovrano che un individuo astratto — l'homo universalis nato dall'incontro dell'ideologia del diritto naturale e dell'Illuminismo — dai bisogni omogenei e universali. Non ha altro governo che una convergenza di reti economiche e burocratiche transnazionali, che relegano le sovranità politiche e le volontà dei popoli al magazzino degli accessori. Gli è riuscita una rivoluzione: quella di aver smagliato il tessuto delle società, un tempo formate da insiemi organici, istituzioni, tradizioni, mestieri, gruppi e ritmi diversificati, per rifonderne la trama secondo la logica omogenea dei settori di attività tecniche ed economiche, frammentate le une in rapporto alle altre, organizzate in aggregati, come gli ingranaggi di un motore senza nessuno che lo diriga.

La crescita del Sistema è tanto più temibile in quanto i suoi funzionari si pretendono investiti di una missione, quella dell'umanismo mondiale, del pacifismo mercantilista o del socialismo riparatore delle ingiustizie. Per la loro amenità caramellosa, questi ideali appaiono più pericolosi e alienanti di tutti gli imperialismi tradizionali. Il Sistema forma una totalità sprovvista di centro, ma il cui punto focale è la società americana, i suoi trust, il suo mercato ed i suoi costumi. Si espande, dopo l'Europa occidentale e l'estremo oriente, nei paesi socialisti e nelle parti industrializzate del terzo mondo. Questa espansione, che non è più capitalista di quanto non sia socialista, utilizza le società commerciali, le istituzioni internazionali, le burocrazie nazionali come agenti economici intercambiabili, incaricati di diffondere ovunque le stesse mercanzie e le stesse strutture mentali. L'incubo che il gelido ottimismo dei tecnocrati liberali e il mondialismo ingenuo della vecchia sinistra tentano di dissipare, prende forma poco a poco: è il « migliore dei mondi ». L'alchimia della sua crescita tentacolare si compone sempre degli stessi ingredienti: le strutture tecnoeconomiche multinazionali, l'ideologia universalista ed egualitaria, la sottocultura mondiale di massa.

* * *

L'unificazione dei costumi e dei bisogni fonda un tipo umano egemonico: il regno della molle figura del piccolo borghese universale è cominciato. Sul mondo occidentalizzato si installa una borghesia mondiale, in cui prendono il loro posto anche le classi agiate dei paesi poveri e la « nomenklatura » dei paesi socialisti. Allineare i modi di vivere sul presunto modello della classe media americana, è l'aspirazione implicita di tutti i partiti, degli ambienti d'affari e di quel sottoprodotto dei mass-media che si è soliti chiamare « opinione pubblica ». Questa invoca, con buona coscienza, l'argomento dell'innalzamento del tenore di vita; impostura manifesta, che passa sotto silenzio la distruzione delle economie tradizionali e la pauperizzazione di miliardi di uomini. Questo « razzismo » incosciente, che afferma il modello economico mondiale di « sviluppo » come preferibile e superiore alle culture tradizionali dei popoli, rischia di produrre uno psichismo umano unico. La nostra specie, in questo caso, privata della diversificazione delle sue strutture mentali, non sarebbe più in grado di dare, alle sfide globali del mondo a venire, che un solo tipo di risposta, e probabilmente non certo la migliore, né la vincente.

* * *

In questo universo mentale unico, l'uomo occidentale non si definisce più per la sua origine, ma solo per il suo modo tecnoeconomico di esistenza. Un impiegato di banca di Singapore è in questo senso più occidentale di un tirolese o di un bretone radicati nella propria identità.

La Terra si trasforma in un insieme settorializzato di reti e di circuiti che lasciano spalancati degli spazi morti. Spoetizzato (1), il nostro pianeta è oggetto di « messa a frutto » non è più oggetto di conquista. Senza la padronanza del proprio spazio, i popoli non controllano più la propria geopolitica; la loro geografia, quella dell'habitat poetico e del territorio politico, resta cancellata di fronte alla divisione in zone commerciali e amministrative del Sistema. Non siamo più abitanti dei nostri luoghi, ma semplici residenti. Il Sistema non ha distrutto le patrie; le ha fossilizzate sovrapponendovisi. L'idea nazionale non è più condannata; essa è stata neutralizzata, non malgrado, ma a causa delle reverenze accademiche che le fanno con cinismo i discorsi dei politicanti. Ogni nozione di provenienza territoriale langue in questo universo di turismo di massa, d'uniformità alimentare e vestimentale, di diplomi americani, di films internazionali. Pare che Ford intenda realizzare un'automobile « globale », fabbricata in dieci paesi differenti e destinata a tutti gli automobilisti del mondo.

Come gli uomini, così anche gli oggetti non vengono più da nessuna parte. « Penso », dichiarava Gilbert Trigano, del Club Mediterranée (2) « che l'avvenire del Club risieda nell'avvento di un'atmosfera veramente cosmopolita ». Ma l'avvenire del Club Méditerranée non è quello dei popoli di cultura: l'avvento del cosmopolitismo non sarebbe per essi un'apertura come immagina Guy Scarpetta, ma un soffocamento.

Il Sistema, che non « vive », ma « funziona », sottrae i popoli al tempo storico. Fondato su mode, movimenti di consumo, flussi economici, correnti d'opinione, si iscrive puramente nella cronaca. Un popolo, al contrario, va da qualche parte e viene da qualche parte. Per il Sistema la coscienza storica è sovversiva perché essa non forma buoni clienti né buoni telespettatori. Se la caratteristica propria alla Storia è quella di modificare il senso delle cose, il Sistema non è interessato che a cambiare le forme esterne: forme dei prodotti, mode. Ciò che si teme più di tutto sono le perturbazioni della storia, quelle dei Cesari e degli Imam.

Il Sistema è uno stabilizzatore. Nell'ordine mondiale stabile, le microvariazioni delle novità e delle innovazioni contrastano con la macrofissità dell'insieme. Costumi, stili artistici, etichette e ideologie politiche non si evolvono più. Il walkman (3) non è un'innovazione, ma un aggravarsi di una forma di vita già ben installata: il narcisismo tecnologico. Siamo rientrati di fatto nella storia ciclica, nel circolo vizioso dell'eterno ritorno delle « riscoperte » e dei revival. I media accentuano la fissità conservatrice del sistema trasformando le idee in mercanzie che si confrontano con mercati d'opinione stabili.

Evacuata, la storia dei popoli lascia dietro di sé un grande silenzio che il cicaleccio vuoto dei media tenta di coprire; messo da parte, il mondo dei popoli, quello delle strategie continentali, delle rivolte religiose, dei grandi disegni politici, lascia il posto ai piccoli programmi di vita individuale, alla fine dei quali non vi è altro che la pensione. In queste condizioni, il sistema occidentale non lascerà tracce di civiltà. È senza memoria e non se ne conserverà il ricordo. Nella logica dell'ideologia lockiana e del protestantesimo laicizzato, esso ritiene di aver già compiuto la sua rivoluzione. Il suo « progresso » non è che la continuazione, il perfezionamento della sua espansione.

Ciò spiega come i marxisti siano disarmati di fronte alle società contemporanee, che sono, in fondo, postrivoluzionarie; e soccombano come gli altri all'appello del Sistema, appello alla fusione, alla fetalizzazione della specie umana.

* * *

Il Sistema ha conosciuto un precedente storico con la Cristianità. Anch 'essa tentò di costruire — progetto che non è stato d'altronde abbandonato — un mondialismo al di sopra delle singolarità dei popoli.

L'omogeneizzazione delle culture in nome della « salvezza » si è trasformata in omogeneizzazione in nome del diritto alla felicità borghese. Il monoteismo cambia di forma: oggi esso prende quella di complesso economico-culturale.

Il che significa che l'installazione di strutture economiche multinazionali e la diffusione di una cultura mondiale unica, costituiscono due processi globalmente legati. L'imposizione del « sistema di oggetti » occidentale presuppone l'adozione di una cultura semplicista e pragmatica che determina un'involuzione e un impoverimento spirituale. Il Sistema deve acculturare i popoli ai costumi dell'homo consumans internazionale i cui bisogni si postulano unificati. L'economia e l'infracultura del Sistema si sono costituite in insieme reciproco ». Le merci comportano lineamenti culturali e inversamente la sottocultura americano-occidentale prepara gli spiriti al consumo di merci unificate.

Le fasi culturali di entrata nel Sistema sono tre. Prima fase: lo spettacolo. Le popolazioni di cultura sono messe in presenza del modello attraverso l'intermediazione delle loro « élites » occidentalizzate, che funzionano da vetrina. Seconda fase: la normalizzazione. Si tratta di eliminare le scorie culturali « indigene » relegandole in zone « sottosviluppate » o « ritardate » che si è in precedenza contribuito a creare. L'ideologia umanitaria della pretesa lotta contro la miseria serve qui da strumento di penetrazione. Terza fase: il consolidamento. E in opera nei paesi industrializzati. La cultura dominante è completamente incorporata all'economia. Le mode di massa costituiscono le armi di questa spersonalizzazione degli individui in un'esistenza narcisistica e iperpragmatica. Esse compensano la noia di un modo di vivere omogeneo (che rischierebbe di sfociare in rivolte, in rivendicazioni di ritorno alla storia) attraverso lo stordimento indotto dalle pseudonovità. In questa cultura obsolescente, non appare alcuna « nuova generazione culturale ». Non vi è più che un gigantesco prodotto culturale, sottomesso alla funzione mercantilistica, semplice settore contabile nelle colonne di cifre del supermercato mondiale.

Le tradizioni dei popoli sono divenute anch'esse branche di un sistema economico e tecnico. In musei morti, noi celebriamo il nostro passato senza viverlo. Ricordo, ma non più memoria, il passato è visitato, ma non più abitato (4). Un vero popolo interiorizza il suo passato e lo trasforma in modernità. Il Sistema ne ha fatto un ornamento, neutralizzato e sterilizzato, che viene consumato così come si consuma anche l'esotico. Il passato e le tradizioni sono divenuti pianeti nella galassia dei passatempi.

Questa cultura-prodotto universale è più « occidentale » che americana. Oggi l'America è dappertutto. Il Sistema dipende tanto dalla dominazione degli Stati Uniti come nazione quanto dall'estensione a tutta la Terra della società americana. I fondamenti ideologici del Sistema sono gli stessi di quelli dei padri fondatori degli Stati Uniti: mercantilismo e umanitarismo. Ma l'egemonia strettamente americana è probabilmente destinata a declinare: Goldrake è giapponese e le hit-parades sono prodotte in Europa. L'americanomorflsmo succede all'americanismo e rappresenta in fondo l'essenza dell'occidentale. E questo il più grande pericolo. Saremo ancora capaci di rigettare ciò che viene da noi stessi?

L'America è in noi: formula terribile che se diventasse completamente vera starebbe a significare che noi siamo già dei morti viventi.

A dirigere il Sistema non è del resto un potere politico più di quanto sia l'America. Il Sistema non ha capo: non ha nient'altro che dei regolatori, senza progetto d'insieme. Gli stati maggiori delle grandi società, le burocrazie nazionali e internazionali, le reti dei media, incrociano le loro decisioni al di sopra delle sovranità politiche. Carì Schmitt e Jürgen Habermas hanno ben colto la natura oppressiva e invadente di questa autoregolazione anorganica che spoliticizza i popoli. Questa oppressione si giustifica con una pratica e un'ideologia antiautoritarie che sostituiscono alle decisioni, ai destini, ai poteri visibili, l'intruppamento nella placenta delle organizzazioni, in cui gli assoggettati, autoalienati, vivono in seno al sistema come presso ad una madre fraterna. Le finalità settoriali hanno rimpiazzato la politica; le opinioni si spoliticizzano e le ideologie politiche diventano ornamentali. Non viene più cantata l'Internazionale quando la sinistra vince le elezioni, ma ci si dondola al suono di un rock americano. Il Sistema non ha più bisogno di una legittimazione politica: la multinazionale Americana , la banca inglese, la burocrazia francese, i politicanti italiani vedono le loro strategie convergere spontaneamente grazie al cemento dello stesso programma implicito che le abita tutte: realizzare la società mercantilistica mondiale.

La sola politica ancora praticata nel Sistema obbedisce a ciò che Claus Offe qualificava come « sottomissione a imperativi di schivata ». Detto altrimenti, schivare gli sconvolgimenti, evitare le grandi crisi per gestire meglio le piccole.

* * *

In questo deserto del politico, il mondo non ha più destino. La fine del ventesimo secolo vede installarsi la paralisi dei popoli: lo status quo uscito da Yalta conserva globalmente il suo equilibrio; l'Europa politica non si è mai realizzata; l'Islam resta disunito; la decolonizzazione rimane una parola; i progetti rivoluzionari finiscono nel sangue di tirannie medievali o nella società burocratica. In compenso, le esportazioni di grano verso l'URSS o i trasferimenti di mano d'opera e di industrie vanno a meraviglia. La storia del mondo diventa quella dei suoi mercati di consumo. Questa falsa storia, spoliticizzata, dipende da un macchinario autoperpetuantesi appena infastidito dalle bombe dei desperados, furiosi che la loro utopia rivoluzionaria — sempre più minoritaria — non trovi più eco presso i loro antichi fratelli vinti dal mortale tepore del Sistema.

La spoliticizzazione provoca un'alienazione di nuovo tipo. Il Sistema non fa più ricorso che secondariamente alla coercizione o alla persuasione ideologica, perché le sue strutture comportamentali sono assimilate dalle popolazioni. Da qui la vanità e il carattere velleitario di ogni forma di contestazione che si situi su un piano meramente politico.

La politica è organizzata in spettacolo dai media del Sistema, e l'opinione pubblica, falsamente politicizzata — « politicantizzata » si potrebbe dire — costituisce il simulacro di un sentimento popolare. Contrariamente alle vedute della scuola di Francoforte non esiste un direttore d'orchestra clandestino che si celi dietro la razionalità delle pratiche economiche. L'essenziale non è che si contesti o meno il governo, ma che non si trovi niente da ridire quando si fanno gli acquisti al drugstore, che si aderisca implicitamente ai valori pratici dell'edonismo borghese. E questa la ragione per cui la sola vera contestazione è quella che rimette globalmente in causa, da un punto di vista metapolitico e culturale, la concezione del mondo del Sistema, nella quale individualismo, edonismo, razionalismo e mondialismo umanitario sono indissociabilmente legati da una logica implacabile.

La trappola in cui sono caduti Marcuse e Habermas consiste nel non aver percepito che il Sistema riposa su una Weltanschauung che è anche la loro. Da qui il « recupero » totale del loro discorso e la sconfitta storica della scuola di Francoforte. Rompendo col razionalismo della felicità individuale, col mondialismo umanitario per situarci dalla parte dei popoli, della loro volontà di affermazione, di differenza e di destino, noi pretendiamo costituire la vera alternativa; noi pretendiamo essere i soli, nel paesaggio ideologico uniforme di oggi, a non essere compromessi con i valori — o i non valori — dell'occidentalismo egualitario e mercantilistico, a non fare nostro il postulato di base del Sistema secondo cui ciò che importa è la « realizzazione razionale della felicità economica individuale ».

Aurelio Peccei, presidente e fondatore del Club di Roma, ha ben riassunto il programma nichilista che noi intendiamo combattere con le armi più efficaci, quelle della lotta metapolitica e culturale, quando dichiarava: « Bisogna arrivare a un sistema mondiale governabile che dovrebbe utilizzare le tecniche tanto efficienti del marketing ». Sogno insano, che condividono a destra e a sinistra, dalla parte dei liberali come da quella dei socialisti, tutti gli alleati oggettivi della morte dei popoli. Essi vogliono trasformare il pianeta in una rigatteria della piccola felicità, in cui i popoli, filializzati come i dipartimenti di una multinazionale, vivrebbero nella pace perpetua di una clinica psichiatrica, disciplinati dai dieci comandamenti dell'ideologia dei Diritti dell'Uomo. Mentre il « Gran Fratello » regna sul migliore dei mondi.

* * *

Questa ideologia dei Diritti dell'Uomo, parliamone. Preparando gli spiriti all'idea dell'uniformità dei bisogni, piazzando l'individuo « garantito » e astratto al di sopra delle comunità di appartenenza, essa attua un razzismo occidentale-centrista che svolge una funzione precisa: legittimare il Sistema mercantilistico mondiale. L'ideologia dei Diritti dell'Uomo è il discorso « povero » del Sistema, verso cui sono ripiegati, come a un più piccolo denominatore comune, le ideologie egualitarie, dal marxismo al conservatorismo, perché l'egualitarismo, non avendo più bisogno di essere convalidato da un discorso teorico, si contenta della vecchia filosofia borghese del diciassettesimo e diciottesimo secolo. E se ne contenta tanto più volentieri in quanto essa ha preso corpo, nella sua forma attuale, nella società americana nascente, in cui questa assemblava i postulati evangelici con la filosofia del capitalismo incipiente.

Ma sorge una temibile contraddizione: tra il Sistema da un lato, interamente intriso di questa filosofia della felicità massificata, e la tecnica, che porta nella sua essenza la tentazione della potenza e dell'avventura ma che tuttavia costituisce oggi l'armatura dell'universalismo. Contraddizione tra il dramma della tecnica e la sdrammatizzazione dell'ideologia. Contraddizione tra il fantasma cibernetico di una tecnica che si vorrebbe neutra e le forze di mobilitazione e di penetrazione del mondo che essa cela in sé.

Il Sistema non comprende la natura della tecnica; non coglie, come scrive Heidegger, « il mistero della sua essenza ». Dai marxisti ortodossi ai teorici del management-development del Massachusett's Institute of Technology, regna la stessa interpretazione ingenua e « pacificata » della tecnica, nella linea razionalista e progressista dei sansimonisti. Grazie alla tecnica noi saremo un giorno, secondo il vecchio adagio biblico, « liberati dal lavoro ». Oggi d'altronde è significativo veder svilupparsi, persino negli ambienti socialisti, una contestazione del lavoro in quanto tale. Possiamo vedere in ciò una conseguenza della mentalità borghese, poiché il Sistema sente in contraddizione l'ideologia e la tecnica, così come i valori del benessere e la necessità del lavoro sociale.

L'interpretazione attuale della tecnica non ne coglie la dimensione faustiana; come accade per il lavoro, la si banalizza, la si strumentalizza al servizio del confort, senza vedere la sua grandezza né il suo pericolo. La tecnica moderna invece, « inquietante » e rischiosa, è un appello all'autoaffermazione dei popoli, appello demiurgico e pagano al potere creatore degli uomini.

Soltanto gli avversari della tecnica ispirati da certe correnti della scuola di Francoforte sono coerenti con se stessi, ovvero con l'ideologia pacifista e umanitaria che essi condividono col Sistema. Hanno compreso cioè che l'edonismo è contraddittorio con la « crescita di potenza » di una cultura fondata sulla tecnica moderna. Tra noi e loro vi è conformità di analisi, ma divergenza di valori.

Hanno capito che l'ideale-tipo del borghese pacifico — e non quello del rivoluzionario — era realmente il loro, nonché quello dei liberali, dei cristiani, dei marxisti. Mentre il nostro non può che essere quello dell'uomo, appartenente ad una cultura e ad un popolo.

Appartenere all'area culturale europea, significa ammettere la tecnica moderna. Non come strumento di domesticazione e di alienazione, ma di creazione. Habermas diceva che non si può concepire una « poesia nucleare ». Disgraziatamente per lui, sì.

Un sistema che pretende eliminare ogni rischio appoggiandosi sulla tecnica, l'attività più « rischiosa »: ecco il pericolo supremo.

L'ambiguità dell'universo tecnoeconomico attuale non sarà superata se non quando i valori che presiedono all'utilizzazione della scienza e della tecnica assumeranno e domineranno il loro « rischio » e l'incorporeranno nel progetto storico di un popolo, invece di asservirlo al confort massificato. La tecnica presuppone non soltanto la creatività collettiva, contraddittoria con gli ideali del sistema, ma ugualmente la riabilitazione del lavoro, ripensato sotto la categoria aristocratica della mobilitazione spirituale della comunità. Bisogna farla finita con la concezione punitiva e svalutativa del lavoro generata dal biblismo, dall'edonismo mercantilistico e dal nostro passato indtistriale, in cui il capitalismo liberale faceva del lavoro uno strumento di « spossessamento di se ».

Schizofrenico, il Sistema rimuove il tipo dell'Operaio (Arbeiter) (5) come figura dominante, perché in fondo disprezza il lavoro del popolo, di tutti i popoli, cioè la loro cultura nella misura in cui il lavoro è l'essenza stessa della « cultura ». Ripensare i popoli come comunità creatrici secondo la propria volontà; farla finita con questa espropriazione che priva gli uomini della loro cultura e propina loro uno spettacolo opportunamente elaborato nei media, fabbricato da istrioni senza provenienza: questo è lo sbocco della sola visione del mondo che concili il lavoro, la tecnica e la valorizzazione delle radici.

* * *

L'avvenire appartiene alle rivoluzioni culturali, spirituali, nazionali; l'avvenire appartiene alla distruzione dell'ordine economico internazionale e al perseguimento di un'idea che ha già cominciato ad agire: il riaccentramento di spazi economici autonomi attorno ad aree culturali.

Ma in Europa come nel Terzo mondo queste idee saranno battute se esse non vanno fino in fondo in questo loro tentativo, se esse cioè non tagliano i ponti con l'ideologia occidentale, sia essa marxista, tecnocratica, democristiana o liberale, l'ideologia che possiamo definire con un brutto neologismo « reazionario-umanitaria ».

Quanto ai popoli d'Europa, bisogna che essi sappiano progressivamente operare una revisione, evidente per alcuni, lacerante per altri: rompere la solidarietà con l'«Occidente », quest'Occidente in cui non ci riconosciamo più, se mai ci siamo riconosciuti, quest'Occidente che non è che un gigantesco bazar; quest'Occidente che mutila sotto i nostri occhi la nostra cultura millenaria trasformandola in uno stress in cui non regna che la coscienza pratica.

Destino di un popolo è di lasciare la sua impronta nella Storia, nello spa­zio continentale e nello spazio del tempo, — che è anche quello dello spirito. Noi non vogliamo più continuare a vivere in una cosmopoli senza gioia, senza desideri, senza avventure.

Guillaume Faye

 

 

(1) « Spoetizzato » », come più avanti « poetico », « abitanti », « abitare », « patria ». « dramma », « inquietante », « tecnica » ed altre parole riportate in corsivo sono usate nell'auto­re nella loro accezione etimologica. (N.d.T.).

(2) Le Monde, 5 luglio 1980.

(3) Cuffia stereofonica da passeggio.

(4) Vedinota 1.

(5) Abbiamo preferito tradurre « Travailleur » con Operaio in quanto è trasparente il riferimento alla figura delineata nell'omonima opera di Ernst Junger. (N.d.T.).

Gli eroi sono stanchi

Guillaume Faye

Gli eroi sono stanchi

La giovinezza nelle società tradizionali e nel mondo moderno

La gioventù come laboratorio sperimentale del consumismo

La concezione organica dell'uomo.

Ex: http://www.uomolibero.com/

Ogni epoca ha la mitologia che si merita. La nostra ha fatto della gioventù il suo idolo onnipresente, a cui riserva un culto permanente e ossessionante. E come se la preoccupazione essenziale dei nostri contemporanei fosse di essere giovani, o, non essendolo, di atteggiarsi a tali. Ed è l'abuso di questo termine che genera (o per lo meno dovrebbe generare) il sospetto.

Bisogna infatti porsi riguardo alla gioventù la stessa domanda di Jean Baudrillard riguardo al nuovo: in un mondo in cui tutto si vuole nuovo, com'è che c'è così poco rinnovamento? Parimenti, proprio quando la giovinezza assume un significato magico, com'è che i valori dominanti che guidano la mentalità collettiva dei giovani (il benessere materiale minimale, l'umanitarismo, l'assistenza, ecc.) sono valori così « da vecchi » ? Come render conto del paradosso di una società che porta la gioventù sugli scudi e che rifiuta, nella sua ideologia come nei suoi valori, il gusto del rischio, della sfida, del combattimento?

Ma, in primo luogo, che cos'è la giovinezza?

Etologicamente, essa costituisce la fase di formazione dell'uomo adulto, più esattamente il passaggio dall'infanzia all'età matura. La fisiologia umana conosce durante questo periodo, che va pressapoco dai diciotto ai venticinque anni, la sua fase di massimo dinamismo. L'uomo, essere dalla gioventù persistente, vive in questa fase della sua esistenza, del bisogno di curiosità e di avventura, bisogno che può arrivare fino al sacrificio della vita. Quando entra nell'età matura, l'uomo è capace (è ciò che lo distingue dall'animale) di conservare queste qualità della giovinezza che sono la sete d'esperienza e il gusto del rischio, poiché è un essere mai finito.

Niente di strabiliante, stando così le cose, se molte culture hanno rappresentato l'«uomo tipo » come individuo giovane.

È l'età dei kuroi che si possono ammirare al museo del Partenone; è anche l'età dei guerrieri cinesi delle incisioni dell'epoca Ming.

Anche nelle società tradizionali, quelle che precedono la rivoluzione industriale, gli uomini non accedevano più tardi alle responsabilità. Non c'era transizione fra l'infanzia e l'età adulta. A Roma, si passava in un sol colpo dalla veste pretesta alla toga virile a diciotto anni. Nel Medioevo, da quando un apprendista cominciava a lavorare, quale che fosse la sua età, era integrato nel mondo degli adulti. I generali di Napoleone Bonaparte avevano spesso tra i venti e i venticinque anni, esattamente come i comandanti della battaglia di Cunaxa, descritta da Senofonte, che conducevano in battaglia le truppe di Sparta. I valori della gioventù erano organicamente integrati all'insieme sociale, allo stesso titolo di quelli dell'età matura e della vecchiaia, che rappresentavano la riflessione e l'esperienza. Gli uni controbilanciavano gli altri, senza conflitto. Certo la gioventù si ritrovava durante le feste tradizionali, ma non in quanto «classe d'età» (nel senso in cui oggi si ha una « terza età »). Si trattava spesso di riunire i giovani da sposare o quelli che arrivavano all'età di portare le armi. Giovinezza significava tutto il contrario di quanto significa oggi: non una seconda infanzia prolungata, ma l'ingresso nel mondo degli uomini, nel mondo vero. Per farla breve, non c'era giovinezza, ma la « giovanilità » penetrava i valori sociali.

È a partire dall'epoca romantica, e poi soprattutto con la rivoluzione industriale, che la gioventù, considerata come classe e come valore, fa la sua apparizione.

L'allungamento medio della durata della vita obbliga a differire l'età della presa di responsabilità. Un'età intermedia appare progressivamente fra l'infanzia e la vita professionale. Nelle società. tradizionali, a basso indice di scolarizzazione, era la comunità che trasmetteva il sapere agli individui, mischiando tutte le classi di età. A partire dal diciannovesimo secolo, l'educazione obbligatoria e il servizio militare vanno a far fronte comune con la famiglia ridotta al suo nucleo per isolare la gioventù in maniera funzionale. Al contempo, si constata che la società avvia un processo gerontocratico: le occupazioni vengono strutturate a carriera; si fissano soglie d'età per l'esercizio delle responsabilità.

Dal 1890 le opere sugli adolescenti si fanno sempre più numerose. La giovinezza adolescenziale diviene un valore, connotata da temi avventurosi e guerrieri. Lo scoutismo nasce sotto forme decisamente paramilitari. Il servizio militare obbligatorio trasforma gli eserciti europei in raggruppamenti delle gioventù nazionali e non più in truppe professionali d'età mista. Dappertutto si vedono sbocciare dei movimenti della gioventù che indossano l'uniforme e che si vogliono portatori di una rigenerazione sociale e politica. Nei collegi e nei licei la gioventù imparerà a vivere insieme e a riconoscersi come categoria a parte.

Fra il 1890 e il 1910, la letteratura comincia ad appassionarsi alla adolescenza e le inchieste sulla gioventù si succedono sulla stampa: se ne contano cinque in Francia nel solo 1912. Raymond Radiguet e Colette illustrano, nei loro romanzi, il culto della gioventù « perdonabile di ogni suo eccesso », mentre Montherlant osserva nel 1926 che si va sviluppando un nuovo fenomeno, « l'adolescentismo », nuovo rivale del femminismo. Nel frattempo il culto dello sport e dell'olimpismo nasce e si sviluppa, appoggiato su di un'esaltazione della giovinezza, spesso intesa come portatrice d'un rinnovamento pagano. Per liberare la gioventù dal giogo borghese della famiglia, Gide lancia il suo famoso «Famiglie, io vi odio », e i regimi totalitari ed autoritari che nascono in Russia, in Germania, in Italia, in Grecia, in Ungheria, ecc. si considerano tutti delle «dittature della gioventù ».

La modernità delle nuove tecniche, quella dei pionieri dell'aviazione o degli eroi della velocità dell'automobile, è interpretata come di competenza della gioventù, come d'altra parte — quasi paradossalmente — un certo desiderio di ritorno alla natura, ben rappresentato da movimenti come il Wandervogel in Germania. C'è, in entrambi i casi, la medesima pulsione di purezza selvaggia ed aggressiva, la medesima rivendicazione da' parte della gioventù di un reinvestimento di una funzione creatrice e guerriera dimenticata dal mondo borghese.

Un'inversione di senso si produce però grosso modo dopo la seconda guerra mondiale. Progressivamente, all'«adolescentismo » va a sostituirsi l'era dei teen agers. La gioventù «precipita» nella funzione mercantile: a livello di ideologia e discorsi, essa conosce il suo trionfo, ma nei fatti, i valori giovanili crollano. Essere giovane non significa più donare la propria vita per una causa, ma « consumare » una sottocultura fabbricata per i giovani.

Similmente ai loro eserciti, funzionali e burocratici — a dispetto della giovane età di reclutamento — le società occidentali s'impegnano ad addomesticare i giovani utilizzando il dinamismo formale dell'ideale di gioventù ereditato dall'anteguerra. Due movimenti paradossali sono osservabili a partire dagli anni cinquanta: la gioventù perde le sue organizzazioni, le sue istituzioni, spesso considerate troppo « militari » dalla società dei consumi; l'ideologia esalta più che mai la gioventù in quanto frangia sociale munita di diritti (si denuncia il «razzismo anti giovani ») e di una cultura propria, quella dei teen agers di ispirazione americana. La gioventù diviene un surrogato del proletariato, e gli epigoni della scuola di Francoforte lanciano il tema della lotta generazionale. Da un lato, la società si individualizza e la gioventù fisicamente organizzata scompare; dall'altro, l'ideologia e la cultura costruiscono ciò che non è altro che un simulacro della giovanilità.

L'arrivo sul mercato delle numerose classi di età del dopoguerra, è coinciso, nei paesi occidentali, con la nascita di una « cultura per i giovani », apparsa per la prima volta negli Stati Uniti. Lanciata negli anni cinquanta da una serie di films dei quali James Dean è l'eroe, poi proseguita per trent'anni con mode di abbigliamento (i jeans), musicali (il rock, il pop, la disco, ecc.), alimentari ed ideologiche, questa cultura della gioventù, d'obbiedienza anglo-americana e a vocazione internazionale, ha avuto per funzione quella di staccare le giovani generazioni dalle loro culture nazionali e di includerle nella « nuova società dei consumi » dominata dai canoni culturali americani. Veniva così creata una nuova « classe internazionale », che costituiva di fatto la prima categoria di consumatori integralmente « occidentali ». L'idea di gioventù, ereditata dall'anteguerra, veniva così sfruttata come veicolo commerciale e, più o meno consciamente, svuotata del suo significato e privata di ogni energia rivoluzionaria. Le nuove generazioni nate dopo il trauma della guerra offrivano, rispetto ai genitori, il vantaggio di essere più facilmente avulse dalle loro tradizioni specifiche. La cultura dei giovani, cosiddetta contestatrice e liberatrice, fu così il primo grande tentativo di massificazione e di omogeneizzazione culturale ed economica esercitato su di una generazione « cavia ». Il processo è culminato alla fine degli anni sessanta — è l'epoca di Woodstock — nel momento in cui i giovani di vent'anni, erano i più numerosi. Successivamente il fenomeno subisce una pausa, ma la gioventù resta sempre il laboratorio sperimentale dell'occidentalismo, delle sue mode, dei suoi costumi.

È dunque necessario guardare con un minimo di critica e di sospetto alle dottrine della « guerra delle generazioni », sostenute per esempio da Marcuse, e sulla validità dei movimenti contestatari che mobilitavano la gioventù fino alla metà degli anni settanta. Questi, così come le culture underground pretenziosamente « di rottura» col mondo borghese, sono state non solo recuperate dal Sistema, ma molto peggio, gli hanno fornito nuovo fiato. In effetti, la funzione dell'«ideologia della rottura » fra le generazioni era di integrare la gioventù, con un processo di acculturazione, a una nuova forma di capitalismo mondiale, tecnocratico e non più patrimoniale, basato su di uno stile « americanomorfo» e su costumi permissivi, atti a staccare i giovani dalle specifiche morali etno-nazionali.

I discorsi antiborghesi e l'aspetto rivoluzionario della controcultura non devono alimentare illusioni: essi veicolano un'ideologia di stordimento e modelli comportamentali che conducono diritto filato all'iperindividualismo e al culto del benessere materiale minimale. Theodor Adorno ha avuto almeno il merito di mostrare che le musiche ritmiche costituiscono niente più che una parvenza di rivolta, e hanno per vero scopo quello di smobilitare la gioventù prima di condizionarla al consumismo.

In queste condizioni, non c'è da stupirsi che le teorie della guerra tra le generazioni, i movimenti contestatari e lo stile ribelle delle controculture conoscessero il loro declino in questo inizio degli anni ottanta: una volta realizzata l'integrazione nell'«americanosfera » esse non servono più se non sotto forme sempre più asettiche, quasi accademiche e in realtà conservatrici. Un'autentica controcultura delle giovani generazioni, in continuo rinnovamento, e che veicolasse temi realmente mobilitanti dell'eroismo e dell'avventura, farebbe paura alla cultura umanitaristico-borghese. Va meglio l'individualismo della falsa rottura e della pseudo-marginalità, nel quale si riconoscono i giovani « omologati » d'oggi e i loro genitori di quarant'anni, i vecchi teen-agers degli anni sessanta, che immaginano di essere restati giovani, mentre non lo sono stati mai.

Molti studi sociologici contemporanei, fra cui quelli del Centro di Comunicazione Avanzata, attestano della nascita fra i giovani di due nuovi tipi di mentalità: l'«omologazione » — o integrazione — che è maggioritario, e la « sfasatura » — o disadattamento — ancora minoritaria, ma in costante aumento fra i soggetti al di sotto dei vent'anni.

Gli « omologati » ritornano al Sistema, dopo averlo combattuto, perché si rendono conto più o meno consciamente, che esso veicolava i loro stessi valori. Disincantati quanto alle virtù del « rivoluzionarismo », questi nuovi piccoli borghesi hanno conservato della « sinistra » le idee umanitarie, ecologistiche e pacifiste. L'avvenire auspicato è quello di un mondo in cui la « pace » debba essere preservata ad ogni costo. I valori dominanti non sono più la rivoluzione sociale, e nemmeno l'ambizione personale dei « giovani quadri dinamici », bensì la sicurezza e la tranquillità di una vita privata senza costrizioni, fatta di libertà estetizzante, di molto tempo libero e di redditi « sufficienti ». I grandi problemi sociali o nazionali non interessano più gli omologati, anche se — grandi fruitori di mass media — piangono sulla Polonia e approvano sempre Amnesty International. Se militano, lo fanno per la « qualità della vita », al fine di costruire una società sedata e conviviale. Il dinamismo e la potenza nazionale sono biasimati da questi nuovi adepti di un petainismo freddo. Amanti dei magnetoscopi e delle riviste pratiche, riservano il loro immaginario avventuroso ai palmizi di un Club Méditerranée, e vivono la liberazione sessuale per procura. Hanno bisogno di un circondanio televisivo, musicale e umano, rassicurante e sorridente. La vita, per loro, è in primo luogo, la vita privata, il nido o il bozzolo, lontano dal furore delle militanze e delle vere competizioni.

Gli « sfasati », che rappresentano già il 20% dei giovani fra i 15 e i 25 anni, sono, a differenza degli « omologati », non coinvolti. Non contestano e non approvano « si disinteressano ». Neppure utopisti, si chiudono nel loro narcisismo costituendo, il più delle volte, dei micro gruppi frammentari provvisti ognuno di un proprio stile. La loro creatività è spesso notevole, ma è indirizzata verso la sfera individuale o la ricostruzione di piccoli mondi fatti di parvenze e di sogni. Bambini perenni e adulti disillusi al tempo stesso, questi giovani divengono schizofrenici: lavorano per vivere — spesso con impieghi volanti — ma la loro vera vita è altrove. Essi sono mentalmente assenti sia dal proprio lavoro che dalla propria società. Eternamente alla ricerca dell'evasione, spingono il loro psichismo di sognatori in una marginalità culturale e in una indifferenza ideologica che non impediscono il loro inserimento sociale effettivo. In fin dei conti bisogna ben « consumare », ed essi non ne fanno certo a meno. Lo Stato-Provvidenza non ha da lamentarsi di questi nuovi giovani, la cui schizofrenia interiore lascia piena libertà d'azione a qualsiasi dittatura amministrativa di tipo materno. Il calo d'ambizioni, la dipendenza ombelicale e il neo-tribalismo prefigurano una mentalità adattissima alle strutture economiche di una società mercantile socializzata, a fonte tasso di disoccupazione, a bassa progressione di reddito, e dominanta da un'assistenza burocratica generale.

Ecco ben evidente l'«implosione dei sensi » di cui parla Baudrilland: all'abbondanza dispersa degli stili, dei ghiribizzi feticisti e dei valori intimisti, risponde un gran silenzio: dalla gioventù non viene nessun discorso, nessun progetto, nessun ideale.

In questa era in cui la « rande muta non è più l'esercito, ma la gioventù, tutti parlano, come per compensazione, di gioventù. Viviamo una nevrosi della gioventù.

Essa diviene una qualità a se stante, puramente estenionizzata, nel momento stesso in cui cessa di essere una disposizione dello spirito. Apparente e fisica, questa falsa gioventù si vuole eterna, la qual cosa ben si adatta ad una società fissata sul presente. Un'autentica cultura giovanile presupponebbe, al contrario, che l'adolescenza costituisca un passaggio verso il mondo adulto, uno stato transitorio. Il vero adulto — il vir dei Romani, il kalòs kàgathòs dei Greci — faceva coabitare in sé una giovinezza dionisiaca e una padronanza apollinea, ma soprattutto non intendeva « restare » giovane, proprio per poter attualizzare, in quanto adulto padrone di se stesso, quella parte del suo animo che, qualsiasi cosa succedesse, restava sempre creativa e giovanile. Noi siamo ben lontani da questa concezione organica dell'uomo...

All'infantilizzazione del mondo adulto corrisponde ciò che bisogna ben chiamare, con un barbaro neologismo, l'«adultizzazione » dei bambini e dei giovani in generale. Il bambino-re degli anni cinquanta e sessanta è diventato un giovane vissuto, ma i suoi genitori sono rimasti rimbecilliti e continuano a leggere Topolino. Giocano a fare i giovani e immaginano che sia sufficiente averne i vestiti, l'atteggiamento o il linguaggio per restare tali.

Questi tratti puerili della cultura di massa sono compensati da un'ostentazione generale dell'« esprit de sérieu ».

La liberalizzazione dei costumi, seriosamente prognammata come una nuova morale, nasconde male l'irrigidimento dei comportamenti. Le etichette sociali e il funzionalismo capillare della vita quotidiana spengono ogni gioiosità, ogni spontaneità dei rapporti sociali. Il canto, il riso, la mimica, il bisticcio, non caratterizzano più le relazioni umane, apparentemente « senza costrizioni », ma in realtà imprigionate in circuiti rigidi. Le feste della gioventù sono le danze tristi o le copulazioni elettroniche con i simulatori delle « guerre spaziali », successori dei sorpassati flippers.

La sparizione della giovanilità nei rapporti sociali corrisponde d'altra parte all'intellettualismo che domina la nostra epoca. Lo spirito geometrico supera ovunque quello dotato di acume, e questo, insieme con la « sfera letteraria », di cui parla Aldous Huxley, è stato inghiottito dalla « cultura matematica ». I giovani d'oggi sono allo stesso tempo formati, in maniera pensino esagerata, alla matematica, e completamente neopnimitivi nel loro linguaggio, nel loro comportamento, nel loro stile di abbigliamento, nei loro gusti musicali, ecc. Contemporaneamente, l'ascesa dello spirito iperanalitico distrugge ogni freschezza comportamentale nell'insieme della società. La gioventù moderna rischia fortemente di essere l'avanguardia di una nuova borghesia, barbara adepta del confort e delle comodità elettroniche, limitata dal pragmatismo tecnologico e smussata nella sensibilità a contatto con la sottocultuna americana.

Tutto accade come se, per compensare l'invecchiamento demografico e l'installarsi dei valori senescenti dell'egualitanismo di massa, l'ideologia sociale avesse creato un simulacro di giovinezza e avesse incarcerato la gioventù in un mondo artificiale, per prevenire un'autentica rivolta contro questo stato di fatto.

Ma l'artificio può niginansi contro chi lo maneggia. Gli ideatori della falsa gioventù stiano in guardia: finché ci sarà qualcuno che veglia, tutto è sempre possibile. La gioventù, un giorno o l'altro, può sentirlo. Come il fiume della vita, essa ritorna sempre ad ogni generazione.

E quelli che vegliano ci sono. Essi seminano. Non per questo mondo. Non per questa gioventù, ma per l'altra, quella che viene.

 

Guillaume Faye

 

Boreas Rising

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 1

By Michael O'MEARA

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/ 

 “History is again on the move.”
—Arnold Toynbee

For a half-century, we nationalists stood with the “West” in its struggle against the Asiatic Marxism of the Soviet bloc. There was little problem then distinguishing between our friends and our foes, for all evil was situated in the collectivist East and all virtue in the liberal West.

Today, things are much less clear. Not only has the Second American War on Iraq revealed a profound geopolitical divide within the West, the social-political order associated with it now subverts our patrimony in ways no apparatchik ever imagined. Indeed, it seems hardly exaggerated to claim that Western elites (those who Samuel Huntington calls the “dead souls”)[1] have come to pose the single greatest threat to our people’s existence.

For some, this threat was discovered only after 1989. Yet as early as the late forties, a handful of white nationalists, mainly in Europe, but with the American Francis Parker Yockey at their head, realized that Washington’s postwar order, not the Soviet Union, represented the greater danger to the white biosphere.[2] Over the years, particularly since the fall of Communism, this realization has spread, so that a large part of Europe’s nationalist vanguard no longer supports the West, only Europe, and considers the West’s leader its chief enemy.[3]

For these nationalists, the United States is a kind of anti-Europe, hostile not only to its motherland, but to its own white population. The Managerial Revolution of the thirties, Jewish influence in the media and the academy, the rise of the national security state and the military-industrial complex have all had a hand in fostering this anti-Europeanism, but for our transatlantic cousins its roots reach back to the start of our national epic. America’s Calvinist settlers, they point out, saw themselves as latter-day Israelites, who fled Egypt (Europe) for the Promised Land. Their shining city on the hill, founded on Old Testament, not Old World, antecedents, was to serve as a beacon to the rest of humanity. America began—and thus became itself—by casting off its European heritage. The result was a belief that America was a virtuous land, dedicated to liberty and equality, while Europe was mired in vice, corruption, and tyranny. Then, in the eighteenth century, this anti-Europeanism took political form, as the generation of 1776 fashioned a new state based on Lockean/Enlightenment principles, which were grafted onto the earlier Calvinist ones. As these liberal modernist principles came to fruition in the twentieth century, once the Christian, Classical vestiges of the country’s “Anglo-Protestant core” were shed, they helped legitimate the missionary cosmopolitanism of its corporate, one-world elites, and, worse, those extracultural, anti-organic, and hedonistic influences hostile to the European soul of the country’s white population.[4]

This European nationalist view of our origins ought to trouble white nationalists committed to a preserving America’s European character, for, however slanted, it contains a not insignificant kernel of truth. My intent here is not to revisit this interpretation of our history, but to look at a development that puts it in a different racial perspective. So as not to wander too far afield, let me simply posit (rather than prove) that the de-Europeanizing forces assailing America’s white population are only superficially rooted in the Puritan heritage. The Low Church fanatics who abandoned their English motherland and inclined America to a biblical enterprise, despite their intent, could not escape their racial nature, which influenced virtually every facet of early American life. Indeed, the paradox of America is that it began not simply as a rejection but also as a projection of Europe. Thus, beyond their ambivalent relationship to Europe, Americans (until relatively recently) never had any doubt that their race and High Culture were European. As such, they showed all the defining characteristics of the white race, taming the North American continent with little more than rifles slung across their backs, and doing so in the European spirit of self-help, self-reliance, and fearlessness. As Francis Parker Yockey writes: “America belongs spiritually, and will always belong to the [European] civilization of which it is a colonial transplantation, and no part of the true America belongs to the primitivity of the barbarians and fellaheen outside of this civilization.”[5]

As long, then, as Americans were of Anglo-Celtic (or European) stock, with racially conscious standards, their Calvinist or liberal ideology remained of secondary importance. Our present malaise, I would argue, stems less from these ideological influences (however retarding) than from a more recent development—the Second World War—whose world-transforming effects were responsible for distorting and inverting our already tenuous relationship to Europe. For once our motherland was conquered and occupied (what the apologists of the present regime ironically refer to as its “liberation”) and once the new postwar system of transnational capital was put in place, a New Class of powers with a vested interest in de-Europeanizing America’s white population was allowed to assume command of American life. The result is the present multiracial system, whose inversion of the natural order negates the primacy of our origins and promises our extinction as a race and a culture. The only possibility of escaping its annihilating fate would seem, then, to be another revolutionary transformation of the world order—one that would throw the existing order into crisis and pose an alternative model of white existence. The “Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” formed during the recent Iraq war, I believe, holds out such a possibility.

Genesis of an Axis

As part of its Mobiles Géopolitique series, the Franco-Swiss publisher L’Age d’Homme announced in April 2002 the release of Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’indépendance et de la paix (Paris-Berlin-Moscow: The Way of Peace and Independence). Authored by Henri de Grossouvre, the youngest son of a prominent Socialist party politician, and prefaced by General Pierre Marie Gallois, France’s premier geostrategic thinker, Paris-Berlin-Moscou argued that Europe would never regain its sovereignty unless it threw off American suzerainty and did so in alliance with Russia.

In recommending a strategic alliance between France, Germany, and Russia for the sake of a Eurasian federation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Grossouvre’s thesis seemed entirely utopian. For although the prospect of such an alliance had long animated the imagination of revolutionary nationalists, it seemed more fantasy than possibility, even when proposed by a well-connected and reputable member of the governing elites. Fantasy, however, rather unexpectedly took hold of the international arena. Within months of the book’s publication, its thesis assumed a life of its own, as the new Likudized administration in Washington started beating the drums for another war on Iraq.

The axis and the war it sought to avoid will be looked at in the following sections. Here, a few words on Grossouvre’s book are in order, for, besides being one of those novel cases where life seemed to imitate art, it stirred the European public, was extensively reviewed, led to the organization of several international conferences attended by diplomats, military leaders, and parliamentarians, and culminated in a website with over two thousand pages of documentation.[6] Its effect on the European—especially on the anti-liberal—spirit has been profound. If the axis it proposes is stabilized as an enduring feature of the international order (and much favors that), a realignment as significant as 1945 could follow.

Paris-Berlin-Moscou begins by acknowledging the common values linking America and Europe, the so-called Atlantic community, as well as the US role in guaranteeing European security during the Cold War. On both these counts, the author’s establishment ties are evident, for no anti-liberal views the Atlantic relationship in quite such uncritical terms. Nevertheless, in arguing that these two factors no longer justify Europe’s dependence on the United States, he breaks with the prevailing system (or at least what was the prevailing system) of strategic thought.

In Grossouvre’s view, Europe’s geopolitical relationship to the United States was fundamentally altered between 1989 and 1991, when Eastern Europe threw off its Soviet yoke, Germany reunified, and Russia called off the Communist experiment begun in 1917. Then, as Europe’s strategic dependence on the US came to an end, so too did its heteronomy.[7] Moreover, it is only a matter of time, Grossouvre predicts, before Russia recovers, China develops, and US power is again challenged. In the meantime, US efforts to perpetuate its supremacy, defend its neo-liberal system of global market relations, and stifle potential threats to its dominance are transforming it into a force of international instability. But even if this were not the case, Grossouvre contends that Europeans would still need to separate themselves from America’s New World Order (NWO), for their independence as a people is neither a luxury nor a vanity, but requisite to their survival.[8] For as Carl Schmitt contends, it is only in politically asserting itself that a people truly exists—conscious of its place in history, oriented to the future, and secure in its identity.[9]

Europe’s ascent—and here Grossouvre most distinguishes himself from the reigning consensus—will owe little to the European Union (EU). Although its GNP is now approaching that of the US; its share of world imports and exports is larger; its manufacturing capacity and productivity are greater; its population is larger, more skilled, and better educated; its currency, the euro, sounder; and its indebtedness qualitatively lower, the EU does not serve Europe in any civilizational sense.[10] Its huge unwieldy bureaucracy serves only Mammon, which means it lacks a meaningful political identity and hence the means to play an international role commensurate with its immense economic power. It indeed caricatures the “European idea,” representing a technocratic economism without roots and without memory, focused on market exchanges and financial orthodoxies that are closer in spirit to America’s neo-liberal model than to anything native to Europe’s own tradition. (As one French rightist argues, “Every time the technocrats in Brussels speak, they profane the idea of Europe.”)[11] The EU’s growth has, in fact, gone hand in hand with the weakening of its various member states—and the corresponding failure to replace them with a continental or federal alternative.[12] Given its current enlargement to twenty-five members, political unity has become an even more remote prospect, particularly in that many of the new East European members lack any sense of the European idea.

A strong centralized state, however, is key to Europe’s future. Since the Second World War, power is necessarily continental: Only a Großraum (large space), a geopolitically unified realm animated by a “distinct political idea,” has a role to play in today’s world.[13] Yet even with the dissolution of the East-West bloc, a continental state is not likely to emerge from the EU’s expanding market system. If earlier state-building is any guide (think of Garibaldi’s Italy, Kara-George’s Serbia, Pearse’s Ireland, or Washington’s America), political unification requires a vision, a mobilizing project, emanating from a history of blood and struggle. As Jean Thiriart writes: “One does not create a nation with speeches, pious talk, and banquets. One creates a nation with rifles, martyrs, jointly lived dangers.”[14] For Grossouvre, this mobilizing vision is De Gaulle’s Grande Europe: a political-civilizational Großraum pivoted on a Franco-German confederation (encompassing Charlemagne’s Francs de l’Ouest et Francs de l’Est), allied with Russia, and forged in opposition to the modern Carthage.

The three great continental peoples, he believes, constitute the potential “core” around which a politically federated Europe will coalesce. Like De Gaulle, who refused to accept his country’s defeat in 1940 and who fought all the rest of his life against the conquerors of 1945, Grossouvre views the entwined cultures of the French, Germans, and Russians as fundamentally different from les Anglo-Saxons (the English and the Americans), whose thalassocratic, Low Church, and market-based order favors a rootless, economic definition of national life. Accordingly, for most of her history, with the tragic exception of the 1870–1940 period, France’s great enemy was “perfidious Albion,” not Germany.[15] Then, after 1945, this larger historical relationship was resumed, as numerous cooperative ventures succeeded in blunting nationalist antagonisms—to the point that war between them is now inconceivable.[16] Finally, in 1963, when De Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer signed the Treaty of Elysée, their reconciliation was formalized on the basis of an institutionalized system of social, economic, and political collaborations. Their supranational commitment to Europe has since had a powerful synergetic effect, influencing virtually every significant measure undertaken in the name of continental unity. The complementary nature of these closely related peoples has, in fact, triumphed over the political disunity that came with the Treaty of Verdun (843).[17] While a confederation between France and Germany is probably still on the distant horizon, the history of the last 60 years suggests that their national projects are converging.[18] Until then, they are likely to continue to speak with a single voice, for France and Germany are more than two states among the EU’s twenty-five. In addition to being the crucible of European civilization, their combined populations (142 million), their economic power (41 per cent of the EU), and, above all, their capacity to transcend national interests make them special—the nucleus, the motor, the vanguard of a potentially united Europe. Whatever political organization the EU eventually achieves will undoubtedly be one of their doing.

A somewhat different convergence is also under way in the East. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and Germany’s ensuing reunification shifted Europe’s center of gravity eastward. The EU’s enlargement to Eastern Europe this year moved it even farther in this direction. The consolidation of Europe’s eastward expansion hinges, though, on Russia, whose white, Christian people, as the historian Dieter Groh argues, represents one of the great primeval stirrings of the European conscience.[19] (It was the Roman Catholic Church, in its schism with Orthodox Christianity in 1054, not Russia’s history, culture, or racial disposition that kept it from being recognized as a European nation.) France has ancient ties with Russia and today shares many of the same geopolitical interests. But it is Germany that is now most involved in Russian life. She is Russia’s chief trading partner, her banks are the chief source of Russian investment capital, and her 1800 implanted entrepreneurs the leading edge of Russian economic development.[20] Thanks to these ties, along with bimonthly meetings between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Germany’s Gerhard Schröder, Russia is presently engaged in numerous joint ventures with the EU. Together, they have put seven communications satellites into orbit, developed a global positioning system (Galileo) to rival the American one (GPS), signed numerous agreements in the field of aerospace research, given one another consultative voice in the other’s military operations, upgraded and expanded the roads, canals, and railways linking them, brokered a series of deals related to gas and energy, and established an elaborate system of cultural exchanges. Visa-free travel between Russia and the EU is expected by 2007. And though Russia is too big to be integrated into the EU, she is nevertheless developing relations with it that portend ones of even greater strategic significance.

Russia also sees its future in Europe. Since the collapse of Communism and the imposition of what critical observers characterize as a “Second Treaty of Versailles,” it has been on life-support.[21] The economy is in shambles, the state discredited, society afflicted with various pathologies, and its former empire shattered. The appointment of Vladimir Putin in 1999 and his subsequent election as president in 2000 and again in 2004 represent a potential turnaround (even if he is not the ideal person to lead Russia). Full recovery is probably still far off, but it has begun and Europe—its capital, markets, and expertise—is necessary to it. Putin also believes Europe’s growing estrangement from America’s unilateral model of hegemony will eventually lead it into a collective security pact with Russia.[22] Having distanced himself from the pro-American regime of the corrupt Yeltsin, whose liberal market policies were an excuse to plunder the accumulated wealth of the Russian people, and having had his various efforts at rapprochement rebuffed by the Bush administration (which continues to encroach on Russia’s historical spheres of interest), this Deutsche im Kreml now looks to exploit his German connections to gain a wedge in European affairs.[23]

His Eurocentric policies are already assuming strategic form, for Russia’s vast oil reserves have the potential of satisfying all of Europe’s energy needs. (As russophobes say, Russia will build her hegemony in Europe with pipelines.) To consolidate these emerging East-West exchanges, Russia has recently received a €400 million grant to modernize its institutional, legal, and administration apparatus to accord with the EU’s. At the same time, tariffs on Russian imports have been slashed (50 percent of Russian exports now go to the EU) and the EU is sponsoring Russia’s admission to the World Trade Organization. Putin’s arrest of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the principal proponents of US-style “casino capitalism,” and the seizure of his massive Yukos oil concern, the resignation of the last Yeltsin holdovers, especially Alexander Voloshin; and an ongoing series of internal reforms, however incomplete, represent further steps toward a restoration of Russian state power.[24] Finally, Russia possesses the military capacity, even in its debilitated state, to guarantee Europe’s security, for in a period when America’s “new liberal imperialism” runs roughshod over European concerns, threatening endless conflicts detrimental to their interests, Russia suddenly becomes a credible defense alternative.[25]

Grossouvre concludes that an axis based on France’s political leadership, Germany’s world class economy, and Russia’s military might represent the potential nucleus of a future Eurasian state. Five distinct advantages, he argues, would follow from such a rapprochement: It would guarantee Europe’s independence from America, correct certain imbalances in the globalization process, enhance the EU’s security, solve its energy needs, and complement the different qualities of its allied members. If such an axis draws the chief continental powers into a more enduring alliance, it will inevitably reshape the international order, making the white men of the North—the Boreans—the single most formidable force in the world.[26] It should come as no surprise, then, that Grossouvre’s most strident critics are to be found in those former left-wing Jewish ranks (as represented by Bernard-Henri Lévy, André Gluckmann, Alain Finkielkraut, etc.), who, like our home-grown neocons, champion the raceless, deculturated policies of Washington’s New World Order.

Notes

1. Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenge to America’s National Identity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), pp. 264ff.

2. Francis Parker Yockey, The Enemy of Europe (Reedy, W.V,: Liberty Bell Publications, 1981). In this same period, a related argument can be found in the works of Maurice Bardèche, Julius Evola, Otto Strasser, and, later, Jean Thiriart.

3. For example: Claudio Finzi, “‘Europe’ et ‘Occident’: Deux concepts antagonistes,” Vouloir (May 1994); Guillaume Faye, Le système à tuer les peuples (Paris: Copernic, 1981).

4. For example, Robert de Herte (Alain de Benoist) et Hans-Jürgen Nigra (Giorgio Locchi), “Il était une fois l’Amérique,” Nouvelle Ecole 27–28 (Fall 1975); Robert Steuckers, “La menace culturelle américaine” (January 16, 1990), http://foster.20megsfree.com ^[2]; Reinhard Oberlercher, “Wesen und Verfall Amerikas” (n.d.), http://www.deutsches-kolleg.org ^[3]

5. Francis Parker Yockey, “The Destiny of America” (1955), http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/the-destiny-of-america/ ^[4]

6. See http://www.paris-berlin-moscou.org ^[5]

7. Emmanuel Todd, Après l’empire: Essai sur la décomposition du système américain (Paris: Gallimard, 2002); Charles A. Kupchan, The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the 21st Century (New York: Knopf, 2002).

8 Henri de Grossouvre, Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’indépendence et de la paix (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 2002), p. 47.

9 Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, tr. by G. Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 53.

10 Robert Went, “Globalization: Can Europe Make a Difference?,” EAEPE 2003 conference paper, http://eaepe.infomics.nl/papers/Went.pdf ^[6]

11. Louis Vinteuil, “Discours sur l’Europe” (July 20, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com

12. Pierre-Marie Gallois, Le consentement fatal: L’Europe face aux Etats-Unis (Paris: Seuil, 2001).

13. In 1943, at the height of the Second World War, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle wrote: “The national era has come to an end and an age of [continental] empires is dawning.” See Révolution Nationale: Articles 1943–44 (Paris: L’Homme Libre, 2004), p. 7. Theoretically, the notion of a European Großraum was worked out in Carl Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum (Cologne: Greven Verlag, 1950); its most impressive programmatic formulation is Jean Thiriart, Un empire de 400 millions d’hommes: L’Europe (Brussels, 1964).

14. Jean Thiriart, For the European Nation-State (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press Pamphlet,  n.d.).

15. Pauline Schnapper, La Grande Bretagne et l’Europe: Le grand malentendu (Paris: Eds. Presses de Sciences Po, 2000); Christian Schubert, Grossbritannien: Insel zwischen den Welten (Munich: Olzog, 2004).

16. Brigitte Sauzay, “L’Allemagne et la France: Quel avenir pour la coopération?” (n.d.), http://geogate.geographie.uni-marburg.de ^[7]

17. This treaty divided Charlemagne’s empire, separating the Germanic tribes of the West from those of the East. In one respect, the fratricidal history of nineteenth and twentieth century nationalism was a history of this separation.

18. Blanine Milcent, “La ‘Françallemagne’ attendra,” L’Express, December 11, 2003.

19. Dieter Groh, Russland und das Selbstverständis Europas (Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag, 1961). Also see Georges Nivat, Russie-Europe: La fin du schisme (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1993); Andreas-Renatus Hartmann, “Die neue Nachbarschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union” (April 16, 2004), http://www.boschlektoren.de ^[8]

20. Klaus Thörner, “Das deutsche Spiel mit Russland” (February 2003), http://www.diploweb.com

21. Nikolai von Kreitor, “Russia and the New World Order” (1996). Published years before the Iraq war, Kreitor’s article is perhaps the single most important analysis to have been made of the international situation leading up to the war. My views here are much indebted to it.

22. Wladimir Putin, “Russland glaubt an die große Zukunft der Partnerschaft mit Deutschland,” Die Zeit (April 10, 2002).

23. Alexander Rahr, “Ist Putin der ‘Deutsche’ im Kreml?” (September 2002), http://www.weltpolitik.com ^[9]

24. Jacques Sapir, “Russia, Yukos, and the Elections” (February 2004), worldoil.com ; “Poutine restaure l’Etat: Un entretien avec Jacques Sapir,” Politis 774 (November 6, 2002); Wolfgang Strauss, “Putin oder Chodorkowski: 14. März, eine Niederlage Amerikas” (March 29, 2004), http://staatsbriefe.de ^[10]

25. One sign of this capacity is the fact that in 2003, Russia became the world’s number one arms exporter. See P. Schleiter, “Defense, securité, relations internationales” (April 25, 2004), http://www.polemia.com ^[11]; also Yevgeny Bendersky, “Keep a Watchful Eye on Russia’s Military Technology” (July 21, 2004), http://www.pinr.com ^[12]

26. The notion of a possible northern imperium of white men is taken from Guillaume Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial: Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain (Paris: L’Æncre, 2004), pp. 183ff. On the myth of the Boreans (or Hyperboreans), see Jean Mabire, Thulé: Le soleil retrouvé des hyperboréens (Lyon: Irminsul, n.d.).

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 2

A Defensive Alignment

The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis arose in reaction to the Second American War on Iraq. It needs thus to be understood in the context of that war, which the Bush administration treated as the second phase of its war on terror, the first being the invasion of Afghanistan and the assault on the Taliban regime harboring bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida (both of which, incidentally, were, via the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, made in the USA).[1] However much it resembled the Anglo-Afghan and Russo-Afghan wars of the nineteenth century, the American assault on Afghanistan did not provoke the kind of opposition that Iraq would, for there was still enormous sympathy for the US after “9/11.” “Victory,” moreover, came quickly, as it had for all former conquerors. The Taliban were chased from Kabul and the warring tribes associated with the US-supported Northern Alliance, which did most of the fighting on the ground, soon gained control of the countryside. While Afghanistan has since reverted to a pre-state form of regional, tribal rule (ideal for narco-terrorists) and most al-Qa’ida fighters succeeded in dispersing, the Bush administration was nevertheless able to broadcast publicly satisfying TV images of swift, forceful action.[2]

Buoyed up by the nearly effortless rout of the medieval Taliban, Bush adopted the policies recommended by his neoconservative advisers,[3] whose neo-Jacobin assertion of American power not only has nothing to do with fighting Islamic terrorism, but cloaks a Judeo-liberal vision of global domination which threatens to turn the entire Middle East into something akin to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Key to their vision is Iraq, whose threat to Israel has been repackaged by such Jewish propaganda mills as the Project for the New American Century as a threat to US security. Besides promoting a peculiar blend of liberal statist and Zionist strategic concerns that represents a turn (not a break) in US foreign policy, the Krauthammers, Wolfowitzes, and other sickly neocon types advising the administration seek to “Sharonize” Washington’s strategic culture. To this end, military force is designated the option of choice, and a moralistic Manichaeanism which pits the US and Israel against the world’s alleged evils is used to legitimate the most dishonorable policies.[4] As the former wastrel of the Bush dynasty signed on to this Likud-inspired agenda, he began making a case for extending his antiterror crusade to Mesopotamia. Iraq’s “Hitler-like tyrant,” he claimed, had links with al-Qa’ida and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capable of reaching the United States.

While America’s TV-besotted masses had little difficulty swallowing his unsubstantiated argument, the rest of the world balked.[5] At this point in early 2002, the two shores of the Atlantic began pulling apart. German chancellor Gerhard Schröder was the first major European figure to oppose Bush’s war plans. He was soon joined by French president Jacques Chirac. In July 2002 they issued a joint declaration formally rejecting the US proposal, stating that the UN’s embargo and its inspectors were doing their job and that the proposed attack would only distract from the “real war on terror.” By September, Russia (whose economic situation required the good graces of Washington) hinted that it too would veto a UN resolution sanctioning war. Then, on February 10, 2003, Putin joined Chirac and Schröder in issuing a declaration condemning what one senior US intelligence officer later called “an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.”[6]

The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis thus originated as a temporary coalition organized around a single point of agreement. Convinced that Bush had failed to make his case for war, the French, Germans, and Russians thought the evidence for al-Qa’ida links and WMD was unconvincing (we know now, by the government’s own admissions, that it was a tissue of lies, distortions, and manipulations).[7] Their coalition was nevertheless more than a response to a momentary disturbance in the world system. As one high-level Russian analyst characterized it, the coalition was a “rebellion against a unilateral America unwilling to accommodate European interests.”[8] As such, it announced a possible geopolitical power shift from the Atlantic to Eurasia.

Globalism at Gunpoint

Since the Cold War’s end, international relations have undergone changes as fundamental as those following the world-historical realignment of 1945.[9] The neoconservatives influencing Bush, in their preemptive crusade for what is tendentiously labeled “global democracy,” have been anxious to take advantage of these “shifting tectonic plates in international politics . . . before they harden again.”[10] As Robert Kagan and William Kristol, two of the chief neocon publicists, argue: There is a danger today that an unassertive US will lose control of the world order it created in 1945. Beginning with the fall of the Soviet Union, when the field was cleared of possible rivals, they believe the US should have consolidated its “benevolent hegemony,” turning the unipolar moment into the unipolar era. Instead, George I and Clinton allegedly failed to exploit the moment, further ensnaring the US in multilateral relations that compromised its power and interests.[11]

Against this trend, the Bush administration has carried out what some characterize as a “revolution in foreign policy.” Without abandoning Washington’s objective of developing a global market system based on American-style liberal-democratic principles, it now employs hegemonist methods, codified in the new Bush Doctrine, that change the way the US asserts its power abroad.[12] In this vein, the administration dismisses international laws and institutions, as it asseverates America’s unilateral right to alter the world system however it wishes, including attacking and overthrowing states deemed a threat to its security. Traditional strategies of deterrence and containment have consequently been supplanted by a proactive policy of prevention and preemption, just as ad hoc coalitions are given precedence over established alliances and collective security arrangements, regime change over negotiations with “failed” states, and ideological goals over previous notions of the national interest.[13]

The entire tenor of American power has thus altered, but against those who claim Bush has abandoned the core assumptions of the liberal internationalist tradition, the conservative Andrew J. Bacevich points out that his foreign policy innovations are largely methodological in character. For the past half century, no matter which party occupied the White House, US policy has pursued a single overarching goal: “global openness”—as in Hay’s “Open Door” imperialism—which promotes the movement of goods, peoples, and fashions into and out of world markets for the sake of US capitalist concerns.[14] Moreover, in assuming responsibility for this integrated international trading system—this “empire”—the US wins the right not only “to sell Big Macs and Disney products round the world,” but to govern the system itself.

While Bacevich’s argument is an excellent foil to those seeking to portray Bush as a revolutionary—somehow different from the Democrats who have manipulated the United States into most of the 20th century wars and played a leading role in semantically transforming “democracy” and “human rights” into the totalitarian double-speak of the NWO—Bacevich nevertheless ignores the different ways in which the two parties implement their liberal internationalist principles. Republicans, especially since Reagan, are inclined to see the growth of US national power as the precondition for sustaining their imperial system, while Democrats look to the universalization and institutionalization of their liberal principles. This disposes Republicans to a unipolar model of liberal internationalism based on military supremacy, unlike Democrats, who favor a world-government model emphasizing the economic facets of globalization and the need for international regulation. (Lately, though, the Democratic world-government types, if such influential liberal internationalists as those associated with Richard Haas of the Council on Foreign Relations and Helmut Sonnenfeldt of the Brookings Institution are any guide, seem increasingly disposed to the unipolar model; John Kerry’s neocon cloning of Bush’s foreign policy also suggests a shift toward the Republican vision.) But whether pursued by Republicans or Democrats, this liberal internationalist agenda, with its emphasis on the antitraditional and anti-Aryan forces of free trade, free markets, and open societies, has been a bane to white people everywhere—for it wars against “the fundamental value of blood and race as creators of true civilization.”[15]

In pressing into areas which were off-limits during the Cold War, Washington’s imperial market system has become increasingly aggressive. Under Clinton, the Weinberger/Powell Doctrine of avoiding military engagements unless absolutely necessary was discarded, as the “unipolar moment” ushered in by the Soviet collapse was treated as a blank check for “intervening practically wherever and whenever it chose.” In this spirit, Clinton’s Secretary of State contemplated invading Iraq and disparaged the principle of national sovereignty. Her distinction between war and the use of military force has since reoriented US policy, as military interventions overseas cease being labeled wars and become armed forms of “humanitarianism.”[16] Finally, the Clinton Doctrine of Enlargement, in championing the worldwide spread of US-style democracy and free markets (that is, the globalist assault on national identity and national institutions), privileged unilateralism (rechristened “assertive multilateralism”) over containment and disarmament.[17]

Although he avoided Bush’s swaggering brand of leadership, Clinton was only slightly less coercive in promoting the totalitarian ideology of openness.[18] It is hardly irrelevant that Iraq was bombed nearly every day of his administration, that Bosnia was turned into a US military protectorate, and that unilateral military action, in one of the great “war crimes” of the 20th century, was taken against Serbia. Though smaller in scale than Operation Iraqi Freedom, the terrorist air assault on this proud little country (whose historical role was the defense of the white borderlands) aimed at “spreading democracy” for the sake of openness. Symptomatic of the “openness” Washington favors, the Albanian Liberation Front (UCK), an Islamic, drug-smuggling, terrorist mafia with links to al-Qa’ida, was armed and trained by Clinton’s government and a quarter million Christian Serbs, whose nationalist aspirations represented an affront to the New World Order, were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.[19] These interventions by the Clintonistas also played a leading role in destabilizing the international state system, giving rise to new stateless groups whose megaterrorism is historically unprecedented. The horror of 9/11 and the unfathomable massacre of Russian children at Beslan, not to mention numerous lesser affronts to our humanity, have roots in Clinton’s Yugoslavian intervention. Bush has simply accelerated this process, which is nourishing new, more nihilistic forms of terrorism.[20]

Although he came into office complaining of Clinton’s immodest foreign policy, Bush II has actually gone further, introducing methods which removed the existing restraints on Washington’s use of military force and whatever reservation it might have in violating national sovereignty.[21] Like Clinton, he is a man beholden to alien and dishonorable interests, and inspired by a juvenile notion of power. His “faith-based foreign policy,” like the alley-cat policies of his predecessor, privileges the liberalization of global trade relations, imposes the cosmopolitan imperatives of his corporate supporters on virtually every issue pertinent to the nation’s biocultural welfare, rejects the American tradition of “isolationism,” and runs roughshod over whoever resists an order hostile to ethnocultural particularisms (unless they take innocuous folkloric forms). He might differ with Clinton in favoring a missile defense system, a different approach to China, and a Likudnik rather than a Laborite Zionism, but he is no less committed to a global system of market democracies “open to trade and investment, and policed by the United States.” As one Marxist puts it: “Playboy Clinton, Cowboy Bush, same policy.”[22] With his “Judeo-Protestant” rhetoric of American exceptionalism and his willingness to remove the velvet glove from America’s mailed fist, Bush’s “jackbooted Wilsonianism” differs from that of his predecessor mainly in linking economic globalization to “military modernization.”

As the neoconservatives Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney argue, the Bush Doctrine ought to be viewed as a necessary complement to the globalizing process. They claim that before 9/11 globalization (which much of the world identifies with Americanization) was mainly economic, thought best left to business. The collapse of the Twin Towers has since (allegedly) triggered a more serious reflection on America’s role as globalism’s “system administrator.” In their view, bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and all the “rogue states”—Bush’s “axis of evil”—act as “dangerous disconnects” from a world based on interdependence and a single framework of economic governance. (Although they refrain from taking their argument to its logical conclusion, globalization here is inadvertently revealed as the harbinger of global terror.)[23] Faced with these threats to its one-world system, the market not only needs to be policed, the US has a responsibility to maintain its harmonious functioning. Bush’s unilateralist use of force, in applying military power whenever violent “disconnects” interrupt the international flow of labor, raw materials, and energy, Barnett and Gaffney argue, aims at ensuring the security and operability of the globalizing process.[24] But what they do not mention is that once economic globalization is joined with “military globalization,” the globalizing process is not so much ensured as altered, becoming less a neutral extension of economic trends (not that it ever was simply that) and more a classic expression of imperial power. In Iraq, for instance, the American army had no sooner occupied Baghdad than its neoconservative viceroy, Paul Bremer, began to dismantle the Iraqi state, privatize the economy, open the borders to unrestricted imports (unless they came from France or Germany), and, within two weeks of his arrival, had declared that Iraq was “now open for business.”[25]

September 11, then, did not change the long-range goal of US foreign policy (global openness), only the way in which it was pursued. The restraints on military force, already compromised under Clinton, were formally thrown off and a proactive doctrine of preemption superseded the more reactive methods of containment and disarmament. At the same time, Clinton’s human rights rhetoric and “humanitarian” militarism were jettisoned for the bellicose language of “strategic vital interests” and “imperial responsibilities.” It would be misleading, however, to think the transatlantic rift was due solely to Bush’s militaristic assertion of US global interests. Long before 9/11, real policy differences had begun to emerge: over trade; agriculture; armament exports; relations with Cuba, Iran, and Korea; the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; the Echelon economic espionage system monitoring European faxes, e-mails, and phone calls; the Kyoto Protocol; globalization; the abrogation of the ABM treaty; the euro and the dollar, etc. All these differences, in one way or another, reflected Europe’s unwillingness to remain a pawn on Washington’s global chessboard.[26] In the year leading up to Iraq, as Europe sought to check Bush’s unilateralist moves, the transatlantic relationship went into crisis, forcing France and Germany to assert their autonomy sooner than they might otherwise have intended.[27]

Notes

 

1. Alexandre del Valle, Islamisme et Etats-Unis: Une alliance contre l’Europe (Laussanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1999).

2. Justin Raimondo, “Afghanistan: The Forgotten War” (June 21, 2004), http://antiwar.com; Elaine Sciolino, “NATO Chief Offers Bleak Analysis,” New York Times, July 3, 2004.

3. Louis R. Browning, “Bioculture: A New Perspective for the Evolution of Western Populations,” The Occidental Quarterly 4(1) (Spring 2004).

4. There is still no satisfactory treatment of neocon foreign policy. One of the better recent ones, although highly flawed, especially in ignoring its Jewish roots, is Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: Neo-Conservativism and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). On neoconservatism’s racial basis, see Kevin MacDonald, “Understanding Jewish Influence III: Neoconservatism As a Jewish Movement,” The Occidental Quarterly 4(2) (Summer 2004). The previous, and in many ways, still existing strategic basis of U.S. policy is perhaps best represented by Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books, 1997). On the larger historical contours of U.S. foreign policy, see Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997).

5. John Le Carré, “The United States Has Gone Completely Mad,” London Times, January 15, 2003. With some irony, one Russian general, Leonid Ivashov, characterized the U.S. media coverage of the war debate (and not simply that of Fox News) as something one might expect in a “police state.” See Johannes Voswinkel, “Schmallippig im Kreml,” Die Zeit (15/2003). For one of the more interesting critiques of the controlled media’s role in mobilizing the population behind Bush’s crusade, see David Miller, “Caught in the Matrix” (April 26, 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz ^[2]

6. The anonymous author of Imperial Hubris (2004), quoted in Julian Borgen, “Bush Told He Is Playing into Bin Laden’s Hands,” The Guardian, June 19, 2004.

7. Andrew Buncombe, “Carter Savages Bush and Blair,” The Independent, March 27, 2004; David Corn, The Lies of George W. Bush (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004); F.-B. Huyghe, “Pour en finir avec les ADM” (February 2004), http://vigirak.com ^[3]; the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “WMD in Iraq” (January 2004), http://www.ceip.org ^[4]

8. Viatcheslav Dachitchev, “La Turkie doit-elle faire partie de l’Europe?” (July 8, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com ^[5]

9. Gabriel Kolko, “The U.S. Must Be Contained: The Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power” (March 12, 2004), http://www.counterpunch.org ^[6]; Robert L. Hutchins, “The World after Iraq” (April 8, 2003), http://www.cia.gov

10. Norm Dixon, “What’s behind War on Terrorism? (September 2002), www.globalresearch.ca ^[7]

11. Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “The Present Danger,” The National Interest 59 (Spring 2000).

12. The Bush Doctrine was elaborated in three key documents, which can be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov ^[8].  They are: “Presidential Speech of 17 September 2001,” “President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point” (June 1, 2002), “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (September 2002).

13. François Géré, “La nouvelle stratégie des Etats-Unis” (May 2002), http://www.diploweb.com ^[9]; Ivo H. Daalder and John M. Lindsay, America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2003), p. 13; Chalmers Johnson, “Sorrows of Empire” (November 2003), http://www.fpif.org ^[10]

14. Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).

15. Julius Evola, Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem (N.P.: Thomkins & Cariou, 2003), p. 36.

16. Thomas W. Lippman, Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy (Boulder: Westview Press, 2004). In his treatment of the subject, James Mann suggests (correctly, in my view) that the move to military assertiveness begins, haphazardly, with George I. See Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet (New York: Viking, 2004), pp. 179–97.

17. Phillipe Grasset, “Finalement, Clinton sera-t-il réélu?” (June 25, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[11]

18. Nikolai von Kreitor, “American Political Theology” (n.d.), http://foster.20megsfree.com ^[12]; Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, pp. 214–15.

19. Michael A. Weinstein, “Containment or Concessions: The Eclipse of Regime Change” (June 28, 2004), http://www.yellowtimes.org ^[13]; Hunt Tooley, “The Bipartisan War Machine” (September 17, 2003), http://www.mises.org ^[14]; Pierre M. Gallois, La sang du pêtrole: Bosnie (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1996).

20. Brendan O’Neill, “Beslan: The Real International Connection” (8 September 2004), http://www.spiked-online.com ^[15]; David Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals (New York: Scribner, 2001).

21. Bacevich, American Empire, p. 199; Daalder and Lindsay, America Unbound, pp. 36–40.

22. Samir Amin, “Le contrôle militaire de la planète” (February 17, 2003), http://www.alternatives.ca ^[16]

23. “Globalization inevitably generates global terror. For if the U.S. claims the entire planet as its sphere of vital interests, then all the territory of the U.S. becomes a possible sphere of vital interests for global terrorists.” See Alexander Dugin, “Premiers signes de l’apocalypse” (October 18, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com ^[17]

24. Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Could Be the First Step toward a Larger Goal: True Globalization,” Military Officer 1(5) (May 2003); also Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century (New York: Putnam, 2004). Cf. Alain Joxe, “Les enjeux stratégiques globaux après la guerre d’Iraq” (May 27, 2003), http:www.ehess.fr ^[17]

25. Naomi Klein, “Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in Pursuit of a Neocon Utopia,” Harper’s Bazaar (September 2004).

26. Charles A. Kupchan, “The End of the West,” The Atlantic Monthly (November 2002).

27. Europe’s growing alienation from the U.S. is thus not just about the latter’s unilateralist bullying. In addition to the above cited issues, it also touches on the drug-running, mafia, terrorist, and espionage networks that the U.S. operates in Europe. For example, see Rémi Kaufer, L’arme de la désinformation: Les multinationales américains en guerre contre l’Europe (Paris: Grasset, 1999); Xavier Rauffer, Le grand réveil des mafias (Paris: Lattés, 2003); Karl Richter, Tödliche Bedrohung USA: Waffen und Szenarien der globalen Herrschaft (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2004); Alexander del Valle, Guerres contre l’Europe (Paris: Syrtes, 2001); Robert Steuckers, “Espionage par satellites, guerre cognitive, manipulation par les mafias” (November 2003), http://www.centrostudaruna.it; Thierry Meyssen, “Propagande états-unien” (January 2, 2003), http://www.reseauvoltaire.net ^[18]

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 3

A Promising Rapprochement

In the last instance, the US-European rift of 2002–2003 followed from the Cold War’s end, which destroyed the rationale for the transatlantic alliance and hence the restraints on European autonomy. For without the Red Army on the Elbe, Europe was no longer obliged to take orders from the West Wing. Because NATO has outlived its usefulness and Bush’s unipolar security system made no accommodation to Europe’s post-Cold War status, the more self-confident Europeans have begun to distance themselves from Washington.

However headline-capturing, their modest assertion of autonomy has nevertheless been carried out in ways that are thoroughly inadequate to Europe’s independence, based as they are on principles of jurisprudence and ethics, rather than on more consequential forms of power. In Robert Kagan’s now famous characterization, Europeans are from Venus and Americans from Mars, with the former acting as if the world were governed by abstract Kantian principles, ignorant of or unwilling to acknowledge the violent Hobbesian reality which Americans, especially after 9/11, have been forced to confront.[1] In other words, Europeans look to negotiations, diplomacy, and international law to resolve international disputes, while Americans emphasize the importance of military force. These differing “perspectives and psychologies of power,” the anti-white Kagan suggests, explain something of what divides the two shores of the Atlantic.[2] But perhaps more debilitating than Europe’s “Kantianism” (which will not last) is the fact that its increasingly autonomous foreign policy is less an expression of its political identity (although it is that) than a symptom of its liberal evasion of what such an identity ought to entail.

In France, for instance, which is the sole continental country to have defended the European idea in the last half century, as well as maintained a nuclear arsenal and professional army worthy of a “power,” opposition to US unilateralism has been framed largely in liberal internationalist terms that draw attention away from the state’s failed domestic policies. Since De Gaulle’s death, France has been in decline. The population is aging, millions of inassimilable Muslim immigrants are colonizing its lands, and virtually all the major institutions are in need of reform. Having eyes only for the “poor immigrant,” the metastasizing state bureaucracy imposes unrealistic social laws that hamper production and serve as a force for national decline. At the same time, the historical sources of nationalism have been dissolved, the native French dispirited by the institutionalization of multiculturalism, and the country’s extraordinary military and diplomatic apparatus, the necessary basis of both French and European power, if not neglected, then underfunded.[3] The hoopla that comes with France’s resistance to Bush simply focuses attention away from these failures and toward geopolitical developments that are potentially key to Europe’s future, but whose import is limited by the state’s misconceived domestic policies. As Julius Evola puts it: “The measure of freedom is power.”[4] And because Europeans are now uncomfortable with the exercise of power, their freedom is necessarily limited.

It is worth recalling that Jacques Chirac was responsible for the totalitarian mobilization against the presidential candidacy of the nationalist Jean Marie Le Pen in 2002.[5] Like much of the European governing class, he is a product of the same plutocratic system that subordinates national interests to international finance, indifferent to everything associated with his people’s blood and soil.[6] Such a system, as our own experiences reveal, is incapable of producing anything other than mediocrities. In this spirit, Chirac’s opposition to Washington’s unipolar order orients to a multipolar model based on liberal market principles hostile to Europe’s unique bioculture. As Guillaume Faye points out, Chirac’s opposition to the Iraq war was motivated less by his Gaullist nationalism (which he routinely betrays) than by his pacifist and Third World politics.[7] With the 2007 presidential elections in view, his foreign policy seems, in fact, aimed at the new Muslim electorate, which thrives on his anti-American, Third World, and multilateralist posturing.[8]

Faye also claims that American power is ultimately a reflex of Europe’s refusal of power.[9] Like many commentators, he stresses that US power in this period is greatly exaggerated and goes unchecked mainly for want of challengers. Revealingly, Chirac has, for all his opposition to Bush, done little to rearm Europe and what he does do he does for the worst of reasons, neglecting Grande Europe in the name of a legalistic idealism that contradicts the biocultural foundations of European life. Rather than fixating on the illegalities and incivilities of American unilateralism (which has proven to be a paper tiger in Iraq), he and other establishment leaders would make a greater contribution to Europe’s destiny if they devoted more attention to its military, restored the basis of its national identity, and addressed the real dangers coming from the South. Worse, they wholeheartedly subscribe to the American model of ethnopluralism, communitarianism, and multiculturalism. Just as US leaders think nothing of sending troops halfway around the world to fight a war whose immediate beneficiary is Israel, ignoring the more serious security threat posed by the Third World’s incessant assaults on the country’s southern border, European elites (and the demonstrators massed behind them) trumpet their solidarity with the Islamic Middle East, whose immigrants are presently rending the fabric of European life. There are good reasons for opposing Bush’s war, but the liberal ones motivating Chirac cannot but come back to haunt the continent.

Germany’s relationship with the US is significantly different than France’s, but no less infused with noxious anti-identitarian influences. Germany was virtually remade by the Americans after 1945 and throughout the Cold War remained subservient to them. Yet Germany is slowly beginning to throw off her tutelage. Schröder nevertheless adheres to values and policies that qualify as examples of Kagan’s Kantianism (i.e., pure liberalism). More than Chirac, he upholds Washington’s earlier liberal internationalism, criticizing Bush for violating its principles.[10] (As one journalist for the Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: “We [Germans] owe a great debt to the US for contributing to our transformation into truly democratic citizens after World War II. . . . They [Americans] must forgive us if we have difficulty letting go some of the lessons we have learned.”)[11] It was thus his pacifism—his Social Democratic opposition to power per se—rather than any geopolitical ambition for a powerful Europe that seems to have prompted his opposition to the Iraq war.[12] And in this, alas, he resembles much of the German population, which prefers bourgeois comforts to those virtues that made earlier generations great. Finally, Schröder, like Chirac, supports Turkey’s admission to the EU and panders to the new “German Turk” electorate. He might therefore have been the first German chancellor since Hitler to frontally oppose Washington, but he has no intention of letting the old anti-liberal dream of white renaissance out of the bag.[13]

Despite the mediocre stature of these politicians, which makes them ill-suited to the great tasks at hand, I would argue that the “force of things”—the realities of power and the dictates of survival—is greater than those charged with carrying them out.[14] This seems especially evident in Europe’s rapprochement with Russia. For as France and Germany become increasingly alienated from the US, they lean eastward—even though French and German elites have much more in common with their American than their Russian counterparts.[15]

A rapprochement between the three great European peoples promises great things. As Karl Haushofer once said: “The day when Germans, Frenchmen, and Russians unite will be the last day of Anglo-Saxon [i.e., liberal] hegemony.”[16] Bush—and this is why his administration seems destined to achieve world-historical significance—has brought about what a century of US geostrategists have sought to prevent. Conversely, it is hardly coincidental that even at the Cold War’s height, a wing of the French military looked to Russia as a possible ally. In 1955, the prominent geostrategist, Admiral Raoul Castex, published an article titled “Moscou, rempart de l’Occident?” (Moscow, rampart of the West?), in which he wondered if Russia might not one day become “the vanguard of the white world’s defense.”[17] Today, in a period when Grande Europe—from Dublin to Vladivostok—is at peace, white nationalists in Europe and America again pose Castex’s question and again affirm the possibility that Russia has a leading role to play in the white race’s defense. Indeed, the question now possesses a qualitatively greater weight than it did a half century ago, before the Third World hordes, abetted by the West’s liberal elites, began their colonization of our lands. Russia, moreover, is not just the last white nation on earth, but the only one to have shown the slightest interest in defending its ethnoracial identity. (Our russophobic nationalists might be reminded that the former Soviet Union was the sole white power to define nationality racially.) Its heritage of nationalism, socialism, and anti-liberalism also lends it something of that “Prussian socialism” which Spengler and Yockey saw as the one viable antidote to Western liberalism.[18] In courting Russian support in their conflict with the US, French and German elites might think Putin will be converted to their misconceived Kantianism, but in the great racial-civilizational battles that lie ahead, it is far more likely that Russia’s ethnonationalism will prevail.[19]

America’s Future

Since the rise to world power of the United States, white America has been in decline. For most of the twentieth century, but especially since the end of the Second World War, the country’s overlords have taken one step after another to de-Europeanize its white population. To this end, white culture and identity have been socially re-engineered. White communities, schools, and businesses have been forced to integrate with races previously considered inferior and inimical. And, for the last 40 years, whites have been expected to replace themselves with Third World immigrants. As the biocultural identity of white Americans gives way to a universal, transnational, and global one (the ideological analogue of the New World Order), they are further alienated from who they are.[20] Against this de-Europeanization and the postnational, multiracial regime succeeding it, the small, isolated pockets of white resistance confront a seemingly impossible task—similar to the one King Canute faced when he tried to hold back the ocean tide. Because of this, I would argue that only a catastrophe will save white America. Only a catastrophic collapse of the political, institutional, and cultural systems associated with imperial America—call it the managerial state, liberal democracy, corporate capitalism, the NWO, or whatever label you prefer—holds out any possibility that a small, racially conscious vanguard of white Americans will succeed in defending their people’s existence.[21] With the Iraq war, Bush—”this Buster Keaton of the apocalypse”—has opened a Pandora’s box of catastrophes. He, in fact, has done more to discredit, weaken, and vilify the existing systems of liberal subversion than any previous president, inadvertently creating conditions that should give white Americans another chance to regain control of their destiny. In this spirit, his administration acts as “a lightning rod for catastrophes.”  As one foreign observer notes: “The paradox of the present situation is that the worse the crisis becomes, the more Washington reinforces the position that evokes so much resistance.”[22] Indeed, his “war on terror creates more monsters than its destroys.”[23] Lacking the cognitive and normative tools to deal with a complex area like the Mideast, the president ends up managing the Iraqi occupation “by the seat of his pants.”[24] And as he does, the real dangers threatening the country are totally ignored: the dangers posed by the mestizo and Asiatic colonization of our lands, the growth of US Muslim communities, the denationalization of the economy and the looming fiscal crisis of the state, the Zionist domination of the political and information systems, the replacement of truth with propaganda and disinformation, the deculturation and miscegenation of our people, and the unrelenting assault on everything associated with the “freedoms” he allegedly defends in Mesopotamia. Instead of inaugurating a new era of unchallenged American power and enhancing national security, Bush seems set on preparing their demise.[25] Since the murderous terror of 9/11, his administration has shattered the myth of American military omnipotence, tarnished the country’s moral authority, alienated its allies, squandered its once formidable diplomatic powers, created the basis of an anti-US realignment, and undermined America’s image not only as a force for democracy and order, but as a secure economic haven. This latter tendency is now causing overseas investors to think twice about sending their capital to the US, which, combined with the ballooning expenses of the Iraq war, is hastening the dollar’s decline and the country’s economic deterioration. But more than undermining American power and prestige, the Bush administration has discredited the liberal civilizational model associated with the United States, provoking, in the process, a worldwide revulsion against the “American way of life.”[26]

The simple-minded, dishonorable, and raceless character of Bush’s government—riddled with Israeli spies and unsavory influence peddlers and premised on the belief that truth is irrelevant to its political calculus—seems to epitomize nothing so much as the debilitated state of our governing classes and their inability to serve as a nation-bearing stratum. That for the first time in American history Europe is not the focus of US strategic thinking, but rather Israel, should say it all.[27] It would be misleading, though, to think the failures at the highest level of state are simply the result of an unusually incompetent administration or its alien controllers. For even the “opposition” party produces candidates who are but variants of the reigning mediocrity.[28] This suggests that the system itself is bankrupt. Not coincidentally, the telltale signs of blockage, symptomatic of regimes heading toward the abyss (or “staying the course,” as George II says), appear now with increased frequency. The great bard of our decline, H. Millard, likens America to a runaway train. “The Israel firsters, neurotics, low IQ PTA types, political opportunists, easily susceptible dupes, genocidal blenders, party loyalists, war profiteers, and opportunists of various stripes” who are at the controls either have no idea of what they are doing or an unwillingness to profess it publicly.[29]

Contrary to the pipedreams of both our conservatives and liberals, there will be no going back.[30] Like the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the US has become bogged down in a protracted war at the very moment its economy is in steep decline. The slash-and-burn policies Bush has introduced will also be extremely difficult to retract, no matter who captures the White House in 2008. But even if there were a desire to retract them, the means are lacking. For example, in 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower warned France and England not to retake the Suez Canal, after Egypt nationalized it, he was able to threaten the stability of their national currencies. Today, the dollar is itself threatened.[31] For all the fabled shock and awe of US power in this period, the country is qualitatively weaker than it was a generation ago, when it was able to rein in the largest European empires. This erosion of its economic, diplomatic, moral, and even military power, combined with the near universal opposition to its increasingly unilateral and militaristic foreign policy, cannot but provoke a geopolitical realignment. The prospect of the Iraq war spreading to Iran and elsewhere will simply compound these destabilizing forces.[32] Increased conflict abroad, growing dissent at home, and deep division within the government itself are also likely to foster decisional paralysis, further exacerbating the crisis.

But however this crisis plays out, America and Europe seem set on a collision course.[33] Already wary of Washington, France and Germany (along with Spain, Belgium, and Italy, once Berlusconi goes) will eventually have no choice but to reposition themselves in opposition to it, for their strategic imperatives are increasingly at odds. This is certain to trigger new conflicts and new alignments, compelling Europeans to reaffirm their sovereignty—and their distinct strategic identity. As they do, their cooperation is bound to deepen and their nationalist consciousness to grow. At the same time, certain mentalities will be forced to change and certain taboos to fall, including the postmodern ones that leave Europe powerless. The collapse of the Cold War alliance system also throws open the strategic-political parameters of the international arena. The future, as a consequence, now holds out several possible alternatives. The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis may still lack credibility, but this is probably less important than the effect it has had—and will continue to have—on the European spirit. It thus promises a possible renewal. The big question is whether or not Europeans have the will and acumen to realize it.

Fundamental to virtually all schools of geopolitical thought is the notion that the augmentation of power in one part of the world inevitably comes at the expense of another part. If the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis continues to affect the continent and shift power out of the Atlanticist camp, this cannot but destabilize the United States, for without its omnipotent dollar and its domination of global markets, it will no longer be able to consume more than it produces, to live on credit, to afford the social-welfare measures that buy off the Africans and tame the Mexicans, to sustain the social-engineering schemes discriminating against the talents and energies of its white majority, to afford the police, the drugs, the TVs, and the computer toys that narcotize its cretinized masses. The institutionalization of such an axis is also likely to dislodge America’s dominant place in the world system, setting off economic disruptions that will make it impossible for whites to live in the old way, to lose themselves in vacuous material comforts, to accept the lies that fly in the face of reality. Once this point is reached, European-Americans will be forced to act like people elsewhere who are suddenly thrown into a do-or-die situation.[34]

Like the “American Century” Henry Luce announced in 1941, the “New American Century” of Washington’s current generation of schemers and chiselers promises an even greater holocaust of our people. The future they envisage might indeed be called the New Anti-White Century. For like the order issuing from their Second World War, the one planned for the period following Iraq will not serve white America, only the alien, plutocratic, and cosmopolitan interests aligned in the current Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis.

No one should be surprised, then, that when the inevitable collapse comes, white America’s front fighters will not mourn the eclipse of the so-called American Century, for they are nationalists not in the nineteenth century sense. They do not fight for the petty-statism of the so-called “nation-state”—which is now made up of peoples from many different nations. The American, German, and French states—none of these entities any longer represent the descendants of those who founded them. As Sam Francis puts it, “the state has become the enemy of the nation.”[35] And as a thousand years of European history demonstrate, whenever the state and the nation come into conflict, the latter inevitably proves the stronger. I think it is no exaggeration to claim that only on the ruins of the existing political order will white America be reborn—and reborn not as another constitutional “nation-state” which elevates abstract rights above biocultural imperatives, but as a northern imperium of white peoples who, as Bismarck exhorted, “think with their blood.”

Those who would dismiss the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis as a temporary happenstance, a product of convenience, inflated with purely speculative significance, should be reminded that the 21st century will decide if white people have a future or not. From this perspective, collapse and realignment are necessities—and necessities have a way of engendering the imagination appropriate to them. For when the world’s population reaches ten billion, when China, India, and all Asia challenge the white man’s dominance, when the colored multitudes crossing our borders are magnified by ten or a hundred, when oil is depleted and raw materials are used up, when all the forests have been cut down and all the cultivable lands claimed, and—hopefully—when the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis has established an alternative realm of white existence, the ensuing chaos cannot but sunder whatever misbegotten allegiance white Americans have had to the present system. Then, in alliance with their kinsmen in Europe and Russia, they—if they are to survive as a people—will have no choice but to accept that they are made not in the multihued images of a deracinated humanity, but in that of the luminous Boreans, whose destiny opposes the darkening forces of Bush’s America.

Let us prepare for the coming collapse.

Notes

1. Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Knopf, 2003), p. 3. Actually, the unreferenced metaphor originates with Denis MacShane, “Europe and America Need Each Other More Than Ever,” http://www.post-gazette.com ^[2]

2. Kagan, Of Paradise and Power, p. 28.

3. Guillaume Faye, La colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’Islam (Paris: L’Æncre, 2000); Nicolas Baverez, La France qui tombe (Paris: Perrin, 2004).

4. Julius Evola, Imperialismo pagano: Il fascismo dinanzi al pericolo euro-cristiano (Padua: Ar, 1996), p. 45.

5. Yves Daoudal, Le tour infernal: 21 avril–5 mai (Paris: Godefroy de Bouillon, 2003).

6. Yves-Marie Laulan, Jacques Chirac et le déclin français 1974–2002 (Paris: François-Xavier de Guilbert, 2001); Emmanuel Ratier, Le vrai visage de Jacques Chirac (Paris: Facta, 1995).

7. Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial, p. 113.

8. Omer Taspinar, “Europe’s Muslim Streets,” Foreign Policy (March–April 2003).

9. As Schröder says: “Es gibt nicht zu viel Amerika, es gibt zu wenig Europa.” See “Die Krise, die Europa eint: Ein Gespräch mit Gerhard Schröder,” Die Zeit (14/2003). Cf. Philippe Grasset, “Le dilemme stratégique des U.S.A: Sa faiblesse militaire” (June 15, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org

10. Günter Maschke, “Vereinigte Staaten sind die Macht der Unordnung,” Deutsche Stimme (June 2003).

11. Quoted in Richard Lambert, “Misunderstanding Each Other,” Foreign Affairs (March–April 2003).

12. Alexander Rar, “Europa ist Zerspaltet” (December 15, 2003), http://evrazia.org ^[3]

13. Edouard Husson, “Crise allemande, crise européenne?” (March 2003), http://www.diploweb.com ^[4]

14. As Joseph de Maistre said of the revolutionaries of 1789: “Ce ne sont point les hommes qui mènent la révolution, c’est la révolution qui emploie les hommes.” See Considérations sur la France (Lyon: Vitte, 1924), p. 7.

15. Maja Heidenreich, “Europa und Russland: Eine rückblickende und analysierende Darstellung” (n.d.), http://www.boschlektoren.de/ ^[5]

16. Quoted in Sacha Papovic, “De la dialectique géopolitique” (August 2003), http://www.voxnr.com.

17. Cited in “Russie-France-Allemagne” ( n.d.), http://www.paris-berlin-moscou.org ^[6]

18. Oswald Spengler, Preussentum und Sozialismus (Munich: Beck, 1919); K. R. Bolton, ed., Varange: The Life and Thoughts of Francis Parker Yockey (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press, 1998), pp. 36–38. Also N. N. Alexeiev, “Raisons spirituelles de la civilisation eurasiste” (1998), http://www.voxnr.com ^[7]

19. W. Joseph Stoupe, “The Inevitability of a Eurasian Alliance” (August 17, 2004), http://atimes.com ^[8]

20. James Kurth, “The War and the West,” Orbis (Spring 2002).

21. Guillaume Faye, Avant-Guerre: Chronique d’un cataclysme annoncé (Paris: L’Æncre, 2002).

22. Philippe Grasset, “Comment Rumsfeld devient le garante de l’aventure irakienne” (May 11, 2004), http://www.dedefense.org ^[9]

23. François-Bernard Huyghe, Quatrième guerre mondiale: Faire mourir et faire croire (Paris: Rocher, 2004), p. 9.

24. D. Priest and T. E. Ricks, “Growing Pessimism on Iraq: Doubts Increase within U.S. Security Agencies,” The Washington Post, September 29, 2004.

25. Philippe Grasset, “La destruction méthodique de la puissance américaine” (September 27, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[10]; Guatam Adhikari, “The End of the Unipolar Myth,” International Herald Tribune, September 27, 2004.

26. Philippe Grasset, “Comment l’américainisme est en train d’apparaître pour ce qu’il est: un problème de civilisation” (September 1, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[10]

27. Brent Scowcroft, George I’s national security adviser, has publicly criticized George II for being “inordinately influenced by Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. ‘Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger’, Scowcroft said. ‘I think the president is mesmerized.’“ See “Key GOP Figure Raps Bush on Mideast,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 17, 2004.

28. Ehsan Ahari, “How Bush, Kerry Are One and the Same” (September 2, 2004), http://www.latimes.com ^[11]

29. H. Millard, “Ridin’ the Runaway Train Named America” (2004), http://www.newnation.org ^[12]

30. Françoise Vergniolle de Chantal, “Les débats américains sur la relations transatlantiques” (2004), http://robert-schuman.org ^[13]

31. Ian Williams, “Deterring the Empire” (May 13, 2003), http://www.alternet.org ^[14]

32. David Wood, “U.S. to Sell Precision-Guided Bombs to Israel” (September 23, 2004), http://www.newhousesnews.com ^[15]

33. Ian Black, “The Transatlantic Drift,” The Guardian, September 20, 2004; Philippe Grasset, “L’UE: Une stratégie de rupture avec l’Amérique” (September 20, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[10]

34. Faye, Avant-Guerre.

35. Sam Francis, “When the State Is the Enemy of the Nation” (July 19, 2004), http://www.vdare.com ^[16] This is not to say that the state is inherently the enemy of the nation—only that this is the case with the existing liberal state. On the difference between statism and nationalism, see Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

Life After the Collapse

How whites will emerge from the rubble.

Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism, Arktos Media, 2010, 249 pp., $22.95,
available from arktos.com, soft cover, (originally written in 1998)

reviewed by Thomas Jackson

Ex: http://www.amren.com/

Guillaume Faye is one of the most brilliant and provocative writers to emerge from the French New Right. He has written a great deal in his long and varied career, but Archeofuturism is his best-known and probably most important book. Written in 1998, only now has it been translated into English, thanks to the Arktos Media publishing group, which has made a number of New Right classics available to English-speakers.

Archeofuturism is hard to place on an American political spectrum. It is openly race-realist — “The ethnic question today is taboo, and hence crucial” — but has a revolutionary fervor that we associate with the left. Dr. Faye is passionately attached to the people and culture of Europe but wants completely to overthrow the current civilization. “The only strategy is all-out war,” he writes. “Compromise must be abolished.”

Archeofuturism is Dr. Faye’s blueprint for the future age that will succeed the cataclysms we are foolishly bringing upon ourselves. Much of it is fanciful, but Dr. Faye’s guesses about the future are never dull, and are based in a far more realistic understanding of history and human nature than the babblings of conventional “futurologists.”

The importance of race

Dr. Faye takes it for granted that race is real. “I insist on the importance of biological kinship to define peoples, and particularly the family of European peoples,” he writes. “The inherited characteristics of a people shape its culture and outlook.” This is why he so opposes “the current demographic colonization of Europe by Afro-Asiatic peoples, which is prudishly called ‘immigration’.” He asserts that Third-Worlders have none of the notions of brotherhood or “multi-culturalism” that hypnotize whites; they come with the intent to dominate. “One land, one people: this is what human nature requires,” he writes, noting that only whites pretend otherwise.

For Dr. Faye, the notion of the West is disappearing, eventually to be replaced by a northern coalition of whites facing waves of invasion: “The twenty-first century will witness global ethnic warfare and the legions of immigrants in Europe will serve as the ‘fifth column’ of an aggressive South.” He points out that all non-whites think in terms of race, “unlike Parisian intellectuals,” and that our rulers are digging their own graves just as surely as they are digging ours: “We shall be submerged by more vital, more youthful and less well-meaning peoples with the complicity of a delinquent bourgeoisie that — whatever it may do — will itself be swept away by the tide it has so heedlessly caused.”

Dr. Faye has nothing but contempt for the present era. The central dogma of the age is egalitarianism, he writes, and it survives only because of a blind faith in miracles. The dogma’s failures are evident everywhere; just as individuals vary enormously in their talents and abilities, so do the races and nations. Forcible equality is tyranny.

Dr. Faye is passionately attached to the people and culture of Europe but wants completely to overthrow the current civilization.

Dr. Faye also denounces what he calls “pathological altruism,” or the perpetual propping up of failed people and failed societies. Our rulers ignore the dysgenic effects of welfare and — even worse — tax their own people to feed Third-Worlders who long to dispossess the North. “Pathological altruism” is partly explained by what Dr. Faye calls “pathological individualism.” Because our rulers think only about the individual — and not about nation or race — they promote dysgenic policies at home and raise armies of overseas enemies who will march against their own children.

“Pathological individualism” is also behind such modern distractions as homosexual marriage. The government should not recognize unions that are by definition barren and have no role in perpetuating society. As Napoleon explained, concubines take no notice of the law and the law takes no notice of them. Dr. Faye thinks homosexuality should likewise be a private matter, of no interest to the pubic or the state.

Homosexual marriage, however, is typical of the interests of Western governments because our rulers are incapable of grasping the questions that really matter. In Dr. Faye’s view, Western democracy is so cut off from reality, so amputated that he calls it “democtomy.” Only “pseudo dissent” is permitted, and Europeans prefer to ban political parties that actually challenge orthodoxy. In France, for example, the authorities call Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front “intolerant” because they want to ban it.

Dr. Faye argues that one of the goals of modern society is “to abolish thought in favor of spectacle” by promoting such things as professional sports. He can think of nothing more idiotic than paying money to watch people play games, and believes it is perverse to build up passionate attachments to outcomes that haven’t the slightest meaning or importance. Tennis champions or soccer players are nothing but performers, and their position in society should be no different from that of circus acrobats. Video games likewise clog the brain and prevent thought, which pleases our rulers because thought is dangerous. Dr. Faye also decries the disintegration of the family, the decline of education, and the replacement of culture with audio-visual pap.

Only radical, revolutionary acts, writes Dr. Faye, can destroy modernity. Unfortunately, Europeans are so domesticated they will never abolish egalitarianism and build a vigorous, self-conscious Europe. Instead, their infantilized world will be pulled down around them by “convergent catastrophes” that Dr. Faye predicted (writing in 1998) would strike between the years 2010 and 2020.

Disaster upon disaster

Among these, of course, are colonization by the South, which will lead to the collapse of multi-racial societies (which only whites have encouraged to take root in their midst). As Christianity continues to disintegrate in the face of Islam, Europe will face the prospect of “imperial theocratic totalitarianism.” At the same time, the West will be saddled with millions of old people with only a few young workers — or hostile Third-World immigrants — to support them.

The South is creating disasters of its own as non-whites try to mimic whites. Any Third-World attempt at democracy, for example, “leads to tragic consequences because of intellectual incompatibilities when it is forcefully imposed upon the cultures of the South.” Africans, for example, have lost their traditional societies and are incapable of replacing them with anything that is not squalid and cruel.

Illegal immigrants in France.

Dr. Faye laughs at anyone who thinks science will save us. He predicts plagues of drug-resistant diseases and, most catastrophically, exhaustion of the planet. The earth will run out of energy, he writes, adding that the notion that people would constantly get richer was a delusional spasm that lasted only 100 years. Dr. Faye roundly dismisses the fantasy of 7 billion people, all living like 20th-century Americans.

Cascading catastrophes will mean financial panic, global recession, plummeting world GNP, race war, and mass die offs. Europeans who survive will live by different principles: the principles of archeofuturism. Dr. Faye believes that what emerges from the rubble is the society Europeans would build deliberately if they were sane, but it will instead be forced on them by catastrophes of their own making. He hopes his book will guide the thinking of those who survive to lay the foundations.

Archaic, not conservative

After the crash, “most of humanity would revert to a pre-technological subsistence economy based on agriculture and the crafts.” An overexploited earth will permit no higher level of material existence. How will society be ordered? Dr. Faye rejects “conservatism,” or nostalgia for an older order: “We should avoid being backward-looking, concerned with restoration and reaction, for it is the last few centuries that have spawned the pox that is now devouring us.” Instead, he predicts the emergence of “archaic” values, that is to say, “answers that stretch back into the mists of time.”

People will live in hierarchical, inegalitarian communities that bind members to a common destiny. Atomized individualism will be impossible because there will be no government handouts, and people will depend on each other for survival. There will be distinct castes, in which the warrior caste will have great prestige. Duties will come before rights, infractions will be severely punished, sex roles will be clearly defined, and marriages will be unions of entire families rather than contracts between individuals. Dr. Faye conceives governance as something like that of the Germanic tribes, or Athens of the fourth century BC.

Unlike today’s system, which falsely promises that anyone can be “a scientist or a prince” — and which only causes envy and resentment — hierarchy will be ingrained but accepted. Free of “individualistic hubris,” even the humble will take pride in their limited contribution.

Dr. Faye insists that these societies will not be inferior to our own; just different. Dr. Faye imagines mystic initiations, rites of passage, and fervent forms of religion in what he calls “the new Middle Ages.” He sees most people as poorer but much more attached to their communities, and happier than people of today.

Not all people will live this way, however. Advanced technology will not have completely disappeared. A small elite will enjoy its benefits, and will live in material abundance. Just what the relations between the elite and the masses will be, Dr. Faye does not make clear, but he seems to think the elite will run things kindly through an aristocracy that renews itself through talent rather than heredity. The masses, in turn, will be satisfied with their lot, barely conscious of the gilded lives led by their betters.

The elites will, in fact, live in a world of “hyperscience” — the futurism of archeofuturism — unfettered by today’s “pseudo-ethical obstacles.” Nuclear power will proliferate, and Dr. Faye believes genetic science will unleash dramatic eugenic breakthroughs. He even imagines useful crossbreeds between humans and animals, and cloned organ banks. None of this will be available to the unscientific masses, so the gaps between the two worlds will grow ever larger.

A new world order

Dr. Faye speaking at the 2006 American
Renaissance conference.

Dr. Faye’s prescriptions for Europe are part of his post-catastrophe scenario, but could conceivably come about without a world-wide crash. He predicts the establishment of Eurosiberia or the United States of Europe, which would be home to the “folk whose natural and historical territory — whose fortress, I would say — extends from Brest to the Bering Strait.” He believes that in the face of Islam and Third-World immigration, whites are uniting within their common homeland and around their common culture, just as the Greeks did when the Persians invaded. He does not expect Eurosiberia to be entirely exclusive, however: “We can accommodate guests, but not invaders.”

Like many thinkers on the European right, Dr. Faye thinks the nation state is finished. Europeans will have deeper attachments to regions, which will have great autonomy in matters of culture, education, and language. In the meantime, he urges support for the European Union. Dr. Faye recognizes that this is a risky strategy, given the stifling, aggressively egalitarian nature of EU institutions. He nevertheless thinks they will become the framework of his beloved Eurosiberia when the collapse shatters egalitarianism and the belief in miracles on which it depends.

Eurosiberia will be just one of perhaps four or five autarkic blocs that Dr. Faye predicts will emerge. All will be racially more or less homogeneous, with the possible exception of the North American Union. Dr. Faye seems to believe that if anyone can make a success of multi-racialism, it is the Americans, but he is not sanguine about that either. The blocs — all with a large pre-technological populations and small elites — will not have much contact with each other, and there will certainly be no foreign aid.

Always entertaining

Clearly, Dr. Faye does not hesitate to make bold predictions, and his speculations are always entertaining. Whether anything he predicts will actually happen is anyone’s guess, but he is unquestionably right about two things: the central role race will play and the impotence of today’s Western ideologies. Whether one accepts his conception of archaism or not, there is no doubt that Islam and the Third World have the spirit of conquest and absolutism that once characterized Christianity and the West. Muslims are famously willing to die for their faith, and non-whites are famously ready to riot for whatever they want. Whites are famously willing to make endless concessions in the name of “human rights” to people who have nothing but contempt for anyone else’s “human rights.” As the game is played today, it is an abysmally unequal contest.

Let us hope it will not take “convergent catastrophes” to jolt whites out of their suicidal softness, but if it does, let the catastrophes come soon. The longer that day is put off, the larger the Third-World “fifth column” will grow, and the more desperate will be the struggle for European survival.

The New Jewish Question of Guillaume Faye

The New Jewish Question of Guillaume Faye

By Michael O'MEARA

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Guillaume Faye
La nouvelle question juive  
Chevaigné: Editions du Lore, 2007

“I don’t know whether God loves or hates the English; I only know that they must be driven out of France.”— Saint Joan

In his critique of this controversial book, the Swiss “revisionist” scholar Jürgen Graf, now exiled in Russia, writes that Guillaume Faye has permanently discredited himself “in racial nationalist and nationalist circles worthy of the name.”[1] The reason: His “dishonest” and defamatory attack on those who challenge the Holocaust story and on those who uphold the traditional “Judeophobic” orientation of the nationalist right.

“The New Jewish Question” (henceforth NJQ) may indeed mark the end of Faye’s career as a leading identitarian and nationalist ideologue among certain segments of the racially conscious community—though by no means all of it, maybe not even the majority of it. For the sharp differences pitting the Holocaust-debunking exile against the militant anti-Islamic Frenchman reflect differences that divide nationalists throughout Europe, as long-standing historical-theoretical identities closely associated with the anti-liberal wing of the nationalist right clash with the electoral imperatives of national-populist parties endeavoring to stem the pro-immigrant policies of their respective states.[2] The white man’s future may well hinge on how these differences are resolved.

The Argument

Faye’s anti-revisionism is part of a larger argument related to what he claims is the changing Jewish relationship to white society.

Central to this change is the Third World colonization of the European heartland—and all the world-destroying effects that have followed in its wake.

Since the late 1990s, as the colonizers became bolder and more assertive, attacks on French Jews (in the form of vandalized synagogues, school violence, murders, etc.) have steadily risen. The Mainstream Media routinely denounce the “radical right,” but these attacks are largely the work of Muslim immigrants. Still of “low intensity,” Faye claims they are symptomatic of a new, more virulent anti-Semitism, which mixes anti-Zionist politics with the Koran’s traditional ethnocidal aversion to the Jews, threatening in this way to move Europe ever closer to Eurabia.

In appraising this new phenomenon, Faye, who has long been persecuted by Jewish advocacy groups for his nationalism, professes to be neither pro- nor anti-Jewish. His single avowed concern as a writer and activist is the survival of Europe. In his treatment of the NJQ, he thus fully acknowledges that the Jews are not “white” (i.e., not of Aryan or European Christian descent) and that their relationship to European society has often been negatively affected by their “schizophrenic” attitude toward Europeans (or what Kevin MacDonald more forthrightly calls their ethnocentric “double standard”).[3] He also acknowledges that the Jewish Question was once “pivotal to the issue of European, especially French, identity, for, historically, the Jews were seen as the métèque [i.e., the ‘wog,’ the ‘wop,’ the offensive foreigner] who threatened the corruption of the nation’s blood and morals” (p. 23).

Given the present Third-World inundation, the Jews, he argues, can no longer seriously be taken as either an alien menace or a métèque, especially considering that more and more of them are allegedly beginning to doubt the wisdom of open borders. Not a few nationalists and identitarians have consequently abandoned their traditional anti-Semitism. The Vlaams Belang, Europe’s most successful nationalist formation, has, for example, formed a tacit alliance with the Jewish community of Flanders in order to stem the nation’s Islamization; he also cites the Jews’ role in Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance and could have mentioned Griffin’s BNP, Fini’s National Alliance, Kjaersgaard’s Danish People’s Party, and many others.

Anti-Jewish sentiment nevertheless persists on the nationalist right, in Faye’s view distorting its movement and distracting it from its principal tasks.

He also claims that nationalist and far right anti-Semites have, in face of the invasion, altered their view somewhat, seeing Jews less as an immediate physical threat than a pernicious influence—as Zionism and elite social engineering—responsible for policies, immigration preeminently, that threaten white survival. Contemporary anti-Jewish ideology, as a result, now rests on three general tenets: That (1) the Jews dominate the world through the cultural and financial powers they wield; that (2) they are the principal force promoting white decadence; and that (3) they immunize themselves to criticism through their manipulation of the Holocaust Story. Much of the NJQ seeks to refute these tenets, revealing not just their alleged political inappropriateness to the nationalist cause, but their role in occultating the challenges facing it. More specifically, the NJQ seeks to sever all association with historic anti-Semitism, the Third Reich, and everything else that might alienate whites from joining nationalists in repelling the Muslim advance. In the name of political realism, then, Faye makes a case for abandoning principles and positions that Graf, among others, considers essential to the nationalist project.

Decadence

The poorly researched and poorly argued case Faye makes in support of his argument, especially regarding the third tenet, is amply demonstrated in Graf’s review and need not be rehashed here. Two larger and equally serious questions raised by Faye do, however, deserve revisiting: Namely (1) are the Jews, traditional purveyors of anti-ethnic and anti-racial principles, the cause of the white man’s present decline, and (2) are the Jews, as the most powerful group in society, the principal enemy in the battle for white survival?

In respect to the first question, Faye says that though white or European decadence may have been promoted by certain Jewish intellectuals, its real origins lie in the inner recesses of the European soul—specifically in the secular and religious distillations of Christianity. Jews, in other words, have only exacerbated tendencies already indigenous to white life.

The French Catholic Church, he points out, dwarfs French Jewish efforts in promoting not just open borders, race mixing, and pro-immigrant policies, but cosmopolitanism, universalism, and a self-denying love of the Other.

Faye’s argument here is certainly correct in claiming that the ultimate responsibility for our race replacement lies with ourselves and that Christianity, along with its various secular offshoots (egalitarianism, individualism, universalism, etc.), has had a terrible effect on white identity, helping foster processes destructive of both the race’s organic and cultural substratum.

The problem with this aspect of his argument is that Catholicism, like other forms of Christianity, is a temporal institution subject to history. And as a historical subject, it has been different things in different periods. Thus it was that Bishop Turpin in La Chanson de Roland confronted the “Saracens” as a “Christian” warrior bearing the arms of the Frankish hero cult, while antebellum Episcopalians defended the legitimacy of negro slavery with chapter and verse. Even if the argument is only that the deep structure of Christian belief harbors an anti-white or anti-ethnic impetus, it still doesn’t explain why for centuries it served an opposite purpose. Finally, and most importantly, it was the secularization of Christian belief, associated with modernization, that provoked (or, at least, marked the beginning of) the “crisis of Western man” and the subsequent assault on the unique worth of his specific being—and not Christianity itself.[4]

In a similar way, this historical factor also affects the anti-Semitic argument. When Jew-hatred shed its religious forms in the latter part of the nineteenth century, becoming an “anti-Semitism” (implying a critique of Jewish behavior) instead of an anti-Judaism (implying a critique of Jewish religion), it did not explain why the Jews’ anti-gentile disposition (which, after all, had been around since the Hellenistic Age) was suddenly becoming hegemonic. Many of the great anti-Semites (e.g., Proudhon, Dühring, Drumont, Sombart, etc.) consequently directed their critique not just against the Jews but against those white elites who collaborated with them and especially against the emerging social-economic order which fostered such collaboration and made Jewish subversion possible. (Hence also the prominence of anti-Semites in nineteenth- and twentieth-century anti-modernist movements). The point here is that this people “that shall dwell alone” may have evolved a psychology destructively opposed to white society—a psychology, given its biological foundation, that transcends historical contingencies—but in itself this doesn’t explain why in one period Jews were fleeing pogroms and in another managing the White House.

Faye is much more convincing when he emphasizes those larger processes that turned Europeans against themselves, noting that the history leading to the white man’s present self-destruction—the history whose distant origins reside in the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the French Revolution and whose most imposing forms were philosophically expressed in the Enlightenment, politically in liberalism, and economically in capitalism—was part of a long, complex chain of causes and effects that cannot seriously be attributed to a Jewish conspiracy. Egalitarianism, human rights, materialism, individualism, and the categorical imperative, moreover, may all have been promoted by Jewish intellectuals at the white man’s expense, but to think that they are not preeminently products of European culture is possible only through an ignorance of that heritage. The sources of what Faye calls the present decay lie, as a consequence, as much in ourselves as elsewhere.[5] Since Jews, then, are only the occasional instrument of this historical subversion, they are no worse than the multitude of whites who also serve the subversive forces. To blame them for the predicament we’re in is not only false, Faye insists, but dishonorable.

There is a truth in this, just as vulgar or obsessive anti-Semitism which attributes all the white man’s woes to the “highly-ethnocentric, Christian-hating” Jews is something of a bugaboo, justifying its critics’ contempt. But there is nevertheless sound reason for seeing the forces assaulting white life and culture as Judaic in spirit—in the sense that they either stem directly from the Jews’ innate hostility to white existence, reflect the white man’s embrace of Jewish behavioral norms, represent what it means to be “modern” in Yuri Slezkine’s use of the term and “postmodern” in the current multicultural sense, or constitute part of the Jews’ historic campaign against Europe’s traditions, aristocracies, symbols, and transcendent values.[6] Relatedly it is hardly coincidental that for millennia European peoples designated the esprit juif—the spirit of “rule breakers, border crossers, and go-betweens”—as not just alien to their own, but destructive to their unique “synthesis of spirituality and virility.” (The more extreme forms of this designation went so far as to link Jews with “those cosmic forces which are destructive and evil and inimical to human life.”) This still doesn’t make the Jews the chief source of white decadence, and Faye is certainly correct in emphasizing that Europeans have never needed them to engage in ethnomasochist behavior—for the entire course of modern, especially twentieth-century, history has been cause enough. But it does suggest that white and Jewish spirits are fundamentally opposed and that the hegemony of the latter cannot but have a distorting effect on white being. Indeed, it is the white man’s alienation from his spirit that causes him, as Heidegger says, to “fall out of being” and thus into decay, decline, and decadence.[7]

Revealingly, Faye ignores the fact that anti-Semitism appears in virtually every period of European history. He understands the Jewish Question only as a facet of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century developments and does so without actually examining the nature of our increasingly Hebraicized world. Moreover, it is only the Jews’ “schizophrenia,” the divided loyalties they harbor toward Europe, that he sees as arousing European hostility and provoking gentile opposition. Though acknowledging the often negative offshoots of this “schizophrenia,” he also claims it is nowhere near as threatening as the menace posed by Islam and that it is frequently mitigated by the Jews’ identification with “Western Civilization.” Faye thus joins those nationalists who seek “freedom from history” in order to pursue anti-immigrant politics without being associated with the demobilizing tags of anti-Semitism, Nazism, and extremism, dismissing, in effect, the contention that it is the anathematization of these earlier expressions of European being that empowers and legitimatizes the system’s anti-European policies.

It would be historically unserious, I believe, to dispute Faye’s claim that the Jews are not wholly responsible for the white man’s decline. But at the same time it is quite another thing to then claim, as Faye does, that the Jewish Question is today passé and of no political interest to the struggle for white survival. There’s a difference he ignores between discarding the baggage of past failures and avoiding the challenges the past poses for the present. A case in point is the Holocaust Story, whose misrepresentation, as Graf, among many others, points out, is used to defame Europe’s greatest people, the Germans, demonizing not only their history and ethnos, but that of all Europeans. A European or white nationalist movement to stave off the race’s destruction by accepting this defamation and demonization, along with the lies, propaganda, and repression accompanying them, might arguably enhance its electoral prospects, but the proponents of such a system-accommodating movement never seem to concern themselves with the kind of “nationalism” it would represent or the sort of goals it could possibly achieve—or if it would actually be able to address the real sources of European decay. Following Heidegger, I would go further and argue that Europe and the “West” will never be reborn without the spiritual rebirth of the Germans and that this is impossible as long as they are forced to cower in the shadow of the Holocaust Story.

The Enemy

Of even greater concern for Faye is his belief that nationalists and identitarians fixated on the Jewish Question ignore the real enemy: The non-white, Muslim-led hordes encamped on Europe’s southern border who threaten to replace the indigenous European population.

Confronted with six million non-whites inside France and the millions to arrive in the near future, Faye argues that 600,000 French Jews (the largest Jewish community in Europe) are hardly an enemy. He even argues that the power and influence of France’s Jewish minority, virtually omnipotent in anti-Semitic eyes, are waning. Unlike the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, Jews no longer dominate the nation’s financial heights, having been supplanted by the holders of Anglo-American pension funds, Arab petro-dollars, and the new East Asian economies; he also stresses that none of the world’s top fifty banks are Jewish owned. Likewise, in French education, the judiciary, the unions, and the civil service, Jewish power is marginal and in French politics, ideas, and media, while still prominent, is hardly dominant. Possessing powers incommensurate with their demographic weight, these powers are not, then, what they once were. Future trends (world opinion’s increasingly negative image of Israel, European Islamization, and the rise of the East Asian powers and a non-Eurocentric world order, etc.), Faye insists, will exacerbate this tendency. At the same time, Jews are allegedly becoming less and less supportive of mass Third World immigration.[8] In a period when Europe is under assault by Islam, revisionism and other anti-Jewish engagements, he argues, are “a typical example of a phony problem, a strategy of avoidance, of taking shelter in the past” (p. 171).[9] Anti-Semitism, in a word, has become “an ideological relic of a dead past,” irrelevant to the great challenge posed by the rising tide of color.

I imagine TOQ readers will find this a strange argument, given that Jewish power in the United States has never been greater or more destructive and that even France, the one European country not completely subject to American hegemony, has recently been captured by “semi-neocons.”[10] How, then, can Faye, given his history and publishing record, make such a claim?  One obvious reason, touched on above, is that anti-Jewish politics have the effect of politically marginalizing nationalists and that for them to break out of their ghetto they need to conform to the system’s underlying principles or else risk continued irrelevance. His argument (which is not entirely wrong) nevertheless rests on the assumption that the European situation is roughly analogous to the American one. Jewish power in Europe, however, has never been as great as its American counterpart and has a different nature, for it is a product of the American-centric system introduced in 1945—a system, I would argue, whose deracinating, globalizing, and totalizing economic and technological tendencies are preeminently Jewish, though it takes an ostensibly American form (Graf describes it as “a Frankenstein monster with a non-Jewish body and a Jewish head”).[11]

Given the power of this system’s centripetal forces and the degree to which the old European order was destroyed during the Second World War (and thus the degree to which it is no longer possible to speak of Europe as an autonomous actor), Faye in my view underestimates the external (American) sources of Jewish influence. For this system—which today subjects the entire planet to its “democratic” terrorism—is geared to the transnational imperatives of U.S. planners, which has the effect of subordinating Europe to its inherently Judeo-American logic. When Faye points out that France’s pro-immigration policies were mainly the work of gentiles and that countries like Sweden, Ireland, and Spain, with negligible or non-existent Jewish communities, have enacted similar ethnocidal policies, he is quite right to argue that Jewish involvement, if any, was peripheral. Nevertheless, the anti-European system prompting the implementation of these policies—the system which transferred sovereignty from the nation-state to the New World’s global economic order—is very much Jewish in depriving whites of everything that might prevent their submersion in its great coffee-colored market.[12] In effect, Europe’s philosemitic policies are facets of the “invisible empire” to which its comprador elites are irreparably tied, and this empire (with its liberal-capitalist impetus and often Jewish leadership) is inherently disposed to destroying the white man’s “racial and blood values.” Faye, in fact, has himself in numerous previous works emphasized the degree to which the United States has lobbied, if not compelled, Europeans to promote multiculturalism, mass Third World immigration, and Muslim Turkey’s admission to the EU.[13]

All this is mentioned by way of getting to Faye’s most important question: Who is the enemy?

From the Schmittian perspective of twentieth-century nationalism, the designation of the enemy is at the heart of every grande politique. “The enemy,” Carl Schmitt writes, “exists only when . . . one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity.”[14] Historically, the enemy was a rival state that threatened one’s survival. But the political—which poses man’s highest existential tasks—is invoked whenever friend and enemy polarities come into play, as one adversary “intends to negate his opponent’s way of life.”[15] That the question of race replacement touches on the continued existence of the white biosphere makes racial politics “political” in the highest sense.

Even though “some” Jews continue to employ their double standard, Faye believes they are not the life and death threat that the non-white invaders pose. And though their open border advocacy and their pathologization of white identity have helped foster conditions facilitating the replacement of the indigenous white population, Faye questions if this makes the Jews a greater threat than the Third World interlopers—who are presently ethnically cleansing neighborhoods, disrupting traditional ways of life, and de-Europeanizing Europe. Worse, an obsession with Jews has caused not a few nationalists to ally with their enemy—the Muslims, who are qualitatively more anti-white and supremacist than the Jews. (The latest, most disastrous example of this was the 2007 presidential campaign of Le Pen’s National Front.) He claims, moreover, that the Jews (specifically their intellectuals) are not solely responsible for opening the gates to the “barbarians,” that they have in fact been joined by other, often more consequential, white culprits, and that to waste energy focused on their gate-opening activities is to neglect the real danger lurking in the suburbs and on the border. If nationalists are to mount an effective resistance to the anti-European forces, it is imperative, Faye insists, that they jettison their anti-Semitism and wage their struggle within the system’s philosemitic terms.

There is both a political and a theoretical issue at stake here. In our postmodern age, when the jus publicum Europaeum has given way to globalism’s anti-European order, nationalists confront a situation where they are obliged to fight a multi-front, asymmetrical war: Against an external enemy, the non-white hordes replacing Europeans, and against an internal enemy, those liberal elites, Jewish and otherwise, who promote and make possible this replacement. Faye and the reformists focus on the external enemy, his critics, like Graf, on the internal enemy. And, as in every multi-front war, the question inevitably arises: Who is the principal enemy, the gate keepers or the gate crashers?

For Faye, it’s the non-white immigrants, and every distraction from this realization is a step closer to the European’s impending Islamization. For Graf, it is the system responsible for the Third World invasion. “Effective struggle against immigration within the current framework,” he writes, “is totally impossible. In order to stop the invasion the system has to be overthrown either by a popular insurrection or a coup d’état.” This is a revolutionary answer that strikes at the root of the problem.[16] Of course, such an anti-institutional answer is one that neither Faye nor the conservative majority in nationalist ranks is presently willing to entertain—if for no other reason than it slights the visible enemy in our midst and complicates white efforts to reform existing policies.

How one sees the system, then, affects how one defines the principal enemy. And how one sees the Jews in relation to the system decides if this makes them the principal enemy or not. To the degree, therefore, that the esprit juif is the system’s spirit and favors specifically Jewish interests at the expense of white ones, the Jews are the real danger. But—and this is the qualification that muddies the waters—to the degree that it is the system itself, independent of the Jews, that is responsible for our predicament and thus the degree to which the Jews are only one of its instruments, then they are just facets of a larger, more complex web of subversion—which makes them an adversary to be sure, and one with a very distinct visage, but not, in themselves, the principal enemy.[17]

There is, admittedly, nothing neat and tidy in this, yet it is characteristic of late twentieth-century struggle that nationalists, compelled to fight both foreign invaders and their own collaborating ruling class, face nearly insurmountable challenges under the worst possible conditions.[18] The totalizing character of such struggle, with its universalization of enmity and its confusion of opponents, again owes a great deal to the breakdown of the Eurocentric system of nation-states after 1945, for this breakdown, in addition to threatening the existence of white people and denying a future to their children, completely undermined the traditional European “bracketing” of war—to such an extent that it now increasingly pits the state against the nation, conflates the forces of civil war, revolution, and national liberation, and entails a struggle that is as much about class as it is about race.[19] This makes it very difficult to designate the principal enemy. Relatedly, it raises a question of the highest political order, which Faye neglects entirely: For instead of exonerating the Jews, whose collaboration with the system is either necessary or sufficient to its purpose, and instead of abandoning our European past, which offers numerous historical examples of successfully waged anti-system struggles, Faye might have asked if anything meaningful can possibly be accomplished within a system which he himself once described as “the destroyer of nations” (le tueur des peuples).

Notes

[1] Jürgen Graf, “The New Jewish Question, or The End of Guillaume Faye,” http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEGAL2006/Faye.htm ^[2]; my quotations come from the French original, “La nouvelle question juive ou la fin de Guillaume Faye,” http://www.juergen-graf.sled.name/articles/graf-la-fin-de-guillaume-faye.html ^[3]. Cf. “Dr. Robert Faurisson on Guillaume Faye,” http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/ 11/23/dr-robert-faurisson-on-guillaume-faye-2/ ^[4]; Michael O’Meara, “Guillaume Faye and the Jews ^[5].”

[2] For disclosure’s sake, I should mention the divided loyalties affecting my review of this work. Revisionism, especially as disseminated by Mark Weber’s IHR, played a major role in shaping my work as a professionally trained historian and as a racial nationalist; relatedly, revisionist ideas led to the termination of my short-lived academic career. My identification with Graf is thus both personal and intellectual. At the same time, I helped introduce English-speaking nationalists to Faye’s ideas, which I continue to think are an invaluable contribution to the coming European Revolution.

[3] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique (Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks, 2002).

[4] This is not an apology, but a simple historical observation—one, moreover, made with the knowledge that most non-Orthodox distillations of Christianity are today objectively anti-white and that, at the same time, any credible nationalist movement in America cannot be anti-Christian.

[5] In probing the sources of European decay, our greatest thinkers are closer to Faye than to the anti-Semitic vulgate: Think of Nietzsche’s theory of nihilism, Weber’s Iron Cage, Heidegger’s evasion of being, Spengler’s organic cycles, or Evola’s loss of Tradition—all of which emphasize the self-destructive tendencies inherent in European culture. Kevin MacDonald’s own work, in considering the role that individualism, weak ethnocentrism, and moral universalism have played in making whites vulnerable to Jewish subversion, also acknowledges the effects of these European sources (though he tends to emphasize the primacy of the Jewish ones).

[6] When Slezkine argues (further substantiating MacDonald’s argument in The Culture of Critique) that the “Modern Age is the Jewish Age,” he affirms, in effect, the essentially Judaic character of the existing system. Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004). Julius Evola, whom I consider the most profound anti-Jewish critic of the twentieth century, actually ended up abandoning his anti-Semitism after 1945 because he thought it “absurd” to continue posing the Jewish Question when the “negative behavior attributed to Jews had become that of the majority of Aryans.” Julius Evola, Il Camminino del Cinabro (Milan: Scheiwiller, 1972). See also Michael O’Meara, “Evola’s Anti-Semitism ^[6].”

[7] Martin Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics, trans. by G. Fried and R. Polt (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

[8] As evident in the immigration policies of Nicolas Sarkozy, French Jews are becoming less supportive of the present Afro-Arab immigration, which is the principal source of the growing anti-Semitism. But this does not mean, as Faye assumes, that they are beginning to oppose Third World immigration tout court. Rather, Sarkozy’s “select immigration” is increasingly oriented to East Asians, who are both less of a welfare charge and indifferent to Judaism. See Michael O’Meara, “Racial Nationalism and the French Presidential Election of 2007,” http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=1703 ^[7].

[9] This argument bears comparison to the argument he makes against European anti-Americanism. See Guillaume Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial: Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain (Paris: L’Æncre, 2004); Michael O’Meara, “Europe’s Enemy: Islam or America? ^[8]”

[10] “Semi” because Sarko l’Américain has on several occasions threatened (and threatens still) to mutate into Sarko l’Européen—given that the geopolitical imperatives of France’s leadership of Europe overrides the pro-Americanism of his neocon ideology. See “Candide postmoderne, avec Ray-Bans, jeans et ‘esprit apocalyptique’” (1-11-08), http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=4819 ^[9].

[11] The history of this system has yet to be written. It was anticipated as early as 1950 in Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth, tr. by G. L. Ulmen (New York: Telos Press, 2006). Its origins have been examined in Jean-Gilles Malliarakis, Yalta et la naissance des blocs (Paris: Eds. du Trident, 1982, 1995). One of its better recent theoretical conceptualizations is Alexandre Zinoview, La grande rupture: Sociologie d’un monde bouleversé (Lausanne: Eds. L’Age d’Homme, 1999). Faye himself attempted to grasp the system’s nature in one of his more important early works, Le Système à tuer les peuples (Paris: Ed. Copernic, 1981).

[12] Julius Evola, Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem (NP: Thompkins & Cariou, 2003).

[13] “What we call Americanism is nothing else . . . than the Jewish spirit distilled.” Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, trans. by M. Epstein (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1982). Writing at the end of the twentieth century, Kevin MacDonald makes a similar contention in The Culture of Critique. The difference is that Sombart believed the liberal-capitalist core of American civilization was inherently Judaic, while MacDonald contends that it was imposed.

[14] Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, trans. by G. Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

[15] Schmitt, Concept of the Political.

[16] Cf. Michael O’Meara, “The Defeat of the Jewnited States as Imagined by H. A. Covington,” http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=1936; and “Through the Barrel of a Gun or Not at All,” http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=2236.

[17] For decades now, the Jewish spirit has obviously influenced the “hostile elite” managing America’s world system, but whether this elite is Jewish in essence is something that anti-Jewish critics have yet to prove.

[18] Think of France in the early Sixties, when General Salan’s Organisation Armée Secrète had to fight a non-white enemy in Algiers and a French enemy in Paris; or the situation today in Iraq, as Sunni insurgents simultaneously battle Shi’ites, the puppet government in Baghdad, and the foreign army of occupation.

[19] Carl Schmitt, “Theory of the Partisan,” Telos no. 127 (Spring 2004).

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/the-new-jewish-question-of-guillaume-faye/

Guillaume Faye and the Jews

Guillaume Faye & the Jews

By Michael O'Meara 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Few postwar thinkers in my view have played a greater role in ideologically resisting the forces assaulting Europe’s incomparable bioculture than Guillaume Faye. This was publicly evident at the international conference on “The White World’s Future” held in Moscow in June 2006, which he helped organize. It’s even more evident in the six books he’s written in the last seven years and in the innumerable articles, interviews, and conferences in which he’s alerted Europeans to the great challenges threatening their survival.

In this spirit he has developed an “archeofuturist” philosophy that takes its inspiration from the most primordial and Faustian urgings of our people’s spirit; he has incessantly warned of the threat posed by the Third World, specially Islamic, invasion of the former white homelands; he has promoted European collaboration with Russia and made the case for a white imperium stretching from Dublin to Vladivoskov; he privileges biopolitics over cultural or party politics; he’s developed a theory of the interregnum that explains why the existing system of subversion will soon collapse; and he’s successfully promoted anti-liberal ideas and values in a language and style that transcends the often ghettoized discourse of our movement. But despite his incomparable contribution to the forces of white resistance, he has always remained suspiciously silent on certain key issues, particularly regarding the Jews, the so-called Holocaust, and the interwar heritage of revolutionary nationalism — even though he is routinely referred to in the MSM as a fascist, a racist, and a negationist. On those few occasions he has spoken of Israel or the Jews, it has been to say that their cause is not ours and that we need to focus on the dangers bearing down on us. To this degree, his silence was tolerable. Recently, however, he’s broken this silence and taken a stance likely to alienate many of his supporters.

The occasion was an interview granted to the Zionist France-Echos — now posted at subversive.com. When asked in the interview about anti-Semitism in the “identitarian” movement he leads, Faye responded in explicitly philosemitic terms:

Anti-Judaism (a term preferable to anti-Semitism) has melted away like snow in the sun. There are, of course, pockets of resistance . . . . But this tendency is more and more isolated . . . because of the massive problem posed by Islamizaton and Third World immigration. In these circumstance, anti-Judaism has been forgotten, for the Jew no longer appears as a menace. In the milieux I frequent, I never read or hear of anti Jewish invectives. . . . [A]nti-Judaism is a political position that is obsolete, unhelpful, out of date, even when camouflaged as anti-Zionism. This is no longer the era of the Dreyfus Affair. Anti-Jews, moreover, are caught in an inescapable contradiction: they despise Jews, but claim they dominate the world, as if they were a superior race. This makes anti-Judaism a form of political schizophrenia, a sort of inverted philosemitism, an expression of resentment. One can’t, after all, detest what one aspires to . . . . My position is that of Nietzsche: To run down the Jews serves no purpose, it’s politically stupid and unproductive.

Besides ignoring the fact that Jewish influence has never been more dominant and more destructive of white existence, three questions are raised in this quote:

(1) Is it that the problems posed by immigration and Islam have trivialized those once associated with the Jews?

(2) Or is it that Islam and immigration reveal that the Jews are not (and never were) a problem, that the anti-Judaism of the Dreyfus era, like other historical expressions of anti-Judaism, was simply a product of a culture whose traditionalism or resentment “stupidly” demonized the Jew as the Other?

(3) Or is it that one can’t have two enemies at the same time, that the threat posed by Islamic immigration is greater than whatever threat the Jews might pose, making it strategically necessary to focus on the principal enemy and to relegate the other to a lesser degree of significance?

Faye tends to conflate these questions, leaving unsaid what needs to be said explicitly. He assumes, moreover, that the Islamic or Third World threat (both in the form of the present invasion and internationally) is somehow unrelated to the Jews. He acknowledges, of course, that certain Jews have been instrumental in promoting multiracialism and immigration. But the supposition here is that this is just a tendency on the part of certain Jews and that to think otherwise is to commit the error of seeing them in the way that “old-fashioned” anti-Semites once did. At first glance, his argument seems to be that of Jared Taylor and American Renaissance, being a tactical decision to take the path of least resistance (which many of us don’t support but nevertheless can live with). Faye, though, goes beyond Taylor, making claims about the Jews that will inevitably compromise our movement.

The anti-Islamism and philosemitism that Faye here combines reflect a deep ideological divide in French nationalist ranks. This divide is symptomatic of a larger schism that is rarely discussed by white nationalists, but has had worldwide ramification for our movement. Since 1945, when the anti-white forces of triumphant American liberalism and Russian Communism, in alliance with Zionism, achieved world hegemony, the hounded and tattered ranks of the nationalist right, in Europe and America, split into a number of divergent, if not contradictory tendencies. With the advent of the Cold War and the formation of the Israeli state, these tendencies tended to polarize around two camps. One tendency, including certain ex-Nazis, allied with postwar anti-Communism, viewing the Russian threat as the greater danger to Western Civilization. Given Israel’s strategic place in the Cold War alignment, these anti-Communists treated organized Zionism as an ally and downplayed the “anti-Semitism” that had traditionally been part of their anti-liberal nationalism. This tendency was opposed by another, which also included former Nazis, but it saw Russian Communism in terms of Stalin’s alleged anti-Semitism and nationalism. This led it to assume an anti-American, anti-Zionist, and pro-Third World position.

The legacy of this polarization continues to affect white nationalist ranks, even though elements of it have been jumbled and rearranged in recent years. As ideal types, however, neither tendency is completely supportable nor insupportable. White nationalism, I suspect, will succeed as a movement only in synthesizing the positive, pro-white elements in each tendency. For a long time, I thought Faye represented this synthesis, for he was both pro-Russian without being hysterically anti-American, anti-Third World without supporting the globalist super-structure dominating the “West.” More impressive still, his orientation was to a revolutionary, racially conscious, and archeofuturist concept of the European race that refused any accommodation to the existing regime.

Recently, however, his anti-Islamism seems to have morphed into a Zionism that cannot but trouble our movement. In the France-Echos interview he says in reference to his nationalist critics that it is nonsensical to call him a Zionist since he is not a Jew. But in the same breath he adds:

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 biocultural] 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.

He goes on to argue that those who are viscerally anti-American and anti-Zionist are implicitly pro-Islam, pro-Arab, and immigrationist, allies in effect of the Left’s Third-Worldism. Pointing to Alain de Benoist’s GRECE, Christian Bouchet’s revolutionary nationalist movement, and those “Traditionalist” European converts to Islam, all of whom are fascinated by Iran’s new leadership and by Hezbollah, he claims, with some justice, that these anti-Zionists are in the process of abandoning their commitment to Europe.

Faye’s contention that Islam (the civilization) is a mortal threat to Europe is solidly grounded. While one might appreciate Amadinehjad’s critique of Zionist propaganda, especially as it takes the form of the Holocaust, or Nasrallah’s humbling of the IDF, to go from there to supporting Iran’s Islamic Republic or Islamic insurgents in general (think of the Paris Ramadan riots of November 2005) is, for white nationalists, a betrayal of another sort. Faye here acts as an important bulwark against those in our ranks who would leave it to others to fight our battles — others, if history is any guide, who won’t
hesitate to subjugate us once the opportunity arises.

Where Faye crosses the line in my view is in arguing that Jews ought to be considered part of European civilization, that the defense and reinforcement of the Israeli state is a vital imperative for Europe, and that Israel is the vanguard in the struggle against “our common enemy.” The collapse of Israel, he claims, would “open the door to the total conquest of Europe.” He concludes by declaring that he is no Judeophile. “I consider the Jews allies, as part of European civilization, with a very particular and original status as a people apart.” He rejects anti-Judaism “not because it is immoral, but because it is unuseful, divisive, infantile, politically inconsistent, out dated.” For ostensively strategic reasons, then, he rejects anti-Judaism.

It is not my intention here to critique Faye’s new-found Zionism (which I find insupportable) — that would require a format different from this report. It is also not my intention to put his other ideas in doubt, for I continue to believe that he has made an incomparable intellectual contribution to the cause of white resistance. I do, however, question how Faye can consider a non-European people like the Jews to be part of our biocivilization; how he can ignore the destructive role they have played in European and especially American history; how he can dismiss their role in fostering the anti-white forces of multiculturalism, globalism, and the existing regime; and how he can think that Israel is not a geopolitical liability to Europe and Russia?

Finally, I can’t help but recall an earlier occasion when Faye argued that our survival as a people depends on “ourselves alone” — and not on appeals to those whose interests are inevitably served at our expense.

From VNN, July 31, 2006

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/guillaume-faye-the-jews/

Europe's Enemy: Islam or America?

Europe’s Enemy: Islam or America?
Guillaume Faye’s Le coup d’Etat mondial

Michael O'MEARA

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Guillaume Faye
Le coup d’Etat mondial:
Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain
(Global Coup d’Etat: An Essay on the New American Imperialism)
Paris: L’Æncre, 2004

 Fas est ab hoste doceri. (It is permitted to learn from the enemy.) — Ovid

This past spring, for the sixth time in six years, Guillaume Faye has published a book that redefines the political contours of European nationalism (“nationalism” here referring not to the defense of the nineteenth-century “nation-state,” but of Magna Europa). Like each of his previous works, Coup d’Etat mondial speaks to the exigencies of the moment, as well as to the perennial concerns of the European ethnos. In this spirit, it offers a scathing critique of the “new American imperialism” and the European anti-Americanism opposing it, while simultaneously contributing to a larger nationalist debate over Europe’s destiny. Framed in terms of Carl Schmitt’s Freund/Feind designation, this debate revolves around the question: Who is Europe’s enemy? For Schmitt, this question is tantamount to asking who threatens Europe’s state system and, by implication, who threatens its unique bioculture.

During the Cold War, the more advanced nationalists rejected the conventional view that Soviet Communism was the principal enemy and instead designated the United States. This is evident in the works of Francis Parker Yockey, Jean Thiriart, Adriano Romualdi, Otto Strasser, Alain de Benoist, and in the politics of the sole European statesman to have defended Europe’s independence in the postwar period: Charles de Gaulle.

It was not, however, America’s occupation of postwar Europe that alone aligned these nationalists against the U.S.—though this was perhaps cause enough. Rather, it was the liberal democratic basis of America’s postwar order, whose deculturating materialism was seen as corrupting the biocultural foundations of European life. The Soviets’ brutal occupation of Eastern Europe may therefore have broken the bodies of those opposing them, but America, for nationalists, threatened their souls.

Today, this anti-American opposition persists, but has come to signify something quite different. What has changed, and this starts to be evident in the late 1980s and even more so in the ’90s, is Third World immigration, which puts the American threat in an entirely altered perspective. In nationalist ranks, Faye stands out as the principal proponent of the view that Islam and its nonwhite immigrants now constitute Europe’s enemy and that America, though still an adversary, has become a less threatening menace.

For Faye, the New American Imperialism (NAI) associated with the Bush administration supplants the earlier, more implicit imperialism of the Cold War era. This imperialism, though, is not specifically Bush’s creation, for it arose in the Cold War’s wake and took form in subsequent aggressions on Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.

The older imperialism had a Wilsonian facade, legitimated with moral pronouncements and a naive, but occasionally sincere, effort to regulate the world according to its liberal principles. By contrast, the NAI rejects this “softer” (and actually more effective) variant of American power for a policy that aggressively asserts U.S. military might irrespective of “world opinion.” It ceases thus to pursue its interests through international organizations embodying its liberal world view and instead embraces a militaristic unilateralism that defies international convention in the name of America’s “vital interests.”

Against the arguments of its apologists, Faye claims the NAI is not the hard-headed, morally clear assertion of American power that they make it out to be, but rather a puerile, utopian, and unrealistic one based on the notion that tout est permis!— anything goes. The United States may be the world’s dominant power, but it lacks what Aristotle and the conservative tradition of statecraft understood as the enduring basis of power: prudence. For in confusing dominance with omnipotence, the NAI’s neoconservative executors, like all who draw the wages of hubris, inadvertently earn themselves—and America—the likelihood of a tragic fall.

In this vein, U.S. vital interests (what the present administration defines in Zionist, militarist, and globalist terms) are treated as the sole permissible basis of national sovereignty. A state—”rogue” or otherwise—that exercises its autonomy, fabricates weapons of mass destruction (i.e., weapons capable of ensuring its sovereignty), or resists Washington’s dictates is deemed an enemy and risks reprisal. Implicit in this redefinition of America’s world role is the assumption that the United States is the world’s gendarme, its lone sovereign power, obliged to uphold a law which is synonymous with its own strategic interests.

Moreover, the NAI’s assumption that the United States has the capacity to dominate the planet is, if nothing else, simpleminded. Its proponents might think they are breaking with the legalistic or Kantian postulates of liberal internationalism by pursuing hegemonist objectives with military methods (which, in itself, would be unobjectionable), but this readiness to substitute raw power for other forms of power (that is, for power exercised in the “thieves’ den” of the United Nations or through international regulatory agencies the United States created after 1945) is informed by the Judeo-Protestant illusion that America does God’s work in the world. This cannot but disconnect them from all they seek to dominate, for in applying their illusory principles to an intractable reality, they cannot but lurch from disaster to disaster.

The NAI’s peculiar mix of political Machiavellianism and millennial Calvinism has been especially prominent in Iraq, the conquest of which was to be a cakewalk. Not only did Bush and his advisers have no idea of what they were getting into, they completely misread the capacities of American power. If the U.S. Air Force possesses unparalleled firepower, the modern American soldier cannot fight on the ground. With half its army occupying a country with no military capacity and its helicopter gunships, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and body-armored ground troops arrayed against lightly-armed and untrained insurgents, it is stretched to the breaking-point.

Despite its imperialist ambitions, America is not Rome. Faye argues that it is more like a house of cards—an ephemeral economic-political enterprise—lacking those ethnic, religious, and cultural traits that go into making a great people and a great power.

As any white Californian will attest, there is, in fact, no longer anything particularly American about America, only people like the turbaned Sikh who drives the local cab, the Mexican illegal who mows our neighbors’ lawn, the Indian programmer who replaces his higher-paid white counterpart, the Chinese grocer who sells us beer and cigarettes late at night, the African who empties the bedpans in our nursing homes, the Africans of American birth who run our cities and public agencies, and the white zombies insulated in distant, manicured suburbs, where the voices of children are rarely heard. For Faye, this disparate hodgepodge is not a nation in any historical sense, only an artificial social system, whose members, as Lewis Lapham has written, are “united by little else except the possession of a credit card and password to the internet.” Why, it seems almost unnecessary to ask, would an American Gurkha risk his life for such an entity?

The military technology of Imperial America undoubtedly lacks an equal, but its centrality to U.S. power, Faye claims, testifies to nothing so much as the enfeebled cognitive abilities of its elites, who think their computerized gadgetry is a substitute for those primordial human qualities that go into making a people or a nation—qualities such as those that steeled not just Rome’s republican legions, but the Celtic-Saxon ranks of the Confederacy, the gunmen of the IRA, the indomitable battalions of the Wehrmacht, and the Red Army of the Great Patriotic War. In the absence of these qualities forged by blood and history, the NAI’s space-age military (whose recruiters now slip beneath the border to find the “volunteers” for its imperial missions) is a paper tiger, no match for a nation in arms—not even a pathetic, misbegotten nation like Iraq.

The hubris-ridden neoconservatives leading America into this costly adventure from which it is unlikely to recover did so without the slightest consideration of the toll it would take on the country’s already stressed and overtaxed institutions. Fighting for objectives that are everywhere challenged and with troops that are not only afraid to die, but have no idea of what they are dying for, the only thing they have actually accomplished is what they set out to combat: For they have inflamed the Middle East, enhanced Islam’s prestige, augmented bin Laden’s ranks, accelerated the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and turned the whole world against them.

Finally, Faye depicts the NAI as America’s last bloom. Both domestically and internationally, the signs of American decline, he observes, are more and more evident. For all that once distinguished America is now tarnished. Its melting pot no longer assimilates, its mixed-race population is inextricably Balkanized, its state is increasingly maniacal in its anti-white, anti-family, anti-community policies, and its market, the one remaining basis of social integration, is in serious difficulty, burdened by massive trade imbalances, unable to generate industrial jobs, hampered by astronomical debts and deficits, and increasingly dependent on the rest of the world. Even the country’s fabled democracy has ceased to work, with elections decided by the courts, fraudulent polling practices, and a pervasive system of spin and simulacrum. The virtuality of the political process seems, actually, to reflect nothing so much as the increasingly illusory authority of its reigning elites, whose oligarchic disposition and incompetent management necessitates a system of smoke and mirrors.

Internationally, America faces a no less bleak situation. Faye points out that the almighty dollar, for sixty years the world’s reserve currency, is now threatened by the euro (which means the country will soon no longer be able to live on credit); the European Union and Asia’s rising economic colossus are undermining its primacy in world markets; it faces the wrath of a billion Muslims worldwide and does nothing to stem the Muslim immigration to the United States; its occupation of Iraq is causing it to hemorrhage monetarily, morally, and militarily; and, not least, its image and integrity have been so damaged that raw power alone sustains its fragile hegemony.

Unlike the implicit imperialism of the Cold War era, the NAI is openly anti-European. In this vein, it opposes the continent’s political unification; treats its allies, even its British poodle, with contempt; practices a divide and conquer tactic which pits the so-called New Europe against the Old; and pursues a strategic orientation aimed at containing Europe and keeping it dependent on the U.S. security system.

In parallel with this anti-Europeanism, there has developed in Europe what Faye calls an “obsessional and hysterical anti-Americanism” (OHAA). He sees this development as so destructive of Europe’s self-interest that he factitiously suggests that it is probably subsidized by the CIA. For this anti-Americanism bears little relation to earlier forms of French anti-Americanism, which sought to defend France’s High Culture from the subversions of America’s culture industry. Nor are its right-wing proponents firmly in the pale of the “new revolutionary nationalism,” which designates liberalism’s cosmopolitan plutocracy as the chief enemy and resists its denationalization of capital, population, and territory. Instead, this OHAA not only does nothing to advance the European project, its fixation on the NAI inadvertently contributes to the Islamization and Third Worldization of the continent, hastening, in effect, its demise as a civilizational entity.

Touching the government and numerous nationalist tendencies, in addition to the perennially anti-identitarian Left, this OHAA is informed by a simpleminded Manichaeanism, which assumes that America’s enemy (Islam) is Europe’s friend. By this logic, America is depicted as a source of evil and Islam as a possible savior. In effect, these anti-Americans adopt not just Islam’s Manichaean world view, but that of the Judeo-Protestants who make up Bush’s political base. For like the neoconservative publicists and propagandists advising the administration and like the mullahs shepherding their submissive, but fanatical flocks, they too paint the world in black and white terms, the axis of good versus the axis of evil, with the enemy (America or Islam) seen as the source of all evil and our side (America or Islam) as the seat of all virtue.

And just as the liberal/neocon image of America is Hebraic, not Greco-European, these European anti-Americans carry in their demonstrations the flags of Iraq, Palestine, Algeria, and Morocco, shout Allah Akbar, and affirm their solidarity with Islam—all without the slightest affirmation of their own people and culture. This simple-minded Manichaeanism influences not only left-wing immigrationists bent on subverting Europe’s bioculture, but French New Rightists around Alain de Benoist, revolutionary nationalists around Christian Bouchet, traditionalists around the Austrian Martin Schwartz and the Italian Claudio Mutti, and various Eurasianists, as well as many lesser known tendencies. Worse, the politicians catering to this anti-Americanism oppose the NAI less for the sake of Europe’s autonomy than for that of its large Muslim minority. They thus refuse to be an American protectorate, but at the same time display the greatest indifference to the fact that they are rapidly becoming an Islamic-Arabic colony: Eurabia.

The economic and cultural war the United States wages on Europe, Faye stresses, ought to warrant the firmest of European ripostes, but to feel the slightest solidarity with Islam, even when “unjustly” attacked, is simply masochistic—for, if the last 1400 years is any guide, it seeks nothing so much as to conquer and destroy Europe. American plutocratic liberalism may be responsible for fostering transnational labor markets that import millions of Third World immigrants into the white Lebensraum, but if the latter are ignored for the sake of resisting the former, the end result may soon be that there will no Europeans left to defend. (Medically, this would be equivalent to fighting typhoid by ignoring the infectious bacillus assaulting the sufferer and instead concentrating exclusively on eliminating the contaminated food and water that transmit it —in which case the disease would be eradicated, but the patient not live to appreciate it).

The OHAA’s simpleminded politics, Faye argues, ends up not just misconceiving Europe’s enemy, but sanctioning its colonization, including the colonization of its mind. Like the “poor African” who is routinely portrayed as the victim of white colonialism, this sort of anti-Americanism makes the European the victim of U.S. imperialism. As we know from experiences on our side of the Atlantic, such a mentality takes responsibility for nothing and attributes everything it finds objectionable to the white man, in this case the American.

More pathetically still, in designating the United States as an irreconcilable enemy and Islam as a friend, these anti-Americans inadvertently dance to Washington’s own tune. Based on his La colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’Islam (2000) and in reference to Alexander del Valle’s Islamisme et Etats-Unis: Une alliance contre l’Europe (1999), Faye contends that since the early 1980s U.S. policy has aggressively promoted Europe’s Third Worldization—through its ideology of human rights, multiculturalism, and multiracialism, through its unrelenting effort to force the European Union to admit Turkey, but above all through its intervention on behalf of Islam in the Yugoslavian civil war. In all these ways fostering social, religious, cultural, and ethnic divisions that neutralize Europe’s potential threat to its own hegemony, it seeks to subvert European unity.

Looking to the Arab world to counter U.S. imperialism can only lead to national suicide. Those who advocate Europe’s alliance with the Third World are thus for Faye not simply naive, but neurotic. America may be a competitor, an adversary, a culturally distorting force, it may even be the principal international force for liberal cosmopolitanism, but in relation to the ethnocidal threat posed by Islam it is almost entirely innocuous. Europeans can always recover from the deculturation that comes from American domination, but not from the destruction of their genetic heritage, which Islam promises. Faye suggests that this anti-American neurosis, like the classic textbook pathology, designates America as its enemy for fear of acknowledging the danger looming under its very nose. As such, the anti-American Islamophiles refuse to see what’s happening in Europe, whose soft, dispirited white population is increasingly cowed by Islam’s conquering life-force. For however much American policy assaults Europe, it does not constitute the life-and-death danger which the invading Islamic colonizers do. To think otherwise is possible only by ignoring the primacy of race and culture. Instead, then, of pursuing chimerical relations with people whose underlying motive is the destruction of Europe as we know it, it would be wiser, Faye claims, for Europeans to view what’s happening in Iraq as the Chinese and Indians do: with cynical detachment and an eye to their own self-interest.

The greatest danger to Europe, and this idea is the axis around which Faye’s argument revolves, comes from the Islamic lands to the “South,” whose nonwhite immigrants are presently colonizing the continent, assuming control of its biosphere, and altering the foundations of European life. For European nationalists and governments to treat America, with its shallow, provisional power, as the enemy and Islam, with its nonwhite multitudes pressing on Europe’s borders, as its friend is the height of folly.

Not coincidentally, such an anti-Americanism is first cousin to the anti-white sensibility one finds in American liberal and neoconservative ranks. For just as those who try to convince us that America is a “creed,” not a white nation, these anti-Americans allying with Islam to fight the ricains betray their patrie—treating it as an abstraction and not a people. If Americans would be better off using their troops to defend their porous border instead of playing cowboy in Mesopotamia, as we white nationalists believe, Europeans loyal to their heritage would do better, Faye advises, to resist rather than to make common cause with those who are presently invading their lands.

To Faye, there can never be a total rupture between Europe and white America, given the blood bonds linking them. They might pursue divergent interests, over which dispute is inevitable, but the racial and cultural differences separating Europe from the Islamic world are insurmountable. In this spirit, he predicts that “the great clashes of the 21st century will not pit the United States against the rest of the world, but rather the Whitemen of the North against all the other racial-civilizational blocs.”

The culturally noxious effects of the liberal-democratic order of money imposed on Europe after 1945 caused European nationalists to define themselves in opposition not just to American-style liberalism, but to America as a nation. For those nationalists who continue to uphold this line, Third World immigration (which they do not favor) is viewed as an offshoot of a techno-economic system that dismisses biocultural qualities for the quantifying ones of the liberal market.

Only in fighting this system, and its chief sponsor, the United States, will Europe, they believe, be able to defend its heritage and its destiny. The Third World immigrants experiencing the deracination that comes with transnational labor markets cannot, then, be Europe’s enemy, for they too are its victim. Besides, their traditionalist, premodern culture makes them prospective allies in what is seen as a common struggle against America’s “cultureless civilization.”

But even in granting that there is a certain logic—even a certain justice—to this position, it rests upon two false premises, which Guillaume Faye has been almost alone in Europe in polemicizing: 1) that culture trumps race and 2) that race is unrelated, if not irrelevant, to culture.

His Coup d’Etat mondial offers, then, a powerful antidote to this false and potentially fatal reasoning. It demystifies the new American imperialism, revealing its tenuous character. It exposes the self-destructive character of an opposition refusing to recognize Europe’s real enemy. And, most important, in designating this enemy—the nonwhite colonizers who hope to turn Europe into a dar-al-Islam—it designates what is the single, most unavoidable, and absolutely necessary duty of white people everywhere: the defense of their homelands.

Source: TOQ, vol. 5, no. 3 (Summer 2005)

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/europes-enemy-islam-or-americaguillaume-fayes-le-coup-detat-mondial/

Un essai italien sur Guillaume Faye

Archives de "Synergies Européennes" (2001)

 

Un essai italien sur Guillaume Faye

 

Ami de Guillaume Faye, Stefano Vaj est un jeune essayiste milanais à ses rares heures libres, que lui laisse un travail quotidien souvent fastidieux. Dans les colonnes de la revue L'Uomo libero (n°51, mai 2001), il vient de faire paraître un texte fort long sur celui qui fut l'espoir de la "Nouvelle Droite" française, mais qui en fut évincé selon des procédés abjects. Dans une préface à la nouvelle édition italienne du premier livre de Guillaume Faye, Le système à tuer les peuples, Robert Steuckers, autre évincé de la "Nouvelle Droite", avait dégagé les lignes de force de la pensée personnelle de Faye, puis expliqué, étape par étape, la procédure infâme de son éviction (éd. franç.: L'apport de Guillaume Faye à la "Nouvelle Droite" et petite histoire de son éviction, disponible gratuitement par voie électronique: [e-mail] ). Les deux essais concordent sur bien des points, preuve que les errements de la "Nouvelle Droite", et surtout de sa direction, sont désormais objets d'étude et qu'inexorablement, le temps réduira à néant les mensonges et les travestissements, les trahisons et les coups de Jarnac, qui ont émaillé l'histoire de cette mouvance, tout en étant camouflés par des virtuoses de la falsification. J'utilise ici à dessein le terme de "falsification", car c'est celui-là même qu'utilisent la direction de la ND/Canal historique, et les imbéciles qui l'écoutent, pour tenter, vaille que vaille, de barrer la route à l'objectivité, de sauver leurs supercheries de la faillite, d'éloigner le verdict de l'histoire. Les cercles raisonnables qui tentent de rétablir l'objectivité historique à Bruxelles sont dénoncés, par un faux théologien roulant des yeux fous, à la façon des cocaïnomanes, comme étant les "usines bruxelloises de la falsification", voire comme l'expression de la "mafia belge" (... censuré par charité...)  A la suite de l'essai de Vaj, voilà que surgiront sans doute du sol lombard des "usines milanaises de la falsification" et une "mafia padanienne". Et demain, si à Vienne ou à Minsk, ou à Bucarest ou à Amsterdam, d'autres examineront le corps pantelant et moribond de la ND/Canal historique en posant un diagnostic sérieux et objectif, les usines de falsification couvriront le continent tout entier, augmentant proportionnellement les délires paranoïdes et narcissiques de la direction du dit "Canal historique".

 

Egalement disponibles: les trois critiques dextristes du "Cercle Gibelin", qui avait tenté vainement en mai et juin 2000, de replacer l'église au centre du village; le texte de Patrick Canavan intitulé "Du dextrisme"; les questions de Pierre Maugué à la ND; pour avoir gratuitement un dossier complet, envoyer un courriel à: [e-mail] ).

 

En attendant, par souci de transparence, il nous semble que le public français mérite de prendre acte de certains passages judicieux de l'essai de Vaj. Les voici:

 

«A l'époque les interventions critiques [de Faye] sur la question religieuse et sur les positions du GRECE en la matière étaient déjà "fortes".

 

C'est une expérience commune [à tous ceux qui ont vécu la ND/Canal historique de près] de constater que, dans le terme "néo-paganisme", le préfixe "néo" en vient à être graduellement oublié, si bien qu'on voit émerger aisément l'obsession pour la "positivité" et la "légitimation".

 

[…] la religion, du point de vue païen, est ce qui "lie ensemble" un peuple, ou ce qui le liait aux origines. Or, à partir du moment, où le paganisme, incontestablement, n'est plus une religion positive, ou s'il a le courage tragique et zarathoustrien de tenter, en toute conscience, de créer des formes originales et de nouvelles "tables de valeurs", certes inspirées du passé qu'il s'est choisi, mais néanmoins distinctes de ce passé, alors la recherche d'une "légitimation" de quelque type que ce soit devient absolument centrale. Raison pour laquelle les traditionalistes évoliens ou guénoniens finissent, à intervalles réguliers, par devenir des ésotéristes ("Les récits secrets", le Roi de la montagne, la tradition occulte, etc.), ensuite par déboucher souvent dans l'Islam, ou dans quelques variétés minoritaires du christianisme catholique ou orthodoxe, ou, pire, par tomber dans des syncrétismes vaguement maçonniques ou relevant du New Age.

 

Pour le GRECE, dès lors, comme avant lui pour le mouvement völkisch des années 30 en Allemagne, une telle recherche de légitimation était, et est, non pas d'ordre métaphysique, mais d'ordre essentiellement "sociologique", et porte à valoriser comme "politiquement" importants ces quelques fossiles de croyance ou ces habitudes populaires pour lesquelles on peut avancer l'hypothèse qu'elles ont une origine autochtone, pré-chrétienne ou simplement a-chrétienne, depuis la "fête du lapin" jusqu'aux "statuettes de la félicité", engageant ainsi le mouvement dans une voie de folklorisation.

 

Face à tout cela, ce fut une nouvelle fois Guillaume Faye qui revendiqua, dans un article important paru dans Eléments, les fondements d'un paganisme laïque, solaire et postmoderne, ouvertement nietzschéen, qui se distinguait nettement des obsessions sur la “nymphe derrière chaque buisson" et des manies du "catholicisme inversé" de bon nombre de composantes de la ND, bien trop conditionnées par la rivalité entre elles et les confessions chrétiennes pour ne pas finir par singer celles-ci.

 

Ce fut un article prophétique, quand on tient compte des "évolutions" ultérieures d'un de Benoist, qui, s'intéressait au départ à l'empirio-criticisme et à l'épistémologie de Russell ou de Popper, pour finir paradoxalement, après son livre Comment peut-être païen? et une parenthèse heideggerienne, dans des débats avec des chrétiens ou des juifs sur une métaphysique ou des valeurs communes, de matrice substantiellement néo-platonicienne ou néo-stoïque; ces débats visent évidemment à attribuer la palme de la supériorité morale tantôt à Sénèque, tantôt à Paul de Tarse, ou, mieux, pour s'opposer de concert à la sécularisation (voir par exemple, L'éclipse du sacré).

 

***

 

Si nos lecteurs souhaitent connaître quelques détails sur la fin du rêve (néo-droitiste), ils doivent lire les pages de la nouvelle et longue introduction de Robert Steuckers  à la deuxième édition italienne du Système à tuer les peuples, introduction qui s'ajoute à la mienne, imprimée dans la première édition.

 

Vers la fin de l'année 1986, la crise [du GRECE et de la ND/Canal historique] annoncée par Giorgio Locchi («Tout ce qui relève de la mode passe de mode…») arrive à maturation. Les animateurs des débuts du GRECE, s'ils n'ont pas été tout simplement récupérés par le système, se sont, d'un côté, enfermés dans une dimension de pur témoignage, ou, d'un autre côté, se sont mis toujours davantage en marge de la vie quotidienne de l'association, en demeurant fidèles à des bureaucrates occupés à récolter de l'argent pour payer un personnel chargé de récolter à son tour des fonds, pour payer un personnel également chargé de récolter de l'argent, et ainsi de suite, dans un processus de dégénérescence du style de l'église de scientologie. D'autres ont décidé de jouer la carte du Front National de Le Pen, qui, en ses temps de vaches maigres, avait été snobé avec rudesse par les néo-droitistes, et qui, depuis ses succès, peut se permettre, à son tour, de snober la ND, qui, en fin de compte, finit par ne plus être perçue comme un sujet animé par un projet historique ou politique, pour ne paraître plus que comme un instance productrice de conférences et de publications aux ambitions limitées.

 

Les thèmes des publications du milieu ND (en substance Eléments, Nouvelle école et son doublon au titre malheureux de Krisis) ont été de moins en moins variés et toujours de plus en plus littéraires. Et de Benoist lui-même, dans une sorte de régression romantique, confessa à Faye, vers le milieu des années 80, de s'intéresser graduellement de plus en plus aux "images" plutôt qu'aux "idées". Faye, dans une conversation privée avec nous, à la même époque, décrivait l'opposition au sein du mouvement comme celle entre "les germanomanes non surhumanistes" et "les surhumanistes non germanomanes".

 

Parmi les conséquences de cette dérive, nous noterons une tendance extrême à se réclamer et à survaloriser les composantes et les secteurs les plus biscornus de la révolution conservatrice, pour autant que ceux-ci puisse se revendiquer d'une certaine dissidence par rapport aux régimes fascistes des années 30. Ensuite, la concentration graduelle des efforts de recherche sur les thèmes de caractère essentiellement historique, littéraire et mythique s'est effectuée au détriment des grands thèmes sociologiques, techniques, scientifiques, politiques et économiques, sur lesquels, quelques années auparavant, le mouvement n'avait pas hésité à prendre des positions très originales et innovatrices.

 

Face à la pression croissante de la censure et de la "pensée unique", le mouvement ND a répondu par une tendance croissante à la compromission sur des thématiques pourtant décisives; tendance paradoxalement accompagnée par une crispation sur des questions secondaires voire par des "fuites en avant", difficilement compréhensibles pour le public de base de cette ND historique, dont notamment les clins d'œil au philo-soviétisme à la Jean Cau, qui furent des onirismes, rapidement liquidés par l'évolution historique de surcroît. Enfin, la capacité à ne pas se laisser enfermer dans les antithèses du débat politique contemporain (nationalisme/cosmopolitisme, libéralisme/socialisme, oui à l'avortement/non à l'avortement, écologisme/anti-écologisme, féminisme/anti-féminisme, impérialisme/anti-colonialisme, communisme/anti-communisme, etc.) pour opposer des catégories propres à la ND et originales, a fait place à une incapacité à prendre position sur les problèmes centraux de notre temps ou à un goût pour les formules brillantes ou pour les slogans qui ne sont que des fins en soi.

 

Passons maintenant au peigne fin les erreurs en politique et en propagande qui ont été commises. Avant toute chose, l'obsession d'être pris pour une sorte d'"Internationale noire", et la mécompréhension totale des potentialités d'une dimension véritablement internationale, alors que cela aurait été parfaitement possible; une telle dimension, par exemple, aurait conféré au mouvement la capacité de dépasser les crises locales contingentes, de réduire la vulnérabilité face à une répression potentielle et face au black-out médiatique; enfin, le mouvement aurait pu se donner la possibilité d'une mobilisation mythique des militants. Deuxièmement, le videment progressif des postes fonctionnels centraux du GRECE a pesé lourd dans la balance (le GRECE est progressivement devenu la proie du micro-léninisme de ses fonctionnaires, décrits plus haut, micro-léninisme toujours plus asphyxiant dans sa tentative de se survivre à lui-même dans le cadre de son improductivité métapolitique). Ce videment et ce refus de l'internationalisation ont empêché la création d'un "courant" ou d'une "communauté", dont les limites et l'identité n'ont nul besoin d'être bornées, car il vaut mieux agir pour créer et maintenir la richesse, la variété et l'organicité typiques des grands mouvements culturels et des lames de fonds civilisationnelles; mais l'internationalisation aurait surtout permis d'éviter les coups de la réaction, de pénétrer plus facilement les centres nerveux du pouvoir culturel et d'éviter, enfin, cette épouvantable "transformation en secte". Finalement, pour beaucoup, cette ambiguïté face aux problèmes de la politique réelle a fini par devenir insupportable, même si la direction de la ND considérait ces problèmes comme inessentiels à juste titre; mais ce désintérêt a fini par conditionner négativement, à cause d'un "angélisme", d'une "neutralité", d'un "maniérisme", toutes les prises de position publiques d'Alain de Benoist qui, pourtant, dans les années 70, n'avait pas hésité, sous les auspices de Maurizio Cabona, à assumer une rubrique dans Candido de Giorgio Pisani, un journal qui ne faisait pas précisément dans l'idyllique.

 

Guillaume Faye ne pouvait pas remédier seul à cette involution. Il animait sans cesse des initiatives toujours plus personnelles et "parallèles": de l'émission radiophonique postmoderne "Avant-Guerre" à la création de structures (éphémères) comme l'"Institut Européen des Arts et des Lettres" ou le "Collectif de Réflexion sur le Monde Contemporain", toutes initiatives que Faye a portées à bout de bras, sans recevoir un sou de salaire, un appui moral ou un financement ponctuel; ces belles initiatives, de grande qualité intellectuelle, ont été regardées d'abord avec indifférence, avec suffisance et puis, progressivement, avec une hostilité croissante par les chefs du mouvement, qui, s'ils ne s'occupaient pas de comptabilité, s'intéressaient en apparence plus aux vicissitudes de l'art moderne, à la poésie des elfes dans la Saxe du 15^ième siècle ou aux débats "décisifs" avec Thomas Molnar pour savoir si le divin s'exprime "dans" le monde ou "à travers" le monde.

 

L'abandon final de Faye est devenu ainsi le symbole de la fin d'un cycle  —tout comme le décès de Locchi, qui avait quitté le mouvement depuis plusieurs années déjà, au moment où la ND, apparemment, avait atteint son apogée. Fin d'un cycle mais aussi début d'une période de relative démobilisation dans toute l'Europe, où certains anciens se sont enfermés dans la politique traditionnelle, d'autres se sont retirés dans leur sphère privée ou dans de confortables chapelles locales, avec des contacts de plus en plus réduits avec l'extérieur. Sans animer de scission, sans tenter d'emporter le moindre franc ou la moindre adresse d'un fichier, sans tenter de "se convertir" à la Marco Tarchi, Faye s'est retiré dans l'ombre pendant une dizaine d'années, tandis que le GRECE à continuer à utiliser ses écrits, bien sûr sans lui payer des droits d'auteur, mais en répandant à qui voulait l'entendre des ragots, où Faye était tour à tour devenu fou, avait le cerveau brûlé par la drogue ou avait été recruté par la CIA».

 

Extrait de l'étude de Stefano VAJ, «Per l'autodifesa etnica totale. Riflessioni su "La colonisation de l'Europe" di Guillaume Faye», in: L'Uomo Libero, n°51, Milan, mai 2001.

 

         

G. Faye: Why we fight

Why We Fight

Guillaume Faye
Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance
Translated by Michael O’Meara
Arktos Media, 2011

People

An ethnic ensemble — biological, historical, cultural — with a territory, its fatherland, in which it is rooted.

‘The people’ — the very term is suspect to the cosmopolitan Left, which sees it as bordering on the politically incorrect — is not any statistical ‘population’; it’s an organic community embracing a transcendent body made up of ancestors, the living, and their heirs. Though marked with a certain spirituality, a people is diachronically rooted in the past and projects itself into the future — it’s submerged in biological and genetic matter, but at the same time it’s a historical, and spiritual, reality.

It’s belonging to a specific people that distinguishes a man and makes him human. Though modern Western egalitarian doctrines reduce peoples to indifferent socioeconomic aggregates, peoples actually constitute the organic bases of the human race; similarly, such doctrines conceive of the ideal man as an individual ‘emancipated’ from his organic attachments — like an undifferentiated cell in a human magma.

It’s necessary to recall, especially for certain Christians, that a people’s attachment is incompatible with Christianity’s present cosmopolitanism. The claim, for example, that ‘I am closer to an African Catholic than I am to a non-Christian European’ is a universalistic claim that relegates a people’s nation to something of secondary significance. This is, indeed, the great drama of European Christianity, marked as it is by Pauline universalism. A Catholic attached to his people and conscious of the biological and cultural dangers threatening them might instead say, ‘I respect all the Christians of the world, but hic et nunc I fight for my people above all, whatever their religion’.

The Jesuit spirit might resolve the contradiction in reference to the Old Testament’s Hebraic tradition: ‘Babel — the mélange of disparate peoples — is a punishment from God, Who wants His peoples to be separate and diverse — humanity is one in Heaven, but multiple on Earth’.

Arab Islam has no difficulty reconciling the notion of people (the ‘Arab nation’) with that of its universalism. The Jews, on their side, have similarly reconciled a ferocious defence of their ethnicity — their singularity — with their religion, however theoretically monotheistic and universalist it may be. At no moment have Judaism and Islam, unlike the Christian Churches today, engaged in doubting, guiltstroking diatribes against ‘xenophobia’ and ethnocentrism. They are not masochistic . . .

* * *

Like every anthropological notion, ‘people’ lacks mathematical rigour. A people doesn’t define itself as a homogeneous biocultural totality, but as a relationship. It’s the product of an organic alchemy that brings various ‘sub-peoples’ together. The Bretons, Catalans, Scots, etc., can be seen thus as the sub-peoples of a larger people — the Europeans.

* * *

We ought to highlight the ambiguity that touches the notion of the people. The universalist ideology of the French Revolution confused the idea of the people with that of an ‘ensemble of inhabitants who jurisdictionally possess nationality’, whatever their origin. Given the facts of mass immigration and naturalisation, the notion of the French people has been greatly diluted (as have the British or German peoples, for the same reason). This is why (without broaching the unresolvable issue of what constitutes a ‘regional people’ or a ‘national people’), it’s advisable to dialectically transcend semantic problems — and affirm the historic legitimacy of a single, European people, historically bound, whose different national families resemble one another in having, for thousands of years, the same ethnocultural and historical origins. Despite national, linguistic, or tribal differences, haven’t African Blacks, even in Europe, been called on by Nelson Mandela or the Senegalese Mamadou Diop to ‘think like one people’? From Nasser to al-Qadhafi, by way of Arafat, haven’t Arabs been urged to see themselves as an Arab people? Why don’t Europeans have the same right to see themselves as a people?

As for ‘regional peoples’, it’s necessary to oppose Left-wing regionalists, self-professed anti-Jacobins and anti-globalists, who unhesitatingly accept the concept of French or American jus soli — who confuse citizens and residents, and who recognise as Bretons, Alsatians, Corsicans, etc., anyone (even of non-European origin) who lives in these regions and chooses to accept such an identity.

* * *

In belonging to a people, its members are emotionally inclined to define themselves as such, which implies political affiliation. For this reason, we say that a people exists at that point where biological, territorial, cultural, and political imperatives come together. But in no case does mere cultural or linguistic attachment suffice in making a people, if they have no common biological roots. Alien immigrants from people X who are installed on the territory of people Y — even if they adopt cultural elements of their host people — are not a part of Y. As De Gaulle thought, there might be minor exceptions for small numbers of compatible (White) minorities, capable of being assimilated, but this could never be the case for, say, French West Indians.

Similarly, in defining the notion of a people, territorial or geopolitical considerations must also be taken into account. A people is not a diaspora: the Jews felt obliged to reconquer Palestine as their ‘promised land’ because, as Theodor Herzl argued, ‘without a promised land, the Jews are just a religious diaspora, a culture, a union, but not a people’.

There’s a good deal of talk today, on the Left and the Right, about people being ‘deterritorialised’. In reality, there’s nothing of the kind. Every healthy people, even if they possess an important diaspora (Chinese, Arabs, Indians, etc.), maintains close relations with its fatherland.

* * *

Modernist gurus have long claimed that the future belongs not to peoples, but to humanity conceived as a single people. Again, there’ll be nothing of the kind. Despite globalisation and in reaction to it, the Twenty-first century will more than ever be a century of distinct peoples. Only Europeans, submerged in the illusions of their decadence, imagine that blood-based peoples will disappear, to be replaced by a miscegenated ‘world citizen’. In reality what is at risk of disappearing are Europeans. Tomorrow will be no twilight of peoples.

On the other hand, the twilight of several peoples is already possible. One often forgets that Amerindians or Egyptians have disappeared — hollowed out internally and overrun. For history is a cemetery of peoples — of weak peoples — exhausted and resigned.

* * *

A caution is necessary here: Right and Left-wing theoreticians of ‘ethnopluralism’, opposed to humanity’s homogenisation, speak of ‘the cause of peoples ^[3]’, as if every people must be conserved. In reality, the system that destroys peoples — the title of one of my books that was misunderstood by certain intellectuals — only threatens unfit peoples, i.e., present-day Europeans. It also threatens those residu peoples, whose fate is of interest only to museum-keepers. It seems perfectly stupid and utopian to believe that every people can be conserved in history’s formaldehyde. What a pacifistic egalitarian vision.

The main threat to the identity and existence of great peoples occurs, in contrast, through the conjunction of deculturation and the colonising invasion of alien peoples — which we’re presently experiencing. The Western globalist ‘system’ will never threaten strong peoples. Are Arabs, Chinese, or Indians threatened? On the contrary. It reinforces their identity and their desire to conquer, by provoking their reaction to it.

The people in danger — largely because of its own failings — is our people, for reasons as much biological as cultural and strategic. That’s why it’s necessary to replace the egalitarian ideology of ‘the cause of peoples’ with the ‘cause of our people’.

* * *

There are three possible positions: first, peoples don’t exist, or no longer exist — it’s an obsolete category — only humanity counts (the thesis of universalistic egalitarianism); second, all peoples ought to exist and be conserved (the utopian — also egalitarian — ethnopluralist position — completely inapplicable to our age); and third, only strong, wilful peoples can subsist for long historical periods — periods of selection in which only the most apt survive (the voluntarist, realist, inegalitarian thesis). We obviously support the third position.

What’s essential is reappropriating the term ‘people’ and progressively extending it to the entire Eurosiberian Continent. The present understanding of ‘European’ by the reigning ideology at Brussels is inspired by French Jacobin ideology. This ideology makes no reference to an ethno-historical Great European people, only to a mass of disparate residents inhabiting European territory. This tendency needs to be radically replaced.We propose that European peoples become historical subjects again and cease being historical objects. In the tragic century that’s coming, it’s especially crucial that Europeans become conscious of the common dangers they face and that, henceforth, they form a selfconscious community of destiny. This is well and truly a matter of forging a ‘new alliance’ that — through resurrection, metamorphosis, and historical transfiguration — will lead to a refounding of a Great European people and, in the midst of decline, succeed — not without pain, of course — in giving birth again to the phoenix.

Available from Arktos Media ^[4]

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

Guillaume FAYE: Why We Fight

English translation

of "Pourquoi nous combattons" and "Wofür wir kämpfen"

Now available !

Product Description

Identitarians and others making up the European resistance lack a doctrine that truly serves as a political and ideological synthesis of who they are - a doctrine that speaks above parties and sects, above rival sensibilities and wounded feelings, that brings the resistance together around clear ideas and objectives, uniting them in opposition to the Europeans' dramatic decline.
Our people today face the gravest peril in their entire history: demographic collapse, submission to an alien colonisation and to Islam, the bastardisation of the European Union, prostration before American hegemony, the forgetting of our cultural roots, and so on. In the form of an introductory text and a dictionary of 177 key words, Guillaume Faye, one of the most creative writers of the European 'Right', makes a diagnosis of the present situation and proposes a program of resistance, reconquest, and regeneration. He holds out the prospect of a racial and revolutionary alternative to the present decayed civilisation.


The manifesto's principal objective is thus to unify the resistance by developing a common doctrine that unites everyone and every tendency seeking to constitute a European network of resistance - a doctrine that goes beyond the old sectarian quarrels and superficial divisions. All relevant subjects, including politics, economics, geopolitics, demographics, and biology are broached. As it was for the Nineteenth-century Left with Marx's Communist Manifesto, Why We Fight is destined to become the key work for Twenty-first century identitarians. This edition of Why We Fight contains the complete text of the original French edition, as well as additional material that was added for the German edition. Also included is an original Foreword by translator Michael O'Meara, author of New Culture, New Right, as well as a Foreword by Dr. Pierre Krebs, Chairman of the Thule-Seminar in Germany.

Additional Information

Author	Guillaume Faye
Full Title	Why We Fight: Manifesto for the European Resistance
Binding	Softcover
Publisher	Arktos
Pages	278
ISBN	978-1-907166-18-1
Language	English
Short Description	Guillaume Faye's manifesto and ideological dictionary, aimed at the 'European Resistance'. Radical, thought provoking and at times extremely controversial. A book that can't be read without forming an opinion about it.
Table of Contents	FOREWORDS Prophet of the Fourth Age (Dr. Michael O’Meara) It’s About The Primordial Fire (Dr. Pierre Krebs) A Note from the Editor 1. PREFACE AND PRECAUTION Unite on the Basis of Clear Ideas Against the Common Enemy Beware of False Friends 2. PRELIMINARY ELEMENTS The Logic of Decline -Ethnic Colonisation -The Blocked Society France or Europe? Economic Principles -For Nuclear, Not Petroleum Energy -The Imposture of the ‘New Economy’ -Toward a Planetary Economic Crisis? 3. STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES America and Islam Against Europe The Dangers of European ‘Disarmament’ Notions of the ‘Menace from the South’ and the ‘Domestic Front’ Toward a Eurosiberian Strategic Doctrine: The ‘Giant Hedgehog’  4. METAPOLITICAL DICTIONARY From Aesthetics to Xenophilia 5. CONCLUSION Why Are We Fighting? INDEX
About the Author	With a doctorate in political science from Paris' Institute of Political Science, the essayist Guillaume Faye was one of the principal theoreticians of the French Nouvelle Droite in the 1970s and '80s prior to his growing sympathy for the identitarian movement. He has also been a journalist at Figaro-Magazine, Paris-Match, Magazine-Hebdo, Valeurs Actuelles, and a radio commentator. For several years he was the editor of J'ai tout compris (I Understood Everything), a private newsletter.

Guillaume Faye's Archeofuturism: Two Reviews

And yet one more review of . . .
Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism

Brett STEVENS

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Click here for more discussions of Archeofuturism

Click here for writings by Guillaume Faye, including an excerpt from Archeofuturism

Guillaume Faye
Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age
Arktos Media Ltd., 2010

As humans, we study our world to estimate the best responses to its demands. We then make a choice, and act on it, then observe the results to see if our estimations were correct. If they were not, we correct while trying to learn from the error. That is well and good, when buying a cement mixer — but what about a whole civilization?

Sometime 400 years ago, as our civilization prospered, the decision was made to modernize. This came about through a belief in the equality of all human beings and a drive toward external mechanisms, namely technology and political control systems. Guillaume Faye, the seasoned rising star of the New Right movement in Europe, explores our correction of this mistake in his landmark book Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age.

One of the more important things I’ve read this year, this book upholds an offhand feel throughout; an honest, end-of-the-night, when the wine and cigarettes are low and people are too tired to do anything but blurt out the big ideas that haunt them in their dreams feel. The content is dynamic, especially the first half, but the real force of power here is the style, an excitedly taboo-breaking, honest and hopeful look at re-creating ourselves so we have a future. This is not a book of resentment, but of joyful charging ahead.

A large influence on this stylistic breathlessness is the composition of the book, which is a collection of essays and a short sci-fi story to show us these ideas in practice. The second section, a thorough and high-energy explication of where Nouvelle Droite beliefs lead, the reasons for them and finally, how they can be better applied toward a theory of the future, will interest new right and deep ecologists the most as it joins the ideas of both into not a resistant/revolutionary culture but a remaking/revolutionary one.

Archeofuturism, Faye writes, escapes the boutique right-wing airy intellectualism of GRECE, which he critiques in the first book. Pointing out the failure of “ambiguous and incomprehensible ideological axes,” he proposes instead a transition from the rearward-looking “conservative” outlook to one that acknowledges what was lost, and the current state of disaster in the West, and plans for rebuilding afterward.

In his new theory of Archeofuturism, Faye proposes a “vitalist constructivism” that implements a quasi-feudal, national but not jingoistic, united Europe that applies the traditional spirit and learning to a future in which technology plays a central role. His unstated point is that the tool must again serve the man, after centuries of the reverse; he appeals to a sense of both the pragmatic in finding historically valid solutions through tradition, and the spirit of tradition, which is one of a constructive, upward society.

He proposes that we adopt this new outlook through a voluntaristic method, first changing our values, then our art, and then finally our political expectations at about the same time a “convergence of catastrophes” (environmental, political, economic) devastate Europe. Faye’s call is for Europeans to return to being “soldiers of the Idea” again, and for them to take up not a corrective action, but a constructive desire to rebuild and build it bigger, better and more exciting than before.

This fusion of both conservative and revolutionary thought takes the best of liberalism and the best of conservatism and takes them out of their handily domesticated roles as token opponents. He points out that our current ideological menu is carved from “soft ideology,” or that which passively deals with splitting up the wealth of an industrialization binge. He emphasizes a number of points all conservatives and pro-Europid readers can enjoy:

• Modernism is an attachment to the past. According to Faye, modernism is backward-looking as it tries to un-do conditions of nature that offend our egalitarian sentiment. What defines modernity is egalitarianism, or the idea that we’re all equal (in political power, in ability, in right to property). As a result, we’re constantly trying to force equality on nature while it resists us.
• Extreme leftism is a token act which reinforces the power of the modern nation-state. This point struck me as the most controversial, yet most sensible. If you are in power, and want to stay there, you need to give your citizens petty acts of rebellion that feel extreme but are in fact a repetition of the dominant philosophy. The state and its corruptors benefit from equality because it keeps smarter voices from rising above the herd.
• The modern world exists in a state of “soft totalitarianism” where those with unpopular opinions are simply ostracized, which in a liberal capitalist democracy effectively starves them into submission. He praises the American method of “soft imperialism” and shows how this is the future: indirect rule, with a reward/threat complex administered by social and business factors; the “1984″ vision is obsolete.
• Romanticism. Faye writes convincingly of his efforts to join “Cartesian classicism,” or a sense of space as being equal in all directions, with “Romanticism” which he expresses here as the idea that will or will to power can change the world radically even if small in stature. The joining of these two represents the expression of both ancient philosophy and a new type of “freedom” for humanity.
• Roots and method of modernity. Modern society consists of secularized evangelism, Anglo-Saxon mercantilism, and Enlightenment individualism, its methods are economic individualism, allegory of Progress, cult of quantitative development and abstract “human rights.” It is amazingly refreshing to see this spelled out so clearly and simply.
• Multiple factors doom modernism which was always unrealistic. “Europe is turning into a third world country,” he writes, summing up the disasters. If you see this book in a store, pick it up to read page 59 for an insightful list of modernity’s failings.
• Heterotelia. Following Nietzsche’s example, Faye needed a concept that explains how what we intend does not always result in a perpetuation of that state when put into practice. For example, political equality ends in inequality through social instability; multiculturalism ends in race war; letting economy lead ends in poverty because speculative finance is easier than generating real wealth. He explains our past failings and the need to be alert in the future through heterotelia, which means that “ideas do not necessarily yield the expected results.”
• Ethno-masochism. Faye illustrates how the West, in a suicidal bid to become morally/socially impressed with itself, has inflicted upon itself the unworkable scheme of multiculturalism and in doing so, has imported Islam, an “imperial theocratic totalitarianism.” Unlike many new right writers, he endorses the idea of European culture as superior in addition to being worth saving for its unique virtues.
• North versus South. History begins with anthropology, Faye writes, so we must see the conflict in humanity as one between Northern peoples who are prosperous, and the “third world” Southerners who are attempting to colonize the North on the back of its technology and liberal egalitarianism. He suggests a Eurosiberia stretching from the UK to the borders of China, and claims East-West conflict is less likely as a source of conflict.

Against this cataclysm Faye posits Archeofuturism, or a futurism equally balanced by the spirit of traditionalism, which is (a) learning from the past and (b) a type of reverence for life that emphasizes family, punishment being more important than prevention, duties coming before rights, solemn social rites, the aristocratic principle and a “freedom” defined not as the ability to act randomly, but as a sense of having a place and being freed from a chaotic society with excessive pointless competition. This synthesis of the best of capitalism, socialism and our monarchic past fully lives up to the title of this book.

Good luck finding a short review of this book. The first half of it is packed chock-full of interesting ideas that like new melodies can infect the head for days as it dissects them and their context. The second half both addresses common objections and provides background, and takes the form of a short science fiction story in the tradition of Asimov and Heinlein that explains how technology will help humans evolve. The concepts are mind-blowing and more daring than anything sci-fi has attempted since The Shockwave Rider, and this icing on the cake makes reading this book have a natural rhythm from the extreme, to the professorial, to the radical yet calming.

History is like a supertanker ship; it takes miles to begin to turn around and there are no brakes. The egalitarian experiment in Europe is only a few centuries old yet has wreaked utter havoc on all the subtler parts of existence, things that most people don’t notice because they are easily distracted by shiny objects. Faye brings these alive, shows us exactly why they are endangered, and then shows us a plausible and gradual (e.g. non apocalyptic, non-Utopian) solution toward which we can move if we believe life is worth saving. Clearly he does, and it infuses this book with a fervor and wisdom that few attain.

Source: http://www.amerika.org/books/archeofuturism-european-visi...

Another review of . . .
Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism

Michael WALKER

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Click here for more discussions of Archeofuturism

Click here for writings by Guillaume Faye, including an excerpt from Archeofuturism

Guillaume Faye
Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age
Arktos Media Ltd., 2010

In the 1980s Guillaume Faye was one of the best known member of GRECE and by far their most popular speaker. With humour, panache, invective and contempt thrown in at just the right moment-the dismissive “l’acteur Reagan” the contemptuous and venomous “monsieur Henri Levi surnommé le grand”, he had his audiences rolling in the aisles with delight. Every time I heard him speak at a GRECE conference he received a standing ovation.

GRECE was not only a school of thought, it was also a sort of social club, linking like-minded persons on a cultural, political and social level. However, its concentration on theory made the temptation in hard times great indeed to retreat from direct confrontation and reduce all issues to the level of academic debate. Faye explicates these and other criticisms in Archeofuturism (now available for the first time in English from the Arktos Press at the same time as it has become hard to obtain in the original French).

Structure

Archeofuturism suffers from coming from the pen of a man more at home before a gathering than a keyboard. It is unbalanced and paradoxically, given the content, in some respects extremely provincial and theoretical in its approach and design. At the same time, it owes nothing to the respectability and detachment from reality which can make cowards of many writers.

This is not to say that the book lacks structure. It has a very definite if unorthodox structure. It consists of three theses as Faye calls them: (1) the end of civilization as we know it owing to what Faye calls a “convergence of catastrophes”; (2) the necessity for revolution, notably in the European mindset, (3) propositions for the post-catastrophic world (and the title of his book expresses the essence of Faye’s solution).

The last chapter is a piece of science fiction, a story of a world in which the conflict of technics and tradition has been resolved by reconciling the two, and this is the underlying thread of Faye’s entire argumentation, that we must learn to reach back to our furthest yesterday and to the longest future.

Positions

One issue is the conflict between tradition and progress. On the one hand, technology is necessary as a tool of our will to power, something which Faye believes essential to the survival of the European. On the other hand, scientific and technical progress may prove and often does prove, destructive of tradition. Are religions just fables? It is hard to die for a fable. How is such belief possible in a world of scientific rationalism and progress?

Faye believes strongly that the world is hurtling towards multi-faceted disaster, less a clash of civilizations, although he seems to write at times in a similar vein to Huntington, with his view of Islam especially as a challenge in itself to the hegemony of European civilization, than what he terms a “convergence of catastrophes.” Like Huntington, Faye regards Islam as a single cultural, religious, political bloc with a an expansionist will.

On homosexuality :

. . . it is not a matter of advocating any repression of homosexuality, of banning homosexual couples or socially penalizing gay people; simply, the prospect of legalizing of a form of marriage for homosexuals would have a highly destructive symbolic value. Marriage and legal heterosexual unions enjoy forms of protection and public benefits that are accorded to couples capable of having children and hence of renewing the generations and thus of being of objective service to society. Legalising homosexual unions and awarding them financial privileges means protecting sterile unions. (pp. 106–107)

On demographics:

It is necessary to reflect on the issue of immigration, which represents a form of demographic colonization of Europe at the hands of mostly Afro-Asiatic peoples. . . . Three generations later, the colonization of Europe represents a form of revenge against European colonization . . . are we to accept or reject a substantial alteration oif the ethno-cultural substrate of Europe? The basis of intellectual honesty and the key to ideological success lie in the ability and courage to address the real problems, instead of attempting to avoid them. (p. 49)

On distraction:

The system only makes use of brutal censorship in very limited areas: it generally resorts to intellectual diversion, i.e. distraction, by constantly focusing people’s attention on side issues. What we are dealing with here is not simply the usual brutalization of the population via the increasingly specific mass-media apparatus of the society of spectacle — a veritable audiovisual Prozac-but rather a concealment of essential political problems (immigration, pollution, transportation policies, the aging of the population, the financial crisis of the social budgets expected to occur by 2010 etc. (p. 92)

Archeofuturism

It is a sad paradox, and one about which Faye is acutely aware in his book, that the European New Right in general has failed to make an impact at the very time that the march of events might have been expected to play into its hands: the end of the cold war, the decline of political Manicheanism (East versus West) , the decline of nationalism as a relevant political alternative to liberalism. Faye offers a number of explications for this failure. They can be summarized as a lack of media “savvy”, romantic isolationism, minimization of catastrophe, cultural relativism and a lack of understanding of and worse, interest in, economics (Faye alone among spokesmen of GRECE had written a treatise on economics).

Faye’s response is to deviate from the consensus among the new right and to insist on European exceptionalism. He returns to what might be called a traditional belief of the radical right when he claims, as he does here, that European civilization is superior to others and that as a superior civilization it has a duty to resist the challenge of immigration in general and Islam in particular. Cultural and racial superiority was the premise (sometimes asserted, sometimes unspoken) of all movements of the twentieth and nineteenth centuries which sought to preserve or halt a decline in the domination of the white man over the political destiny of the globe.

European radical right movements after the Second World War focused their propaganda very much on the restoration of national prestige and glory and a rejection of immigrants and outsiders.  GRECE stressed from the beginning the importance of what it called “the right to be different” arguing less in terms of European superiority than in terms of European uniqueness, Europe’s right to the nurture of its own identity and destiny. The great enemy was seen not so much as military or political threats as such, as the forces which sought to attenuate, reduce, trivialize and ultimately abolish differences. The great enemy in this respect was neither Islam nor communism but “the American way of Life,” the manifest destiny to reduce all peoples to consumers, whose sole struggles were ones of economic competition.

This developed in the course of time within GRECE into a position of ethnopluralism, which Faye and others subsequently denounced as cultural relativism. Simply put, it is the argument that all cultures are worthy of respect within their own terms and no culture is inherently superior to another. The obvious critique of such a position is that it ultimately disarms all willingness to disallow, challenge or oppose other cultures. Opposition even in its politest non-military form, can only be conducted on the premise that in some way one is superior or equipped with superior arguments or in the area of culture and religion, possesses a truer, superior culture and religion and one thereby and therewith seeks an opponent’s defeat.

There is another aspect — that of economic survival. A major criticism which Faye has of GRECE is that it ignores or glosses over demographic and economic warfare against the European. Faye argues that at a time of emergency, when Europe is threatened with being overwhelmed by non-Europeans whose demographics are reducing the significance of the European by the hour, it is a form of suicide to indulge in culturally relativist reflections and debate.

Faye spends no time in fleshing out his arguments about superiority and in what respects the European is “superior.” This is a pity because it would provide the book with a stabilizing effect. As it is, Faye assures us that he believes the European is superior and rushes on the next point. What Faye implies although I did not find it in this book explicitly stated, is that when we talk about the right of a people not only to an identity but to a destiny, there is likely to be a conflict between the destiny of a people compelled to expand and conquer and the right of another (conquered) people to an identity.

The notion of a “right” be it to identity or destiny is problematic: where does our “right” come from? A Nietzschean, as Faye claims to be, can answer this question. It could be baldly stated as the right to survival — the impulse of nature which all beings have the “right” to practice. Rights to be different are likely to conflict with the rights of others to be different. The right to conflict is therefore the right to survival of identity and it is Faye’s point that such a right can only be preserved by those who actively engage in the politics (as all politics in Faye’s view must be) of conflict. A defense of the identity of the European necessitates entering into a state of conflict with the prevailing hegemony.

Faye candidly states that he made the same mistake as other GRECE members in the expression of cultural relativism and an accompanying primary and fundamental anti-Americanism which took precedence over the ethnic question and the challenge of non-white immigration to Europe, (and presumably, the decline in relative numbers and influence of the Caucasian in North America). The “ethnopluralist” approach is exemplified by Alain de Benoist’s Europe-Tiers Monde: Même Combat where de Benoist argues that Europe and the Third World (even the term seems a little outdated today) are natural allies against the American and Soviet ways of life. Faye stresses that GRECE (and he willingly includes himself here) ignored the reality of the Islamic threat and that ethnopluralism paved the way for an inactive, “head in the sand” response to the long term significance of massive Mohammedan immigration into Europe.

Faye’s stress on the superiority of Europe in place of the right of Europeans to be different indeed avoids the danger of degenerating into an ineffective and compromising inactive pluralism. On the other hand, it shifts the focus of intent significantly towards a provocative, inevitably conflict laden project which is dear to Faye: the Eurasian Imperium. Faye is for better or for worse an imperialist. His vision of the future as outlined in this book is one of a vast Eurasian bloc, stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

The implied direction, never explicitly stated of the archeofuturist project, is combat and conquest in a world divided into major power blocs jockeying for position. “Like in the Middle Ages or Antiquity, the future requires us to envisage the Earth as structured in vast, quasi-imperial unity in mutual conflict or cooperation.” (p. 77). Seen in this light, Faye’s admiration for atomic power implied in this work (and more explicitly indicated elsewhere, dramatically in his comic book Notre avant guerre, where he gleefully depicts a degenerate Europe being destroyed in mushroom clouds ) and futuristic technology in general is the ghost in the machine of Faye’s project.

However, unlike most modernizers, Faye does not duck the dilemma of reconciling a world of modern technology with a world of tradition, be it racial, political or other. How does one reconcile advanced technology and its implications with the preservation of continuity with the past? Faye faces this problem head on and if his solution is seems questionable and Utopian, he deserves the credit of highlighting the dilemma. Practically all radical rightists of whatever hue, fail to address the issue at all. Faye’s solution is what he calls “archeofuturism” the title of his book and the project to which he believes European revolutionaries (and Faye believes we must be revolutionaries to save European civilization and not conservatives) the assimilation of the future with the past, building a future not as modern or post modern but archeo-modern, a modernism acutely aware of and with its roots in a deep and profound past.

There will be a small elite of rulers with access to the highest forms of modern technology while the majority of less gifted will make do with crude forms of technical accomplishment-a completely two tier society in fact. This may sound familiar and not perhaps pleasantly so. It is this reviewer’s belief, one shared by many, that the ultimate aim of the ruling elite is the same: the division of mankind into two groups-the elite and the great majority of outsiders who no longer have a say in how public affairs are administered. This seems difficult to reconcile with Faye’s expressed support for populist initiatives. Be that as it may, this writer’s strength is his ability to fire the right questions rather than provide well prepared answers.

The “post catastrophic” world will be one, Faye believes, divided between the futuristic achievements of an elite and the archaic conditions and status of the majority, it will be archeofuturistic. Before we examine this idea more closely, it is worth taking a moment to consider the notions of growth and progress which Faye dismisses as overhauled. His chapter revealingly entitled “For a Two-Tier World Economy” opens with the bald assertion: “Progress” is clearly a dying idea, even if economic growth may be continuing”.

Anti-Growth

Faye’s rejection of what he calls “the paradigm of economic development” is simple:

An intellectual revolution is taking place: people are starting to perceive, without daring to openly state it, that the old paradigm according to which the life of humanity on both an individual and collective level is getting better and better every day thanks to science, the spread of democracy and egalitarian emancipation is quite simply false. . . . Today, the perverse effects of mass technology are starting to make themselves felt: new resistant viruses, the contamination of industrially produced food, shortage of land and a downturn in world agricultural production, rapid and widespread environmental degradation, the development of weapons of mass destruction in addition to the atomic bomb-not to mention that technology is entering its Baroque age. (pp. 162–63).

The last comment excepted (which is pure Spengler), this writing must strike the impartial reader as familiar. It is a fairly good example of the pessimism of environmentalist writers in general and it has been said many times before. Faye knows or should know, that there are very many people who are deeply aware of the heavy price which we are paying for making Progress our Baal. Faye is entirely right in my opinion, as thousands of others before him have been right, to question the cost but anyone expecting Faye to so much as nod with respect in the direction of the many organizations, groups, campaigns and initiatives to reverse this trend, will be disappointed.

On the contrary, Faye contemptuously dismisses the French Green movement in these words, “the political platform of the Green movement contain no real environmentalist suggestions, such as the transport of lorries by train instead of on highways, the creation of non-polluting cars (electric cars, LPG, etc.) or the fight against urban sprawl into natural habitats, liquid manure leaks, ground water contamination, the depletion of European fish stocks, chemical food additives, the overuse of insecticides and pesticides, etc. Each time I have tried to bring these specific and concrete issues up with a representative of the Greens, I got the impression that he was not really interested in them or that he had not really studied them” (p. 145). It is not clear (possibly a fault of the translator’s) whether Faye is referring to one or several spokesmen. Be that as it may, it is not my experience at all that environmentalists are not interested in these issues.

Futurism

Faye gives the impression throughout the book less of someone proposing ideas in a book for a wide readership as enjoying a discussion with someone who was with him in the days of GRECE over a “ballon de rouge” in a Paris café. Despite his provincialism, Faye has a sound instinct for homing in on some of the genuinely important issues of our time and viewing them in a global perspective, even when (and this is often the case here) his global perspective is obscured by the incidental historical luggage which weighs his book down. The reader should not be deterred by the book’s incidental references from letting Faye lead to key issues of our time and demanding our response to core questions.

The greatest quality of this book is that it gives a voice to the growing sense of frustration that is felt among persons form all walks of life that we are living in a transitory period, that the “end of history” is an utter illusion and that old structures are insufficient to contain the force of history. Faye cites the unlikely figure of Peter Mandelson as an “archeofuturist without knowing it” as someone who has recognized that democracy as we know it from the Mother of Parliaments is tired and no longer able to cope with the challenges which European man and indeed humankind is facing.

Faye’s examination of the real issues behind the palaver of most contemporary politicians is refreshing. Here is a taste:

The new societies of the future will finally abolish the aberrant egalitarian mechanism we have now, whereby everyone aspires to become an officer or a cadre or a diplomat, even though all evidence suggests that most people do not have the skills to fulfill those roles. This model engenders widespread frustration, failure and resentment. The societies that will be vivified by increasingly sophisticated technologies, in contrast, will ask for a return to the archaic and inegalitarian and hierarchical norms, whereby a competent and meritocratic minority is rigorously selected to take on leading assignments.

Those who perform subordinate functions in these inegalitarian societies will not feel frustrated: their dignity will not be called into question, for they will accept their own condition as something useful within the organic community-finally freed from the individualistic hubris of modernity, which implicitly and deceptively states that each person can become a scientist or a price.

“Individualistic hubris” indeed sums up for this reviewer one of the great malaises of our time: the exaggerated importance which mediocre individuals attach to their own boring lives. Faye at his best is very good indeed.

For all its failings this book is a valuable contribution to the growing awareness of persons of European descent of their time of crisis. It  provides a highly readable and often acute observations about what Faye stresses are the real issues of our time but the question nags steadily: to what extent has Faye provided a strategy for Europeans in the face of those issues? The answer is that there is no strategy, unless by “strategy” we mean a positioning (for example in favor of European federalism vis-à-vis reactionary nationalism or friendly competitiveness with the United States rather than blanket hostility to the American way of life).

Perhaps someone much younger than either Faye or this reviewer will read this book and know that they are able to provide that response. In that case, this book will have shown itself to be of the past and the future, in a word archeofuturistic.

Source: http://www.amerika.org/texts/archeofuturism-by-guillaume-...

Guillaume Faye dit tout...

 

Guillaume Faye dit tout...

A Serious Case:
Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism

F. Roger Devlin

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Guillaume Faye,
Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age
Arktos Media Ltd., 2010

“The modern world is like a train full
of ammunition running in the fog.”
—Robert Ardrey

Most thought described as “conservative” is a kind of political hygienics: it takes its bearings by what is natural, normal, or best in the social order. One hazard of its focus on right order is to leave us unprepared in extraordinary situations. Thus, we all know otherwise intelligent conservatives who would continue, even as blood was running in the streets, to talk of the need for electing fiscally responsible Republicans to office. The best treatment for this sort of blindness is a crash course in political pathology such as the book under review.

Author Guillaume Faye was for many years a luminary of Alain de Benoist’s Group for the Research and Study of European Civilization. Beginning from the principle “no Lenin without Marx,” Benoist conceived his activities as part of a Gramscian (or Cochinian) strategy to undermine the hegemony of liberalism. In the early 1980s, remembers Faye, each issue of his journal Eléments was “an ideological barrage that sparked outraged reviews from the mainstream press,” and people sat up and took notice of the Colloques parisiens his organization sponsored. The well-educated men of this “New Right,” as it came to be called, looked down on the young Front National as a “microscopic group of good-for-nothings,” and even barred “that pirate-faced old soldier” Jean-Marie Le Pen from their meetings.

Yet within a few years the tables were turned, as dissatisfied New Rightists flocked to the Front. Any misgivings they had about Le Pen’s vulgarity were outweighed by the impression that his organization was where something was happening. Faye, too, eventually concluded that the New Right had become a mere literary salon: “from 1986 I began to feel that a clique spirit and literary pagan romanticism were prevailing over historical will. . . . In order to prove effective, ideological and cultural action must be supported by concrete political forces which it integrates and extends.”

Archeofuturism marks the author’s return to the political arena after an absence of twelve years. Its first chapter is devoted to a friendly critique of his former colleagues. For example, he finds in New Right publications an overemphasis upon folkloric aspects of European heritage such as “Breton bonnets” and “Scandinavian woodcarvings.” Such charming but innocuous traditions have their equivalents among all peoples on earth. Faye would rather maintain “the creative primacy of Western civilization” represented by our tradition of scientific research, philosophy and engineering, as well as our unparalleled artistic and literary “high” culture.

Faye also considers the New Right wedded to a faulty political paradigm in which “America”—conceived narrowly as the Hollywood/Wall Street/Foggy Bottom axis—is the enemy. This way of thinking is well-expressed in the title of Benoist’s book Europe-Third World: the Same Struggle. Benoist invites the entire non-American world (even Muslims!) to “a fruitful exchange of dialogue among parties clearly situated in relation to one another.” In other words: multiculturalism with one place at the table reserved for White Europeans. Faye rightly dismisses this as “a Disneyland dream.”

Starting from what Faye considers a correct Nietzschean assessment of primitive Christianity as an egalitarian, leveling and ethno-masochistic movement, the New Right launched an ill-considered attack on the folk Catholicism of ordinary Frenchmen. Meanwhile, they ignored their proper target: a return to the “bolshevism of antiquity” among the high clergy, marked by immigrationism and self-ethnophobia. This is the tendency some have called the “degermanization of Christianity.” The New Right would have done better to ally itself with Catholic traditionalists in combating it rather than alienating its natural allies.

Lastly, while the New Right professed admiration for the German jurist Carl Schmitt, it never made any practical application of his Ernstfall concept: the “serious case” which cannot be met within the normal framework of constitutional law. When Hannibal is at the gates of Rome, when the Royal Guards mutiny—no appeal can be made to law. Such contingencies can only be met with the virtue of prudence, i.e., the ability to make sound judgments about what to do in particular cases.

This blind spot may be fatal, for Faye is convinced that the liberal regime is driving Western civilization toward an Ernstfall the like of which the world has never seen. He describes it as a “convergence of catastrophes.” Elements include: the failure of multiracialism, the disintegration of family structures, disruption in the transmission of cultural knowledge and social disciplines, the replacement of folk culture by the passive consumption of industrially produced “mass culture,” increasing crime and drug use, the decay of community, anti-natalism, nuclear proliferation and the re-emergence of viral and microbial diseases resistant to antibiotics, public debt, and the privileging of speculative profits, i.e., the construction of our economy atop the stilts of investor confidence rather than upon the solid ground of production.

Furthermore, liberal ideology has propounded a utopian ideal of universal “development,” whereby every last African hellhole is supposed to become an affluent, tolerant, democratic, and efficient consumerist society. The nations of the South were won over to this project, dazzled by the deceptive prospect of economic growth. They set in motion a process of industrialization that has devastated the natural environment, undermined their traditional cultures, and created social chaos, including urban jungles like Calcutta and Lagos. Resentment at the broken promise of “development” runs deep; the resurgence of religious fanaticism is one of its expressions.

Under the banner of “inclusion,” the liberal regime is now importing legions of immigrants who will function as the “fifth column” of an aggressive South. “The ethnic war in France has already started,” writes Faye in 1998, seven years before les émeutes des banlieues.

These are the lines of catastrophe which Faye expects to converge in about the second decade of this century. His prophecy is reminiscent of Andrei Amalrik’s 1969 essay Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?—which, of course, proved uncannily accurate. Still, the wise reader will not want to overstress Faye’s time frame; much is clear about the crisis we face, but not even the angels in heaven know the day or the hour.

The author emphasizes that the impending meltdown presents us with opportunities: “When people have their backs against the wall and are suffering piercing pains, they easily change their opinions.” The stormy century of iron and fire that awaits us will make people accept what is currently unacceptable. The right today must position itself to be perceived as “the alternative” when the inevitable crisis hits. This means discrediting leftist pseudo-dissent, which is merely a demand for the intensification of official ideology and praxis. It also means acquiring the monopoly over alternative thought: not by imposing a party-line, but by uniting all healthy forces on a European level and abandoning provincial disputes and narrow doctrines.

Faye’s book is intended as “a sort of mental training for the post-catastrophic world.” The title Archeofuturism refers to the principles appropriate to reconstructing our civilization. “Archaic” must be understood according to the root sense of the Greek noun archè: both “foundation” and “beginning.” The archai are anthropological values which “create and are unchangeable;” they refer to the central notion of “order.”

Such foundational values include:

the distinction of sex roles; the transmission of ethnic and folk traditions; spirituality and priestly organization; visible and structuring social hierarchies; the worship of ancestors; rites and tests of initiation; the re-establishment of organic communities (from the family to the folk); the de-individualization of marriage [and] an end to the confusion between eroticism and conjugality; the prestige of the warrior caste; inequality of social status—not the unjust and frustrating implicit inequality we find today in egalitarian utopias, but explicit and legitimated inequalities; duties that match rights, hence a rigorous justice that gives people a sense of responsibility; a definition of peoples—and of all established groups or social bodies—as diachronic communities of destiny rather than synchronic masses of individual atoms.

Faye calls these “the values of justice.” We need not doubt they will return once the hallucinations of equality and individual emancipation have dissipated, for they follow from human nature itself.

The real danger is that we may end up having them imposed on us by Islam rather than reasserting them ourselves from our own historical memory. For Islam is the symbolic banner of Southern revanchisme, and the mindset of the South remains archaic. It takes for granted the primacy of force, the legitimacy of conquest, ethnic exclusivity, aggressive religiosity, machismo, and a worship of leaders and hierarchic order. Muslim employment of liberal cant—complaints of “discrimination” and “intolerance”—are the merest fig leaf for a Machiavellian “strategy of the fox” against Europe. In order to oppose the invaders, we must revert to an archaic mindset ourselves, abandoning the demobilizing handicap of “modern” humanitarianism.

Faye is perhaps at his best explaining the behavior and motivations of the “petty, inglorious princes who pretend to be governing us.” For example, he notes the increasing importance of “consultation” in French political life; authorities “consult” representatives of various approved interest groups, such as labor unions and non-White ethnic blocs, and then formulate policy on the basis of the lowest common denominator of agreement between them. The real point of this, of course, is to avoid the risks and responsibilities of actual leadership. (Try to imagine De Gaulle behaving this way.) But it is presented to the public as a wonderful new way of “modernizing democracy.”

A related symptom is the rise of negative legitimization, or what the author calls the “big bad wolf tactic”:

Politicians no longer say, “Vote for us, because we’ve got the right solutions and we’ll improve your living conditions.” That is positive legitimization. Instead they say (implicitly) “Vote for us, since even though we’re a bunch of good-for-nothings, bunglers and bullies, at least we will protect you from fascism.”

Four years after these words were written Le Pen made the presidential run-offs and, sure enough, all the bien pensants showed up at the polls with clothespins on their noses to support the crook Chirac!

Egalitarian reform serves as a convenient pretext for the elites to enact measures whose practical effect is to entrench their own position. Thus, they have sabotaged the French educational system by eliminating selectivity and discipline. But it is only these which give the talented outsider an honest chance against the untalented insider. As Pareto put it: the more rigorous the (rationally planned) selection in a social system, the greater the turnover in the elite. Without objective standards, on what grounds can one argue against elite self-perpetuation?

But the regime’s most breathtaking hypocrisy is found in its demonization of the National Front. The Front has broken the tacit ground-rules of the managerial regime by “engaging in politics where it has been agreed that one should only engage in business”; it has sought popular trust with a view to implementing a program, where the established parties “communicate” and maneuver with a view to re-election. Timid careerists denounce the Front as a threat to the Republic because they fear it as a threat to themselves.

Faye considers the National Front a genuinely revolutionary party. Yet he apparently has never been a member, and is not really a French nationalist. In his view, Le Pen’s romantic and backward-looking devotion to the French state embodies a great deal of latent Jacobinism. It is this state, after all, which has “naturalized” millions of Afro-Asiatic “youths” who do not see themselves as French at all. Moreover, a nation state, even run on patriotic principles, would be an entity too small to defend the French ethnos effectively in the contemporary world. Would a federal European state be any more capable of doing so? “I believe it would,” says Faye, “provided it is exactly the opposite of the European state currently being built.”

Those who believe that an imperial and federal European state would “kill France” are confusing the political sphere with the ethno-cultural one. The disappearance of the Parisian regime would in no way threaten the vigor and identity of the people of France. Moreover, a European federal state would breathe new life into autonomous regions: Brittany, Normandy, Provence, etc.

The European Union is a ghastly bureaucratic mess, but it is also one of the “forces in being.” Why turn our backs on it or work to destroy it when we can instead hijack it and turn it to our own purposes? Faye calls for the transformation of the EU into “a genuinely democratic and no longer bureaucratic European government with a real parliament and a strong and decisive central power.” He describes this position as European Nationalism, and dreams of a Eurosiberian Federation extending from Brest to the Bering Strait.

While Faye disagrees with Benoist’s interpretation of America as an enemy (hostes), he continues to view her as a rival and opponent (inimicus). This American reviewer does not grasp why the case for including a chastened post-imperial United States in a Northern Federation would be any weaker than the case for including Russia.

The Eurosiberian Federation is to be characterized by a two-tier economy. The elite (20% of the population) will continue to live according to the techno-scientific economic model based on ongoing innovation. They would form part of a global exchange network of about one billion people, including the elites of other civilizational blocs. As Faye notes, “the essence of technological science is not connected to egalitarian modernity, but has its roots in the ethno-cultural heritage of Europe, and particularly ancient Greece.”

Among the first exploits of this new elite shall be exploring the “explosive possibilities of genetic engineering.” These include inter-species hybrids, man-animal chimeras, semi-artificial “biolithic” creatures, and decerebrated human clones. Faye is utterly contemptuous of moral or religious scruples in this domain, which he oddly attributes to the ideology of liberal modernity more than to Christianity.

The remainder of humanity would live in archaic, neo-traditional communities. The techno-scientific portion of humanity would be under no obligation to help (i.e., “develop”) everybody else. Nor would they have any right to interfere in their affairs.

In sum, for the elite: promethean achievement, linear time and futuristic technology; for the rest: neo-feudalism, cyclic time and timeless, “archaic” values.

But it is not clear how the elite could avoid “interfering” in the affairs of people they are supposed to govern. Moreover, how would the elite perpetuate itself? It seems clear that Faye does not intend a hereditary aristocracy. Perhaps there is some sort of test or initiatory ordeal for prospective members. But then families would be divided between the classes, which would involve many difficulties. In the fictional portrayal of his ideal future society which closes the book, Faye refers in passing to something called “the Party.” This reviewer would need to hear a lot more about this shadowy organization before signing on to Faye’s proposals. The two-tiered economy is altogether the least satisfactorily worked out part of the book.

Yet the author is aware that men never get what they plan for: somewhat grandiloquently, he calls this heterotelia. And he distinguishes “worldview” (an idea of civilization as a goal and some values) from “ideology” and “doctrine” (applications to society and what tactics to use). So we can follow him for the first mile.

Archeofuturism should have a bracing effect on anyone more accustomed to reading the despondent Cassandras of paleoconservatism. “Realism,” he reminds us, “is often disheartened fatalism.”

Those who blame others, enemies and the political climate for their own failures do not deserve to win. For it is in the logic of things for enemies to oppress you and circumstances to prove hostile. The mistake lies in exorcising reality by adopting the morals of intention as opposed to those of consequences.

We must reject the pretext that radical thought would be “persecuted” by the system. The system is foolish. Its censorship is as far from stringent as it is clumsy, striking only at mythic acts of provocation and ideological tactlessness. Talent always prevails over censorship, when it is accompanied by daring and intelligence. A right wing movement can only prove successful through the virtue of courage.

There is no excuse for being taken by surprise when the liberal regime disregards its own principals in order to fight us (as the British establishment is doing with the BNP). Of course we should publicize and ridicule their inconsistencies, but it is silly to be indignant over them: repression simply means that the regime recognizes us as an Ernstfall, a mortal threat, and that is precisely what a serious right ought to be. Attempts to shut us down are symptoms of growing success and should strengthen our resolve.

What Was, Must Be: Guillaume Faye's "Archeofuturism"

What Was, Must Be

Guillaume Faye's "Archeofuturism"

 

By Alex Kurtagic

 

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

 

One thing that always struck me about William Pierce’s broadcasts is that out of the two hundred or so that he recorded during the late 1990s, only one ever talked about the world he aspired to see following his revolution. One. Worse still, his utopian vision was not at all inspiring, being, for all practical purposes, a return to 1933. This, unfortunately, is not uncommon among those who, in some measure or another, share his ideas—even among those who are far less radical and apocalyptic, and think in terms of a ‘velvet revolution,’ or co-opting, or electioneering.

As I have written on previous occasions, if our camp is to catalyze a transvaluation of values, and eventually cause a purge of the top echelons of academic, media, and political power in the West, those whom we seek to inspire need to be given more than just a return to the past: they also need a vision that is forward-looking, indeed futuristic, even if ultimately founded on archaic principles. Otherwise, our camp will condemn itself to irrelevance, perpetuating the impression many ordinary people have that we are just aging nostalgics, who feel left out in the brave new world of progress and equality, and are reduced to waving an angry fist at modernity because we have no new ideas of our own. ‘Bankrupt’ is the term often used within the mainstream to describe our ideas and morality.

To get anywhere, one needs to know where one is going; and to get others to come along and make the hard journey to one’s paradise, one has to be able to at least describe what it looks like.

This is why I was interested in Guillaume Faye’s book, Archeofuturism, which Arktos Media published for the first time in English translation during the Summer of 2010. Along with Alain de Benoist, Faye is a leading exponent of the Nouvelle Droite, the European New Right. Faye, however, is more radical than de Benoist, who has accused him of extremism. And some say he is also more creative. Until recently, I only knew Faye by name and affiliation, having never taken the trouble to read him. Was it because of that photograph I have seen of him, grey-haired and scowling with bug-like mirror shades? Whatever the answer, I was pleasantly surprised when the present tome revealed that Faye’s outlook is very similar to my own. Indeed, it turns out that in Archeofuturism he articulates positions that I have articulated in some of own my articles. No wonder the book’s editor, John Morgan, was keen on my reviewing it.

Readers will easily infer at least one of the positions Faye and I share, as I have reproduced it in the second paragraph of this review. The difference is one of emphasis: I think archeofuturism is necessary to move forward; Faye thinks of it as the paradigm that must replace egalitarian modernity, come what may.

There is no question for him that the liberal project is doomed: although its proponents paint it as good and inevitable, egalitarian modernity is, in fact, a highly artificial condition, an unsustainable one, which will fall victim to the very processes it set in motion. Faye believes that we are currently facing a ‘convergence of catastrophes’. These include: the colonization of the North by Afro-Asian peoples from the South; an imminent economic and demographic crisis, caused by an aging population in the West, falling birthrates, and unfunded promises made by the democratic welfare state; chaos in the countries of the South, caused by absurd Western-sponsored development and development programs; a global economic crisis, much worse than the depression of the 1930s, led by the financial sector; ‘the surge of religious fundamentalist fanaticism, particularly in Islam;’ ‘the confrontation of North and South, on theological and ethnic grounds;’ unchecked environmental degradation; and the convergence of these catastrophes against a backdrop of nuclear proliferation, international mafias, and the reemergence of viral and microbial diseases, such as AIDS. For Faye, the way out is not through reform, because a system that is contrary to reality is beyond reform), but through collapse and revolution. As a catastrophic collapse is inevitable, revolutionary thought and action must today be post-catastrophic in outlook. He further suggests that inaction on our part will only open European civilization to conquest by Islam.

How does Faye visualize the post-catastrophic Earth? For him, the deprecation of modernity results in a two-tier world, in which most of humanity reverts to traditional or neo-Medieval societies (essentially pre-industrial reservations), while an elite minority—composed of Europeans and South East Asians—rebuilds advanced technological societies across Eurasia and parts of North America. These societies are to be, of course, archeofuturistic—hierarchical and rooted in ethnotribalism, fiercely protectionistic, yet also ones that fully exploit science and technology, even if ‘esoteric,’ non-humanistic versions of them, ‘decoupled from the rationalistic outlook.’ There is to be no global flow of capital, spreading wealth and technology everywhere: the world economy is to be inegalitarian, elitist, based on quality over quantity. There are also to be no nation states: the European Imperium is to comprise over a hundred regions, with their own languages, customs, and garb. The United States is to split in to ethnic regions (Dreamland for the Blacks), and is to stabilize for the most part according to an eighteenth-century agrarian model. The world, in sum, and in contradiction to liberal aspirations, is to become more ethnic and more differentiated, not less.

In other words, if Faye rejects modernity it is not because he a nostalgic who dreams of returning to a bygone golden age, like so many White racial nationalists today; but because he is an elitist who thinks the world must be rebuilt on entirely different foundations—foundations that are more in harmony with nature.

In order so that we may get a better sense of what he means, he concludes the book with a Science Fiction novelette, titled One Day in the Life of Dmitri Leonidovich Oblomov, and set in the year 2073. Interestingly, and to Faye’s credit, the latter does not really describe a utopia, where everyone sings and lives happily ever after; but rather showcases Faye’s imagining of what he considers will be the most likely consequence of an archeofuturist new world order. It has its own unique set of problems, as any reasonable person would expect. Yet for Faye dealing with problems is part of living, and the choice is therefore not between having or not having problems, but which set of problems is preferable to another. In any event, one can well imagine Faye’s archeofuturistic vision will make egalitarian liberals, and perhaps even some White Nationalists, shift uncomfortably in their seats.

Oblomov, however, is just a scenario. As I have previously mentioned, and as Faye states repeatedly, we must not forget about Islam. Faye stresses that it is here, among us, facing us, right now, and that no amount of appeasement or accommodating will cause it to become less of a threat. This is because, he argues, Islam is an inherently intolerant, aggressive, theocratic movement that will abide no religious pluralism. Faye believes that Islam, and for that matter the Afro-Asian immigrants colonizing our continent, must be expelled from Europe, as was done in the past.  ‘Where there is a will, there is a way,’ he states. Naturally this presupposes either deposing the White ethnomasochists, the deluded cosmopolitans, the xenophiles, and the immigration fraudsters, or being ready to replace them once they fall by the weight of their own corruption and the catastrophic consequences of their own ideology.

How do we get there? The first step is understanding where we came from, where we are, and where we are going. Faye begins the book by evaluating the current with which he was formerly affiliated, the Nouvelle Droite, and outlining the factors and ideological errors that led to its loss of vitality and eventual eclipsing by the Front National. He then presents his vision, which includes corrections of some previously held positions. This is followed by a series of politically incorrect statements—fast sniper attacks against the contemporary West that aggregate into a global analysis of its present condition. An outline of Faye’s future world system follows, in incremental order. Finally, the reader is immersed in the finished result through an exercise in fiction.

That is the first step.

The next step, having read Faye’s text, understood it, reflected, discussed it, and reached individual conclusions, is elucidating how to put the theory into practice—a task that will require our most astute minds and political operators, not to mention funding, courage, and discipline.

I find Faye’s one of the most lucid analyses and statements of a metapolitical proposition I have yet encountered. It is both creative and logically structured. It is both analytical and refreshingly constructive. And it is both intelligent and unflinchingly radical. What is more, the text flows with urgent velocity, thanks to a skilled English translation, and is copiously supplemented with useful informative notes. What more can you ask?

 

Entrevista com Guillaume Faye

Entrevista com Guillaume Faye

por François Delancourt

http://legio-victrix.blogspot.com/

Jornalista, escritor, polemista, produtor de rádio, roteirista, Guillaume Faye foi um dos principais entusiastas da corrente conhecida como Nova Direita, movimento que abandonou em meados dos anos 80. Depois dirigiu a publicação mensal J'ai tout compris.

Na atualidade, enquanto continua sua carreira jornalística, analisa a situação e lança novos dardos ideológicos que correm o risco de acertar no alvo em todos os instantes.

- Français d'abord: Poderias dar-nos uma definição do "politicamente correto" e explicar como funciona?

- Guillaume Faye: O "politicamente correto" é, antes de nada, uma censura social do pensamento e da inguagem imposto nos Estados Unidos pelos meios liberais-radicais, os grupos feministas, homossexuais, e por certas minorias étnicas, com o fim de paralizar a expressão da direita republicana. Porém na França, o "politicamente correto", adquire um perfil mais severo que nos Estados Unidos, é uma velha história. Leva ao ostracismo aos que não seguem a linha e os discursos oficiais da ideologia hegemônica. Na universidade dos anos 60 e 70, o antimarxismo era politicamente incorreto e seus detratos diabolizados como "fascistas".

O "politicamente correto" é a condição sine qua non para ter acesso aos grandes meios de comunicação e não ser socialmente satanizado. É o "politicamente chip". Dizer "jovens rebeldes" ao invés de marroquinos amotinados. Falar de "incidentes" e não de saques. Evocar os "efeitos colaterais" das Forças Aéreas estadunidenses na Sérvia, porém evitar a todo custo o tema incorreto dos bombardeios dos bairros civis do norte de Belgrado. Dizer "fratura social", ao invés de pauperização e, acima de tudo, esforçar-se, se quer ser admitido para jantar no andar térreo da Casa Lipp, Boulevard Saint Germain, para deixar entender que detesta os "franchutes" (*gíria depreciativa para fazer referência aos franceses étnicos). Para ser politicamente correto, é necessário ser etnomasoquista, é indispensável.

- Qual é, então, o lugar dos que têm coisas para dizer e verdadeiras perguntas para fazer?

- Acima de tudo não é necessário que se auto-censurem e adociquem seus discursos. Para forçar a barreira do politicamente correto eu prego o pensamento radical; quer dizer, o pensamento verdadeiro e afirmativo, do qual falava Nietzsche em seu "Crepúsculo dos Ídolos". Frente ao sistema é necessário aparecer como um verdadeiro inimigo, e não como um falso amigo. Como escreveu Solzhenitsyn, somente sendo radical o discurso poderá desafiar a censura e alcançar o ouvido do povo.

- Por quê a extrema esquerda não representa uma alternativa?

- Porque suas idéias e seus homens, os do trotskismo internacionalista e cosmopolita, já estão no poder. Porque seu discurso social está obsoleto e centrado na imigração e na xenofobia, sem ter em conta a defesa e a proteção do verdadeiro povo francês.

- O que é que lhe permite afirmar que o livre-comércio cairá em breve?

- Minhas posições são as de Maurice Allais, prêmio Nobem de economia. O mundialismo livrecambista não é viável a médio prazo pois descuida das diferenças de fatores de produção entre as distintas zonas e suprime as regulações econômicas. É um semi-reboque com o motoristo adormecido. Agora bem, em uma auto-estrada, uma coisa é certa: sempre há uma curva em alguma parte.

Para ser breve, eu sou favorável à teoria da autarquia dos grandes espaços: um espaço europeu de economia de mercado, sem fiscalismo nem estatismo, porém operando contingentemente sobre as importações exteriores, sobre todos os fluxos, quer sejam financeiros, materiais ou humanos.

- Você pôs em evidência os perigos da ascenção do integrismo religioso, não crês que possa existir uma forma moderada de Islã?

- Não, o Islã laico e moderado não existe. O Islã é uma civilização teocrática em que a fé se confunde com a lei. Quando o Islã é majoritário sobre um território, os cristãos e os judeus passam a ter um status de inferioridade. O Islã não conhece nem a tolerância, nem a reciprocidade, nem a caridade para com o não-muçulmano, excluída a umma (comunidade dos crentes do Islã). A esse respeito a ingenuidade dos políticos e dos sacerdotes é anestesiante.

- Para você, a imigração não é uma invasão, mas sim uma colonização populacional. Não estamos diante de uma diferença puramente semântica?

- França, em sua história, sofreu invasões totais ou parciais por parte de alemães, ingleses, russos, etc. Ainda assim, continuou sendo ela mesma. Uma invasão tem caráter militar e a sorte das armas pode mudar. A imigração atual é uma colonização populacional, com frequência consciente e vivida como um revanche contra a civilização européia. Pretende-se ademais, definitiva. A colonização das maternidades, como assinalava o general Bibeard, é muito mais importante que a das fronteiras porosas.

- Regressemos, se quiseres, à política. Como explica os ataques que a Frente Nacional vem sofrendo desde quinze anos?

- Como dizia Jean Baudrillard em 1997, em Libération, se minha memória não me engana (o que serviu para ser satanizado pelo terrorismo intelectual de seus colegas), "a Frente Nacional é o único partido que faz política, ali onde outros fazem marketing eleitoral". Agora bem, o sistema detesta os que fazem política, e os que têm idéias ou projetos alternativos de sociedade. Por outro lado, a Frente Nacional parece-se a um médico que ousa dizer a seu paciente que este em câncer e que deveria ser operado. É sempre desagradável de ouvir e entender.

A acusação neutralizadora de "racismo" e "fascismo" (em outro momento lançada contra Raymond Aron, lá por 1968, porque não era nem stalinista, nem marxista) não é nem se quer postura séria para os que a proferem. São anátemas para-religiosos, excomunhões lançadas contra todo grupo constituído que conteste os dogmas oficiais da classe político-midiática-intelectual no poder.

- Se o entendo bem, os partidos do governo formariam uma sorte de partido único ao que poderíamos chamar também Frente republicana?

- Vivemos dentro de um regime totalitário ao estilo ocidental, mais sutil, porém aparentado com os regimes soviético ou iraniano. A maioria e a oposição oficiais não discutem mais do que pontos de doutrina secundários, porém seguem pertencendo à mesma ideologia, a única autorizada. Diferem um pouco sobre os meios, porém não sobre os fins. Dita "Frente republicana" (que na realidade usurpou escandalosamente este belo vocábulo romano de res publica, assim como o conceito grego de demokratia) inclui várias frentes. Sobre as opções gerais, estão todos de acordo. Na atualidade, e emprego para isso personagens de Hergé, o senhor Chirac se assemelha ao capitán Haddock, o comandante bêbado e sem poder à cargo do Karaboudjian que transporta o ópio, e o senhor Jospin ao teniente Allen, que é o verdadeiro chefe a bordo. Que chege logo Tintin!

- A Frente Nacional seria então a única novidade política depois de 50 anos...

- Isso são os historiadores do ano 2050 que dirão. Nós chegamos a um ponto em que, como tratei de explicar em meu ensaio L'archéofuturisme, vivemos uma convergência de catástrofes. Pela primeira vez desde a queda do Império Romano, nossa civilização está globalmente ameaçada (étnica, demográfica, cultural, ecológica, economicamente...). É o "caso de urgência", a Ernstfall da qual falava Carl Schmitt. Vivemos tempos e apostas mais cruciais, por exemplo, que a derrota de 1940. Trata-se de salvar um povo e uma civilização. Nesse sentido, a missão e a ambição de movimentos como este devem ser de ordem histórica mais do que política. Trata-se de "Grande Política" no sentido nietzscheano. Nesses tempos crepusculares, um movimento político não pode ter futuro se não se afirma como o único defensor de um projeto revolucionário, que se reivindica (como foi a genial tática de Charles de Gaulle em 1940) como o último recurso.

O essencial não está em ser uma "novidade política", o essencial é, em verdade, impôr-se como uma novidade "histórica".


Tradução por Raphael Machado