Guillaume FAYE
Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/
Question: We will begin by quoting you. In the review Études et recherches, fifteen years ago, you wrote that one can arrive at the point where “a world civilization desirous to stabilize history opposes its conservative will to the forces which it had itself released.” According to you, are we there? The Occident, longtime passive witness of the ethnic invasion, America longtime imprudent accomplice of the Islamists — do they still have the moral strength “to stop the course of history” when the clash of civilizations has passed from the stage of the “cold war” to that of the “hot war”?
Guillaume Faye: One epoch terminates, another commences. One cannot foresee what will occur: what we know is that we are at a crossroads; we live the end of an age of European civilization. This civilization has known three great epochs: the ancient, the medieval, then the modern which commenced about the 1850s. Currently we live at the end of this last epoch because Europe is invaded by the very ones it had conquered when it is in full demographic decline. On the moral, mental, psychological level, all European values have reached their conclusion, diluted in humanism and total egalitarianism. The Hegelian “enough” thesis that I defend is that this situation is provoking a world catastrophe which can in the end regenerate us. One does not regenerate oneself cold: one can metamorphose oneself only hot. The central question that one can pose in a dialectical manner is to know if this ethnic, ecological, ethical, etc., catastrophe that European civilization caused by its own decline will be the occasion of a regeneration or a disappearance.
Currently we are colonized, and this invasion is coupled with an incredible masochism on the part of Europeans themselves. Thus, only a terrifying crisis – that I welcome, in this respect -- can change collective mentalities, awake Europeans. In my new book, Avant-Guerre [Before the War], I develop my thesis of “the Colonization of Europe,” while going beyond, by transcending the European context. Because for me, now that we have come right to the clash of civilizations, we go towards the third world war!
Question: The shock of September 2001 seemed to awaken the capacity of analysis of certain media. Then, quite quickly, Bush specified that he did not make war on Islam, and the big media — Le Monde or Télérama in France, Repubblica in Italy — devoted all their energy to make Islam known to us, this religion of tolerance and culture, so near and so remote. Has censorship already returned?
Guillaume Faye: This awakening was a shuddering, a flapping of wings. When Bush and Blair say that they do not make war on Islam, it is risible. Maybe we do not make war on Islam, but Islam makes war on us! It is not you who designate the enemy; it is the enemy who designates you! They knew very well that they declared the war on Islam, which besides is designated in Arabic by the same word as “Islamism”: islamiya. There was thus a small awakening, but it is not very important. The war which Islam makes on us did not begin on September 11, 2001, but in the ’60s. What is positive, it’s that the Islamists went too far, too fast: it’s the Arab mentality which wants that. They passed too quickly from the time of peace to the time of war, whereas they were underway to invade consciousness. If they had been less impatient, nobody would have seen anything. No doubt, so that the eyes really open, there a giant attack will be necessary: but I do not believe that this will take place immediately; it is not in their interest to realize too much of it in the immediate future.
It is possible that there will be a period of calm. We are faced with a terrorism which does not depend on a true terrorist organization, but deploys itself according to the logic of a transnational war, in networks, and which goes beyond the sole capacities of a group like Al-Qaeda: Islam is multinational; the war is not territorialized, nor reducible to the misdeeds of a single organization! The end of bin Laden will not solve anything at all because this last, simple sponsor of the jihad in spite of his posture of Prophet, had only applauded some acts that he undoubtedly had followed and financed, but certainly not organized directly himself!
Question: Which strategy do you recommend for citizens who would like to prepare for the future conflicts? Some have said that you want to found your own political party.
Guillaume Faye: It’s idiotic! That would limit my audience. That goes completely against my current analysis, because I recommend creating and working through a network. It is certainly necessary that there be parties to make agitprop. But the important thing is the network, on a European scale, without a guru or bigwig! To found one more petty sect is completely counterproductive. My “party” is my secretariat and the many friends with whom I collaborate in all Europe. I do not want a label!
Question: In the review Réfléchir et Agir, you recommended a “withdrawal” from associative action, following the example of that which the extreme-Left made. Could you develop this point?
Guillaume Faye: It is not a “withdrawal,” but a general-purpose strategy. One needs parties, publishers, associations, trade unions. It is necessary that our ideas be present in civil society. But all the forms of action are necessary: we should not oppose metapolitics to politics. All action, political, cultural, should be connected by the same vision of the world. It is not a strategy of withdrawal, but of spreading out, comparable that of the Trotskyists — who are today at the head of the State and of the Catholic Church! – from the ’60s. The French national Right is undermined by the culture of defeat, petty bosses, gossip: the different groups of Muslims and Leftists can detest one other, but they have each and all the same enemies against whom they unite. Whereas for many people of our ideas, the enemy is at first his own political friend, for simple reasons of jealousy!
I am stunned to see that associative action has so little been used. There is no association which defends Europeans! Well, there is AGRIF, but they do few things, and they belong too openly to the National Front, which undermines their credibility: S.O.S Racism knew to more or less camouflage its connection to the Socialist Party!
At least, the Left moves: look at Act against Unemployment, ATTAC or Right to Housing, which represent 5,000 people in France! People in our circles are for order, but they are disorganized and inactive, whereas the Trotskyists, in spite of their ideology, are organized people. It is necessary to move! I am struck by the poverty of the associative activity in our camp. I repeat it, there is anti-European racism and no association really stirs itself to get it talked about!
Question: What do you think of this pro-Islamist drift that one observes in the French national Right, a drift often aroused by an anti-Americanism fed on ill-digested antisemitism?
Guillaume Faye: This drift is recognized. They confound the enemy and the adversary: the adversary is that which weakens us, that is to say the United States, the enemy is that which invades us concretely: Islam and the Third World. The funniest thing is that it is I, among others, who, in the ’70s, convinced this circle that one did not have to be deeply pro-American. All the obsessional anti-Americans of today were then pro-Americans! Giorgio Locchi and I, notably with my book Le Système à tuer les peuples [The System Against the Peoples], made Alain de Benoist topple over into anti-Americanism, who was an Americanophile before; to realize it, it is enough to re-read the numbers from before 1975 of the review Nouvelle École! Some suffer from an obsessional antisemitism, coupled with a kind of Stockholm Syndrome which makes them love the true enemy. The Muslims will not hold any liking of them for it: the French “identitarians” who perhaps admired the actions attributed to bin Laden will have their throats cut like the others! Islam is a religion of force which leads certain nationalist militants to prostrate in front of the conquering religion with the fascination of a colonized people. But even if they convert, which is already the case for some, they are always, as Occidentals, only second-class Muslims. Pro-Islamism in the nationalist Right is common enough. Plus these people are “nazis” in the most primary sense of the word, anti-Americans in the most idiotic sense of the term, and plus they are pro-Muslims, without knowing either America or Islam besides. They are fascinated by the neo-romantic illusions which they have of Islam. In circles which claim to be radical, there is an infantile reaction: these people are perhaps extremists, but not radical, because the radicals are those who go to the root of things. It is easy to tag “US go home” or “Long live bin Laden” in the subway; they risk less than if they were going to write “Islam out” in the projects.
Question: As a journalist, which judgment do you give to the sociology of the current media? Does the “politically correct” find its roots in the Third-Worldism of the ’50s and ’60s, in communist engagement, or rather in May ‘68 and the years which followed?
Guillaume Faye: It is a sequence; but I believe that it is the post-’68 period which weighed the most. Those who hold the media are people 50 years old, of my generation, who grew up in a neo-Marxist atmosphere. But one needs to know that there reigns among journalists a true Stalinist single thought: Marxism has ceded in this respect its place to Third-Worldism, then to immigrationism. To succeed socially, it is necessary to have a position which goes in the direction of the anti-[White] racist, immigrationist, and egalitarian software-ideology (as at the time of the USSR, where it was necessary to be pro-Soviet). Knowing that even people disapproving of it participate in this vulgar affair.
Everyone sees the truth in the street, everyone except the current elites, who play ostrich. Some great journalists, totally [in spite] of my ideas, signed the petitions for the “undocumented:” they explained to me that if they had refused, their career was screwed. It does not suffice not to speak of it: one must claim to be anti-[White] racist, as it was necessary to be Stalinophile in the ’50s. Charlie-Hebdo attacked Gérard Depardieu because he refused to sign! That did him no harm, because he is at the top. But a young actor would have seen his career cut short. One must know that many do not speak by conviction, but from fear: they want to be on the side of the whip hand. One must proclaim oneself anti-[white] racist, for immigration, etc. as in the nineteenth century one must go to Mass every Sunday! That means Charlie-Hebdo, directed by “old schmucks,” is the classic example of the “Stalinist rag and informer,” a “media of thought-police and collaborators,” the “freezing point of journalism.” For Europeans to have a true awakening from the conformism and ethno-masochistic blindness of our self-styled “opinion leaders,” we have need of a terrible crisis, which alone can give us the energy to defend ourselves.
From the Guillaume Faye Archive, interviewer and translator not credited.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Les quartiers sensibles se définissent ainsi comme des territoires désertés par les classes moyennes. L’image de ces « no-middle-class-land » s’est construite en creux, en comparaison d’une classe moyenne majoritaire et intégrée vivant sur d’autres territoires, notamment périurbains.
Le « paysage médiatique » est devenu le « paysage social de référence » et le reflet de l’idéologie des élites. L’analyse de la genèse de cette représentation permet d’éclairer cette dimension idéologique.
Cette affirmation ne correspond pas à la réalité. Si la permanence des difficultés sociales révèle une forme d’impuissance des pouvoirs publics, elle ne signifie pas pour autant que l’État s’est désengagé. D’ailleurs, ces territoires bénéficient le plus souvent d’une densité d’équipements publics supérieure à celle des territoires périurbains et ruraux.
Paul Gottfried has spent the last thirty years writing books and generating hostility among authorized media-approved conservatives. His most recent work is his autobiography Encounters; and he is currently preparing a long study of Leo Strauss and his disciples. His works sell better in Rumanian, Spanish,Russian and German translations than they do in the original English, and particularly in the Beltway. Until his retirement two years hence, he will continue to be Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, PA.
This article has been researched and compiled for the purposes of educating New Right and N-A activists in the use of humor as a political weapon. There is a paranoid feeling amongst many on the New Right that the mass media is our greatest enemy. Not so. This article looks at the ways in which activists can use and manipulate the media, rather than the other way around.
Molti militari ed ex-funzionari CIA lavorano per Blackwater o società collegate create per sviare l’attenzione dalla propria cattiva reputazione e fanno alti profitti vendendo i propri vili servizi – che vanno dall’informazione e lo spionaggio all’infiltrazione, al lobbying politico fino all’addestramento paramilitare – per altri governi, banche e multinazionali.
Quasi simultaneamente alla pubblicazione di quest’articolo su The Nation, la Via Campesina ha riferito l’acquisto di 500mila azioni di Monsanto, per più di 23 milioni di dollari, da parte della Fondazione Bill & Melinda Gates, che con tale azione ha finito di gettare via la sua nmaschera “filantropica”. Un’altra connessione che non sorprende.
Benché Bill Gates possa tentare di dire che la Fondazione non sia collegata ai suoi affari, tutto ciò prova che è vero il contrario: la maggior parte delle loro donazioni finiscono per favorire gli investimenti commerciali del magnate, effettivamente non “donando” alcunché: anziché pagare tasse ai forzieri statali, investe i suoi profitti là dove gli frutta economicamente, compresa la propaganda sulle loro presunte buone intenzioni.
Ex: 
Le gouvernement de droite, actuellement en selle aux Pays-Bas, avec l’appui de Geert Wilders, a très clairement provoqué une mutation de fond dans la politique européenne. Même en Allemagne, où, généralement, les réactions face à tout « extrémisme de droite », réel ou imaginaire, sont plus peureuses et hystériques que partout ailleurs dans le monde, pour des raisons historiques évidentes. Or il semble que désormais ce tabou-là, lui aussi, soit mis au rencart. D’abord, avant l’accession de Wilders au gouvernement néerlandais, nous avons eu l’affaire déclenchée par le social-démocrate Sarrazin qui a profondément ébranlé le monde politique allemand. Immédiatement dans la foulée du tollé soulevé par le livre de Thilo Sarrazin, la CSU bavaroise est entrée dans le jeu : elle s’est mise à critiquer la politique allemande de l’immigration, menée jusqu’ici. Et voilà maintenant que la Chancelière Angela Merkel s’y met à son tour en déclarant publiquement que la société multiculturelle, que l’on avait envisagée pour le futur de l’Allemagne, s’est soldée par un échec. Elle a déclaré cette vérité en termes clairs lors d’un rassemblement des jeunes de son parti, la CDU démocrate-chrétienne à Potsdam. 
alliés soit aux libéraux (qui ont plus d’une fois adopté la tactique de la girouette), soit à « Die Linke », la formation socialo-communiste de Lafontaine et de Gysi, soit aux Verts. Ce serait alors l’instabilité durable, due aux blocages de coalitions trop hétérogènes. L’Allemagne deviendrait aussi ingouvernable que la Belgique : impossible d’envisager cette perspective car les défis sont trop importants à l’heure actuelle. On ne va pas sacrifier la boutique pour quelques centaines de milliers d’immigrés considérés, à tort ou à raison, comme non intégrés, non intégrables et improductifs, selon les thèses du socialiste Sarrazin.
multiculturelle, on a vu intervenir une mégère qui a empêché toutes ses coreligionnaires de croquer à belles dents cette sympathique spécialité du Brabant wallon. Et voilà qu’est décrétée « haram » (et non « halal ») la tarte au sucre de Chaumont-Gistoux ! Le même ostracisme est appliqué au cramique (pain au beurre et aux raisins, pour nos amis hexagonaux) : nos pensionnés qui vivent dans certains quartiers en sont définitivement privés ! Et si un militant wallon refusait de déguster un biscuit marocain, gentiment offert, sous prétexte qu’il n’est pas fait avec du bon beurre, donc fade, insipide et immangeable ? Commettrait-il un acte « raciste », donc délictueux, en refusant la convivialité ambiante ? Les enfants et les jeunes adorent les bonbons : rien de nouveau sous le soleil. La Belgique, nous disaient maints Français qui, enfants, avaient séjourné à Bruxelles dans les années 50 et 60, était le paradis des amateurs de bonbons : petites barres sûres acidulées car toutes trempées d’acide citrique, lards en guimauve, lacets en réglisse, et j’en passe. Tout cela est encore disponible. Et les jeunes issus de l’immigration en raffolent. Or voilà que certains fondamentalistes viennent leur dire que ce n’est pas « halal », que cela contient des résidus de porc, de « halouf ». Finis les bonbons. Et les enfants non musulmans de le répéter pour ne pas partager le paquet de « nounours qui piquent » avec leurs condisciples musulmans. Où va la convivialité souhaitée par tous ? Vous voulez offrir un bonbon à un sympathique petit galopin venu d’Afrique du Nord et vous risquez de vous faire lapider par un illuminé ou de subir les foudres de la justice inspirée par la Loi Moureaux, si vous lui répondez de travers ou si vous lui collez une claque parce qu’il vous a adressé l’une de ses sympathiques injures, devenues courantes à Bruxelles comme « fils de p. » ou « enc.. de ta mère » ; elles remplacent les truculents
revendiquaient cet héritage par leur méconduite. Qu’on le veuille ou non, elle faisait partie du répertoire des injures bruxelloises, répertoire rabelaisien et baroque que nous devons à une culture vaguement hispanisée au 17ème siècle, où la tendance était au langage cru, contrairement à la France, qui se cherchait, sous Louis XIV, des formes policées, destinées à dompter la noblesse et le peuple, prompts aux frondes ou aux jacqueries. Aucune législation ou directive n’a cependant interdit l’emploi de cette injure haute en couleurs, contrairement aux termes habituels de « macaque » et de « bougnoul » que la police bruxelloise a reçu l’ordre de bannir définitivement de son vocabulaire quand elle s’adresse aux migrants. Le « mettekou » à Bruxelles, ou le « marticot » à Gand, sont ces petits singes à queue longue qui accompagnaient les joueurs d’orgue de Barbarie dans les rues et quémandaient des piécettes aux passants, armés d’une tirelire et affublés d’oripeaux comiques. Dans sa série « Jo, Zette et Jocko », Hergé a croqué une de ces scènes en fourrant le singe Jocko dans un uniforme rouge grotesque, lorsqu’il est recueilli par un joueur d’orgue de Barbarie après avoir perdu ses jeunes maîtres.
Su questi pilastri poggiava la Ramakrishna Mission, istituita da Vivekananda a fine secolo quale organizzazione impegnata in ambito sociale e strettamente connessa alla vita del monastero dell’Ordine di Ramakrishna, i cui monaci fondevano nella propria esperienza quotidiana lavoro sociale e pratica spirituale – due aspetti che, completandosi a vicenda, fungevano l’uno da motore dell’altro. Intervenendo inizialmente soprattutto in ambito educativo e nella lotta alla povertà, la Ramakrishna Mission cominciò così in quegli anni il suo servizio all’India, che Vivekananda descriveva in termini angosciati:
Sabato scorso, funzionari federali hanno ammesso che l’uomo d'affari statunitense David Coleman Headley, che si presume abbia confessato di essere un reclutatore di terroristi in relazione agli attentati di Mumbai del 2008, lavorava come informatore della DEA, mentre si esercitava con i terroristi in Pakistan.
Die Europäische Union dürfe die Terrorbedrohung in Europa nicht ausschließlich durch die politisch korrekte Brille betrachten, sagte der freiheitliche Delegationsleiter im Europäischen Parlament, Andreas Mölzer, zu dem heute in Luxemburg beginnenden Rat der EU-Innenminister. „Die Terrorgefahr ist vor allem ein importiertes Problem, und zwar von Zuwanderern aus islamischen Ländern. Mit einer allgemeinen Einschränkung der Bürgerrechte und einem Ausbau des Überwachungsstaates wird sich daher dieses Problem nicht lösen lassen“, betonte Mölzer. 
