Guillaume Faye on Carl Schmitt
Guillaume Faye studerar även i denna text Europas näst största, och snabbast växande, religion. Att Faye ser denna som ett hot är vid det här laget ingen nyhet, men det finns ett par stycken i texten som är av större intresse. Dels stycket om Carl Schmitt, där Faye går in på Schmitts distinktion mellan vän och fiende som den politiska distinktionen (precis som ”vackert och fult” är estetikens distinktioner, och ”gott och ont” är moralens). Faye har på annan plats återknutit till den gamla grekiska åtskillnaden mellan fiende och antagonist, och tillämpat den på Europas situation idag. Antagonisten är den som tillhör din egen Civilisation, men som kan vilja breda ut sig på din bekostnad eller förändra dig. Fienden däremot, strävar efter att utplåna dig. Bland de små grekiska stadsstaterna var Aten och Sparta antagonister, men mot det Persiska imperiet enades de mot en Fiende som hotade själva den hellenska kulturen. Det stora problemet för en Civilisation uppstår när dess stater glömmer bort denna grundläggande insikt, och allierar dess Fiender mot sina antagonister (såsom Frankrike allierade ottomanerna mot Tysk-Rom på 1600-talet exempelvis, eller som de flesta kombattanter under Världskrigen). För Faye är USA inte en Fiende, som det är för många systemkritiker, utan bara en antagonist. Istället ser han av geopolitiska och civilisationella skäl Islam (betraktat som politisk-civilisationell enhet) som Europas Fiende i den nära framtiden. Viktigt är här Schmitts grundtanke. Man hatar inte sin Fiende. Man tycker inte nödvändigtvis att Han är ful, ond eller dålig. Fulhet, ondska och dålighet är inte politiska kategorier, även om man naturligtvis kan känna så också. Men i grunden är det en politisk distinktion, och man kan mycket väl respektera sin Fiende (vilket väl för övrigt är den mer värdiga, och rationella, inställningen).
Stycket där Faye beskriver varför Islam är oförenligt med europeiska traditioner återknyter till Spenglers beskrivning av Europa som den Faustiska Civilisationen, och tar upp flera faustiska egenskaper (jag skulle kanske inte vara lika kategorisk som Faye, exemplet Iran visar hur en indo-arisk kultur kan behålla en hel del gamla särdrag efter islamisering. I detta fallet genom att blanda islam med gamla zoroastriska och ”Cult of Angels”- ideer, och skapa shia. Men det är detaljer).
Inlägg om Schmitt och Spengler kommer, här är Fayes text, ett utdrag ur La Colonisation de l’Europe:
There are officially four million Muslims in France today. The real figure is almost certainly higher, probably between six and seven million believers. Islam is already France’s second largest religion, with 1,430 official mosques. Its followers are young, whereas practicing Catholics are old. If demographic trends are taken into account (a steady, uncontrolled flow of immigrants and a higher birth rate) Islam will become the dominant religion in France as early as 2015, if nothing is done to prevent it. France currently has more Muslims than Albania and Bosnia combined. In the European Union, the number of Muslims is estimated at fifteen million. It is growing in all European countries.
To claim today that France could never become an Islamic republic or even a Muslim country is as risky as someone denying in the 1980s the possibility of German reunification or the demise of Communism in the USSR.
None of my remarks will be hateful toward Islam, though it does not always reciprocate. On the other hand, I do indeed consider Islam a grave threat and an enemy, since this conquering religion is engaged in a massive and deliberate settlement of Europe. You do not despise an enemy; you combat him. And in attempting to understand your enemy, you should not descend to the naivety of contemporary intellectuals, who reflexively declare Islam tolerant, without ever having studied it.
It is perfectly possible to share values in common with your enemy. His character as enemy arises, in this case, only because he has first imposed himself on you as an occupier. We can, in agreement with Islam, resist or deplore the West’s materialism and its exaggerated, deranged individualism, but nevertheless regard the establishment of Islam in Europe as an act of war, according to the Koran’s own rigorous teachings. Carl Schmitt’s warning aptly applies to all Europeans who remain naive and tolerant toward Islam: ”You don’t decide who your enemy is; he decides. You can easily declare him your friend, but if he decides that he is your enemy, there is nothing you can do about it.”
Contrary to the opinion of Islamophiles, Islam is not simply a ”universal faith” like Christianity; it is also a community of civilization (umma) which aims at expansion. The implicit project of Islam is quite simply the conquest of Europe, both religiously and ethnically, as the Koran stipulates. We are already at war. Westerners, unlike the Russians, have not yet grasped this fact.
For even if Islam conveys transcendent values and proposes an individual and a collective doctrine of life — imposing high, intangible standards on its believers, thus endowing their lives with meaning — it nevertheless corresponds to nothing in the European soul and temperament. Its massive introduction into Europe would disfigure a European culture already damaged by Americanization. An assertive dogmatism, an absence of the Faustian spirit, a fundamental denial of humanism (understood as the autonomy of the human will) in favor of an absolute submission to God, an extreme rigidity of social obligations and prohibitions, a theocratic confusion of civil society, religion and the political State, an absolute monotheism, a profound ambivalence toward artistic freedom and scientific inquiry — all these traits are incompatible with traditional European patterns of thought, which are fundamentally polytheistic.
posted by Arkeofuturist at 6:05 AM 0 comments
Guillaume Faye on Euro-Islam
Ännu en intressant text av Faye, denna gång en insiktsfull inblick i Europas näst största religion, sedd ur ett politiskt perspektiv. Och det är just ur det politiska perspektivet även jag ser Islam som ett hot, som religion betraktad är det en väg till upplysning och ett gott liv, precis som de andra religiösa traditionerna. Jag hyser exempelvis den största respekt för sufismen, Hossein Nasr och Martin Lings, men det innebär inte att jag inte inser att ett Eurabien skulle vara en plats där förortsbornas ättlingar skulle härska över mina ättlingar, och där mina ättlingar skulle tvingas anamma kultur och religion från Mellanöstern. Efter att ha talat med berber, indier och iranier, ättlingarna till högtstående civilisationer som brutalt tvingades in i dar-al-Islam, och hört deras tragiska historier om hur deras historia och rötter tagits ifrån dem, är det inget öde jag önskar mina barnbarn.
Jag antar att Mona Sahlin och Gudrun Schyman så totalt saknar inblick i människans och historiens natur (”Man is a beast of prey”, för att citera Spengler) att de fullt ut lyckats förtränga historiens realiteter. På fullt allvar tror de att vi lämnat sådana sociologiska fakta som gruppsolidaritet, erövringar, civilisationers uppgång och fall, och politiskt våld bakom oss, bara för att vi har en sossestat som hyllar ”mångkulturen”. Tanken att en massiv invandring av vitala element med en expansiv religion skulle kunna leda till konflikter eller ett maktövertagande inom 100 år, är sannolikt bortom deras fattningsförmåga, eftersom de mentalt fortfarande befinner sig på dagis. Och om sanningen ska fram tror jag inte att de har den Vilja till Makt som krävs för att man ska beröras illa av tanken på att ens ättlingar ska behärskas av andra (eller för att man ska vara kapabel att känna igen Viljan till Makt hos andra grupper). Vissa av oss har en gnutta stolthet och en gnutta Vilja till Makt, Vitalitet, Virilitet eller vad vi nu vill kalla det, kvar. Och vi ser både en nödvändighet och ett visst nöje i att kämpa för vår existens och vår del av kakan. Men en skrämmande stor del av befolkningen är masochistiska zombies som helst av allt vill sjunka in i den eviga vilan. Thanatosdriften är stark hos dessa Nietzsches ”last men”, och de ser med jämnmod på när deras grupp, deras lag på historiens brutala spelplan, slungas rakt in i RE Howards svarta avgrund. Men för de av oss som betraktar masochism som ett lyte snarare än en dygd, kommer här ännu en givande text av Guillaume Faye:
Islam is in essence intolerant, and its highly Machiavellian logic alternates between force and deception: deception, when Muslims are weakest and form a minority; force, when their dominance begins to be assured. Among Arabo-African immigrants Islam is not conceived of as a spiritual religion (its moral precepts are seldom followed) but as a revanchist form of ethnic self-assertion against Europeans, often called ”crusaders.” Much more than Christianity, today enfeebled, Islam is fundamentally a religion of the imperative revealed truth and it has always believed, with a thoroughly blind conscience, in its own rightness, and it has justified all acts, even atrocities, committed in the name of Islamic expansion and for the glory of Allah.
Europeans, naive defenders of Islam, fail to comprehend it and interpret the Koran as a sincere whole, as a single unified text with a consistent logic, whereas in fact it is rich in prevarication, a text with multiple gears.
Islam can propose ”tolerance and fraternity among religions” and ”the freedom of the believer’s preferred faith” on the basis of a Koranic precept: ”Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Sura 2.256); it can insistently reject any fundamentalism and fanaticism: ”Islam is the community of the just balance” (Sura 2.143) or ”no violence in matters of religion! Truth stands out clearly from error” (Sura 2.257). Islam can commit itself to compassion and forgiveness of offenses: ”evil must be requited by good” (Sura 41.34; 22.96); Islam can even commit itself to humane treatment of an enemy and the Islamic obligation to offer him aid (Sura 9.6). Yet these verses are absolutely contradicted by fourteen centuries of Islamic behavior, for Islam has always preferred violence whenever the balance of power is in its favor, ignoring forgiveness and compassion, eradicating or subjecting in ghettos other religions in the territories that it has conquered, and tolerating in the latter neither pagan polytheists nor atheists.
These peaceful Koranic verses are a ruse. Theologically they have been annulled by the bellicose verses written later, in particular those of Sura 4 ….
Almsgiving (zakat), which constitutes the third ”pillar of Islam,” is completely different in character from Christian charity. The latter is universalist and altruistic — which seems quite naive to a Muslim. Although Muslims and their allies, by a pure propaganda trick, attempt to convince us that Islamic almsgiving is a philanthropic requirement that demonstrates the humane and peaceful spirit of Islam, reality is very different.
Zakat concerns only the umma, the community of Muslim believers. A Muslim is by no means held responsible for giving alms to impoverished Jews and Christians, nor to succor them in any way; as for acts of charity toward the pagan or the atheist, they are deemed blasphemous. Charity is not based on commiseration or love of one’s neighbor in this conquering, intolerant and warlike religion. It is motivated, according to the Koran, by two considerations: first, to practice solidarity toward indigent members of the umma, in order to foster cohesion within the community; second, to teach any Muslim that he is not the real owner of the goods at his disposal, which are merely a loan authorized by Allah in order to illustrate his power and to spread Islam everywhere, by conversion or the sword.
There is thus no question of a Muslim indiscriminately coming to assistance of other human beings. For this implacable revealed monotheism, the Infidel is unworthy. Some may have noticed, though the media largely ignored it, that the Muslim Red Crescent during the wars in the Balkans only aided Bosnian refugees or Muslim Kosovars, completely indifferent to the fate of the Orthodox Serbs or the Croatian Catholics afflicted by war. The Red Cross, on the other hand, did not make any ethnic or religious distinctions.
Generally, Islam practices a policy of peace and apparent tolerance only when it is weak and remains in the minority.
Many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, absolutely proscribe the construction of churches in their territory. Christian worship is prohibited to foreigners stationed in these countries. In the majority of Muslim countries, the entry or residence of Christian priests is almost impossible; any proselytism is prohibited, under penalty of immediate expulsion. In Europe, however, Muslim proselytism is encouraged and financed (e.g. the construction of mosques) by the authorities, whose secularism is tantamount to naivety. The rule of reciprocity that governs international law is completely scorned; to their discredit Europeans readily accept this double-standard, which in the eyes of Muslims betrays a sign of weakness and resignation that encourages and legitimates, as though justified by divine will, their movement of ethno-religious conquest in Europe.
For the Islamic mind, the fact that Europeans do not demand from Muslim countries the same secular neutrality, the same freedom of worship that we extend to Muslims, means this: ”Europeans know that they are in error, they recognize the superiority of Islam and the superiority of Allah; they prostrate themselves before us and acknowledge themselves to be Infidels, and thus it is just that they should become a land for our conquest.” These remarks were made by an Egyptian imam in the Cairo newspaper Al Ahram.
Dar al-Islam
In the conservative tradition of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of God, and dar al-Harb, the house of war; the home of the infidels or unbelievers. The goal of the Islamists is to expand the borders of dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-Harb, and to create a universal Islamic community. This is one meaning of the term Jihad. The Saudi Wahhabists and their philosophy are a prime example of this doctrine. Bin Laden’s rhetoric is also reflective of this dichotomy ….
From Wikipedia.
Europeans are unaware of the very foundations of Islam, notably the cynical imperative of the three stages of conquest. Initially a Muslim community established in a foreign land and still forming a minority practices Dar Al-Sulh, ”temporary peace,” because the Infidel, in his blindness and naivety, permits Islamic proselytism in his country, without demanding any reciprocity on Muslim soil. This is the stage that Europe is currently experiencing, which makes many believe that a ”secular and Europeanized Islam” is possible.
Only in the second stage, after the settlement of an Islamic community has been established, does the requirement of conquest and violence become apparent. This is Dar Al-Harb, in which the Infidel’s soil becomes a ”zone of war,” either because of resistance to the establishment of Islam, resistance that must be broken, or because Muslims, now in sufficient numbers, no longer need peace and can abandon the prudence that marked the first stage of their conquest. This phase will soon be upon us: We can already see its premises.
In the third stage Muslims end up dominating. This is Dar Al-Islam, the ”reign of Islam.” The Jew and the Christian are tolerated but reduced in status, enjoying at best an inferior position, that of dhimmis (”protected”) paying a special poll-tax and deprived of most of their rights; pagan polytheists (”idolaters”) and atheists are persecuted; and the whole population must submit to Islam’s social regulations. Under this ”reign of Islam” the non-Muslim has no chance of occupying any leading social position. In Morocco, where Christians and Jews were the most tolerated and protected, they were nevertheless compelled to leave at the end of the French protectorate, even though there had been no war, as was the case in Algeria.
For many of the leaders of international Islamic networks today, the ultimate objective is to impose on Europe the law of Dar Al-Islam. It is a consequent project, propelled by an unwavering political will, which has already been set in motion. Because God has so ordained.
posted by Arkeofuturist at 6:04 AM 0 comments
Mer citat av Guillaume Faye
De som följt denna blogg har sannolikt förstått att jag inte förklarar kravallerna i Frankrike med ”fattigdom och förtryck” som vänstern gör, utan att jag istället för deras socio-ekonomiska förklaringsmodell föredrar en spengleriansk med nietzscheanska övertoner, där det rör sig om en kamp för ökad makt av en redan stark grupp. Min tes är följande: ”ungdomsgängen är ingalunda förtryckta eller särskilt fattiga, deras oproportionerligt höga nivå av brott och våld kan istället förklaras med deras egen rasism och med deras vilja att öka sin tillgång till makt, kvinnor, revir, ”respekt” och pengar”.
Detta perspektiv delar jag med Guillaume Faye, vilket framgår tydligt av följande citat:
”The ethnic war has begun…. For now, it has taken the form of larval-stage urban guerilla warfare: burning cars or businesses, repeated attacks on Europeans, attacks on public transit, ambushes of the police or firefighters, raids on the urban centers from the suburbs, etc…
Begining in the suburbs, enclaves or ’lawless zones’ have been created which spread out like an oil slick. Once the foreign population has reached a certain proportion, crime has made the ’petits blancs’, harrassed by the ethnic gangs, move out….
The politicians… blame the ’petits blancs’ of the popular classes… who they accuse of racism. They are said to be the ones responsible for the creation of ’ghettos’….However, properly speaking, we are not dealing with ghettos, but with conquered and colonized territories. A ghetto is a zone relegated to a people suffering ostracism. Today in France, it is the foreign populations which have conquered, by force, their territorial spaces.” – Guillaume Faye(1)
…the criminality of the young North Africans is… a means of territorial conquest and of expelling Europeans within the territory of France itself…. Today in France, it is the foreign populations which have conquered, by force, their territorial spaces. – Guillaume Faye(1) from La Colonisation De L’Europe
Guillaume Faye’s argues that the influx of mostly North African immigrants into France over the past decades represents the gradual conquest of the country. To Faye, the clustering of these unassimilated (and unassimilable?) immigrants in the grim suburbs which surround France’s major cities and the de facto expulsion of the French themselves from these in an ethnic-cleansing-through-crime represents a piecemeal foreign occupation.
Faye rightly rejects the notion that the massive increase in crime which has afflicted France in the last decades is the result of poverty, racism, or any of the usual leftist excuses, arguing instead that it is the product of the arrival at adolescence of a generation of immigrant’s children:
… who reject integration into “white” French (and European) society and who demonstrate a willfully aggressive attitude, based on a mixture of feelings of resentment and a desire for revenge, but also on a fascination with the consumerist model in which they believe they have the right to share, here and now, without any effort and without taking any social responsibility….
In Faye’s model, then, the street fighting in Paris during the past 8 days has been not a civil war instead, it would be more properly considered a particularly acute episode in the low intensity conflict between the French and the invaders which has been underway in one form or another for decades.
Alla citat hämtade från Faceright-bloggen (kursiverad text är Fayes, vanlig text är Facerights): http://www.faceright.com/archives/2005/11/the_colonizatio.html
posted by Arkeofuturist at 6:03 AM 0 comments
The Gothick God of Darkness
Många utövare av rekonstruerad asatro och hedendom är egentligen föga mer än liberaler i lustiga kläder. Arkeo-futurister är de inte, utan de är lika typiska barn av 2000-talet som dina grannar och arbetskamrater. Men det finns asatroende som lyckats frigöra sig från det moderna tänkesättet, och som är företrädare för en identitär, anti-modern, och a-dualistisk spiritualitet. Följande stycke av Edred Thorson är ett mycket läsvärt exempel på detta. Edred menar att Odens arv finns i blodet/generna på hans utvalda folk, och att det inte är envar förunnat att upptäcka detta arv. Edreds asatro är därför både elitär och identitär/etnisk. Vidare är Edreds beskrivning av Oden som både en mörk gud, och en visdomsgud, klart skild från den monoteistiska dualismen där allting är antingen ”gott” eller ”ont”. Läs och njut:
There is a Secret God, a Hidden God, who dwells in a spiralling tower fortress and who has guided and overseen our development from time immemorial–and who has remained concealed but very close to us awaiting the ”future” time of re-awakening. The time of the re-awakening is near. Already we have heard the distant claps of thunder which signal the coming storm.
The legacy of the Dark Gothick God is one which can guide those chosen by him to a state of development wherein they have attained a permanent (immortal) consciousness which is free to act or not act in the material universe as it desires. This consciousness becomes privy to all manner of secrets of life and death and life in death. The price for this attainment is contained in the cost of attaining it–for one who has been so chosen there can be no rest, no respite from the Quest which is, and remains, the Eternal Work.
Because the way in which knowledge of this Dark Gothick God is passed from generation to generation contradicts the favored methods of the so-called ”major religions” of the world–the religions of the ”book”–Judaism, Christianity and Islam–this knowledge and its methods have been forbidden and made increasingly tabu for all of the centuries since the cunning ideological conversion of Europe by Christianity.
Books can be burned, religious leaders can be killed–but the blood endures.
Fullständig text här:
http://www.runegild.org/secretdark.html
posted by Arkeofuturist at 6:02 AM 0 comments
Beyond ethnopluralism
Guillaume Faye visar än en gång var skåpet skall stå, i denna text där han visar hur etnopluralismen trots allt är uppbyggd på abstraktioner av samma sort som ”individualismen” och ”liberalismen”. För en stirnerian som inser sin egen unicitet, och för en socialdarwinist som inser att det är viljan till liv/makt som avgör vilka som får leva och vilka som får gå under i det oändliga krig som är historien, så är det endast Fayes neo-vitalistiska budskap som räcker hela vägen. Läs och njut:
Guillaume Faye
“The Cause of the Peoples?”
From Terre et Peuple 18 (Winter Solstice 2003)
The [GRECE’s] cause des peuples is an ambiguous slogan. It was initially conceived in a polytheistic spirit to defend ethnocultural heterogeneity. But it has since been reclaimed by egalitarian and human rights ideologies which, while extolling a utopian, rainbow-colored world order, seek to inculpate Europeans for having ’victimized’ the Third World.
Failure of a Strategy
When [GRECE-style] identitarians took up the cause des peuples in the early 1980s, it was in the name of ethnopluralism. This ’cause’, however, was little more than a rhetorical ruse to justify the right of European peoples to retain their identity in face of a world system that sought to make everyone American. For in resisting the forces of deculturation, it was hoped that Europeans, like Third World peoples, would retain the right to their differences [la droit à la différence] — and do so without having to suffer the accusation of racism. As such, the slogan assumed that every people, even White people, possessed such a right. But no sooner was this argument made than the cosmopolitan P.-A. Taguieff [a leading academic commentator on the far Right] began referring to it as a ’differentialist racism’ [in which cultural difference, rather than skin color, became the criterion for exclusion].
In retrospect, the New Right’s strategy seems completely contrived, for la cause des peuples, la droit à la différence, and ’ethnopluralism’ have all since been turned against identitarians. Moreover, its irrelevant to Europe’s present condition, threatened, as it is, by a massive non-European invasion and by a conquering Islam abetted by our ethnomaschoistic elites.
Reclaimed by the dominant ideology, turned against identitarians, and tangential to current concerns, the GRECE’s ethnopluralist strategy is a metapolitical disaster. It also retains something of the old Marxist and Christian-Left prejudice about Europe’s ’exploitation’ of the Third World. As [the French Africanist] Bernard Lugan shows in respect to Black Africa,this prejudice is based on little more than economic ignorance. The cause des peuples is nevertheless associated with a Christian-like altruism that demonizes our civilization, accuses it of having destroyed all the others, and does so at the very moment when these others are busily preparing the destruction of our own civilization.
The ’right to difference’ . . . What right? Haven’t we had enough Kantian snivelling [about abstract rights]. There exists only a capacity to be different. In the selective process of History and Life, everyone has to make it on his own. There are no benevolent protectors. This right, moreover, is reserved for everyone but Europeans, who, [in the name of multiculturalism or some other cosmopolitan fashion], are summoned to discard their own biological and cultural identity.
This slogan poses another danger: it threatens to degenerate into a doctrine — an ethnic communitarianism — sanctioning the existence of non-European enclaves in our own lands. For in the Europe it envisages, communities of foreigners, particularly Muslim ones, will, for obvious demographic reasons, play an ever-greater role in our lives. This affront to our identity is accompanied by sophistic arguments that ridicule the ’fantasy’ of a [possible White] reconquista. In this spirit, we are told that we will have to make do [with a multiracial Europe]. But I, for one, refuse to make do. Nor am I prepared to retreat before an alleged historical determinism [which aims at making Europe a Third World colony].
Life Is Perpetual Struggle
The cause des peuples has now become part of the ‘human rights’ vulgate. By contrast, the neo Darwinian thesis of conflict and competition, which assumes that only the fittest survive, seems to our bleeding-heart communitarians a vestige of barbarism — even if this vestige corresponds with life’s organic laws. This thesis, though, in recognizing the forces of selection and competition, is alone able to guarantee the diversity of life’s varied forms.
The cause des peuples is collectivist, homogenizing, and egalitarian, while the ’combat of peoples’ is subjectivist and heterogeneous, conforming to life’s entropic properties. In this sense, only nationalism and clashing wills-to-power are capable of sustaining the life affirming principle of subjectivity. Given its egalitarian assumption that every people has a ’right to live’, the cause des peuples prefers to ignore obvious historical realities for an objectivism that seeks to transform the world’s peoples into objects suitable for a museum display. As such, it implies the equivalence of all peoples and civilizations.
This sort of egalitarianism takes two basic forms: one is expressed in a homogenizing but metissé concept of what it means to be human (the ’human race’), the other endeavors to preserve people and cultures in a way a curator might. Both forms refuse to accept that peoples and civilizations are qualitatively different. Hence, the absurd idea that one has to save endangered peoples and civilizations (at least if they are Third World) in the same way one might save an endangered seal. History’s turbulent selection process has, though, no room for preservation — only for competing subjectivities. In its tribunal, salvationist doctrines are simply inadmissible.
The cause des peuples also assumes an underlying solidarity between European and Third World peoples. Again, this is nothing but a dubious ideological construct, which Grécistes invented in the early Eighties to avoid the accusation of racism. I don’t have the space here to expose the myth of Third World ’exploitation’. However, to explain its misfortunes in crude, neo-Marxist terms, as if it were due to the machinations of the IMF, the Trilaterals, the Bilderberg group, or some other Beelzebub, is hardly worthy of a response.
According to media or academic pundits, the ’culture of the other’ is now under siege in France — even though ’Afromania’ is all the rage. I, on the other hand, think it is not at all exaggerated to claim that America’s deculturating influences no longer threaten Europe, for its dangers have been surpassed by another.
Europe First!
I respect the destiny of the sometimes afflicted Inuits, Tibetans, Amazonians, Pygmies, Kanaks, Aborigines, Berbers, Saharians, Indians, Nubians, the inevitable Palestinians, and the little green men from outer space. But don’t expect crocodile tears from me. When the flooding threatens my own house, I can think only of my own predicament and haven’t time to help or plead for others. Besides, when have these others ever cared about us? In any case, the dangers threatening them are greatly exaggerated, especially in view of their demographic vigor, which, incidentally, is owed to Western medicine and material aid — for the same Western forces that have allegedly exploited them also seems to have made them prosper (or, at least, to reproduce in unprecedented numbers).
If our communitarians really want to defend the cause des peuples, they might start with Europeans, who are now under assault by the demographic, migratory, and cultural forces of an overpopulated Third World. In face of these threats, you won’t find us sniveling (like a priest)or fleeing (like an intellectual) to the ’other’s’ cause. ’Ourselves alone’ will suffice.
Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., the translator of these pieces, studied social thought at the Ecole des Etudes Sociales en Sciences Sociales and modern European history at the University of California. His most recent book is New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe.
posted by Arkeofuturist at 6:00 AM 0 comments
Intervju med Guillaume Faye
För några dagar sedan läste vi ett utdrag ur den franske filosofen Fayes bok där han presenterar arkeo-futurismen. Idag får vi oss till livs en intervju med Faye.
Meet Guillaume Faye
What follows is my own (admittedly rough) translation of an interview with M. Faye:
I: I 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”?
F: 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. Civilization which has known three great epochs: the ancient, the medieval, then the modern which commenced about the 1850s. Currently we live 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 the 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 -Â that I wish, in this respect -Â can change collective mentalities, awake Europeans. In my new book, Avant-Guerre [Pre-War Years], 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!
I: 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 great 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?
F: 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 consciences. If they had been less pressed, nobody would have seen anything. No doubt, so that the eyes really open, there will be necessary a giant attack: 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 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 a 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 made to applaud some acts that he undoubtedly had followed and financed, but certainly not organized directly himself!
I: 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.
F: It’s idiotic! That would limit my audience. That goes completely against my current analysis, because I recommend a work in network. It is certainly necessary that there be parties to make agitprop. But the important thing is the network, on a European scale, without 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!
I: In the review Réfléchir et Agir, you recommended a ”withdrawal” on associative action, following the example of that which the extreme-Left made. Could you develop this point?
F: It is not a ”withdrawal”, but a general-purpose strategy. One needs parties, publishers, associations, trade unions. It is necessary that there be in civil society a presence of our ideas. But all the forms of action are necessary: it does not do to want to make metapolitics against politics. All actions, political, cultural, should be connected by the same vision of the world. It is not a strategy of withdrawal, but of spreading out, comparable with that which the Trotskyists had — who are today at the head of the State and of the Catholic Church! -Â 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 had known to camouflage near enough its infeudation 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!
I: 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?
F: 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, 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 frequent 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.
I: 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?
F: 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 Stalinian 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-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 vulgate. Everyone sees the truth in the street, everyone except the current elites, who play ostrich. Some great journalists, totally 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 XIXth century one must go to Mass every Sunday! That means Charlie-Hebdo, directed by ”old schmucks,” is the classic example of the ”Stalinian 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.
posted by Arkeofuturist at 5:59 AM 1 comments
Arkeo-futurismen
Det händer inte ofta att man stöter på ideer som är helt nya idag, utan det rör sig vanligtvis om samma gamla tankegods som tuggats till leda av de politiskt korrekta, och av deras ofta lika hjärntvättade motståndare. Men ibland händer det ändå, och en sådan ide har som upphovsman Guillaume Faye, den franska högerns svarta får. Faye har som en av få lyckats skapa en fungerande syntes av de två bästa ideriktningarna i Västerlandet, nämligen Traditionalismen (som hyllar en svunnen människotyp och svunna, indo-ariska ideal) och Futurismen (som hyllar ständigt framåtskridande).
Fayes huvudtes är att den moderna världen, som bygger på egalitarianism och ”individualism” (alltså kvantitet framför kvalitet), har uttömt sina möjligheter och ohjälpligt går mot sin undergång i en serie katastrofer (ekologiska, ekonomiska, sociala, etniska, militära). Det var aldrig en särskilt realistisk ideologi till att börja med, och nu står den inför en värld och en myriad problem den inte kan hantera.
Faye menar då att det är vår uppgift, vår plikt, att skapa nya värderingar och nya ideal som kan ta vid där egalitarianismen misslyckats. Jag skulle kunna skriva i timmar om hur arkeo-futurismen explicit uttrycker det många av oss anat länge, men eftersom jag har tvättid och inte vill förstöra er läsupplevelse gör jag inte det. Läs, och njut:
Guillaume Faye, born in 1949, was, along with Alain de Benoist, one of principal organizers of GRECE (Groupement de Recherche et d’Etude sur la Civilisation Européenne) and of the New Right, which he left 1986, reproaching his former colleagues for their increasing timidity and sterile intellectualism. Preferring to follow his own path as agitator and Nietzschean provocateur, he has recently published in rapid succession L’Archéofuturisme (1998), La colonisation de l’Europe (2000), and Pourquoi nous combattons (2001).
In Archéofuturisme Faye envisages, sometime within the next two decades, a large-scale civilizational crisis, provoked by what which he calls a ”convergence of catastrophes.” For the post-crisis world Faye proposes, in terms that at times recall the Italian Futurists of the early twentieth century, the construction of a European Empire founded on essential, archaic values and on a bold, aggressive exploitation of science and technology: hence the concept of ”archeofuturism,” the re-emergence of archaic social configurations in a new context.
It is probable that only after the catastrophe which will bring down modernity, its world-wide saga and its global ideology, that an alternate vision of the world will necessarily impose itself. No one will have had the foresight and the courage to apply it before chaos erupted. It is thus our responsibility — we who live, as Giorgio Locchi put it, in the interregnum — to prepare, from this moment forward, a post-catastrophic conception of the world. It could be centered on archeofuturism. But we must give content to this concept.
It is necessary, first, to return the word ”archaic” to its true meaning, which, in its Greek etymon archê, is positive and non-pejorative, signifying both ”foundation” and ”beginning” — that is, ”founding impetus.” Archê also means ”that which is creative and immutable” and refers to the central concept of ”order.” To attend to the ”archaic” does not imply a backward-looking nostalgia, for the past produced egalitarian modernity, which has run aground, and thus any historical regression would be absurd. It is modernity itself that now belongs to a bygone past.
Is ”archaism” a form of traditionalism? Yes and no. Traditionalism advocates the transmission of values and, correctly, combats the doctrines of the tabula rasa. But it all depends on which traditions are transmitted. Not every tradition is acceptable — for example, we reject those of universalist and egalitarian ideologies or those which are fixed, ossified, demotivating. It is surely preferable to distinguish from among various traditions (transmitted values) those which are positive and those which are detrimental.
The issues that disturb the contemporary world and threaten egalitarian modernity with catastrophe are already archaic: the religious challenge of Islam; geopolitical contests for scarce resources, agricultural land, oil, fisheries; the North-South conflict and colonizing immigration into the Northern hemisphere; global pollution and the physical clash of empirical reality against the ideology of development. All these issues plunge us back into age-old questions, consigning to oblivion the quasi-theological political debates of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which were little more than idle talk about the sex of angels.
Moreover, as the philosopher Raymond Ruyer, detested by the left-bank intelligentsia, foretold in his two important works, Les nuisances idéologiques and Les cents prochains siècles, once the historical digression of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has finally closed, with egalitarianism’s hallucinations having descended into catastrophe, humanity will return to archaic values, that is, quite simply, to biological and human (anthropological) values: distinctive sexual roles; the transmission of ethnic and popular traditions; spirituality and sacerdotal organization; visible and supervisory social hierarchies; the worship of ancestors; initiatory rites and tests; the reconstruction of organic communities that extend from the individual family unit to the overarching national community of the people; the deindividualization of marriage to involve the community as much as the couple; the end of the confusion of eroticism and conjugality; the prestige of the warrior caste; social inequality, not implicit, which is unjust and frustrating, as in today’s egalitarian utopias, but explicit and ideologically justifiable; a proportioned balance of duties and rights; a rigorous justice whose dictates are applied strictly to acts and not to individual men, which will encourage a sense of responsibility in the latter; a definition of the people and of any constituted social body as a diachronic community of shared destiny, not as a synchronic mass of individual atoms, etc.
In short, future centuries, in the great pendulum movement of history that Nietzsche called ”the eternal recurrence of the identical,” will in some way revisit these archaic values. The problem for us, for Europeans, is not, through our cowardice, to allow Islam to impose them on us, a process which is surreptitiously occurring, but to reimpose them on ourselves, while drawing upon our historical memory.
Recently, an important French press baron — whom I cannot name, but known for his left-liberal sympathies — made to me, in essence, the following disillusioned remark: ”Free-market economic values are gradually losing out to Islamic values, because they are exclusively based on individual economic profit, which is inhuman and ephemeral.” Our task is to ensure that the inevitable return to reality is not imposed upon us by Islam.
Obviously, contemporary ideology, hegemonic today but not for much longer, regards these values as diabolical, much as a mad paranoiac might see the features of a demon in the psychiatrist trying to cure him. In reality, they are the values of justice. True to human nature from time immemorial, these archaic values reject the Enlightenment error of the emancipation of the individual, which has only ended in the isolation of this individual and in social barbarism. These archaic values are just, in the Ancient Greek sense of the term, because they take man for what he is, a zoon politicon (”a social and organic animal integrated into a communatarian city-state”), and not for what he is not, an isolated and asexual atom fitted out with universal but imprescriptible pseudo-rights.
In practical terms, archaism’s anti-individualist values permit self-realization, active solidarity and social peace, unlike egalitarianism’s pseudo-emancipating individualism, which ends in the law of the jungle.
Excerpted from L’Archéofuturisme (Paris: L’Aencre, 1998). Trans. Irmin.
Om skribenten: Joakim Andersen
