Guillaume Faye: The Necessity of Contemplating an Ethnic War for Survival

Guillaume Faye
Prelude to War: Chronicle of the Coming Cataclysm
Arktos, 2021. 

“A people who no longer think about waging war are finished, drained of their substance and worn out from the inside.”
Guillaume Faye, Prelude to War

I discovered the writings of Guillaume Faye only after his death in 2019, when Arktos published a translation of Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War). In the process of reading and reviewing that work, I wrestled with a writer whose style and content both gripped and informed, infuriated and exasperated. Reading Faye is, above all, an experience, and often an exhausting but irresistible one, something agreed upon by those who worked to compile the literary memorial to him published at the start of this year. It was therefore with a mixture of excitement and trepidation that I discovered Arktos had recently released a volume of translations of Faye’s earlier and most explosive texts including his highly controversial The New Jewish Question and his uncompromising, brutalist writings on the problem of Muslim mass migration. Since my expectations concerning the volume were mixed, it brought a smile to my face to see Faye, always the prophet, a step ahead of me in his introduction with the warning that: “Once you have finished reading this book, you may find yourself persuaded or disgusted; optimistic or pessimistic.” I’m glad to report that I emerged from this book persuaded and optimistic, and also convinced that, the usual idiosyncratic unevenness to Faye’s thought aside, this is the single best volume of the enigmatic Frenchman’s work available in English.

The volume opens with a competent, but unfortunately irritating, Foreword by Constantin von Hoffmeister. We are introduced to a broad overview of Faye’s thought, which is unnecessarily peppered with nasty asides at some of the very people most likely to now read and admire Faye’s work. We are told, for example, of a need to rid different nationalist groupings of “archaic positions, such as the outdated animosity towards Jews.” First, it should be considered an axiom that any people that starts believing the Jewish Question to be relegated to the past will soon find itself relegated to the past. Or to put it another way — patronize this issue at your peril. One of the irritating features of some nationalist writing from Europe is that it is overwhelmingly fixated on its primary, sensory experience of multiracialism (mass Muslim migration) while remaining ignorant or dismissive of the intensive Jewish politico-cultural entrenchment directly experienced by those in other jurisdictions (perhaps none more than the United States). One often finds the naive and simplistic need to have only one opponent at a time, with the chosen villain of the present panic rendering all other problems distant or merely “archaic.” With generosity, one might excuse von Hoffmeister’s comments by way of education (brainwashing) in Germany and experience (the undeniable and obvious effrontery of Muslim encroachment), but how then to explain why, a few pages later, von Hoffmeister accuses a nameless and amorphous mass called “the managerial class” of having “duped the people into committing civilizational suicide for inglorious amounts of shekels”?

Why the dog whistle? If the managerial class is acting on behalf of those capable of issuing massive bribes of shekels, then we are obviously talking about Jewish influence. I have no problem with this kind of coded language, but I do have a problem with denunciations of anti-Semitism (archaic!) occupying the same few paragraphs as dog whistles appealing to anti-Semitism (shekels!). It’s confusing and unnecessary. As a general rule, if your country’s laws, or your personal public position, limit what you can say about Jews, then it is best to refrain from addressing the subject at all, rather than engaging in a rhetorical game of peekaboo with the government and your readers that only serves to demoralize and disorient. The same can be said for von Hoffmeister’s claim that the Kalergi Plan is “non-existent,” which appears alongside his warnings about a coming multiracial “New World Order.” I finished the Foreword utterly confused as to what von Hoffmeister believes, and quite relieved that I could finally get to Faye’s writings which, while always challenging, are considerably clearer in terms of their logical progression.

The volume very quickly recovers from its opening bum note. Faye always excelled in his adoption of the role of prophet, and despite his deep loathing of the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, he was in his own way a masterful apocalyptic preacher capable of blending the aggression and fanaticism of a Jeremiah with a distinctly European fatalism of the kind found in the Iliad. Faye, in a sense, wandered a cultural desert, uttering warnings in a political wilderness. Faye the Prophet wastes no time in this text, warning us plainly in his introduction that our days are numbered, that our materialistic and individualistic culture will soon be destroyed, and that our “bourgeois habits might be experiencing their final moments.” This is a book that covers a wide variety of subjects over twenty-one chapters, but which always returns to the inevitability of war, and of deepening conflict in all areas of life. Faye relishes the prospect, believing there to be “no universal morality.” An obvious Nietzschean, he declares that Good and Evil don’t exist and that “might is always right.” Faye demanded of Europeans that they simply engage in the fight to survive, because “whether one likes it or not, only the will to survive, demographic proliferation and combativeness can prevail over the reassuring and suicidal discourse espoused by the scribes of decadence.”

The book really begins with the impressive and aggressive first chapter, “Facing Islam.” I found it surprising that only one chapter in the volume concerned Islam, given Faye’s well-known preoccupation with the subject, but it does form a subtle background note to the rest of the book. Anyone familiar with Faye will anticipate the tone and direction of the material here. Faye warned that Muslims in Europe are ready and willing to “wage a war of revenge and conquest on our own soil.” Rather than seeing matters through a purely religious lens, Faye insists that what we are really witnessing is the beginning of an “ethnic civil war.” In this conflict, Islam has been adopted as a banner and identitarian standard, but we can see that “at the start, the Browns were completely indifferent to their own religion and were only interested in parasitic consumerism.” Ethnic grievance, for Faye, is the true driver of the coming war, whereas Islam will merely provide a useful veneer to the “Browns” who can use it tactically to enhance group cohesion and morale. Faye insists that Islam (“a vast undertaking of mental stupefaction”) is dangerous in its own right, however, and contrasts it with less totalitarian monotheisms like Christianity. Because of its role as “the purest kind of totalitarianism in existence,” Faye advocates only the strongest of responses to it:

No containment strategy could ever distress them. Islam only retreats when its members are told that one intends to eliminate it, to eradicate it once and for all. One must arouse fear in them, not negotiate. The only language that Islam understands is the language of force; such is its culture.

Faye closes the chapter with a condemnation of Western foreign policy in Muslim lands, arguing that the best cure for Islamic terrorism in Europe is to “abstain from bombarding Muslim countries and do the housework on our own soil.”

The second chapter of the volume, “Neo-Terrorism: Why One Should Be Pessimistic,” picks up the baton left by the opening chapter and delves deeper into the problem of Muslim terrorism in Europe. The volume unfortunately provides no guide to the dates on which the various essays/chapters were originally published, but some light exegesis led me to believe that the majority of the volume’s work was written in the handful of years immediately following 9/11 — roughly, the period 2002–2007. With this dating, some of Faye’s predictions appear remarkably prescient given the rapid increase in Muslim terrorism in Europe between 2010 and 2015, culminating in the 2015 massacre at the Bataclan in Paris. Probably writing no more than a few months after 9/11, Faye warned that Muslim terrorism would “spread considerably during the first decades of the twenty-first century,” boosted by the mediatization of society (especially the role of the internet) and the drive to pursue ever more spectacular forms of terrorist attack. Faye is once more scathing of Western responses to Islamic terror, singling out the response of the United States to 9/11 and comparing it to a “cowboy who pulls out his pistol to target wasps that he cannot even see.” Faye lamented the West’s ability to combat Muslim terrorism because Muslim migration itself represents a kind of quasi-military reinforcement and because Muslim terror networks are almost impenetrable even to the most skilled secret service agencies. The most crucial error of all, however, is the fact that

Europeans and Americans are utterly blind to the coming ethnic civil war and a demographic flood that is far graver than terrorism. What causes a people’s demise is neither the use of bombs nor military operations, but ethnic flooding. The primary and most effective weapon of war has always been embodied by an invasion of foreign populations, naturalisations, and a gradual seizure of power by foreigners.

The book’s third chapter, “The American Adversary,” is one of the slower-paced entries. It deals with an anti-Americanism that is quite specific to France, and which might leave many in the Anglosphere scratching their heads. There are some arguments that are becoming more current in Third Positionist discourse in our circles, including the idea that America is not a nation or empire, but “a massive commercial and financial undertaking supported by the military-industrial complex and founded upon the necessity of a permanent state of war.” To this kind of thinking I can only reply that there’s an element of truth to this analysis of the structure and expression of American power, but it also leaves a great deal unsaid. Most importantly, I believe there is definitely an American nation, even an ethnic (White) nation, but it is sublimated in the current culture and has been for several decades due to propaganda and demonization, the latter of which has ramped up enormously in recent years with the institutionalization of Critical Race Theory. Faye himself straddles both sides of the argument, believing that Europe and America can and should be strong allies, but insisting that American culture is built around war, “but not the glorious kind: hypocritical warfare, the offspring of commerce and industry.” For Faye, the United States represents a problem because of its influence in European affairs, but this problem should be regarded as temporary because the US displays “a purely material and mechanical appearance of power.” He insists that America lacks any sort of “demographic, cultural, spiritual, or, in short, historical foundation. It is a power comprised of merchants and brokers, the fleeting power of a short-lived civilisation.” As proof of his argument for American decline, Faye predicts “in 2030, the US will probably no longer be a mostly Anglo-Saxon country, but a Hispanic/African/Asian one, a fact that will alter quite a few perspectives.” Ethnically diluted, America will be unable to contend with the rise of China and the demographic expansion of Islam, both of which possess a foundation of longevity to their power that the United States lacks. Faye, I must be clear, doesn’t celebrate American decline, but rather he contextualizes it within what he perceives to be a coming globalized war: “the conflict shall, generally speaking, involve a clash between the White race and all others.”

On this note, the book moves to a brief chapter titled “Towards a New Cold War Between China and the USA.” Faye points out that American militarism has most often been directed only against small countries like Vietnam, Panama, and Serbia, but now faces “the enormous China, a terrifying challenger which, thanks to its 1.25 billion inhabitants, can indeed withstand any losses resulting from nuclear strikes and is now endowing itself with long-range missiles.” The chapter contains an interesting analysis of the character of Chinese nationalism, and the Chinese perspective (fiercely relativist) on the notion of democracy and the philosophy of human rights.

The fifth chapter of the volume, “Towards an Ethnic Civil War in Europe,” contains material that will be very familiar to those who read Faye’s Ethnic Apocalypse (originally published in French as Guerre civile raciale). The content here is an exceptional dissection of race relations in France that has overwhelming relevance to multiracial societies everywhere. Take, for example, his discussion of anti-police riots in France, written more than a decade before last year’s Summer of Floyd:

The mechanism that triggers such rioting is always identical: a police officer injures or kills an Afro-Maghrebi delinquent that had aggressed him to avoid getting arrested (after being caught red-handed); alternatively a French citizen is attacked and, overwhelmed with fear, defends himself … Police interventions and law enforcement actions are regarded as virtually political and territorial provocations.

One example provided by Faye, that made me laugh until I pondered the seriousness of it all, concerns a riot that followed the death of “a man named Kamel, who had died as a result of having severed his femoral artery while smashing the window of a shop he was burgling.” All of which goes to prove quite clearly that these riots are not about justice and security but rather, as Faye argues, about ethnic claims on territory and attempts to gain an advantage in competitive racial politics. For Faye, aggressive race riots are nothing more than a prelude to racial civil war, since “war always begins in public spaces and through provocations. It is animal-like and ethological.”

Whites are paralyzed from acting against this process, or even perceiving it, in part because of the nature of the relationship between White socio-economic classes. This theme comprises the volume’s sixth chapter, “The New Social War and the Economic Crisis.” Faye explores the evolution of leftist parties into bourgeois movements, and astutely points out that the mindset of the bourgeoisie “can only acknowledge competition in an economic context.” Blind to competition outside this paradigm (e.g., racial competition), “the entire Left despises our native people.” In today’s Europe, Faye argues:

The Left embodies the most refined expression of the worst possible aspects of the bourgeois ideology: cosmopolitanism, hatred for our native people and its traditions, the worship of money concealed under a façade of philanthropic motivations, xenophile, etc.

The ‘anti-racist’ bourgeois “are always careful to enroll their children in private and foreigner-free schools,” but elsewhere there is a “class complicity between the ruling anti-racist bourgeois upper class and the immigrant-colonisers to the detriment of our native population, a population that works, pays and suffers every act of violence.” Faye attacks French culture, which he sees as undervaluing manual work while lavishing praise on “parasitic professions” like journalists, TV presenters, and public intellectuals. The chapter closes with a scathing indictment of White guilt, and a call for investment in “high-quality education and a dynamic demography based on pro-natalist policy.”

At this stage, the volume departs from thematic connection between chapters and launches quite unexpectedly into Faye’s controversial 2007 essay, “The New Jewish Question.” Although familiar with Faye’s attitudes to Jews as expressed in Ethnic Apocalypse, this was my first time reading “The New Jewish Question” in full. Predictably, given loud (and perhaps unfair) accusations that Faye revealed himself as a Zionist by publishing it, there is some material in the essay that I strongly disagree with. Overall, however, I have to say that it is not as bad as a thought it would be. Faye is certainly not a Zionist, but neither is he anti-Zionist. He is extremely dismissive of the situation faced by the Palestinians, but declares “I am neither philosemitic nor antisemitic.” He later refines this statement to “I am judeo-indifferent.” Whether such declarations are tenable given the saturation of Jewish interests in the life of the West is the real question here, and for my part I was unconvinced by Faye’s argument that one can simply abstain from any and all positions involving Jews. In fact, it seems a rather easy and convenient way out of some very difficult questions.

Faye advocates complete disinterest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on two grounds. The first is that he assumes that “the state of Israel may eventually disappear,” and therefore that the problem is in any case temporary. Second, Faye insists that no amount of help for Muslims experiencing problems in the Middle East will stem the tide of Muslim migration to Europe because migration flows have preceded all such conflicts and are unaffected by material circumstances in Muslim nations. Faye insists that “despite its apparent military power, Israel will not last long” because “its demographic flooding at the hands of Palestinian Arabs, regardless of whether the latter are Israeli citizens or not, is inevitable, since their fertility rate is twice as high as that of all Israeli Jews.”

Personally, I have deep reservations about Faye’s claims in this regard, based not least on the fact that Jewish birth rates in Israel have now surpassed those of Arabs, leading the Jewish Policy Center to declare that “the so-called population time bomb has disappeared in Israel.” I can think of no other nation on earth that demonstrates as much open concern about its racial composition, birth rates, and demographics as Israel, and one gets the impression that nothing is “off the table” in terms of what the Jews of Israel are prepared to do in order to maintain control of that territory. In short, the demographic flooding of Jews in Israel is far from inevitable, and is in fact extremely unlikely. In relation to Faye’s second point, he seems to miss the importance of moral arguments in Jewish propaganda on behalf of Israel, and in Jewish apologetic propaganda more generally. Although I certainly have no love for Arabs or Palestinians, I’ve always found pro-Palestinian rallies to be extremely interesting and useful counterpoints to Jewish dominance of Western moral narratives, and the many denunciations of Israeli atrocities have done much to dent, impede, or at least complicate narratives of the Jews as history’s perpetual and blameless victims. Aid for Palestine therefore doesn’t need to be focused solely on the stemming of migrant flows (I agree with Faye that they proceed regardless), but can remain a reasonable activity for anyone seeking to hinder Zionist influence and narratives globally.

Another flaw in Faye’s argument is that he seemed to believe that American Zionism is based not on the influence of powerful American Jewish lobbies, but solely on an American strategic drive to dominate the region a la Noam Chomsky. In this view, Israel constitutes nothing more than a passive partner to American ambitions, and it can be replaced with intensified American relations with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. Faye fully expected the eventual abandonment of Israel by the United States, an event that doesn’t seem, to any reasonable observer, even remotely conceivable now or at any future date.

Faye’s understanding of Jewish influence also left a lot to be desired. He concedes that “Jewish intellectuals” have been at the forefront of “immigrational laxism,” but later insists that “Jewish ambition is limited to a sort of spiritual and intellectual philosophy.” Much as I admire Faye’s writings, this is shameless nonsense. While “The New Jewish Question” is an interesting and novel essay, I must make it clear that while there are many reasons to read Faye, one of them is not to come to grips with Jewish matters. Faye failed miserably in this area, and there is, quite frankly, little I can offer in terms of mitigation other than the remark I made on reviewing Ethnic Apocalypse: “I see a paralysis-like error in [Faye’s] thinking, brought about by a quite understandable reaction to the stark and visible Islamisation of France.”

The volume recovers from this dip in quality very well, with Faye’s eighth chapter on “Europe and the Third World — An Impossible Combination.” The author attacks White guilt in relation to Africa (“this unintelligent continent”), and condemns the White charitable endeavors that have led to mass African demographic growth. The steady movement of this excess population into the West has swamped us with “aggressive beggars and false eternal victims.” Faye laments that Africa was ever colonized by Europeans, stressing that “in the absence of northern countries, Black Africa would return to the Neolithic in the space of one single generation.”

Chapters 9 through 17 deal with problems in contemporary culture, ranging from White “collaborationists” in multiculturalism, to the conceits of French intellectualism and political correctness. The seventeenth chapter, “Decadence — A Prelude to Collapse,” was one of my favorites, and deals with the imposition of “effeminate models” of behavior on European males. Faye attacks pornography, the promotion of homosexuality, and feminism for weakening our capability of waging a “war of wombs.” There are some terrific aphorisms in this chapter, alongside Faye’s typically scathing tone (“‘Tolerant’ people are imbeciles.”)

The book comes to a close with four essays that adopt a more philosophical tone. The most interesting of these is “Is Christianity Still Capable of Struggle?” I thought that Faye was hard but fair on Christianity in this piece, pointing out that Christianity has been so flexible and adaptive over time that a fifteenth-century priest would hardly recognize the religion we see today. This same flexibility and adaptiveness have allowed altruistic elements of Christian discourse to be “adopted by trade unions, parties, associations, and leagues, and people, therefore, no longer have any need of it, nor of its impoverished rites devoid of long-lost sacredness.” Faye also attacks the individualism in Western Christian notions of marriage (love matches), which he sees as directly responsible for “demographic decline and the collapse of the clan-based family for the benefit of unfertile and unstable nuclei that are henceforth open to the worst kind of psychopathy, namely the existence of homosexual couples.” Further, the secularization of certain Christian values has been catastrophic:

Never before have people talked so much about “loving their neighbour, and never before have social selfishness, disdain for the state of matrimony, the shattering of our close bonds of solidarity, lack of civic-mindedness, materialistic cynicism and violence been so prevailingly widespread.

That being said, I thought there were some points made by Faye against Christianity that were rather weak, not least his claim that Christianity promotes belief in the inherent goodness of man. This would surely come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the doctrine of original sin and the fallen state of Man and the world. The essay, despite its faults, will challenge and intrigue both Christians and non-Christians, and was in my view one of the highlights of the volume.

Concluding Remarks

Why read Faye? Certainly not for well-considered analysis of the Jewish Question. Nor, I must say, should one read Faye for his prophecies — he claims in his conclusion, for example, that “it is about 2010 that the great about-turn [in our favor] will begin.” The failure of this particular prediction provides a useful warning against the development of nationalist eschatologies (‘end of the world’ theories) based on allegedly imminent societal collapses, and Faye was an enthusiastic expert in the production of such eschatologies. With Islamic terrorism seemingly contained for the time being, or at least limited to events that Faye would not regard as “spectacular,” we must come to the realization that much more likely than sudden collapse is prolonged social, cultural, and demographic decline. This phenomenon is infinitely more difficult to oppose and reverse, but Faye had remarkably little to say on this subject. He was intensely disturbed by Muslim mass migration, and rightly so, but it tainted his work with a panicked quality operating on assumptions of a limited time horizon. This, I feel, will tend to limit the place of his work in posterity.

With these caveats out of the way, however, there remain many reasons to read Faye, and to read this volume in particular. Faye had a remarkable talent for writing, and his works are masterclasses in punchy, aggressive, and direct explorations of some of the most pressing problems facing contemporary Western peoples. Reading Faye, one is shocked at his lack of concern for France’s speech laws, a disregard that led to a number of appearances in court. Faye was courageous and bold, and his ideas are often bumpy and uneven, but always sincere. Perhaps the best reason to read Faye is that, despite his penchant for a coming apocalypse, he was an optimist. One can therefore read Faye to be encouraged. He closed this volume, after all, with the words: “Do not despair.”

46 replies
  1. Peter London
    Peter London says:

    The Moslem problem is no more than a side-effect of the Jewish problem. If white men of the twentieth century had made a better job of confronting Judaism there wouldn’t be a Moslem problem at all.

  2. William Gruff
    William Gruff says:

    Mohammedans have no concept of negotiation; surrender or die is all they know and understand.

    • John
      John says:

      Who exactly is stopping us from reclaiming our homelands? We r pointing the figure at our enemies, when it is normal for our enemies to destroy us, hence, y they r identified as our enemies. Therefore, stop blaming our enemies. For starters, our enemies should not b in our homelands, our homelands r for our ppl. Whether it’s England, France, USA, Canada, etc., we Europeans r still the majority, yet, we r not acting as a collective to reclaim our homelands. Anyone think we will have a better chance of reclaiming if we choose to become a minority? Trillions of words have been put forth in addressing our plight, however, words will not reclaim our homelands.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        Individualism , as elaborately explained by Prof KMac in Chapter 5 and elsewhere in his publications , has been the predominant ideology of EuroMan ( aka The Whites ) that is firmly embedded in his genome and is perhaps his greatest socio-political distinction . Any attempt by “The Whites” to ditch individualism and fully embrace collectivism is akin to an act of passive self-annihilation ( aka mass suicide ) .

        Screw “the collective”.

        EuroMan ( aka The Whites ) needs to retain his distinctive individualism genome by establishing noncollective systematic defense organizations engineered to uphold the supremacy/sovereignty of the individual against cowardly collectivist conspiracies that demand involuntary personal sacrifices “for the greater good” of a hideously contemptible collective of cowards .

        • monopduly
          monopduly says:

          The teacher of my Bible study class responded to this question:

          ‘Do Christians have a right to live in the Holy Land, or must they amicably acquiesce to their eviction or subjugation under an Apartheid system?’

          He said, ‘There’s nothing in the Bible that says Christians have a right to live in Israel.’

          I don’t read Steve Sailer or Kevin MacDonald’s analysis as explanatory of this self-betrayal although I think Mac’s focus on self-deception is very important.

          Gifted thinkers such as these should examine the literature on Human Intraspecific
          Social Parasitism (HISP)’s focus on ‘Phenotypic Manipulation’ which includes dysgenic cultural change.See references at:

  3. anthony
    anthony says:

    Andrew, I always learn something from your writing and gain new insight into some scary complex issue. It also generally depresses the shit out of me. Please end your next article with “and thus we save western civilization and all live happily ever after”. Just kidding your writing is great.

  4. Phil
    Phil says:

    What will wake up American Christian Whites to defend themselves against the Leftist/Bolshevik/Democrat/BLM onslaught and beat it back?

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      Answer: the realization that a poorly translated book fooled them into believing Jews were/are God’s chosen people.

      I hope it does not take others as long to learn that as it did me.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Nothing will wake up USA Christians whom are mostly Zionists-Christians which is practically a contradiction of terms . Christians have shot themselves in both feet and now Christianity is , for most practical racial preservation purposes , effectively defunct .

      Consider adhering to the new religion of

      {{{ The PRIME DIRECTIVE }}}

      for the physical survival of humanity beyond

      {{ The Solar TOTAL Extinction Event }} .

      The PRIME DIRECTIVE is absolutely different from and not about

      Star Trek General Order 1 .

    • Mark Faulkner
      Mark Faulkner says:

      Christians won’t do anything. Their whole ‘religion’ is a passive slave mind doctrine of surrendering and dying. ‘The meek shall inherit the earth’ what a nice dream to believ int and just keep waiting as everything you have built and hold dear is taken from you. It is all a formulated lie.

  5. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    “Faye’s understanding of Jewish influence also left a lot to be desired. He concedes that “Jewish intellectuals” have been at the forefront of “immigrational laxism,” but later insists that “Jewish ambition is limited to a sort of spiritual and intellectual philosophy.” Much as I admire Faye’s writings, this is shameless nonsense. […] Faye failed miserably in this area [of Jewish matters], and there is, quite frankly, little I can offer in terms of mitigation …”

    It’s clear that Andrew Joyce has a soft spot for Faye as a French intellectual and writer, in spite of the fact that Joyce can’t deny Faye is a jerk and an asshole. A more honest and plain-spoken intellectual, the Swiss Juergen Graf, didn’t have that difficulty in calling a spade a spade: please read

    There is NO reason to read Faye, but Joyce is always pushing Arktos’ books. Faye was wrong on everything, which even Joyce admits and concludes the best that can be said about him is that he was “optimistic”. Oh, and he had a gifted writing style. Hard to figure out why we’re subjected to this “shameful nonsense.”

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      That was a very interesting article by Juergen Graf. Thank you for posting it. I agree with Graf that Faye should have remained silent on the JQ and WW2, though I can also understand his motivations, as I have felt something similar for many decades. The great threat to the West is race, deracination and alien inundation, not Jews (although the two are obviously “positively” related). Moreover, whatever the truth about WW2, that narrative has been so formed by propaganda for so long now (since the early 40s) that trying to fight it in the West’s currently morally, intellectually and racially indoctrinated and enervated condition is simply a fool’s errand, an ineffectual “cri de coeur” producing none of the pragmatic gains we desperately need. Faye was terrifically courageous as well as correct in his priorities: we must above all else end the immigration invasion, something I have been fighting since the 70s (and on which absolutely no progress has been made). Awakening people on the JQ, let alone advancing WW2 truths, are absolutely unnecessary to achieving this objective, and insofar as they solidify Jewish support against the Right, merely serve to retard the restrictionist cause. This is especially sad when there are indeed, contra Graf, many assimilated, anti-immigrationist Jews (I know several personally myself).

      Furthermore, and ironically, the stronger the Right becomes, in part by achieving victories (like immigration termination or reduction), the yet stronger it can and will become – and as it becomes stronger, Jewish power will correspondingly wane. The Jews achieved their mastery over time, and this by being incrementalists, not maximalists. Assuming no Fayean “convergence of catastrophes”, the Right will have to grow its power in the same way, along vulpine not leonine paths.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Leon: I agree that Graf’s article is extremely impressive. I thank Carolyn Yeager for linking to it and even more so for publishing it on her site.

        If, as you say, deracination and alien inundation, not the Jews, are what most threaten the West, what mode of resistance do you contemplate that either skirts the question of the motive forces behind the immigration invasion—viz., the Jews and their hatred—or else denies the necessity or sufficiency of Jewish involvement while presumably looking or pointing elsewhere?

        I ask because I can’t see you calling upon us either to join Ann Coulter in the polite fiction of blaming Teddy Kennedy for the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 or to pretend that the public declarations of everyone involved in the act’s passage—declarations to the effect that the act would never, ever, bring about a change in the ethnic character of the USA—were simply honest mistakes of honorable people. And surely it is impossible to evade all discussion of blame and root causes when the goal you seek is the reversal of a government policy in place for 56 years!

        Would I be wrong to think that your hopes rest in civic discourse and in the electoral and juridical structures of democratic republicanism? I deem these things no more than sleight-of-hand distractions to draw the eye away from the steel-reinforced-concrete reality of Jewish tyranny. The Jews took the gloves off in the 2020 election, which was brazenly stolen in large part so that subsequent elections wouldn’t need to be stolen or at least could be stolen more genteely.

        Back to the Graf article. He wrote the following at one point,

        David Irving … has dishonored himself by recanting his previous statements regarding the non-existence of execution gas chambers at Auschwitz …

        and he referred again to Irving’s recantation farther along. I have seen this and similar charges laid at Irving’s door many times in the past dozen years. I don’t question their veracity, but I have yet to see a confirmatory link or chapter-and-verse citation. Do you know of one?

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          “Back to the Graf article. He wrote the following at one point,

          ‘David Irving … has dishonored himself by recanting his previous statements regarding the non-existence of execution gas chambers at Auschwitz …’

          and he referred again to Irving’s recantation farther along. I have seen this and similar charges laid at Irving’s door many times in the past dozen years. I don’t question their veracity, but I have yet to see a confirmatory link or chapter-and-verse citation. Do you know of one?”

          David Irving decided to accept the myths of the ‘little red house’ and ‘little white house’ in further attempts to appease the Jews’ anger over his denial of the gas chambers at Auschwitz. He couldn’t go against the Leuchter Report that he had praised earlier, so he later accepted as true the story of two small houses converted to “gas chambers” which came from the confession of lies told by the badly tortured Rudolf Hoess, former commandant at A-B.

          This is from the Auschwitz-Birkenau website:

          “Little Red House”
          (Bunker no. 1)
          A gas chamber put into operation at the end of March 1942 in a house whose Polish owners had been expelled, located near the Birkenau camp under construction. The unplastered brick building was called the “Little Red House” because of the color of its walls. Several interior partition walls were demolished during adaptation works, leaving two rooms. Hermetically sealed doors were installed, the windows walled up, and hatches installed through which Zyklon B could be dumped.
          The floor space of both the gas chambers was over 80 sq. m, and about 800 people could be crowded in, according to testimony by Rudolf Höss. At first, most of those murdered there were Jews from Sosnowiec and the nearby ghettos, as well as sick prisoners from the camp hospital; later came Jews from other parts of Poland, Slovakia, and Western Europe. Sonderkommando prisoners used narrow‑gauge railroad push cars to carry the bodies of the murdered people to mass graves on the edge of the nearby woods; in August they began burning them in pits dug there (burning pits).
          The gas chambers in the Little Red House functioned until the spring of 1943, when larger gas chambers combined with crematoria went into operation. The building was demolished, the ground planted over, and even the bricks from the foundation removed.
          [in other words, no sign of the place remains! -cy]

          “Little White House”
          (Bunker no. 2)
          The second gas chamber, after the so-called “Little Red House”, constructed near the Birkenau camp under construction. The decision to convert another building, a farmhouse of the expelled Polish owners, into a gas chamber was made in June 1942 as a result of the arrival of numerous transports of Jews designated by the Germans for extermination.
          Because the walls were plastered, it was called the “Little White House.” Its interior was divided into four gas chambers with a total floor space of 120 sq. m. The system of interior doors and hatches for Zyklon B was the same as in the Little Red House.
          The gas chambers in the Little White House were taken out of operation at the turn of April/May 1943; they were again put to use when the transports from Hungary began arriving in May 1944 (Sonderaktion “Ungarn”). The building was demolished in the late autumn, when extermination operations in Birkenau were completed. Traces of the foundations of the gas chambers are still visible today at this location.”

          Even though I’ve read myself, online, Irving claiming gassings in these “houses”, a search brings up nothing, including on his personal website, Focal Point. Maybe someone else will have better luck or skill.

          Hadding Scott, in his excellent article “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” ( says this, though without citation: “Irving asserts gassings in Auschwitz’s (no longer extant) “white house” and “red house” based on the confession of a former deputy-commandant of Auschwitz, Hans Aumeier.” Further on Scott writes: “More recently I discovered that the confessions of Hans Aumeier and Walter Bruns were extracted by torture. None of these documents is really good evidence for the mass-murder of Jews that Irving pretends to prove, and he must know it.”

          It’s possible the only place Irving is talking about the gas chambers in the “little red and white houses” is during his speaking tour to a paying audience. He won’t write it down. I don’t know if it’s in his new Himmler book, just published.

          Another article I recommend to you if you haven’t already read it is Kind of long but highly informative, and may I add that Juergen Graf is proven to be a man of the highest integrity.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Very, very helpful; thank you for this extended reply, Carolyn. All linked articles will be read as time and other obligations permit.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          …” I agree that Graf’s article is extremely impressive. I thank Carolyn Yeager for linking to it and even more so for publishing it on her site.”

          Also agree .

        • Leon Haller
          Leon Haller says:

          See also my response to Ms. Yeager.

          I read KMac’s trilogy back in the 90s, in very expensive hardback copies I purchased as they became available. I am well aware of Jewry’s long role in pushing “generous” immigration policies (though I was only dimly aware before reading MacDonald). I entertain no doubt as to whether the racial revolution inaugurated by the 1965 immigration policy changes was “accidental”, as Peter Brimelow claimed in his otherwise brilliant book Alien Nation (I wonder if he really believed that, or still does). Clearly, the sinister forces pushing for these changes knew they would be “diversifying” America, and thereby weakening white and Christian control and power.

          But that was then, this is now. Our ability to persuade an electoral majority that we should halt immigration does not depend on our exposing who was the major group agitating for it in the early to middle 20th century. We only must make the case for restriction now, on its own terms, which are favorable to us if only our side could elect non-cowards. The case against immigration is overwhelming for all but nonwhite ethnic activists; employers of low wage labor; and Democrats importing new voters. Why o why confuse people by dragging The Jews into the discussion?

          More generally, my second paragraph above is my strategy wrt the JQ:

          “Furthermore, and ironically, the stronger the Right becomes, in part by achieving victories (like immigration termination or reduction), the yet stronger it can and will become – and as it becomes stronger, Jewish power will correspondingly wane. The Jews achieved their mastery over time, and this by being incrementalists, not maximalists. Assuming no Fayean “convergence of catastrophes”, the Right will have to grow its power in the same way, along vulpine not leonine paths.”

          Kindly consider that paragraph carefully. Then think about the idea of outflanking Jewry, rather than charging it directly. That’s how we were defeated, after all.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            I have never regarded your outlook as anything but completely sane and honorable, Leon, and until a few years ago I would probably have agreed with you in most or even all essentials. Nowadays, however, having become persuaded that most adherents to the cause of white advocacy suffer from an insufficiency of pessimism—you will recall that I have written this on several prior occasions—I no longer see how any resistance strategy founded upon outflanking the enemy offers the slightest chance of success. Nonetheless, I remain open to arguments and evidence to the contrary.

            The stolen election of 2020 has the makings of having been an event of world-historical significance—certainly not in a good way. Like Lenin and the Bolshevik Jews of 1918, the Jews who actually run today’s federal government are, I believe, pitiless and remorseless and unhampered by any sense of moral restraint. Moreover, they have access to surveillance technologies far beyond anything Orwell imagined in “Nineteen Eighty-four.” No matter what one feels about Trump—love, loathing, or something between those extremes—it seems plain that he failed to see (whether because of his own sloth or the betrayal and deceit of those he trusted) that the electoral machinery was entirely in the unscrupulous hands of White Americans’ enemies. They knew what they wanted, and they didn’t hesitate to take it.

            When it comes to the sort of deviousness one needs to effect any plan where outflanking an opponent is the central element, these people make our side look like a bunch of amateurs.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Hi Leon. I’m pleased you read the article and liked it. Maybe that will cause some others to do the same; the link once again is

        “The great threat to the West is race, deracination and alien inundation, not Jews (although the two are obviously “positively” related).”

        That last part is an understatement if I ever saw one. Would we be subject to such an alien inundation if it were not coordinated and facillitated by Jews? This website produces article after article, for years now, proving just that. If it were not for Jewish propaganda, wouldn’t we be able to control migration? Of course we would. It’s odd but your thinking, as a white man, is part of what enables all this migration and concern for minorities in formerly white countries, even while you consider it the #1 evil. How perverse is that?

        You write that “… trying to fight [the false narrative of WWII] (since it’s now 80 years on) is a fool’s errand.” And … “we must above all else end the immigration invasion, something I have been fighting since the 70s (and on which absolutely no progress has been made).”

        No progress has been made! Hello! Doesn’t that tell you something? Why should anyone listen to you when your ideas and recommendations have “made no progress” as long as the WWII narrative remains in place.
        On the other hand, WWII-Holocaust revisionism has made a lot of progress. If you consider the things that were being said after the war, *most of it* has been accepted now as false atrocity propaganda. That trend continues up to today; see my article
        Popular media repetitions are one thing; semi-respectable scholarship is another. Scholars have become wary of making unsupportable claims and are backtracking on all three “pillars” of holocaust lore: the 6 million, the “plan” to exterminate Jews (there wasn’t one), and gas chambers as the murder weapon. The “Holocaust” is being reduced to shootings by the Einsatzgruppen in the Soviet Union — totally in a war zone and of illegal combatants!

        You, like so many other Euro-American alt-righters concerned with losing their majority in their home country, have never familiarized yourself with the amazing work of revisionists. The reason being you don’t want to go up against Organized Jewry on this, their most passionately defended topic. But these brave revisionists have been willing to do so. And it has born fruit. See here:

        Juergen Graf is one of these brave major revisionists. He now lives in exile in Russia because his home countries want to put him in jail. He is worth ten Guillaume Faye’s. Did Faye accomplish anything other than to give guys like you an opportunity to indulge your intellectual side with endless discussion about our slow retreat? I don’t think so.


        • Leon Haller
          Leon Haller says:

          Jared Taylor spoke very highly of Faye. That carries a lot of weight with me. Faye talked about what really mattered: not how many Jews weren’t killed in Nazi camps, but about what’s happening now and what the future is guaranteed to be like if these trends are not confronted and repulsed, which they can be on their own terms without having to delve into Jewry’s role in pushing mass immigration.

          I have no argument with Herr Graf, and of course would like to see the repeal of all criminalization of speech (real speech, not pornography redefined as “speech”) across Europe. I have no objection to WW2 and Holocaust revisionism, as I support scholarly integrity broadly, and I recognize that WW2 and the Holocaust have been “instrumentalized” as weapons to induce paralyzing, self-destructive racial guilt in the most guilt-inducible of all races. I knew this no later than about the mid-1980s.

          Of course, even Prof. MacDonald has noted that Jewish power was only a necessary but not sufficient cause of the West’s postwar decline. It is hardly only coordinated Jewry that pushes mass immigration. No one forces whites to either tolerate or support it, nor certainly to abet it, as do many theologically misguided Christians (of their own thoroughly free will).

          Furthermore, it is simply untrue that WW2 revisionists have made amazing progress in the sense in which you are utilizing them as an example in contradistinction to my comment about immigration. I could make an analogous claim about the immigration restrictionist movement. We have made “amazing progress” ​in deconstructing the lies the pro-immigrationists use to justify the invasion. OK, but what we have not done is actually reduce or halt immigration. The progress revisionists have made is in uncovering historical facts that have helped to expose certain lies about the WW2 era. That’s all to the good, but also limited in scope. What their researches have not done is dent the ubiquity of the Holocaust Narrative in the Western mind.

          My point anyway is tactical, not ethical. Stopping immigration imperialism is more important than uncovering the truth of WW2, and it is easier to do so. If remaining silent about WW2 will help us to halt immigration, then yes, we should do so. After all, once immigration is ended, we can move the goal posts of permissible discussion as we wish. But if immigration is never halted, all hope is lost.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “Stopping immigration imperialism is more important than uncovering the truth of WW2, and it is easier to do so. …”

            Repeating what is evidently your best argument doesn’t make it any more convincing that it was the first time you used it. Your claim is that ‘uncovering the truth of WWII’ interferes with halting immigration, but where is the evidence that this is so? Has it ever made the Jews more friendly to “immigration restrictionists”? It is as Juergen Graf said about David Irving’s attempts to placate the Jewish Lobby — D.I. does not understand the Jews. Nor do you, yet you wish to convince us that it’s necessary to allow the ‘Holocaust’ (for which Germans bear the brunt of suffering by far) to stand forever.
            Your baseless argument that Jews will become less powerful in the USA if immigration is stopped now is no more than an assumption. Are Jews going to be removed? Will they lose respect? No. But when the “Holocaust” is accepted as a hoax by an increasing number of average Americans, the Jew *will* lose respect. And standing. I’m not sure you want that. Certainly Guillaume Faye did not.

            “Furthermore, it is simply untrue that WW2 revisionists have made amazing progress in the sense in which you are utilizing them as an example in contradistinction to my comment about immigration. I could make an analogous claim about the immigration restrictionist movement.”

            No, you couldn’t. Your “amazing progress” is a figment, and you equate the two causes as equally successful because you don’t know the facts and history of the Revisionist movement.
            You told Pierre de Craon that you had bought and read the books of K. MacDonald as soon as they were published. Can you say the same about any of the landmark ‘holocaust’ revisionist books? Which have you actually read as carefully as you read KMac’s trilogy? Respectfully, I think you’re speaking from ignorance.

            I have to add that this sentence leaves me wondering as to the very fine shading you perceive between “necessary but not sufficient”:
            “Of course, even Prof. MacDonald has noted that Jewish power was only a *necessary but not sufficient cause* of the West’s postwar decline.”
            That’s drawing too fine a line to be useful.

          • W. Poe White
            W. Poe White says:

            I agree with Carolyn that we would not continue to be subjected to mass non-White immigration were it not “coordinated and facilitated by Jews.” Nor is there any way to end this immigration without putting an end to Jewish power over Western nations. Jewish power is a sine qua non of our terrible predicament. If the Jews were to lose all influence and power overnight, the Kalergian agenda would quickly be brought to a halt. White support for multiracialism would never have existed in more than a tiny number of Whites were it not for the massive Jewish led indoctrination campaign to inculcate “tolerance” in Whites. [see “Modify the Standards of the In-Group: On Jews and Mass Communications” by Andrew Joyce ]

            No group other than the Jews has an interest in creating multiracial societies.

            Without taking the Jews into account the current situation is inexplicable.

            Without breaking the power of Jews over hearts, minds, the economy and the state nothing can be done to stop the Kalergian Globalist transformation of the West.

            “Holocaust” revisionism is of great importance since the Holocaust myth is the lynchpin of the control of the hearts and minds of Whites throughout the West. So long as Whites believe that National Socialist Germany engaged in gratuitous genocide due to nothing but irrational hate or lust for power rather than mere expulsion of Jews to the East in a desperate attempt to free themselves from Judeo-Globalist control (in the forms of both Bolshevism and international Financial Capitalism), any attempt to free the White West from the grip of Jewish led Globalism will be doomed to fail.

            Conversely, were Whites to understand what really happened in the WWII period, it would follow that the Jews have been engaged in aggressively pushing a Big Lie. The next question that would naturally arise is: If the Jews would lie about this, what else might they have lied about?

            One of the largest of their other Big Lies is 9-11. 9-11 was conceived, planned and executed by Israel with American Jewish help.

            Without knowledge about organized Jewish power and intentions any attempt to free the minds of Whites is futile.

  6. W. Poe White
    W. Poe White says:

    Faye has some large blind spots. One of them, as Andrew Joyce pointed out, is his failure to understand the essential role played by the Jews. Faye seems to think that the Brown Islamic masses are colonizing Europe on their own initiative. It is obvious that non-Whites, some Islamic and some not, are being encouraged and allowed to migrate into Europe from the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. They could never have entered Europe were it not for the Zionist Globalist ruling class of Europe allowing them in. Jews play a central role in the Kalergian demographic engineering (“Islam is the broom of Israel” – Rabbi David Touitou) just as they played a central role in the creation of the European Union in the first place.

    Faye did recognize the geopolitical threat posed by China but given his blind spot toward the Jews I doubt that he considered the danger of a Jewish-Chinese alliance in which the Jews open up America to conquest by China the way Jews opened up Visigothic Spain to the Moors in 711 AD. Jews constitute an infinitely dangerous fifth column within America and the West in general. We must assume that America has no secrets from Israel. I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel has the capability of preventing the deployment of America’s nuclear arsenal. Many of the most sensitive technologies used by the American military were manufactured by Israeli or other Jewish owned companies..

    A giant blind spot (unless it is discussed in parts of Faye’s work not mentioned by Andrew Joyce) is the technological revolution underway. The rise of artificial intelligence, robotics, genetic engineering, biotechnology and nanotechnology – Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution – will have profound and largely unpredictable effects. This technology revolution makes the global balance of power and military strength highly unstable.

    These Faustian Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies in particular make an efficient genuinely totalitarian society feasible for the first time in history. This is precisely what our Jewish led Zionist Globalist elites are trying to construct now with their Great Reset to establish Technocracy throughout the West. China already has a semi-Technocratic regime.

    Another factor apparently missed by Faye is the gathering Malthusian crisis. At 7.8 billion people we are about one more population doubling from absolute food scarcity (not accounting for the possibility that vertical farming and synthetic food production might be used on a mass scale). Drinkable water is already growing scarce in some areas of the world. Resources like water, arable land and rare earth metals could become scarce several decades in the future. There is a possibility of resource wars. The effect of gathering Malthusian tension on Western societies is another wild card but will likely add further pressure toward totalitarianism.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” There is a possibility of resource wars. ”

      All wars are resource wars . Always has been ; always will be .

      Power struggle wars are for control over people as a resource .

      • W. Poe White
        W. Poe White says:

        “Power struggle wars are for control over people as a resource .” The resource wars I have in mind are over natural resources: energy, minerals, arable land and drinkable water.

        The nightmarish possibility that occurs to me is a Jewish-Israeli-Chinese alliance. China is a formidable adversary which is already well advanced on the road to totalitarian Technocracy.

        Technological progress has already produced some extremely dangerous technologies and these technologies are being further enhanced with every passing year. Technological progress now poses the twin dangers of wars an order of magnitude more terrible than any war could possibly have been in previous eras and of an efficient totalitarianism all but impossible to overthrow.

        Jews might throw in their lot with the Chinese who might then proceed to build a global scale totalitarian Technocratic empire utilizing cutting edge military and social control technologies. The question is: Would the Chinese be interested in such an alliance? There has long been a Jewish minority in China (a subject which deserves more of our attention). Could it be the case that Chinese Jews are already very influential in the CCP and Chinese society?

        Might the Zionist Globalist elites who control the states on the West Coast invite the Chinese into California just as Jews invited the Moors into the Visigothic kingdom in 711?

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          Your concerns about Zio-Jew oligarchy political treachery are firmly grounded in historical precedents . As they say “with Jews you lose”; or heads they win , tails you lose .

  7. John
    John says:

    Of the 3rd world, thousands still pouring across our border; the multi-decades INVASION continues. INVASION is not our #1 topic, thus, we accept our dispossession.

  8. bruno
    bruno says:

    I ordered and Faye’s Prelude to War. The title sucked me in. Not only that, I am a fan of Arktos and I think more people should become acquainted with that excellent publishing firm. One of its writers, Ed Dutton is just terrific. Dutton is a must read.

    I had a read one of Faye’s earlier books entitled Giuseppe. In fact I did a book review, noting at the beginning I had no idea how much was true. The reason I picked Giuseppe is becuz I’ve always enjoyed studies, research and commentary pertaining to Eurocide I and II. In fact, for half a century I’ve been reading info from generals and hierarchy about that brother war.

    When I was younger I listened to Germans, Americans and Slavic participants of that bloody conflict. My opinion has always been that the common soldier had much to say and (2) if Hitler had been assassinated in 1944 millions of Europeans, including Germans, could have been saved.

    The subject of Eurocide II it’s a tricky one and a person can easily offend German friends. Many of the common soldiers in East Germany actually believed they could have won against America, the British Empire and the Soviet Union. Most of those of higher rank acknowledged the futility of the situation.

    Nevertheless, the topic of EuroMan’s infighting is more than fascinating. This brings us back to Faye’s Prelude to War. I believed it was a lot of philosophical mumbo-jumbo babel. I was greatly disappointed in his sliding over the Jewish question. It was also understood because of the objectivity “in fear of the Z.”

    Faye’s commentary and chapters about European decadence, Christianity and the “Jewish World’s Greatest Fear” were fascinating titles. Arktos has so many good books that I would suggest looking at other selections, before any ponderings about Faye’s Prelude to War.

    Oh, one last thing. I’ve ambulated on the streets of France. Thus, it’s easy to comprehend Faye’s perceptions. My take is that it would take a miracle for France to deport her millions of Third Worlders and/or for her to survive as a French nation state.

  9. Dr ExCathedra
    Dr ExCathedra says:

    Reminds me of the words of Lee Harris almost 20 years ago:

    “Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe. . . . They forget that in time of danger, in the face of the enemy, they must trust and confide in each other, or perish. . . . They forget, in short, that there has ever been a category of human experience called the enemy.

    The very concept of the enemy had been banished from our moral and political vocabulary. An enemy was just a friend we hadn’t done enough for yet. Or perhaps there had been a misunderstanding, or an oversight on our part – something that we could correct. . . . Our first task is therefore to try to grasp what the concept of the enemy really means. The enemy is someone who is willing to die in order to kill you. And while it is true that the enemy always hates us for a reason, it is his reason, and not ours”. Civilization And Its Enemies. 2004

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” The enemy is someone who is willing to die in order to kill you.”

      Superb observation .

  10. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    Faye advocates complete disinterest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict … he assumes that “the state of Israel may eventually disappear,” and therefore that the problem is in any case temporary.

    For both cynicism and thickheadedness, Faye’s positing the eventual disappearance of the Israeli state as a basis for present indifference to its mischief-making stands as a rival to Lord Keynes’s notorious comment about where we all find ourselves “in the long run.” Of course Israel will eventually disappear—talk about a truism of corporeal life!—but until it does, its uniquely privileged status among the powers of the earth is ignored at one’s peril. (In fact, it is widely ignored, and thus peril is what we are in.)

    For the next century or so, the greatest danger to Israel’s existence will surely be loss of interest by the Jews who run the place on keeping it a going concern. Israel, like the now-deceased Union of South Africa, is a high-maintenance operation. Should a day come when the People Who Matter decide that their storefront on the Mediterranean is more trouble than it’s worth, a going-out-of-business sale won’t be long delayed. Frankly, since it is difficult to think of a non-Asian industrialized nation that isn’t (1) already a de facto Jewish state and (2) better endowed with attractive scenery and other mod cons, the continued maintenance of Israel already has more than a soupçon of filial sentimentality clinging to it. On the other hand, if that maintenance weren’t entirely at the white man’s expense, the parental generation might perhaps have already been advised to fend for itself. If such a counterfactual state of affairs obtained, Faye’s shallow truism might instead smack of insight.

    Finally, even though I side with Andrew Joyce with respect to two of Faye’s egregious boners—Arab v. Jewish demography and the great volte-face of 2010 that never happened—both charity and sad experience counsel us to recall that almost everyone’s greatest-hits collection has its share of blunders and bêtises. (How wise of Socrates never to have consigned his teachings to parchment!) As Victor Borge said, “Prediction is always tricky, especially when it comes to predicting the future.”

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      The Israeli demographic question has usually not been thought of, however, solely in intra-Israel terms, but been placed within the entire Middle Eastern context. Seen that way, demography is still running hard against the perpetuity of the Zionist ethnostate, especially as Israeli power remains highly dependent upon America, which, due to decades of – irony of ironies! – Jewish-applauded mass nonwhite immigration, is losing its appetite for the “special relationship”. I think we’ve passed the domestic Zionist heyday. There is (and will be) increasing GOP/Middle American indifference to Israel as white America’s problems worsen, and the increasingly nonwhite Democrats will grow ever more hostile to it.

      I wrote a comment to Carolyn Yeager above that you might find of interest, though you might not agree with it.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        There’s already plenty of indifference to Israel from coast to coast, Leon, but neither now nor in the foreseeable future will it matter. The compete absence of popular support in 1965 for replacement-level immigration certainly didn’t prevent the passage of the Hart-Celler Act, and the power wielded by the Jews then was perhaps half of what it is now. The growing nonwhite hostility to Israel or Jews or both that you refer to will, I think, never become unmanageable—at least not so long as there are stores to loot and churches and police precincts to torch.

        Per your implicit suggestion, I commented above, too.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Corrigendum: In line 2 of the comment above, “compete” should be “complete”.

  11. crank
    crank says:

    ‘Faye lamented the West’s ability to combat Muslim terrorism because Muslim migration itself represents a kind of quasi-military reinforcement and because Muslim terror networks are almost impenetrable even to the most skilled secret service agencies.’

    This has not been my reading.
    The UK has seen events from the 7/7 bombings, through several plots ranging from ludicrously inept to utterly insane, up to the 2017 bombing of Manchester Arena. In every instance that I have read, the cells have been heavily infiltrated by the security services. There has been clear evidence of foreknowledge and a cover up of one kind or another. It is well known that Abedi- the Manchester bomber, was recruited by MI6 in the war against Gaddafi.
    9/11 itself was so intertwined with the secret states of the US and Israel, one could write a small encyclopedia just on that aspect alone.
    My reading has been one of so-called ‘Islamic terrorism’ as a proxy, a ‘strategy of tension’, utilized to empower the security state and erode basic freedoms to be replaced by a creeping cryptocratic/ technocratic control system.
    Not to distract from the overall message, but nonetheless, I took this part of the argument as a bit of ‘motivated reasoning’.

  12. MOB
    MOB says:

    Late again… I have 2 comments I’d like to post; this first one being a simple cut-and-paste of Michael O’Meara’s Introduction to the Dusk to Dawn article by Guillaume Faye that was posted at Counter-Currents in 2010; it gives some balance to the somewhat thougless dismissal he received by earlier commenters:

    From Dusk to Dawn
    Guillaume Faye

    Editor’s Note: This is the first unabridged publication of the following translation with introduction by Michael O’Meara.

    Translator’s Note: The following talk was given in Moscow on May 17, 2005 and recently posted, in French, on the Russian site Athenaeum. For at least three reasons, I think it deserves the widest possible circulation in White Nationalist circles.

    The first is one which more and more English speaking nationalists are beginning to realize: Guillaume Faye is today the most interesting, if not pertinent spokesman for the genetic-cultural heritage associated with the White Resistance. Everything he says or writes on the subject of who we are, what we are fighting for, and where the main battle fronts will lie are worth thinking about. In France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and now Russia, his ideas have touched the leading debates (even, in some cases, descending to ad hominem issues, which seem the least important of our concerns).

    The second reason this article deserves attention is the metapolitical one. Faye is a veteran of the first major effort to practice a “Gramscianism of the Right” — that is, to wage a cultural war against the ethnocidal principles of the dominant liberal culture. Not unrelatedly, he stands out among anti-liberal nationalists, creative force that he is, in having developed a language and a discourse that reaches beyond the narrow confines of our movement, while serving as a radical alternative to the anti-White language and discourse of the existing System.

    The third reason is that this talk is a succinct and eloquent synthesis of the ideas — the vision — Faye has developed in the seven books (and countless articles) he’s produced in the eight years since the appearance of his path-breaking L’Archéofuturisme (1998). However provisionally sketched, these ideas aim at helping us through what promises to be the worst storm of our collective existence. At the same time, these ideas speak to something more primordial.

    As an earlier student of our historical destiny writes: “All that is great stands in the storm” (Plato). What is coming will undoubtedly determine if we have any greatness left in us. The Whitemen of the West, the men of the Evening Lands (Abandländer), having gone under before, have also a long history of recognizing that it is only in resolutely confronting the dangers bearing down on them that they stand a chance of weathering them and, in doing so, of rediscovering what is still great within themselves.

    Faye, I believe, is one of the seers calling us to return to ourselves and to the greatness inherent in who we are. — Michael O’Meara

  13. MOB
    MOB says:

    This second comment is a few excerpts from earlier writings by Faye, Hoffmeister, and Tulaev (Athaenium) that spell out their Euro-Russian (not Euro-Siberian) alliamce ideas, including the role of Jews/Israel. I’m not posting this as a defense of Faye, but I will admit that the fact that it deals with action plans and not analyses appeals to me greatly. MOB
    THE BRIDE OF THE JEWS by Constantin von Hoffmeister 2007
    “It is actually interesting to see how the Islamic threat will weld Europeans and Jews together. A new form of progressive nationalism is forming now as this new breed of European nationalists see Jews as allies and brothers. But so much has to be done first. We have to heal wounds which were inflicted by Hitler and all the other reactionary nationalists and of course the Church – both Catholic and Protestant. The biggest task is to make the Jews trust the ETHNIC European nationalism.” — Kai Murros

    Why do some people single out Jews for occupying “stolen land”? Was not Rhodesia “stolen land”? Is not the entire US “stolen land”? The US controls Israel and uses it as a military outpost in the Middle East. Do White gentiles have no part in the destruction of Europe, is it ALL the Jews’ fault? I simply cannot relate to the sometimes absurd reasoning of White nationalists anymore. Basically, most (not all, fortunately) White nationalists live in a comic book world. They desperately need an enemy that is all-evil and all-powerful. They need a super villain on which they can pin ALL the blame.
    (Speech given by Constantin von Hoffmeister at the Moscow ATENEY conference in July 2007)
    “… for both spiritual and cultural reasons, it is important that modern Israel be accepted as part of the future Euro-siberian empire. A geopolitical axis that runs from Jerusalem to Berlin to Moscow would uphold a spiritual legacy as well as form a security alliance of peoples that are connected through the common bond of a shared culture, namely the Western one. This alliance would provide a bulwark against the enemies of the West, namely the endless hordes of Muslims and savages from the South. While Moscow would be responsible for defending the eastern border of the empire against the yellow menace, Jerusalem would have the task of holding the Islamic world at bay by controlling the Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates, imposing civilization and order. Berlin, as the traditional capital of the “Empire of the Middle” of Western Europe, must be the control center of the Eurosiberian empire where all the different threats that face the empire are assessed and solutions proposed. All possibilities for expansion that the empire might gain naturally collect themselves in Germany since the latter is the gravitational epicenter where all paths leading from the empire’s outer edges converge.”
    2008 Interview with Pavel Tulaev, editor of Russian magazine The Athenaeum
    Delian diver: You suggest the replacement of Faye’s Eurosiberian vision by the idea of Euro-Russia where the Siberian area is to be swapped with White Russia and Ukraine. Who is supposed to be the strategic partner of Euro-Russia in future pan-Europe, and what role will the countries of central Europe play in this new continental block?
    Pavel Tulaev: Above all, Guillaume Faye is talking about a futuristic project. It has become more concrete when he visited Russia after our invitation. As a result, I have managed to convince him that the notion of Euro-Russia would be more accurate in ethnopolitical sphere, because Russia is a historical subject, and Siberia is merely a geographical territory.??Naturally, for us, Russia is the heart of the continent. But, all in all, the project of EuroRussia presupposes a polycentric system , when every country, including Czechia, will be an equal partner within the new pan-European geopolitical structure. I mean EuroRussia, not just “United Europe”, because Russia has its own destiny and mission in the World.??As for the possible partnership, it will depend on the hierarchy of values, such as nation (ethnos), super-ethnos (family of the nations), race (ethnically similar nations) and White Civilization (that can be European or post-European in its essence).
    Delian diver: What is your opinion on the USA and their white nationalist movement? Do you think the contemporary hysterical anti-Americanism (fed especially by far left) can be an obstacle on the way of Euro-American nationalist cooperation?
    Pavel Tulaev: I always distinguished between modern predatory policy of the US (as an ally of Israel) and the American people, within which we have comrades-in-arms from White Nationalist movement. When I taught in one of the universities of the US in early 1990s, this statement was justified by my personal experience. Not all of the Russian Nationalists, especially, the radical far-right ones, share the anti-Yankee hysteria, provoked by the lefts and the so-called “Eurasians”. Russia has traditionally good relations with America, and it will develop this geopolitical line, especially in the Far East and the Pacific, where China is the primary rival of both USA and Russia. But this does not diminish our pro-European strategy, because we are tied with Europe by historical and genetic connections.
    Video: Guillaume Faye and Pavel Tulaev October, 2012
    The New Sacred Union by Pavel Tulaev Moscow, 2018
    Today, many people understand that humanity has entered a qualitatively different stage of planetary development. It is associated with space cycles, the scientific and technological revolution, changes in lifestyle, etc. Internationally, this is an obvious turn from the global dictatorship of the United States, established in the 20th century, to a multipolar world. More specifically, to the growing role of Russia and the East as a whole. The regrouping of international forces makes us develop a new strategy.

    • Hammerheart
      Hammerheart says:

      White people, certainly the white nationalists etc, cannot seem to grasp the following facts, & that is why they cannot fathom the relationship between the jews & the muslims.
      Europe was once dominated in large swaths by a Muslim system*, eg in Spain.
      Spanish jews, Sefards, were the middlemen in the Muslim empire, as per the jewish civilizational model, ie parasitize on a host or client nation. They were very successful, very powerful, very wealthy. When that empire fell but by no means entirely disappeared, jews had to adjust.
      They had to become the middlemen to a “less developed, less sophisticated” race & culture, ie white Europeans & Christians.
      Jews look back to the Muslim empire situation with nostalgia.
      It would therefore come as no surprise that they would welcome having a Muslim client state again.
      Of course, today’s less sophisticated Islam is more about fundamentalism than astronomical discoveries. (Muslim scholars & scientists were far in advance of white Europeans in many areas ie of science & mathematics. All this information was kept imprisoned in difficult semitic languages, that jews were aware of [eg study of Maimonides] but whites knew nothing of.) One wonders how well that arrangement would work, if jews can really once again “manage” today’s Muslims. However, if neocon Middle East US policy continues unabated, they will eventually indeed “take it all back”; the State of Israel piece of the puzzle may be the most centrally important, but it’s only 1 small piece. Eg, the exact same logic applies to the “Persian Empire”, ie today’s Iran (basically).
      Hebrew is an artificial bok-mal; Jews originally spoke a Canaanite language which then morphed into Persian, which became aramaic. The Hebrew “block-letter” alefbet is merely Persian letters rotated by approx 45 degrees & otherwise slightly altered eg alef.
      Rome crushed all this including destroying 2nd Temple Judaism, hence the vitriolic hatred expressed in jewish sources (including some which could be called extremely early Christian, ie Pseudepigrapha, Apocalyptic, etc) towards “Rome”. The might of Rome was a different type of power & threat from what the jews were used to, such a different kind of Judaism had to replace 2nd Temple Judaism to survive the might of Rome.
      But the longing in the Jewish soul is to someday “take it all back”, grinding away slowly through the centuries. Seems to be working.
      cf Intro to Medieval Jewish History by Prof Benjamin Gampel.

      * White Western European whites denied aid to the Byzantine Empire when the Muslims came to conquer Constantinople itself as a power grab (let the Eastern Orthodox Church, Constantinople be defeated, winner takes all that remains). The complaints against Roman Catholicism etc by whites, WASPs, white nationalists etc, stem from the loss of the original, Eastern Christianity, & the “WASP-ing” of Christianity, to a great extent (making Xpny into its toxic modern form). White Roman Catholic then WASP Europe did that to itself, & now complains Muslims are overrunning European peoples. What did anyone expect to happen over a period of several centuries??
      The logic applies forcefully also re: the European “Christian” monarchical system ie also a naked power grab. Eg: Prince Phillip of Greece, the Greek Civil War, the Greek people finally getting their referendum saying “No” to more non-Greek German-Saxon-English Lords to ‘long to reign over’ them. (The Eastern Orthodox Church also has a problematic relationship to monarchism, made even worse by having to “mate” with the European model.) The arendta system (Jewish managers for royalty etc) in Eastern Europe, etc. If white nationalists were serious, these facts would be acknowledged, including the fact that it contradicts various claims at various points (eg criticism or condemnation of the horrible, vile behaviour of the royals/aristocracy class is not “Communism” & the behaviour of European royalty etc is clearly against the nationalist interests being otherwise advocated, etc).

  14. katana17
    katana17 says:

    I always look forward to Andrew Joyce’s articles, and this one on Faye doesn’t disappoint, except for one thing.

    Now, Faye made it clear in a talk he gave at Amren many years ago that he doesn’t want to deal with things jewish. He said something along the lines that jews, “don’t exist for him”. Joyce’s article confirms that.

    So it’s expected that when it comes to 9/11 Faye would accept the official lies and see no jewish fingerprints all over the crime scene.

    Now, what is disappointing is that Joyce also fails to pause and offer even a fleeting comment indicating an inkling of understanding of the central role of organized jewry in carrying out 9/11.

    At Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth there are over 3,000 of them who are publicly willing to state the obvious, that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

    Once you understand that, it’s only a series of small steps to know that it could only have been carried out by a group, the tribe, that control the USA, namely, organized jewry.

    I hope that Andrew Joyce can confront this issue with his usual candour in a future article.

    Here’s a link to some transcripts on 9/11 and also to some transcripts of Andrew Joyce’s work;

    • W. Poe White
      W. Poe White says:

      “I hope that Andrew Joyce can confront this issue with his usual candour in a future article”

      I second that. I have read Christopher Bollyn’s pair of books “Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World” and “Solving 9-11: The Original Articles.” Bollyn makes a powerful (though circumstantial) case that 9-11 was an operation of Israeli military intelligence with help from dual citizen sayanim (and a few Gentile Zionist traitors) in the US.

      There are also numerous presentations given by Bollyn to be found on BitChute and YouTube (not so many yet on Odysee). This is a good example:

      The theory Bollyn puts forward (which is the most plausible I have seen) is that nanothermite was spread widely (perhaps sprayed on like paint or insulation on floor pans, girders and support columns of WTC1 and WTC2 (WTC7 was brought down by a more conventional form of planned demolition). The main support columns were cut by nanothermate (thermate differs from thermite by having a sulfur compound in it – this makes it a better “eutectic” i.e. means of melting through a column) at a 45 degree angle. There were also regular explosive charges used.

      The twin towers were rigged for demolition by teams that had access to the buildings at night and when the buildings were closed for maintenance work or asbestos remediation work. Bollyn identified a number of American Zionists with Israeli connections playing key roles in the cover-up, e.g. Michael Chertoff and Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

      Yes, it was Israel that planned and executed 9-11. Bollyn establishes this beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt. As we try to analyze and predict the course of events this must be taken as an established fact.

  15. Hammerheart
    Hammerheart says:

    The great value of the writings of Guillaume Faye is one of the great frauds promoted by the alt right media & websites, writers etc.
    The only real aim was to sell books $35-$45 a pop. Having read most of his works available, I have earned the right to pronounce my judgement: worthless; just a book-publishing money-making scheme.
    Faye is among or else the most overrated writer on the “Alt-Right”.
    (Anyone care to defend the “Sex & Deviance” book? No? Thought not.)

    Re: the 2 last books:
    Way too little, way too late.
    Obviously the waiting til he’s ready to die to speak more frankly routine, to say what many others (most of whom did not wear suits & ties or were called ‘intellectuals’, etc) already have written, for decades.
    No honesty anywhere in this article, or comments, or TOO about that fact.

    To anyone contemplating getting into Guillaume Faye:
    Don’t waste your money or your time.

  16. Morrica
    Morrica says:

    White nationalists should spread the word about two things:
    1. The government is anti-White and wants us dead.
    2. It’s mostly a Jewish problem.

    People who don’t know about the JQ have no idea why the government is anti-White. So, they put the blame on the leftists, suicidal elites, women, the Christians, the capitalists, the chambers of commerce, the bourgeois mindset, the EU, the USA… But everything makes more sense once you learn about Jewish power and Jewish anti-Whitism. Leftism also plays a role, but it’s been hijacked by the Jews anyway.

    I wish White nationalists who won’t mention the JQ would still spread the message that the government, for some mysterious reason, is anti-White. The government could easily close down the borders instead of bringing in ever more migrants and giving them housing and welfare. Everybody can see there is a problem with the government, but people still reject the idea that the goal is to destroy the White race.

    Since no one in the mainstream media and mainstream political parties will say the truth about our genocidal governments, we need White Nationalists to say it. But very often, White Nationalists who won’t address the JQ won’t even say that the problem comes from the anti-White government. They will say the government is simply misguided, and they will blame liberalism, capitalism, or the migrants themselves, and their Muslim religion.

    The focus on Islam is muddling the issue. The real problem is race replacement, which is leading to our collective demise and which is destroying our social environment along the way. Whites feel intimidated when there are too many Blacks and Arabs around. A few of them are enough to prevent us from feeling at home in our community. That’s why White people tend to “hunker down”, as Robert Putnam puts it. It has nothing to do with Islam or Muslim terrorism.

    American Jewish neocons have been very active in trying to derail the anti-race-replacement movement by putting the focus on Islam. They started doing so even though there were no Muslim migrants in the USA. They’ve had a strong influence on Jewish activists in France and Britain.

    ** The book’s third chapter, “The American Adversary,” is one of the slower-paced entries. It deals with an anti-Americanism that is quite specific to France, and which might leave many in the Anglosphere scratching their heads.**

    Anti-Americanism has probably been encouraged in France to deflect criticism of the Jews. As I see it, there is really a destructive “American” influence on Europe. It is of Jewish origin and gets picked up and relayed by the Jewish power in France, through the government, the media, the universities…

    ** Faye attacks pornography, the promotion of homosexuality, and feminism **
    ** the conceits of French intellectualism **
    ** the individualism in Western Christian notions of marriage (love matches) **

    And all of that is closely associated with Jewish influence and networking, even though G.Faye would not say it.

Comments are closed.