Why We Fight

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, February 16, 2012

AmRen conference speaker’s call for action in Europe.

Guillaume Faye, Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance, Arktos Media, 2011, 278 pp. soft cover $27.00, hard cover $42.00.

For more than a decade, Guillaume Faye of France has been one of the most prominent and controversial spokesmen for our race. His books have been translated into many continental languages, and he is in frequent demand as a speaker in Europe and Russia. Now, thanks to translations commissioned by Arktos Media, he is finally becoming known in the English-speaking world.

In the 1970s, Mr. Faye helped found the French New Right, together with Alain de Benoit. The books he wrote in the 1980s and ’90s were a mix of the ideological and deliberately provocative, with titles such as The System that Kills People, The New Consumer Society, and A Manual for Seducers in a Hurry (which he wrote under a pseudonym). He later broke with his former New Right colleagues and began to write more explicitly about race; it was his 1998 book Archeofuturism that put him at the center of what Europeans call identitarianism and what we call racial consciousness. The appearance of The Colonization of Europe in 2000 and Why We Fight in 2001 established him as the continent’s foremost identitarian spokesman. The Colonization of Europe (available, in French, as a PDF here), in which he warned of the demographic threat posed by Muslim immigration, resulted in a 300,000-Franc fine (approximately $60,000), and a one-year suspended sentence under France’s oppressive anti-free-speech laws.

Mr. Faye has continued to publish at a rate of nearly one volume every year, elaborating on his central themes while developing new ones. In 2007, he surprised some of his admirers with The New Jewish Question, in which he argued that Zionism is an important ally in Europe’s fight against Islam. His latest book, published in 2011, is Sex and Corruption.

Why We Fight is a manual for people who already understand the importance of race. In this translation into vigorous, engaging English by Michael O’Meara, Mr. Faye wastes no time getting to the point: Europe, he says, is fighting for its life. Low birth rates and relentless non-white immigration are destroying and displacing native Europeans, without whom Europe is nothing but a landmass. “The base of everything is biocultural identity and demographic renewal,” he writes, adding, “This is why the present situation in Europe is so tragic: for the first time in two thousand years, Europe is quite literally in danger of disappearing.”

What Mr. Faye calls “the struggle for the heritage of our ancestors and the future of our children” will be decided soon: “If the generation of native Europeans that turns 20 between 2000 and 2010 doesn’t act, everything will be lost—forever.” He writes that “for our civilisation, the twenty-first century is to be a trial of life or death, with no possibility of appeal,” warning that that “the threat is graver than any of the previous plagues and wars that Europe has known.”

The Black Death pales in comparison to the “colonization” of Europe.

Although Mr. Faye is a man of words and ideas, he stresses that “one doesn’t fight for ‘ideas,’ one fights for a people.” And for what people do identitarians fight?

An Antwerpian of Belgian nationality, a Catalan of Spanish nationality, a Lombard of Italian nationality . . . are my compatriots. They are fellow Europeans. But a West Indian, an African, an Arab, or a Chinese who possesses a French Nationality Identity Card are not my compatriots, though in strictly judicial terms they may be considered French.

Mr. Faye notes that immigrants may sometimes call themselves “French” or “Belgian” but never manage to become Scots, Bavarians, or Sicilians.

The tragedy of the struggle is that Europe “is at war and doesn’t even know it.” So long as their shopping carts are full, Europeans will not wake up to the crisis of dispossession. For those who see clearly, however, traditional European distinctions of Left and Right are petty distractions. The only distinction that matters is who is, and who is not, part of the European struggle against oblivion.

To be sure, there are questions of strategy. Should a French identitarian hope to return to a France that is authentically French, or should France cede sovereignty to a strong, self-conscious Europe? Should a European patriot try to use the powers of the European Union to hurl back the Third World or should he try to undermine those powers in the expectation that racial consciousness can arise only at the national level? These are legitimate questions on which identitarians may disagree.

They should all agree, however, that traditional Christians and non-believers must work together to preserve Europe. Mr. Faye is not a Christian, but believes that a traditional Catholic should be able to say “I respect all the Christians of the world, but nic et nunc [here and now] I fight for my people above all, whatever their religion.”

He notes that neither Judaism nor Islam has ever been “masochistic” like Christianity, but points out that Christianity itself is not the source of our collapse: “We shouldn’t forget . . . that the egalitarian virus is also found in non-Christian conceptions of the world and that Medieval Christianity knew how to protect itself from it.” As for liberal, mush-minded Christianity, he sees no salvation for it, and wishes it would disappear.

Historical ignoramuses

Mr. Faye is slashingly contemptuous of the mentality of the elites who are herding Europe into the abyss, calling them “historical ignoramuses” and “stargazing intellectuals.” He wonders if they can really believe we will live happily ever after in the multi-culti utopia, for there is no “mixing of cultures,” only conquest:

India, China, Black Africa, the Arab-Muslim or Turkish-Muslim world, etc., are affirming their identities, tolerating neither a colonising immigration nor a cultural mélange on their soil. Only our pseudo-European elites defend the dogma of a ‘mixed planet,’ which is pure illusion.

Nor can Mr. Faye excuse the naiveté (or duplicity) of those who would open the West to strangers in the name of Western values those strangers will never adopt. Our rulers say that because Europe accepts pluralism and celebrates differences, it should welcome millions of Muslims or Hindus—who despise pluralism and hate differences. Mr. Faye concludes that “it’s absurd to demand the right to differences for those who would deny it to others.”

Mr. Faye notes that the regnant ideology amounts to a belief in miracles: that unskilled Third-Worlders can make up for declining European birthrates; that social security can keep paying for more and more old people as the number of workers declines; that there can be infinite development without polluting the planet or running out of raw materials; that we can encourage the proliferation of incompetents without fatally burdening the competent.

Mr. Faye denounces European Green parties that claim to be anti-globalist and rooted in local cultures because, “[A]t the same time they are ‘open to all cultures,’ partisans of the ‘cause of all peoples,’ and effectively pro-immigrant.” He calls them part of “a phony opposition to the system, attacking superficial aspects of it, but never challenging its foundation.”

Mr. Faye points out that “direct democracy like that of the Swiss is considered illegitimate and the people’s opinion is treated as if it were something immature and dangerous.” This is because the people retain a faint sense of what is right, and if the decision were put to referendum, Europeans would restore the death penalty, expel Third-World immigrants, and curb the powers of the European Union.

For the present, however, the racial consciousness that is vital for European survival is not strong enough to break through smothering layers of sham democracy because identitarian instincts have been destroyed by bourgeois individualism. “Consumerism is a form of slavery to which the mass men of our age have succumbed,” writes Mr. Faye. “Domesticated man is a conformist, he doesn’t revolt, he never resists.” Above all, now that treachery to Europe is the basis for respectability, the mass man “doesn’t want to feel ‘Other,’ independent, for that would mean being excluded (the great contemporary terror).”

For those who actually do understand what is at stake but go no further than cautious conservatism, Mr. Faye reserves his deepest contempt: For him they are miserable cowards.

The American adversary

When Mr. Faye wrote this book in 2001, he took the view that although the true enemy of Europe was Islam and Third-World immigration, America was also an adversary. Here is a typical passage:

The United States—logically from its geostrategic perspective—endeavours to neutralize Europe, whose unification threatens American hegemony and economic interests on the continent. To divide Euroepans in order to better rule them, the U.S. endeavours to foster war and discord, it favours Islamic immigration, it seeks to prevent a European alliance with Russia and the Slavs, it keeps us under its military tutelage, and it forces us to open our markets without reciprocating, all the while proclaiming that it’s our protector: this is the logic of America’s perverse hegemony in Europe.

He also writes this: “The Pentagon’s nightmare is an ethnocentric Eurosiberia [European whites united from the Atlantic to Siberia] . . . . free of Islamisation, American hegemony, and non-European colonization.” And this: “The U.S. seeks to weaken Europe by favouring her Islamisation and her transformation into a multi-racial, Africanised society.”

He writes that America opposes the European nuclear energy industry because a nuclear Europe would be free from dependence on Middle Eastern oil. This dependence prevents Europe from throwing off the Muslim invader, and “Islamo-Arab governments accept their provisional subordination to American Interests for the sake of American aid in conquering Europe.” He even wonders if Green parties oppose nuclear energy in Europe only because they have been bought off by “American-Muslim oil suppliers” who want to keep making money selling oil to an increasingly weakened and Islam-dominated Europe.

This is, to put it charitably, misguided. Much of what the United States does is objectively harmful to Europe—denial of race and genetics, worship of immigration and miscegenation, celebration of diversity—but America is not deliberately trying to weaken Europe. America, in its blundering, arrogant way, wants Europe to be like America, and if it weakens Europe it is only because it is weakening itself. Nor is the United States in any sense in league with Islam—even though it tolerates it in the name of the same one-sided and foolish principles that Mr. Faye finds so dangerous in Europe. American interests are allied with those of Israel, and relations with oil producers are always considered in that light.

There is reason to think Mr. Faye has modified some of his views in the last decade. He will be speaking at the forthcoming American Renaissance conference, and the title of his talk is “America and Europe: Brothers in Arms. A French Point of View.” Even in 2001, at the time he wrote Why We Fight, he was on surer ground when he wrote that if Europe wants to counter American products and culture, it should do so not by being anti-American but simply non-American. Racially conscious Americans invariably see Europe identitarians as allies in a world-wide struggle.

Out of the crisis

Mr. Faye has no hope that Europe can save itself through conventional politics. As he has written in Archeofuturism, he believes that only a “convergence of catastrophes”—economic collapse, Islamic jingoism, environmental degradation—will jolt Europe out of its stupor. “The repatriation of aliens can only be accomplished under the auspices of a revolutionary crisis,” he writes. “We have long since passed the point of return, the point where it’s still possible to check the prevailing decadence through peaceful reform. In no case will the European Revolution be a ‘velvet revolution.’ ”

Mr. Faye writes that Europe must build a huge, exclusively European army to fight the racial-religious civil war that will break out when Europeans finally rise up. However, he believes Western man will act only when Muslims overplay their hands and turn their burgeoning numbers into outright oppression. When that day comes, it will not be a time for compromise or half-measures: “Every resistance not arising on a foundation of reconquest is destined to fail.”

Metapolitical dictionary

As noted above, Mr. Faye calls on us to fight for our people, not for ideas, but ideas are weapons in the fight, and ideas are expressed in words. Pierre Krebs, who wrote the preface to the German edition—which is included in this translation—writes that “the more you pervert the language of a people, the more its spirit will be distorted and its resistance weakened.”

Mr. Faye therefore devotes 180 pages of this 278-page book to what he calls a “Metapolitical Dictionary.” It is a listing, in alphabetical order, of what he considers the key terms of the struggle, and is an attempt to fight the perversion of language by coining new words and giving correct definitions to old ones.

Mr. Faye’s most successful coinages are probably “ethnomasochism” and “xenophilia,” which he says are the correct names for what goes by the name of “anti-racism.” He considers this a pathological contempt for one’s own people and a fawning belief that the “Other” as always better.

The definitions in the Metapolitical Dictionary all buttress an identitarian view, and can be quoted to good effect almost at random (his definitions are actually short essays; these are very partial excerpts).

Assimilation: “All assimilation is equivalent to cultural genocide, for the assimilator or the assimilated.”

Anti-racism:  “Anti-racists use their fake struggle against racism to destroy the European’s identity.”

Colonisation: “We must speak of colonisers rather than immigrants and stop talking about their being exploited. It is they who come to live at our expense and exploit us. Colonisation will bring Europe’s greatest possible tragedy if it succeeds in destroying Europe’s ethnic stock.”

Colonization? Muslims praying in the streets of Paris.

Democracy:  “The system, in fact, refuses real democracy since with it the people might express dangerous or morally condemnable opinions. . . . It’s always on questions of secondary importance that the people or its representatives are consulted.”

Destiny: “Destiny is not haphazard or random; a good part of it is willed. . . . A people unconscious of its destiny is a people destined to disappear.”

Egalitarianism:  “A pathological refusal to accept the inegalitarian nature of human societies . . . . [E]galitarianism gives rise to new inequities and does so in the name of justice.” It is “an institutionalized lie.”

Ethnocentrism: “The psychological condition necessary to a people’s (or nation’s) survival. . . . In the struggle for survival, the feeling of being superior and right is indispensable for acting and succeeding.”

Human Rights: “The ideology of human rights is above all strategically used to disarm European peoples, by making them feel guilty about almost everything. . . . The ideology of human rights is the principal weapon being used today to destroy Europe’s identity and to advance the interests of her alien colonisers.”

Heroes: “Egalitarians reject heroes because they are superior personalities. . . . Heroes are models, who sacrifice for their people’s sake: something completely incomprehensible for today’s ‘clerks’. . . .  Our decadent, ethnomasochistic society cannot, however, avoid forging pseudo-heroes or sub-heroes: football players, soap opera stars, humanitarian doctors . . . .”

Humanitarianism: “The metaphysical unity of the human race imposes an obligation to help the ‘Other,’ rather than one’s own kind.”

Mental AIDS: “Mental AIDS is an infection of a psychological nature that affects virtually all the ‘elites’—the political class, the media class, show business, the ‘cultural’ community, ‘artists,’ filmmakers—inclining them to . . . advocate degenerate values as if they were actually ones of regeneration. . . . Mental AIDS confuses, in effect, the enemy with the friend.”

Miscegenation: “In the name of anti-racism, the dominant ideology insists that miscegenation (métissage) is the planet’s fate. It’s only Europeans, however, who actually believe it, not the world’s other peoples, who are now organising themselves into ethnic blocs to preserve their identity.”

People: “In no case does mere cultural or linguistic attachment suffice in making a people, if they have no common biological roots. . . . Only Europeans, submerged in the illusions of their decadence, imagine that blood-based peoples will disappear, to be replaced by a miscegenated ‘world citizen.’ ”

Sacred: “The essential elements of the sacred are the cult of the dead, of ancestors, and the various rites and rituals accompanying the different stages of human life (birth, death, etc)—that is, everything that makes the perpetuation of a people’s lineage transcendent.”

Third Worldism:  “The proper attitude to the Third World is one of relative indifference . . . . Europe has no obligation to peoples whose destiny is not their own. . . . These populations are alone guilty of their incapacity to govern themselves. We are not ‘responsible’ for them.”

As is clear from these short excerpts, Guillaume Faye is just as serious about regenerating language as he is about regenerating his people. There is a great deal happening in Europe, and Mr. Faye is at the center of it.

Guillaume Faye

Topics: , , , , , , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Whites of European ancestry owe their high IQs and low crime rates to approximately two thousand years of evolution as a civilized race. Culture can change in a generation. Innate differences require much more time. Racial differences that are obvious to everyone who is willing to look have been reasonably constant geographically and historically. 
    Unfortunately many whites of European ancestry have become too civilized for their own good. They have difficulty understanding the mentalities of those who are less evolved than they are.   

  • Anonymous

    In the French tradition, Guillaume Faye is an intellectual, a lofty intellectual, dealing with big sweeping themes and semi-mystical grand ‘movements’ and forces, but the kernel of what he says happens to be correct, namely the selling-out of the traditional peoples of Europe, peoples whose ancestors had evolved there since the year dot, by a spectacularly foolish, ignorant, destructive and deluded political class, which is either oblivious of the harm they are causing or welcome it for twisted reasons of their own.

  • Anonymous

    “Mr. Faye notes that the regnant ideology amounts to a belief in miracles: that unskilled Third-Worlders can make up for declining European birthrates; that social security can keep paying for more and more old people as the number of workers declines; that there can be infinite development without polluting the planet or running out of raw materials; that we can encourage the proliferation of incompetents without fatally burdening the competent”

    As a business student, I had a class that dealt in global economics.  Essentially, we had speakers who were experts of different regions throughout the globe come and speak to us about the local customs, laws, mindsets, etc. of the people who lived in that region.  One of our speakers, an American who had spent quite a bit of time in Germany, gave us an extensive history of Germany over the last 150 years to the present.  When the topic of immigration eventually came up, the speaker was skeptical about it working, but ultimately told us an anecdote during his time on a bus in Munich. 

    In the story, he talks of witnessing seats that were once solely occupied by that of white Germans become occupied more and more by immigrant Turks.  Dressed fully in hijabs and veils, the young children spoke perfect German.  In fact, and he admitted to doing this, if one closed his eyes, one could not tell the difference between the Turk children from white German ones, which gave him hope for Germany’s future filled with immigrants.

    What a perfect metaphor for the collapse of the West.  Believing that third-world immigrants will be able to maintain or build on the society of Europeans or Americans is tantamount to closing your eyes and voluntarily ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Even an intelligent and skeptical White man would rather believe–through faith based in nothing at all–that European civilization will continue after Europeans are gone than in the alternative, namely that the culture built over thousands of years of struggles, wars, conflicts, renaissance, religious rebirth, beautiful contributions to art, and unquestionable advances in scientific progress will all be lost if demography continues on its pace.

    • Anonymous

      The problem is that we feel powerless to stop our own decline.

      How can we solve this?  I have no idea.

  • bluegrass91

     I like your observation.

    Many New-Right and race-realism sites have a propensity to name any and every conservative who wallows in P.C. gesturing and conducts liberal house cleaning in their own organizations as pure and despicable cowards.

    I find that a too simplistic view of the conservative establishments on Western countries. Yes, conservatism has the likes of old-school Newt “affirmative action” Gingrich and our modern libertarian hipsters of Reason magazine, but we must give them at least some benefit of the doubt.

    Anything even hinting as a divergence from the western religion of diversity will be met with liberal inquisitions by all available means.  Suddenly, fellow conservatives of whatever victim will jump ship in a heartbeat, hoping to avoid contracting the taint of having any connection to White racial identity.  You can’t blame them for being careful.

    With a keen eye, you may develop a sense that conservatives often speak about issues using what seems to be a code of racial code-words and metaphors.

    Newt Gingrich’s win in S.C. may be attributed to the fact that White Carolinians picked up what they believed was an covert anti-black sentiment in Newt’s response to Juan Williams racially charged question. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c1-22w2G7M&feature=player_embedded#!)

    There are conservatives (neo-cons particularly) who believe the anti-racism dogma as well as any liberal, but that doesn’t mean we should consider any conservative who makes a public overture to Martin Luther King as a lost cause. 

    In my opinion the first goal of the New-Right, and most attainable, is to change the atmosphere of racial and political discourse in America (and the west). It is the weakest and most hypocritical facet the anti-racism establishment.  (Hate crime=white-male crime. Blacks=Youths)

    Conservatives who operate in terms of pragmatic, cover-your-ass politics may very well speak more candidly about race if they don’t see it as suicide.  The media may bring out the tar-and-feather brigade, but that politician may benifit from his gamble when racially conscious whites flood to the anonymous voting booths when he speaks candidly about immigration or black crime.

    This is the problem with the New-Right: we get to caught up in our own white-knight fantasies.  Not to mention our underground state offers refuge to too many who hold often bizarre views. (comments about white liberalism being spawned by an endemic of brain parasites, for instance)  We keep thinking TOO BIG.  Liberals think about next year’s vote, we think about next century’s civilization.  I have no doubt our intellectual sphere is more powerful and robust than any of our competitors; it is our political and physical sphere that needs a rejuvenation and new ways of thinking.

    I’ve been waiting to see more get-er-done attitude on the New Right. I’d like less ruminating on how we’re this suppressed intellectual class.  There is an undercurrent here when I read the comments of others, a kind of Tolkien feeling of a romantic last stand on the walls of Minis Tirith.  It is a beautiful thought that European man will fight a final and proud battle against the dark hordes, but it is a thought we can reserve for another time, a time that may come if we do nothing.  It is fast approaching the hour in which a large proportion of the white masses must stand up as the unapologetic race-realists they really are, and show that not all is lost under this totalitarian rule under the veil of anti-racism.  One day the dam of political correctness will crack, and from it a torrent of white-identity will spew forth.   Liberals will try to fill the gushing gap with a political paste of MLK and white guilt/privilege.  Problem is, they’ve had that glue for so long its likely nearing its expiration date, and they’ve used it so much these past 50 years I’m not sure they’ll have any left when that day of reckoning comes. 

    Question is, whats gonna cause that crack? 

    • This is the problem with the New-Right: we get to caught up in our own white-knight fantasies.

      You’re singing my tune there, and you sang it well, so I don’t need to repeat.

      Question is, whats gonna cause that crack?

      Some very heinous crime or set of crimes against white children. 

      I think that if the WN/RR agenda has a chance of really being implemented beyond the few cerebral salami slices that it already has, it will come at the hands of conventional conservatives and/or conventional liberals (maybe both simultaneously) acting out what they think is their own ideology, while genuflecting to “anti-racist” rhetoric along the way.

  • otherwise

    It’s interesting to note that Oswald Spengler wrote that in the coming century or two there will be no more Frenchman, no more Germans, nor other Europeans as the West passes from the stage of history. Compare today with Europe a hundred years ago–it’s like night and day. However, I think for all of Spengler’s greatness he may have failed to recognize (due to lack of data?) the greater scientific awareness of racial differences. The problem now is, at least in the USA, that we don’t have honest elections, as seen once again in the primaries. Now what? Was Bismark right about blood and iron?

  • According to the Bible, the white race (God’s true chosen people) will win out. Very soon the Muslims will be slaughtered, as well as the jews and all of God’s enemies. The Muslim power is short lived. You will see Muslim blood in the street. Mohammed and his followers will go the same way as their Jewish handlers. Remember, Islam is nothing more than a religion that was started by Jewish Rabbi’s. Mohammed’s mother was a Jewiss, and Mohammed was an epileptic. His entire religion will eventually fail, and God’s people Israel (the white Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, and kindred people) will again be given the authority in the earth. All other races will be forced to submit to their rule and to bow down to them. There is no such thing as evolution. It is God’s plan that his people Israel go through all of this because they are being judged. God is looking for a few good people, and a remnant will be saved. The rest will be slaughtered.

  • geraldmartin

    In his otherwise fine review of Why We Fight (which I’m reading now), Mr. Taylor denies M. Faye’s claim that the USA is “not deliberately trying to weaken Europe.”  Au contraire!  How can he explain the demand a few years ago by our black Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, that the European Union admit Turkey – which would sound the demographic death-knell of white Europe – except as a race-based attack designed to not just weaken, but to destroy Europe as a white, Western civilization?

    And what about the neverending stream of hate against Europe pouring out the mouths of the neocons – many of whom seek revenge on Europeans for their supposed crimes against the Jews over the centuries (above all the Holocaust – for which all Europeans, not just Germans, are blamed) ?  Two examples of this would be any article mentioning Europe by National Review writer Jonah Goldberg (to whom the French are “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”) and the 2007 neocon tome, Our Oldest Enemy: A History of Our Disastrous Relationship with France, by one Norman Goldman.  The neocons may not be in formal power right now, but their influence – including their anti-European prejudice – is still strong in both the Republican and Democrat parties.

    On a more positive note, I agree with Mr. Taylor that this is a wonderful book. I’ve read Archeofuturism (which is as good as Why We Fight) and it’s clear Guillaume Faye is a powerful champion of our cause in Europe.

    I look forward to his speech at next month’s AR conference. 


  • British Activism

    I have not yet read any of these books, but this one and archeofuturism has been on my book list.

    I have been enthusiastically following the “new curve” which I see on the “new right” or “alternative right” scene in recent years, and it breathes a bit of life into some tired thinking and failed rhetoric.

    However, after reading the review, I have to say that it was not the book I was expecting it to be. Mr Faye seems to want to go for the jugular vein and seems to want to cease ‘messing about’ – which I am sure sits well with us all here – but I was hoping that Mr Faye would be giving us more clues on how to get to that stage as a wider society.

    Perhaps there is more of that side of things in the book, so I suppose I will have to read it myself to fully gain a perspective on where he is coming from.

    In the article above, it mentions an abstract where he says that we should not deal with the immigrants as being the oppressed, because they are taking advantage of us.

    This is quite right, but in recent months I have been suggesting the very opposite tact to our discourse – but not in the way I think me means. Perhaps I am wrong to be doing this?

    I think that in order for us to ‘get control’ of this situation, we need to be seen as more righteous and morally superior than the pro-immigration/multiracialism lobby elite. We need to have proper reason and rationale provided to people so they see more to us and become more supportive of what we aim to do.

    Our previous discourse has tended to be, quite roughly, “these bloody foriegners are coming over here, drug dealers, prostitution, Muslims, black criminals, woe be us, they are scum and parasites, doley’s, spongers, they are breeding like rabbits…” etc etc.

    Unfortunately, this kind of rhetoric has not been all that popular in society – apart from those who are already aware and supportive of us. It is also easy to be smothered by “egalitarianists” and propaganda programs which show that as individuals, “most ethnic minorities” are good citizens and just like the rest of us etc, or easy to counter figures on crime, or on “community relations” etc.

    Rather than go off on a rant, surely the better way to do it would be to claim the moral high ground and say “lax immigration policies are allowing for people-trafficking, prostitution gangs, slave labour’, suppression of wages and it needs to be severely shut down; and; liberal drugs policies are causing millions of people to suffer this scourge that wrecks families and societies”? 

    I think people need to believe they are “doing good” and “doing the right thing” for a “better society”. I thought we could be better served to turn the tables, make our cases, stake our claim at the same time.

    If general society is more swayed to the “left” after years of proaganda, than the “right”, why not frame our “right” arguments with the technique and approach of the “left”, as being “left” ourselves, with our “right” results and solutions to the problems of “progressive liberalism”?  The “progressive liberalism” thus becomes ours, to our models.

    David Duke’s latest documentary piece on Human Bio Diversity is along the lines I am suggesting – where rather than moan and rant about ethnics taking over, we lay out the righteous claim for preserving human biodiversity, stating whose interest it is in to destroy borders and differences (globalist corporations and powers).

    Surely people will be more swayed by that approach, than calls for needing warfare and sticking the boot into everything and everyone all the time?

    But going off the review above, Mr Faye seems to disagree with this kind of new approach. Reading short excerpts above, he seems to believe that an act of atrocity or some kind of spark will suddenly set people off to foment a race-war of survival. I just cannot see it happening, well, not in Britain anyway.

    Perhaps it will come in the longer future, but I ask myself – in the meantime, how best do we win our arguments and get people on side?

    If they are not “in tune” as to why it matters – or remain of the view that there is no “good” basis to our cause (because they are not racially conscious, or are just brainwashed to discard anything that is associated with it) – are they really going to “fight” with us if it ever did come to the crunch?

    I really need to get some of these works – like Fayes – and see what is really being suggested as a method of getting to the “way out” stage, I suppose. The older models have thus far been failing. We are going wrong somwhere, but are beggining to get things right in other ways. What is this emerging model and how do we hone it? That is what is on my mind lately.

    • geraldmartin

      British Activism, you raise a number of interesting points. I will comment on a few of them, referencing them by paragraph number.

      3. Faye is tired of the “messing about” the French New Right has done for the past 30 years by eschewing nitty-gritty political issues, and choosing instead to remain focused on cultural and philosophical issues. He also thinks it was a mistake that the FNR did not become more involved, earlier, with the Front Nationale, which has many points of agreement with the FNR. Bear in mind that Faye did not address ARCHEOFUTURISM or WHY WE FIGHT to American or British race-realists – it is with continental Europeans in general and Frenchmen in particular that he is concerned. (However, I personally found that many of his ideas, insights and terms fairly leaped off the page and had great meaning for me, an American from Texas. I suppose Jared Taylor did too, which is why he invited Faye to address the next AR conference in March.)

      A major goal of WHY WE FIGHT is an attempt to take back the language from the globalists, the multiculturalists, the liberals and the people we AR readers from the USA would call “mainstream conservatives.” Faye does this in his “Meta Political Dictionary,” clarifying, redefining, or inventing terms to give our side a vocabulary we can use to advocate our cause, defend ourselves from attack, and to attack our enemies. (Jared Taylor’s take on this is one of the strongest parts of his review.)

      7 – 10. Although Faye is blunt in describing the pathologies of the non-white immigrants, he doesn’t attack them in any vicious or demeaning way. (He saves his real scorn for the white elites who betray their people.) Rather, Faye focuses on restoring a sense of racial and ethnic consciousness to European whites by demonstrating the importance of their own genetic & cultural heritage and how both of these things are important, but how preserving the genetic component is indispensible, in order for white Europeans to survive and prosper in the future.

      12.  Faye is willing to adopt “leftist” ideas or tactics if they will help Europe survive as a white (“ethnocentric”) culture and polity. Several times he cites the work of leftist intellectuals with approval. 

      15. You are right: Faye doesn’t believe we can win our cause through day to day politicking like the kind the BNP or the FN practice. (Taylor’s review addresses this.) I don’t think he means we should just lie around and wait for the big crackup that will give us our opportunity – I suppose he believes we should prepare the ground for our revolution, but I don’t really know. I expect he will be asked about this at the AR conference.  As for Britain not being a place where a “race war of survival” will occur, I’m guessing again that Faye is looking mostly at France, where Muslims are 10%+ of the population, while Britain is only 3% Muslim at the moment.

      Anyway, I hope this addresses some of your concerns. I do recommend both books.   

      • British Activism

         Thanks for that reply Gerald.

        I have recently been in discussion with others over the schism between ‘academics’ or “intellectuals” and those people who are out on the streets trying to campaign or hold protests etc.

        The gap seems to be getting wider in the British nationalist movement – in fact, in some sites the faction and stand off between the two elements are getting quite silly and trenched.

        This is where there is mocking and scorn of “do nothing” intellectual thinkers who play the ‘winning the argument’ (whilst reinforcing our values) game by those who are not interested in all that “nonsense”…..

        …and, in return…. 

        a kind of disgust, dismay and a sense of futility of those who are more coarse and gritty, using words like “scum”, “parasites”, “fake Ashkenazi Jew cabals slaving the world”, “bombers”, “jihadi colonisers” and all the rest of it which, almost without fail, “turns off” the wider public which we need to attract and educate to the righteousness of our mission.

        I am stuck in the middle.

        Waffling ‘intellectualism’ is all fine and good – and so are ‘academics’ who may understand the politics of revolutionary France in the 19th Century – but they are not much use on the street or in conversation with the ordinary man on the street.

        They talk, write books, but nothing happens. They have gifts, but all they do is just think, like many of us.

        However, I think there are various intellectuals emerging in the “new right” who are a different breed – they are taking their knowledge and suggesting different, revolutionary, models for actually pursuing our discourse for better effect than the traditional way we have been doing it.

        I see these people, their insight and their suggestions, to be important – and that they should not be dismissed or treated with scorn in a form of “reverse snobbery”.

        I am not quite sure – without reading his books – where Mr Faye is fitting in this.

        Him suggesting (for example) that we need to “regain a sense of racial consciousness”, or to ‘counter the hegemony of the left’, ‘take control of our futures” etc and that “old style party politics is not going to save the day because of demographic trends being too bad” are all things we all know already, lol.

        The real question is – how do we manifest this change? How do we win control of the debate rather than be scorned?  

        Mr Faye’s glossary of terms for fomenting a new verbal fight back is an example of a well laid out idea which all sections of the nationalist movement can lift off the page and work into things whether they are on a street-stall, giving out leaflets, or taking part in intellectual TV interviews.

        That is an example of something useful which the intellectuals are bringing to the table.

        I was hoping that the book (and those others like it) would be a good source of other set out suggestions which we can weave into a new, fresher, savvy movement that ‘lays out’ that groundwork for what may have to come later. Perhaps it does.

        Regarding Muslims in the UK, I think that they are already estimated to be at least 5%  now. Perhaps up to 7%.

        When it comes to other groups who are non-indigenous, over 33% of new borns in England and Wales in 2005 were ‘non-white British’ to parents who were themselves born over seas.

         I do not know if the breakdown included “Eastern Europeans” – but the majority of the highest birthrates were third world. The figures did not seem to include offspring from non-indigenous people who were second, third, or fourth generation.

        That’s how bad it is getting here – it is way out of control.

        • geraldmartin

          British Activism,
          Everything you say is true in America as well, where it’s probably even worse – we have lots of intellectuals and websites, and almost no street presence. One of our few grassroots organizations, which puts on social as well as political events, is the Council of Conservative Citizens.  But the Council is only a shadow of the White Citizens Councils, the 1950s & 60s organization it’s descended from, which regularly held rallies of 10,000 people and had a membership of 100,000+ (although this was almost entirely in the South). We had only a hundred or so at the last CofCC annual conference.  At least Britain has the BNP. I know it has its troubles, but (from here at least), seems more lively than anything we have in the States. 

          Let’s face it – ours is a very long, very slow task,  building a “critical mass” of racially aware fellow citizens. Once we achieve critical mass, the chain reaction will be rapid and things will start to happen.

          But, like Faye, I think we won’t reach critical mass until the life of millions of whites becomes unbearable, or – threatened with imminent extinction – they finally unstop their ears and hear us.

          I’m hoping that the rising generation of young people in their 20s and 30s will rise to the challenge of bridging the gap between intellectualism and activism. I know several young men who show great promise in that – Matt Parrott & James Edwards for instance – and they are definitely the future of our movement in the USA.


  • bluegrass91

     “You seem like kind of a liberal yourself, to be honest”  completely out of curiosity, where would you conclude that from my comments?

    Santorum is clearly lost useless for the New-Right.  His kind of social conservatism is the most destructive, for anyone adhering to its philanthropic tenets will continue policies of white dispossession not out of greed or ill-mean but by the behest of their own conscious.  Sincerity, as we’ve all seen, is truly the one inherit character of European man, different from all races, that has been the greatest reason for our suicidal tendencies as a civilization.

    Conservatives who advocate policies that somewhat slow white displacement are often the more moderate, technocratic oriented types. Yes, they believe in diversity or at least pay lip service to it.  Yet Sometimes the economic costs of the multi-cult are so large (the drain of the black community, wage depreciation by immigrants), that austerity is forced.  At that point either two people will be in office who will conduct two possible options: one who will follow the economics and slow the multi-cult in the name of sustainability, and the other who will continue the multi-cult at a loss for the average American White.

    Of course, we’d prefer the former.

    I’m just speaking against the line of thought on the New-Right that “the whole system is corrupt, and we will only do good after to ignore it till its destruction.”  Or the “vote for Obama, for it needs to get worse before we can act.”

    A little good can be done in the voting booths is what I’m getting at.  I still recommended keeping your guns close though, as politics ain’t gonna save us when the SHTF.