Vanguard News Network

By Michael O’Meara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently, however, his anti-Islamism seems to have
morphed into a Zionism that cannot but trouble our
movement. In the “France-Echos” interview he says in
reference to his nationalist critics that it is
nonsensical to call him a Zionist since he is not a
Jew. But in the same breath he adds: “How could I be
anti-Zionist . . . . Unlike Islamism, Communism,
Leftism, human rights, and masochistic, post-conciliar
Christianity, Zionism neither opposes nor restrains in
any significant way the ideals I defend, that is, the
preservation of [Europe’s biocultural] identity. How
would the disappearance of Israel serve my cause? For
a European identitarian to think that the Hebrew state
is an enemy is geopolitically stupid.” He goes on to
argue that those who are viscerally anti-American and
anti-Zionist are implicitly pro-Islam, pro-Arab, and
immigrationist, allies in effect of the Left’s
Third-Worldism. Pointing to Alain de Benoist’s GRECE,
Christian Bouchet’s revolutionary nationalist
movement, and those “Traditionalist” European converts
to Islam, all of whom are fascinated by Iran’s new
leadership and by Hezbollah, he claims, with some
justice, that these anti-Zionists are in the process
of abandoning their commitment to Europe.

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

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

*

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

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