The Cause of the Peoples?

Guillaume Faye, article taken from Terre et Peuple, issue 18, Winter Solstice 2003

The [GRECE’s] cause des peuples is an ambiguous slogan. It was initially conceived in a polytheistic spirit to defend ethnocultural heterogeneity. But it has since been reclaimed by egalitarian and human rights ideologies which, while extolling a utopian, rainbow-colored world order, seek to inculpate Europeans for having ‘victimized’ the Third World.

Failure of a Strategy

When [GRECE-style] identitarians took up the cause des peuples in the early 1980s, it was in the name of ethnopluralism. This ‘cause’, however, was little more than a rhetorical ruse to justify the right of European peoples to retain their identity in face of a world system that sought to make everyone American. For in resisting the forces of deculturation, it was hoped that Europeans, like Third World peoples, would retain the right to their differences [la droit àla différence] — and do so without having to suffer the accusation of racism. As such, the slogan assumed that every people, even White people, possessed such a right. But no sooner was this argument made than the cosmopolitan P.-A. Taguieff [a leading academic commentator on the far Right] began referring to it as a ‘differentialist racism’ [in which cultural difference, rather than skin color, became the criterion for exclusion].

In retrospect, the New Right’s strategy seems completely contrived, for la cause des peuples, la droit à la différence, and ‘ethnopluralism’ have all since been turned against identitarians. Moreover, its irrelevant to Europe’s present condition, threatened, as it is, by a massive non-European invasion and by a conquering Islam abetted by our ethnomaschoistic elites.

Reclaimed by the dominant ideology, turned against identitarians, and tangential to current concerns, the GRECE’s ethnopluralist strategy is a metapolitical disaster. It also retains something of the old Marxist and Christian-Left prejudice about Europe’s ‘exploitation’ of the Third World. As [the French Africanist] Bernard Lugan shows in respect to Black Africa,this prejudice is based on little more than economic ignorance. The cause des peuples is nevertheless associated with a Christian-like altruism that demonizes our civilization, accuses it of having destroyed all the others, and does so at the very moment when these others are busily preparing the destruction of our own civilization.

The ‘right to difference’ . . . What right? Haven’t we had enough Kantian snivelling [about abstract rights]. There exists only a capacity to be different. In the selective process of History and Life, everyone has to make it on his own. There are no benevolent protectors. This right, moreover, is reserved for everyone but Europeans, who, [in the name of multiculturalism or some other cosmopolitan fashion], are summoned to discard their own biological and cultural identity.

This slogan poses another danger: it threatens to degenerate into a doctrine — an ethnic communitarianism — sanctioning the existence of non-European enclaves in our own lands. For in the Europe it envisages, communities of foreigners, particularly Muslim ones, will, for obvious demographic reasons, play an ever-greater role in our lives. This affront to our identity is accompanied by sophistic arguments that ridicule the ‘fantasy’ of a [possible White] reconquista. In this spirit, we are told that we will have to make do [with a multiracial Europe]. But I, for one, refuse to make do. Nor am I prepared to retreat before an alleged historical determinism [which aims at making Europe a Third World colony].

Life Is Perpetual Struggle

The cause des peuples has now become part of the ‘human rights’ vulgate. By contrast, the neo Darwinian thesis of conflict and competition, which assumes that only the fittest survive, seems to our bleeding-heart communitarians a vestige of barbarism — even if this vestige corresponds with life’s organic laws. This thesis, though, in recognizing the forces of selection and competition, is alone able to guarantee the diversity of life’s varied forms.

The cause des peuples is collectivist, homogenizing, and egalitarian, while the ‘combat of peoples’ is subjectivist and heterogeneous, conforming to life’s entropic properties. In this sense, only nationalism and clashing wills-to-power are capable of sustaining the life affirming principle of subjectivity. Given its egalitarian assumption that every people has a ‘right to live’, the cause des peuples prefers to ignore obvious historical realities for an objectivism that seeks to transform the world’s peoples into objects suitable for a museum display. As such, it implies the equivalence of all peoples and civilizations.

This sort of egalitarianism takes two basic forms: one is expressed in a homogenizing but metissé concept of what it means to be human (the ‘human race’), the other endeavors to preserve people and cultures in a way a curator might. Both forms refuse to accept that peoples and civilizations are qualitatively different. Hence, the absurd idea that one has to save endangered peoples and civilizations (at least if they are Third World) in the same way one might save an endangered seal. History’s turbulent selection process has, though, no room for preservation — only for competing subjectivities. In its tribunal, salvationist doctrines are simply inadmissible.

The cause des peuples also assumes an underlying solidarity between European and Third World peoples. Again, this is nothing but a dubious ideological construct, which Grécistes invented in the early Eighties to avoid the accusation of racism. I don’t have the space here to expose the myth of Third World ‘exploitation’. However, to explain its misfortunes in crude, neo-Marxist terms, as if it were due to the machinations of the IMF, the Trilaterals, the Bilderberg group, or some other Beelzebub, is hardly worthy of a response.

According to media or academic pundits, the ‘culture of the other’ is now under siege in France — even though ‘Afromania’ is all the rage. I, on the other hand, think it is not at all exaggerated to claim that America’s deculturating influences no longer threaten Europe, for its dangers have been surpassed by another.

Europe First!

I respect the destiny of the sometimes afflicted Inuits, Tibetans, Amazonians, Pygmies, Kanaks, Aborigines, Berbers, Saharians, Indians, Nubians, the inevitable Palestinians, and the little green men from outer space. But don’t expect crocodile tears from me. When the flooding threatens my own house, I can think only of my own predicament and haven’t time to help or plead for others. Besides, when have these others ever cared about us? In any case, the dangers threatening them are greatly exaggerated, especially in view of their demographic vigor, which, incidentally, is owed to Western medicine and material aid — for the same Western forces that have allegedly exploited them also seems to have made them prosper (or, at least, to reproduce in unprecedented numbers).

If our communitarians really want to defend the cause des peuples, they might start with Europeans, who are now under assault by the demographic, migratory, and cultural forces of an overpopulated Third World. In face of these threats, you won’t find us sniveling (like a priest)or fleeing (like an intellectual) to the ‘other’s’ cause. ‘Ourselves alone’ will suffice.

From Dusk to Dawn

Guillaume Faye Speaks in Moscow

The following talk was given in Moscow on May 17, 2006.

Not since the fall of the Roman Empire has Europe experienced such a dramatic situation. It faces a danger unparalleled in its history and doesn’t even know it — or rather refuses to see it.

It’s been invaded, occupied, and colonized by peoples from the South and by Islam. It’s dominated by the United States, which wages a merciless economic war on it. It’s collapsing demographically, as its population ages and it ceases to reproduce itself. It’s been emasculated by decadent, nihilist ideologies cloaked in a facile optimism, and it’s been subjected to an unprecedented regression of culture and education, to primitivism and materialism. Europe is the sick man of the world. And its political classes, along with its intellectual elites, are actively collaborating in this race suicide. The argument I’m making is not, though, just about immigration, but also about a colonization and an invasion that is transforming Europe’s biological and ethno-cultural stock; it’s about not giving way to despair; about seeing that the struggle is only just beginning; and knowing that the closely related peoples of Europe have no alternative but to unite in their common defense.

The demographics of the non-White invasion of France and Europe is terrifying. In a recent work, “France africaine” (African France), a well known demographer predicts that if present trends continue, more than 40 percent of the French population will be Black or Arab by 2040. Twenty-five percent of school children in France and Belgium today and more than 30 percent of infants are already of non-European origin. Of France’s present population of 61 million, more than 10 million are non-European and have a far higher birth rate than Whites. Every year 100,000 non-Europeans are naturalized as French citizens and another 300,000, most illegal, cross our undefended borders. The situation is not much different in the rest of Europe and signals the virtual end of our civilization, though the political classes have apparently yet to notice it.

Worldwide, including the United States, the White race is in steep numerical decline. It’s often said that our technological superiority will compensate for this disparity, but I don’t think so: The only meaningful forms of wealth and power are in human beings. For a civilization is based primarily on what the Romans called “germen,” that is, on the ethno-biological stock, the roots, that nourish a civilization and culture.

The non-European invasion of Europe that began in the 1960s was largely self-engendered, provoked: By left and right-wing politicians contaminated with Marxist and Trotskyist ideas; by an employer class greedy for cheap labor; by Jewish intellectuals demanding a multiracial society; by the ideology of human rights that had sprung from the secularization of certain Christian principles.

In France and in Europe, the collaborators abetting the invasion have established a system of preferences for the invaders that native Whites are obliged to pay for. Illegal immigrants are thus not only rarely repatriated when caught, they continue to receive the lavish social welfare benefits handed out to them by the anti-White forces in control of the state. At the same time, “anti-racists” have introduced a host of discriminatory laws that protect immigrants from normal social restraints, even though they are largely responsible for the on-going explosion of criminality (more than a thousand percent in the last 50 years).

The invasion is taking place as much in the maternity wards as it is along our porous borders. Combined with the demographic decline of the White population, immigration has become an economic disaster for Western Europe. It’s estimated to cost $180 billion per year (if the growing insecurity, as well as the innumerable forms of social assistance benefiting immigrants, including illegals, is figured in). This, in turn, creates new lures for the invaders: It is simply far more interesting to be unemployed in Europe than to work in the Third World. While the educated and creative segments of our population are beginning to flee, mainly to the United States, they are being replaced by Africa’s refuse, which has to be fed and supported by us and hasn’t anything in the way of skills or intelligence to offer.

All these facts suggest that the 21st-century European economy will be a depressed, Third-World one.

In addition to this mass, non-White invasion, Islam is again on the offensive. With single-minded persistence, its totalitarian and aggressive religion/ideology seeks the conquest of Europe. We’ve already suffered three great assaults by Islam, which today stretches from Gibraltar to Indonesia. The first of these offensives was halted at Portiers in 732 by Charles Martel; the second in 1683, during the Ottoman siege of Vienna; the third [in the form of the present invasion and colonization] is now underway [and virtually unopposed]. Islam has a long memory and its objective is to establish on our continent what [the leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the ayattolla] Khomeiny called the “universal Caliphate.”

The invasion of Europe has begun and the figures [testifying to its extent] are alarming. The continent, including Russia, is now occupied by 55 million Muslims, a number that increases at a 6 percent annual rate. In France, there are at least 6 million. Like those in Belgium and Britain, these French Muslims are starting to demand a share of political power. The government, for its part, simply refuses to take seriously their objective of transforming France into an Islamic Republic by the year 2020, when the demographic weight of the Arab/Muslim population will have become determinant. Meanwhile, it is financing the construction of Mosques throughout the country in the hope of buying social peace; there are already more than 2,000 in France, nearly double the number in Morocco. Islam is at present the second largest religion in France, behind Catholicism, but the largest in the numbers of practitioners. [The republic’s president] Jacques Chirac has even declared that “France is now an Islamic power.” Everywhere in the West there prevails the unfounded belief that there’s a difference between Islam and “Islamism,” and that a Western, secularized, that is, moderate, Islam is possible. There’s no such thing. Every Muslim is potentially a jihadist. For Islam is a theocracy that confuses the spiritual with the temporal, faith with law, and seeks to impose its Shari’a [Islamic law] on a Europe whose civilizational precepts are absolutely incompatible with it.

The criminality and delinquency in Western Europe caused by mass immigration and the collapse of civic values have reached insupportable levels. In France in 2004, more than a 100,00 cars were torched and 80 policemen killed. Every week race riots erupt in the banlieues [the “suburbs” housing the immigrants masses]. In the public schools, violence is endemic and educational levels have almost collapsed. Among youth under 20, nearly 20 percent are illiterate. While racist assaults on Whites are steadily rising, they are routinely ignored in the name of the anti-racist vulgate, which holds that only Whites can be racists. At the same time, an arsenal of repressive legislation, worthy of Soviet communism, has imposed “laws” whose purely ideological and subjective intent make no pretence to fairness, let alone objectivity. All criticism of immigration or Islam is prohibited. I myself have been tried several time and levied with an enormous fine for having written “La colonisation de l’Europe” [The Colonization of Europe].

A race war is foreseeable now in several European countries, a subterranean war that will be far more destructive than “terrorism.” The White population is being displaced, a sort of genocide is being carried out against it with the complicity or the abstention of the ruling class, the media, and the politicians, for the ideology these collaborating elites uphold is infused with a pathological hatred of their own people and a morbid passion for miscegenation.

The state’s utopian plan for “republican integration” has nevertheless failed because it assumed peaceful coexistence between foreigners and natives, non-Whites and Whites, was possible in a single territory. Our rulers haven’t read Aristotle, who taught that no city can possibly be democratic and orderly if it isn’t ethnically homogenous… European societies today are devolving into an unmanageable ethnic chaos.

I’m a native of Southwest France, of the area along the Atlantic coast [a Gascon?], and speak not a word of Russian, but I feel infinitely closer to a Russian than to a French-speaking Arab or African, even if they happen to be “French” citizens.

The present situation can be explained, almost clinically, as a sort of “mental AIDS.” Our present afflictions come from the virus of nihilism, which Nietzsche foresaw, and which has weakened all our natural defenses. Thus infected, Europeans have succumbed to a feverish self-extinction. They have voluntarily opened the city gates.

The primary symptom of this disease is “xenophilia:” a systematic preference for the Other rather than for the Same. A second symptom is “ethnomasochism,” a hatred of one’s own civilization and origins. A third is emasculation [dévirilisation], or what might be called the cult of weakness and a preference for male homosexuality. Historically proven values associated with the use of force and a people’s survival — values associated with honor, loyalty, family, fertility, patriotism, the will to survive, etc. — are treated today as ridiculous shortcomings. This sort of decadence owes a good deal to the secularization of Christian charity and its egalitarian offshoot, human rights.

Europeans may take inspiration from certain values still upheld in Russia: For example, the consciousness of belonging to a superior civilization and of maintaining a “right to distance” from other peoples. We need to break with all forms of “ethnopluralism,” which is simply another kind of egalitarianism, and reclaim the right to “ethnocentrism,” the right to live in our own lands without the Other. We also have to reclaim the principle: “To each his own.” Besides, only Westerners believe race-mixing is a virtue or envisage the future as a melting pot. They alone believe in cosmopolitanism. But the 21st century will be dominated by a resurgence of ethno-religious blocs, especially in the South and the East. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” will never happen. Instead, we’re going to experience an acceleration of history with the “clash of civilizations.” Europeans also need to break with the “presentism” in which they are sunk and learn to see themselves again (as do Muslims, Chinese, and Indians) as a “long-living people,” bearers of a future. The mental revolution needed to bring about this change in European attitudes is, though, only possible through a gigantic crisis, a violent shock, which is already on its way and which I will say a few words about below.

Europeans also have to come to terms with what I called in my last book “the new American imperialism,” an imperialism more heavy-handed than that of the Cold War era, but one that is also more blundering. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, American administrations seem to have lost all sense of measure, becoming even more hubristic, as they embark on a fantastic quest for world domination, dressed up in the simulacre of a new Roman empire. Much of this, of course, is explainable in terms of neoconservative ideology, linked with Zionism, but it’s also driven by a messianic, almost pathological, sense of having a “divine mission.”

What are the goals of this new American imperialism? To encircle and neutralize Russia, preventing any meaningful alliance between her and Europe (the Pentagon’s worse nightmare); to deflect Europe’s challenge to its hegemony by making Islam and Muslim Turkey a part of it; to subjugate the Eastern and Central European parts of the former Soviet empire; to wage a relentless economic war on the European Union and do so in such a way that the latter doesn’t dream of resisting. Everywhere, the crusading spirit of this new American imperialism endeavors to impose “democracy”, especially on Russia’s periphery. “Democracy” has come to mean “pro-American regime.”

But we shouldn’t complain of these American ambitions, which accord with the country’s geopolitical and thalassocratic desire for domination. In history, everyone is responsible only for oneself.

That’s why I oppose the “obsessional and hysterical anti-Americanism” so prevalent in France, for it is counter-productive, self-victimizing, and irresponsible.

A people or nation must learn to distinguish between its “principal adversary” and its “principal enemy.” The first tries to dominate and undermine, the second to kill. We shouldn’t forget Carl Schmitt’s formula: “It’s not only you who chooses your enemy, it’s more often your enemy who chooses you.” America, specifically its ruling class, is Europe’s and Russia’s “principal adversary” at the level of geopolitics, economics, and culture. Europe’s “principal enemy” is the peoples of the South, increasingly assembled under the banner of Islam, whose invasion of the continent is already well underway, facilitated by a political class and an intelligentsia who have opened the gates (to Washington’s delight) and who seek a miscegenated, non-European Europe.

Like Atlanticists, the hysterical anti-Americans overestimate the United States, without understanding that it is only as strong as we are weak. The Americans’ catastrophic and counter-productive occupation of little Iraq, to which they have brought nothing but chaos, makes this all indisputably evident. In the 21st century, the U.S. will cease to be the premier world power. That will be China — or, if we have the will, what I call “Euro-Siberia” — a federated alliance between the peoples of the European peninsular and Russia.

I’ve postulated the hypothesis that the present global system, founded on a belief in miracles, a belief in the myth of indefinite progress, is on the verge of collapse. For the first time in history, humanity as a whole is threatened by a cataclysmic crisis that is likely to occur sometime between 2010 and 2020 — a crisis provoked by the on-going degradation of the ecosystem and climatic disruptions, by the exhaustion of fossil fuel sources and food producing capacity, by the increased fragility of an international economic order based on speculation and massive indebtedness, by the return of epidemics, by the rise of nationalism, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, by the growing aggressiveness of Islam’s world offense, and by the dramatic aging of the West’s population.

We need to prepare for these converging catastrophes, which will mark the transition from one era to another, as their cataclysmic effects sweep away liberal modernity and bring about a New Middle Age. With such a convergence, there will also come an opportunity for rebirth, for every major historical regeneration emerges from chaos. This is especially the case with a civilization like our own, whose very nature is “metamorphic.”

The Europe of the future must no longer be envisaged in the mushy, ungovernable forms of the present European Union, which is a powerless Medusa, unable to control its borders, dominated by the mania of free-trade, and subject to American domination. We need to imagine a federal, imperial Grande Europe, ethnically homogenous (that is, European), based on a single autonomous area, and inseparably linked to Russia. I call this enormous continental bloc “Euro-Siberia.” Having no need to be aggressive toward its neighbors because it would be inattackable, such a bloc would become the premier world power (in a world partitioned into large blocs), self-centered, and opposed to all the dangerous dogmas now associated with globalism. It would have the capacity to practice the “autarky of great spaces,” whose principles have already been worked out by the Noble Prize winning economist, Maurice Allais. The destiny of the European peninsular cannot be separated from continental Russia, for both ethno-cultural and geopolitical reasons. It’s absolutely imperative for America’s mercantile thalassocracy to prevent the birth of a Euro-Siberian federation.

This is not the place to speak of the Israeli state. Only a word: For essentially demographic reasons, I believe the Zionist utopia conceived by Hertzl and Buber and realized since 1948 will not survive any longer than Soviet communism did; indeed, its end is already in sight. I’m presently writing a book on “The New Jewish Question,” which I hope will be translated into Russian.

Fatalism is never appropriate. History is always open-ended and presents innumerable unexpected caprices and turns. Let’s not forget the formula of William of Orange: “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” The period we are presently living through is a one of resistance and of preparation for the even more threatening events to come, such as might follow the juncture of a race war and a massive economic downturn. We need to start thinking in post-chaos terms and organize accordingly. In closing, let me leave you with a favorite watchword of mine: “From Resistance to Reconquest, From Reconquest to Renaissance.”

The Islamic Conquest of Europe

Guillaume Faye, La colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’islam, Paris: Aencre, 2000

There are officially four million Muslims in France today. The real figure is almost certainly higher, probably between six and seven million believers. Islam is already France’s second largest religion, with 1,430 official mosques. Its followers are young, whereas practicing Catholics are old. If demographic trends are taken into account (a steady, uncontrolled flow of immigrants and a higher birth rate) Islam will become the dominant religion in France as early as 2015, if nothing is done to prevent it. France currently has more Muslims than Albania and Bosnia combined. In the European Union, the number of Muslims is estimated at fifteen million. It is growing in all European countries.
To claim today that France could never become an Islamic republic or even a Muslim country is as risky as someone denying in the 1980s the possibility of German reunification or the demise of Communism in the USSR.

None of my remarks will be hateful toward Islam, though it does not always reciprocate. On the other hand, I do indeed consider Islam a grave threat and an enemy, since this conquering religion is engaged in a massive and deliberate settlement of Europe. You do not despise an enemy; you combat him. And in attempting to understand your enemy, you should not descend to the naivety of contemporary intellectuals, who reflexively declare Islam tolerant, without ever having studied it.

It is perfectly possible to share values in common with your enemy. His character as enemy arises, in this case, only because he has first imposed himself on you as an occupier. We can, in agreement with Islam, resist or deplore the West’s materialism and its exaggerated, deranged individualism, but nevertheless regard the establishment of Islam in Europe as an act of war, according to the Koran’s own rigorous teachings. Carl Schmitt’s warning aptly applies to all Europeans who remain naive and tolerant toward Islam: “You don’t decide who your enemy is; he decides. You can easily declare him your friend, but if he decides that he is your enemy, there is nothing you can do about it.”

Contrary to the opinion of Islamophiles, Islam is not simply a “universal faith” like Christianity; it is also a community of civilization (umma) which aims at expansion. The implicit project of Islam is quite simply the conquest of Europe, both religiously and ethnically, as the Koran stipulates. We are already at war. Westerners, unlike the Russians, have not yet grasped this fact.

For even if Islam conveys transcendent values and proposes an individual and a collective doctrine of life — imposing high, intangible standards on its believers, thus endowing their lives with meaning — it nevertheless corresponds to nothing in the European soul and temperament. Its massive introduction into Europe would disfigure a European culture already damaged by Americanization. An assertive dogmatism, an absence of the Faustian spirit, a fundamental denial of humanism (understood as the autonomy of the human will) in favor of an absolute submission to God, an extreme rigidity of social obligations and prohibitions, a theocratic confusion of civil society, religion and the political State, an absolute monotheism, a profound ambivalence toward artistic freedom and scientific inquiry — all these traits are incompatible with traditional European patterns of thought, which are fundamentally polytheistic.

Those who believe that Islam can be Europeanized, can adapt to European culture, can accept the concept of secularism, make a dreadful error. Islam, essentially, does not understand compromise. Its essence is authoritarian and bellicose. It is the religion par excellence of a desert people. Put differently, with the colonizing introduction of Islam into Europe, two dangers arise: disfiguration or war.