"The New Jewish Question,"
or
The End of Guillaume Faye
In the spring of 2005
I learned that the editors of the neo-pagan-oriented Russian journal,
Atenei, had invited Guillaume Faye, one of the French nationalist right’s
chief thinkers, to Russia in order to participate in discussions about future
collaboration along the lines of a pan-European Euronationalist movement
["mouvement identitaire pan-européen"]. I was delighted at the news.
Up to that time I had read two books by Faye, published by L’Aencre:
Archaeofuturism, 1998, and The Colonisation of Europe, 2000,
together amounting to a masterly study of the alien invasion’s catastrophic
consequences. Reading these works convinced me the author was a valuable
political analyst and talented writer. So I was very much looking forward
to meeting him.
Faye arrived in Moscow in May, 2005, accompanied by two compatriots.
As expected, he proved interesting to talk to, having encyclopedic knowledge
of French politics in general and the different strands of nationalist thought
in particular. During his visit he was to give two lectures, at Moscow and
St. Petersburg, which unfortunately I was unable to attend.
At the time, the Russians who invited him expected to make him director
of an international racial-nationalist association but quickly realized
his grave personal defects made him unsuitable for the position — to which
he himself, by the way, had never aspired: he was always satisfied in the
role of "ideologue."
In June 2006 he came to Moscow again to take part in a conference organized
by Atenei, on the subject of "The White World’s Future." His
talk’s title was "From Geopolitics to Ethnopolitics."[1] Yann-Ber
Tillenon, Pierre Krebs and Pierre Vial were the three other French participants.[2]
In the meantime, Russian historian Anatoli Ivanov had translated two
of Faye’s books into Russian, both published by L’Aencre: "Why We Fight,"
2001, and "The Global Coup-d’Etat: Essay on the New American Imperialism,"
2004.
In July, 2007, Faye visited Moscow a third time on the occasion of a
conference about Russia and the white world. At one of our meetings Faye
let me know that his book, "The New Jewish Question," would soon
be published. Two months after his return to France I held the book in my
hands.[3]
If the dust-jacket blurb was to be believed, Faye had written "a stunning
book" addressing the issues it raised "in an uninhibited, striking way."
I shall show it was nothing of the kind. "The New Jewish Question"
is a dishonest book whose inspirational motivation seems to have been solely
a wish to misinform.
This is a serious but easily provable charge, as will be seen. My critical
reading will concentrate essentially on the work’s sixth chapter ("Sunset
of the Shoah") as well as the other passages dealing either with "the
Shoah" (following the example of the Jews themselves, Faye prefers this
Hebrew word to "Holocaust") or with revisionists. In view of its great importance,
the way in which this subject is handled amounts to the touchstone of all
studies of the Jewish role in post-1945 Western society. A book that accepts
the official version of events or that dodges the issue can be of only very
limited value at best.
That might be disputed by arguing no French author can cast doubt on
the kosher version of the Holocaust without running afoul of the [Fabius-]Gayssot
Law. It could be pointed out that no one has the right to expect Faye or
anyone else to risk jail or heavy fines. My answer would be that Faye could
have resorted to the strategy David Duke used in his books, "My Awakening"
and "Jewish Supremacism": without explicitly endorsing their revisionist
claims, Duke cites several revisionists, gives their arguments, emphasizes
the contradictions and inconsistencies in the official version of history,
and concludes that the truth could be discovered through debate which the
Jewish side stubbornly refuses. This way of going about it seems fully acceptable
from an intellectual as well as moral point of view.
Such a strategy wouldn’t necessarily shield its author from the [Fabius-]Gayssot
Law, as shown by the case of Bruno Gollnisch who found himself obliged to
pay a heavy fine merely for having expressed doubts as to the historical
reality of the gas chambers. An author not prepared to run such a risk is
advised to stay away from any discussion of the Jewish question. That way
he’ll avoid the risk of prison and fines and also the risk of staining his
honor by endorsing a monstrous historical lie.
Mr. G. Faye’s starting point
In a message to his readers, Faye writes,
"As for the ‘revisionists’ or ‘holocaust deniers,’ whichever term
one prefers, I consider their struggle an adolescent itch, completely useless,
ineffective, and counterproductive, tainted futhermore with serious methodological
flaws and ideological biases. Their attitude doesn’t shock me ‘morally’
but they are looking in the rearview mirror."
So, revisionist claims don’t shock the author "morally." It would appear,
in fact, that nothing whatever shocks him morally, for he says,
"In this essay, as in all my other writing, I defend an amoral
position, inspired by the ideas of Machiavelli and Nietzsche." (p.
18)
So, keep in mind that our author defends an amoral position. Whoever
is aware of certain unsavory episodes in his life won’t find that hard to
believe …
Naturally, one would like to know what, exactly, are the "serious methodological
flaws" and the "ideological biases" revisionists are guilty of, but one
won’t find out, for the author mentions not a single revisionist argument
and cites not a single work by a single revisionist writer or historian.
For my part, when I bring accusations against Faye I elaborate with arguments,
facts, and quotes. As for him, when he levels a charge against the revisionists
whose work supposedly contains "serious methodological flaws" he fails to
advance the slightest argument in support of his contention. He is guilty,
therefore, of defamation against them. But what else did one expect of a
man who freely admits he’s defending "an amoral position"?
G. Faye’s qualifications as a judge of revisionism
The author writes,
"Where the revisionists are concerned, one will notice an unsettled
question: what are they disputing? Just the execution gas chambers, or the
deportations? Or the exterminations? Or National Socialism’s anti-Jewish
policies? Or the criteria for internment in the concentration camps? I’ve
never figured it out. Reading their literature gives the impression they
pass from one subject to another in some confusion. Are they denying the
intention to exterminate the Jews, or the technical means to bring it about?
Or perhaps the exact number who vanished? (pp. 191-2)
In the chapter titled "Conclusion and summary of the claims" G.
Faye boldly repeats himself:
"[…] what are they disputing? Only that the means employed were gas
chambers, or the process of attempted extermination itself? The deportations
of Jews to concentration camps? What is it that didn’t exist? On what semantic
level was the lie they’re claiming, and where, exactly, is the dividing
line between reality and deception? Can one believe there were no anti-Jewish
persecutions?" (p. 264)
Now, the claims the revisionists make, based on their research, are known:
they dispute that there was a plan to physically exterminate the Jews, that
there were execution gas chambers, and the figure of six million Jewish
victims. No revisionist ever dreamt of disputing that there were deportations,
that National Socialism had an anti-Jewish policy, or that there was persecution
of Jews. Clearly, if the revisionists espoused such obvious untruths there’d
be no need of totalitarian laws to oppose them. To expose such charlatans
it would be enough, in public discussion, to furnish documents refuting
their claims. This would be child’s play, considering there are tens of
thousands of documents proving there were deportations. On the other hand,
there exists not a single document proving the reality of a claimed plan
for the physical extermination of the Jews or the historical reality of
the claimed execution gas chambers.
If an author tells us he "never understood, exactly" what the revisionists
were saying, I can only see three explanations possible:
1) He’s read certain revisionist works but is too stupid to comprehend
them; we can eliminate this since, whatever else one thinks of G. Faye,
he’s surely not stupid;
2) He’s never read any revisionist works. He’s interested enough in the
Jewish question to devote an entire book to it, he’s aware of the crucial
significance of the "Shoah," he knows whoever raises questions about it
gets persecuted, and despite all that he’s never had enough curiosity to
familiarize himself with the revisionists’ arguments. He’s read no works
by Paul Rassinier, concentration camp survivor and father of revisionism.
He’s read nothing by Robert Faurisson, Serge Thion, Pierre Guillaume, Pierre
Marais, Henri Roques, Jean Plantin, or Vincent Reynouard. Neither has he
read Georges Theil’s book ("A Case of Refusal to Submit: How One Becomes
a Revisionist," published under the name Gilbert Dubreuil, Samizdat
Publications, 2002, 117 p.) which resulted in an especially heavy condemnation
of the author. He hasn’t read "The Myth of Auschwitz" by Wilhelm
Stäglich, available in French translation for over twenty years [1986].
Despite his good knowledge of English he’s read neither the writings of
Arthur Butz and the other American revisionists nor the fundamental revisionist
works published in English by Germar Rudolf such as "Dissecting the Holocaust"
and "Lectures on the Holocaust," or the studies by Carlo Mattogno,
of which the most important have been published in English. But if this
hypothesis is true, and Faye has no idea what the revisionists are claiming,
how can he arrogate unto himself the right to say revisionist writings are
"tainted with serious methodological errors" and that he "thoroughly disassociates
himself from those who deny the Shoah" (p. 171)?
3) Final possibility: He’s read certain revisionist works and understood
them perfectly but pretends not to understand them, so as not to have to
respond to the arguments they put forth. But this hypothesis, which I find
likelier than the preceding, scarcely helps Faye’s case, as it makes him
simply a liar.
"A fog in which no one understands anything"
He writes, further:
"Actually, revisionists form their ideas in a fog, in which nobody
understands anything any more. They’ve discredited themselves by giving
the impression the Third Reich did not really persecute Jews, which is like
saying Julius Cæsar didn’t invade Gaul." (p. 192)
Note first that Faye, who just finished claiming never to have really
understood what the revisionists were saying, has nonetheless finally grasped
what they’re saying: they "give the impression the Third Reich didn’t, at
bottom, persecute Jews"! In accusing the revisionists — whose writings are
remarkably clear — of "forming their ideas in a fog where no one understands
anything any more" he’s describing his own way of going about things, sowing
confusion in order to more effectively keep the reader from understanding
what the revisionists are saying.
He gives us another example of his way of going about things when he
writes,
"Several revisionist authors never denied the persecutions or the
deportations, only the method, the gas chambers." (p. 183)
He doesn’t specify who these "several" revisionist authors are who never
denied the persecutions or the deportations, and it goes without saying
he avoids naming the other revisionists who, unlike these "several," supposedly
denied the persecutions and the deportations. In fact, he wouldn’t be able
to name them, for the simple reason that these interesting revisionists
simply don’t exist, and Faye knows that better than anyone.
A "Shoah" without gas chambers?
Faye defines the term "Shoah" in the following way:
"The Shoah — or Holocaust — refers to the Third Reich’s elimination
of most Ashkenazi Jews from Germany and occupied or controlled Europe, officially
about six million victims. For the Jews this industrial genocide was systematic
and the worst of all time …" (p. 169)
Later he writes,
"What discredits revisionism is the way it has attempted to make a
technical dispute over the execution gas chambers an indefensible dispute
over the Shoah itself." (p. 195)
But if the "Shoah" was "an industrial and systematic genocide" there
certainly must have been a weapon to carry out the crime. The claim is the
weapon that carried out the crime was the gas chambers. To dispute their
existence therefore necessarily amounts to disputing the "industrial and
systematic genocide" itself — so, criticizing the revisionists for "attempting
to make a technical dispute over the execution gas chambers an indefensible
dispute over the Shoah itself" is incoherent — makes no sense. Furthermore,
this couldn’t have escaped the author who, again, tries here to confuse
the reader.
Why G. Faye is against the muzzling laws
G. Faye maintains he’s against criminalizing revisionism because, he
says,
"The anti-revisionist laws have harmed Jews considerably …" (p.
182) "An opinion punished as a crime, even if it’s false, passes for
true. The laws against Holocaust denial have had an effect exactly the opposite
of what was desired: they’ve given revisionism publicity and raised doubts
about the Shoah. […] These repressions of the revisionists have, ironically,
helped them immensely …" (pp. 262-3)
Oh, finally some good news for Germar Rudolph and Ernst Zundel, in jail
in Germany for the crime of revisionism, and for Wolfgang Fröhlich and Gerd
Honsik, in jail in Austria for the same crime! These men naïvely thought
the laws outlawing revisionism harmed them, them as well as their families,
but thanks to G. Faye, here they are learning now that these laws are "helping
them immensely" and harming only the Jews!
The view that anti-revisionist laws only increase publicity for revisionism
is obviously false. While the politicians behind them are certainly odious
characters they’re not fools, and one has to admit these laws have proven
relatively effective. They amount to a violation of those "human rights"
our politicians are always telling us about; they unmask the latter by showing
us what they really are, impudent hypocrites.
Also, we must not imagine that it’s because they don’t care, that these
democrats have felt obliged to display their hypocrisy for all to see. Because
by openly forbidding freedom of speech and thought on but one single subject,
"the Holocaust," freedom they otherwise pride themselves on ardently defending,
they’re aware of contradicting and hurting themselves in the minds of a
significant portion of their clientele. But for our democratic régimes the
subject of "the Holocaust" is so important, and the revisionists’ arguments
appear to them, so we can surmise, so convincing, that our politicians had
no choice but to act counter to their own interests in order to safeguard
at all costs the key to our era’s vault of lies.
One only appreciates all the more the book’s many passages in which the
author wishes us to believe that the revisionist struggle is passé
and unimportant and, in short, of interest to no one. Therein one encounters
the classic argument of those who, anxious to display a minimum of "good
holocaust manners" and not attract too much hatred from Jews, affect to
be modern and indifferent toward outmoded things of the past. Those who
put on this pure affectation of being modern, while constantly violating
taboos that aren’t taboos, carefully see to it that their impertinences
remain, if not within bounds of the "historically correct," at least within
the bounds of the "historically acceptable."
As if the revisionist struggle weren’t more important and timely than
ever, in an epoch in which the establishment, through its media, redoubles
its efforts to make us aware of the official version of the Jewish genocide,
in which never were memory and holocaust repentance such issues, and in
which never was repression of revisionists so strong and brutal as today!
In this regard, the French revisionist Serge Thion writes,
"The effects of the [Fabius-]Gayssot Law have been terrible: freedom
of expression has begun to wither away. Books already written could no longer
be published. They stopped being written. What little debate there was disappeared
entirely. A solemn fear spread everywhere, especially in the schools where
professors were forced to regurgitate official history in the form of catechism
no one believed. The chilled media shut themselves off. An iron straitjacket
tightened, little by little."[4]
Revisionism: a "political mistake" according to G. Faye
Faye several times denounces revisionism as "a political mistake." He
sees the revisionists’ struggle as not just passé but "totally useless,
ineffective, and counterproductive." (p. 20) He criticizes revisionists
for "supporting irrelevant theories and opinions that only create problems"
(p. 264) and asks "what’s the point of their fight?" (p. 192)
An "amoral" person, Faye is apparently unable to comprehend that revisionists
(or at least the majority of them — I freely admit there could be exceptions)
are not, or are only secondarily, guided by political considerations. Their
chief motivations are intellectual curiosity and a horror of lies. For the
religious among them a deception on the scale of the claimed "Holocaust"
is "spitting in the face of Christ" (I owe this happy formulation to Vincent
Reynouard); for the atheists and agnostics, such as Robert Faurisson or
the late Arthur Vogt, this deception must be fought because it poisons the
world.
As for me, I vividly remember that evening of April 29, 1991, when I
read, in German translation, the famous article by the Soviet Jewish war
correspondent Boris Polevoï which had appeared in Pravda, Feb. 2,
1945, a week after the liberation of Auschwitz. (Robert Faurisson had discovered
it already in 1979.) In it, Polevoï talks of a conveyor belt on which prisoners
were killed by electric current, and he places the gas chambers in the eastern
part of the camp where no one since has placed them. Reading that article,
I suddenly understood that the official version of Auschwitz (and therefore
of "the Holocaust" of which Auschwitz is the centerpiece) was fiction. My
indignation knew no bounds, and I couldn’t sleep many nights. I realized
I had to find the answers to two questions: 1) What really happened? 2)
What was the nature of a society that for decades had supported, by propaganda
and censorship, a lie of this magnitude?
Bear in mind, furthermore, that the "Shoah" lie amounts to an unparalleled
defamation of the German people whose history has thereby been stolen. The
psychological ravages which this lie has inflicted on the German nation
are a disaster and there will be no healing possible of the German soul
while this lie persists.
According to the book’s Faye is "one of the European white-nationalist
movement’s major authors." At that rate, if this "European white-nationalist
movement" expects a great European people to renounce its history and resign
itself to the spread of a monstrous slander — and that in order to avoid
disturbing the dark myths of a tiny non-European minority — it isn’t not
worth a nickel, and Europe could do very well without it.
G. Faye again:
"I’ve always wondered if the revisionists actually believe what they’re
saying, and whether they’re aware that taking the position of calling the
Shoah into question necessitates, in order to be credible, a simultaneous
unequivocal condemnation of the Third Reich’s ideology and declared aims."
(p. 193)
That first sentence demonstrates such a level of impudence in the author
that I’ll not dwell on it longer; as for the second, my answer is as follows:
among revisionists there are matter-of-fact supporters of national socialism,
such as the German Ernst Zündel, the Spaniard Enrique Aynat, the Frenchman
Vincent Reynouard, and the Swiss Gaston-Armand Amaudruz. As men of courage
and honor they are not about to deny their beliefs in order to "be credible"
— "credible," moreover, in the eyes of whom? In the eyes of a rotten system
whose central theme is the lie, and whose goal is the destruction of the
European traditions, cultures, and peoples?
Notice in any case that a claim to be anti-Nazi in no way protects a
revisionist, as was learned by the famous Roger Garaudy and my far less
well known countryman Andres Studer, both punished with fines and media
stigmatization as "anti-Semites" though they’d have cursed Hitler many times
over.
Finally, there are revisionists such as Robert Faurisson, Pierre Guillaume,
and Serge Thion who, as everyone knows, harbor no sympathies for the ideology
of the Third Reich but refuse to spit on the dead and the defeated. This
gentlemanly attitude shows the gulf that exists between these men and the
pitiful G. Faye.
G. Faye’s anonymous or vanished witnesses
Faye considers that he "proves" the reality of the "Shoah" when he writes,
"In the ’70s and ’80s I met, in the course of journalistic investigations,
Frenchmen, Italians, and Germans (now deceased) who had been functionaries
in the National Socialist state apparatus or combattants in SS units, who
themselves never had taken part in harsh treatments of non-combattant civilians
but who agreed with the ideology of the era. All were agreed in affirming
that the Shoah — the attempt to eliminate Europe’s Jews — had indeed been
a reality, that they approved, and that it could not be seriously denied,
even in the interest of National Socialism’s future reputation." (p.
193)
What a pity these "functionaries of the National Socialist state apparatus"
and these "combattants in SS units" whose honor it was to be interviewed
by Faye in the ’70s and ’80s are all now deceased! And what a pity the author
forgot to acquaint us with their names! It can therefore never be verified
that these combattants truly held the views attributed to them.
Reading such passages, one begins to wonder what this author takes his
readership for.
The impudence of G. Faye
Elsewhere, our author has the impertinence to write,
"I’ve always felt distant and hostile toward the revisionists (or
Holocaust-deniers, whichever term one prefers). While Europe is being subjected
to a Third-World and Islamic innundation, this issue has always seemed to
me to be a typical example of a phony problem, a strategy of avoidance —
of taking shelter in the past. Out of a kind of cowardice or fear they deliberately
mistake the enemy. Not to mention how revisionists very often look with
tender glances at their Moslem and Arab masters. […] Revisionism is the
typical example of masturbating with history in order to forget the present
and future …" (p. 171)
Does he not reach the pinnacle of impudence there? I know personally
twenty men who’ve been in prison or still are, for the crime of revisionism.[5]
With the sole exception of David Irving, who has dishonored himself by recanting
his previous statements regarding the non-existence of execution gas chambers
at Auschwitz, all these men have shown admirable courage, and I fail to
see how an individual such as Faye has the right to insult them by accusing
them of "cowardice."
In regard to our supposed "Moslem and Arab masters," I’ll have Faye know
that we have no "master," whether Moslem or Arab, and we’ve never received
a penny from any Moslem government.
As for the "masturbation" which he denounces in the quoted passage’s
last sentence, I have no difficulty understanding how a man who has played
in pornographic movies can be obsessed with sexual themes, but I’d ask Faye
nevertheless to keep this sort of thought to himself.
In principle, my critique could end here. As we noted in the introduction,
how one deals with the so-called "Shoah" and with revisionism constitute
the touchstone of all study of the Jews’ role in contemporary society. We’ve
just seen how Faye deals with these issues: his book amounts to a tangle
of disinformation, defamation, and shameless lies. Given the author’s lack
of honesty the reader can expect nothing positive from the other chapters.
Nevertheless, I wish to look at the manner in which Faye approaches two
key issues: Jewish power in the West — which, according to him, is in steep
decline — and the role of the Jews in promoting non-white immigration into
Europe and the United States.
The supposed decline of Jewish influence in the U.S. and Europe
G. Faye writes,
"The view I hold is: while it is true that for two centuries the Jews
have had, given their numbers, extraordinary weight and influence throughout
the European and American Occident (extremely negative for some, positive
for others), this Jewish influence is today in steep decline. The reasons
are many: a bad public image for Israel; loss of economic and financial
strength of Jewish communities in Europe and the U.S.; galloping Islamisation
of Europe; a re-centering of the world to the Jew-indifferent Far East’s
advantage; and a number of other things." (pp. 147-8)
I always took black humour to be characteristic of English speakers in
particular but, to all appearances, I was mistaken: the nation of black
humor is France and its unchallenged champion is G. Faye who, besides many
other professions, also practices that of cabaret entertainer!
Our fool dares, in fact, to talk of declining Jewish influence at a time
when the U.S.A., the only remaining superpower since the Soviet Union’s
fall, is run by a government whose foreign policy is inspired and conducted
by a clique of ultra-zionists, the "neocons." In April 2003, after the occupation
of Iraq, the Israeli pacifist, Uri Avnery, devoted himself to a lucid analysis
of the "neocon" movement and its influence on the Bush administration. After
listing the movement’s main personages — William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz,
Midge Decter, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, David and Meyrav Wurmser, William
Safire, Charles Krauthammer — Avnery presented his conclusion: "The United
States controls the world and the Jews control the United States. Never
before did the Jews exert such immense influence over the center of world
politics."[6]
The Jew Avnery is decidedly more honest than the goy Faye!
Moreover, the same zionist fanatics who pushed the United States into
attaking Iraq may soon incite the U.S. to commit its next aggression, this
time against Iran. The U.S. today is a Frankenstein monster with a non-Jewish
body and a Jewish head, a monster ready to destroy any country considered
a threat to Israel. According to Faye, that obviously represents Jewish
power on the wane.
But look how the situation is unfolding in France, Faye’s country. After
the part-Jewish Nicolas Sarkozy, candidate of the "right," had won the presidential
election against the non-Jewish candidate of a Socialist Party whose top
levels are full of Jews, he quickly named the Jew Bernard Kouchner to the
post of Foreign Minister, the latter immediately taking the occasion to
make dire threats against Iran! Yet another striking instance of the "decline
of Jewish influence" — right, Mr. Faye?
Further examples of this "decline": the worsening repression against
revisionists; the growing number of European countries enacting muzzling
laws; the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz
(January 27, 2005, all the European heads of state assembled at Auschwitz
to bow before Gessler’s new hat) [Note: those familiar with the story
of Swiss patriot William Tell will recall Gessler was the official of the
Holy Roman Emperor who had set up a hat in the town square representing
the Emperor’s authority, before which all passersby had to bow as a sign
of submission, and it was William Tell’s refusal to bow that got him in
trouble with Gessler, who then forced him to shoot the apple from his son’s
head as punishment; the writer of this piece, Jürgen Graf, is Swiss] or
still further, the Jewish grasp on the Vatican where Mr. Ratzinger, after
receiving a delegation of the World Jewish Congress, immediately declared
himself very concerned about the Iranian nuclear program!
With that said, it must be recognized that Jewish power is in fact vulnerable.
It requires the survival of the globalist system of pseudo-democratic régimes
in which Jews control the government and the opposition at the same time
(the classic examples being the U.S., Great Britain, and France) and where,
in case of a world economic collapse (inevitable within the next ten years
according to some economists), this system will be gravely threatened. In
order to maintain their control over the West the Jews must continue to
control the U.S. If a nationalist government took power in France today
it’s not out of the question that U.S. air power might bomb Paris as it
bombed Belgrade and Baghdad. But if the Jews lose the U.S. (quite possible
in view of the insanity of the neocons and their marionnette Bush) they
risk losing all. The path to Europe’s liberation would then be open.
The Jews and immigration
At the start of the chapter which he titled "Jews and immigration:
an evolving situation" Faye correctly summarizes the position of many
European and American nationalists:
"For a great many European nationalists (not for all, it must be noted),
as for many of their U.S. counterparts, the Jews bear major responsibility
for massive non-European immigration into nations of European origin: take
an ethnic homogeneity judged to be threatening and drown it in mixture,
then dominate the mongrelized mass, the identityless ethnic chaos; destroy
the very biocultural nature of the gentiles, eradicate their germen,
by a sort of ancestral hatred and a strategy of vengeance and force.
The Jews will have accomplished thereby their project of destabilization
and cultural rotting — all the while applying to themselves rules completely
opposite: racial nationalism and ethnocentrism." (pp. 215-6)
That Faye goes on to find the above view "suspect" (p. 216) in no way
alters the fact that it is based on historical reality. As far as the U.S.
goes, one has only to read the chapter, "The Jewish-led Invasion,"
in David Duke’s book Jewish Supremacism to be convinced. Quoting
from numerous documents, Duke shows that U.S. Jewish organizations fought
for decades to do away with the restrictive immigration laws which, while
not totally excluding non-white immigration, sought to preserve the ethnic
composition of the U.S. population. Jewish efforts were crowned with success
in 1965, and as a result the percentage of whites in the U.S. population,
90% in 1965, had by 2006 fallen to 63%. Non-white immigration reached record
levels under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, also the presidents most favorable
to the Jews in U.S. history. If Faye sees that as pure coincidence, that’s
up to him and none of our concern.
Let’s go from there to the situation in France. Faye keeps repeating
that French Jews are completely right to feel threatened by massive North-African
Moslem immigration, and Jewish leaders have shot themselves in the foot
by supporting that invasion (which is in fact obvious). He concludes that
a "historic compromise" between nationalists and Jews is desirable and in
principle possible, but he regrets to have to say that, to date, all efforts
to reach such a compromise have failed:
"Clearly, one could reason as follows: given that Jews are very influential
in the media, it would be in the nationalists’ interest to enter into an
alliance with them to oppose Islamization and immigration, in exchange for
eliminating all anti-Jewish odor and all support for Holocaust revisionists.
I know that several contacts have been made along these lines at the highest
levels of certain nationalist and racial-nationalist movements but these
negotiations didn’t produce any significant results." (pp. 233-4)
So, the negotiations "didn’t produce any significant results" … But perhaps
the "nationalist and racial-nationalist movements" mentioned by Faye are
those that control opportunists such as the Italian Gianfranco Fini, who’d
sell his own mother for a career. Where this is the case, they automatically
cease being "nationalist and racial-nationalist." I don’t think any compromise
with the Jews will ever be possible, for the following reason: effective
struggle against immigration within the current framework is impossible.
Therefore, in order to stop the invasion the current framework has to be
overthrown either by insurrection or a coup d’état. A nationalist
government resulting from an insurrection or a coup d’état would
necessarily have dictatorial powers, otherwise it wouldn’t be able to take
the stern measures required to bring all non-European immigration to a halt
and begin the repatriation, at least in part, of non-Europeans already present
on French soil. In other words, the only way to stanch the invasion would
be to establish a nationalist dicatorship, an authoritarian government.
Can the Jews expect to still be allowed to control the media, to spread
their anti-culture and their harmful ideologies, and to use totalitarian
laws to stifle all debate on "the Shoa" under such a government? The Jews,
being intelligent people, know the answer is no. Without needing to go as
far as the Third Reich whose goal was the expulsion of Jews from Europe,
a nationalist régime would have to take measures drastically limiting Jewish
influence. Jews would likely become a tolerated minority having no political,
economic, or cultural influence, because denied access to key posts. [Note:
this is exactly what’s done in Israel: no non-Jew is permitted access to
key Israeli posts and no non-Jewish group is permitted to have political,
economic, or cultural influence over the nation of Israel. None of that
is by accident: Israel is explicitly run that way and no one complains,
least of all Jews. Why not France too, then?] It goes without saying
that for French Jews such a prospect is totally unacceptable.
Apart from these considerations which, from the Jewish point of view,
categorically rule out any collaboration with genuine European nationalists,
ancestral Jewish hatreds also play a major role. Distrust of their host
populations, hatred of European civilization in general and Christianity
in particular are so deep-rooted in the collective Jewish psyche (as goes
without saying, a great many individual Jews do not harbor these feelings)
that in any European society the Jewish Community will attempt to continue
its destructive work even if this has the effect of bringing about an Islamization
which would be a mortal danger for Jews! This situation is like the fable
of the scorpion and the frog: riding on the frog’s back, the scorpion stings
him in the middle of the river. The frog dies and the scorpion drowns. He
stang him because he must sting. It’s in his nature.
Those are the reasons the "historic compromise" recommended by the author
will remain a pipe-dream. Besides, Faye is paid to know this: as he relates
on page 36, "the hypocritical LICRA, under Jewish control," served as public
prosecutor against him in a French government trial for a book opposing
France’s Islamization! [LICRA]
But what can be done? LICRA is like the scorpion: it must rage
against those it has decreed to be its enemies, even if they demonstrate
behavior LICRA ought to approve in the Jewish community’s interest!
Conclusion: Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses…[7]
Any criticism of Jewish power or the Jewish "Shoah" myth in contemporary
Western society is very dangerous. Those sufficiently brave to defy the
formidable power of Jewish organizations are fully aware of the risk they
run. They do not consider that they have a right to ask others to follow
in their footsteps. Well do they know that not everyone is a Robert Faurrison,
a Vincent Reynouard, an Ernst Zündel, a Germar Rudolf, a Horst Mahler, or
a David Duke. They forbear to judge an honest but weak man such as Bruno
Gollnisch who, when facing the terror of the French courts, recanted his
revisionist beliefs in hope of getting off with only light punishment. On
the other hand, they show no forbearance in regard to a David Irving who,
without producing the least documentary or material proof, accuses the Germans
of having murdered 2.4 million Jews in the camps of Belzec, Sobibor, and
Treblinka (today’s official Holocaust literature claims only about 1.7 million
…). And they’ll certainly show no forbearance in regard to a Guillaume Faye.
No one asked Guillaume Faye to write a book about the Jewish question.
He could’ve remained silent. Instead, he wrote an execrable book. Without
needing to whatsoever, he endorses the "Shoah" lie and he impudently insults
those who fight against this lie. He sides with tyrants against their victims.
He uses pathetic arguments to try to show Jewish influence is fast waning,
while the facts prove the exact opposite. He denies the evidence by absolving
Jewish organizations of all major responsibility for the invasion of Europe
and North America by the racially foreign, and in calling for an alliance
of Jews and Euronationalists against Islamic immigration, an alliance he
knows is utterly impossible, he takes his readers for gullible dupes.
In closing let me note that comparison of the present work, "The New
Jewish Question," with Faye’s previous works will show a deterioration
in thought which is evident down to the book’s style. Faye freely uses the
worst clichés in an obfuscatory style taken from Americano-Zionist propaganda.
Thus for him, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is naught but "a pathological
fanatic" (p. 188) while on another page the "fanatical Islamic régime of
the Iranian mullahs" is remarkable for its "obscurantist despotism" and
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is a "neocommunist tyrant" (p. 244). The
strong, insulting language the author uses to characterize the New World
Order’s adversaries shows, at least, where his sympathies lie: with the
powerful of the present moment.
Before "The New Jewish Question" was published it was certainly
not easy to admire Faye personally, but one could at least value the political
writer. With this new book’s publication that’s no longer possible. Faye
needs to know that he has, on his own, placed himself in a situation from
which it will be hard for him to escape. As for the Jews, far from being
grateful to him for his loyalty and offers of service, they’ll disdain him
as they disdain a Gianfranco Fini or a David Irving. Moreover, in racial
nationalist and nationalist circles worthy of the name, Faye is now discredited.
Permanently.
As one of the Russian writers who’d invited him to Moscow was saying
to me, Faye has lost his old friends without gaining thereby any new ones.
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses…
October 29, 2007
______
[1] Guillaume Faye, "De la Géopolitique à l’Ethnopolitique: Le Nouveau
Concept d’’Eurosibérie.’ Le Rôle Historique Majeur de la Russie," in
The White World’s Future. International Conference, Moscow, June 8-9, 2006,
Athenaeum, P.O. Box 11, 109462, Moscow. 2006.
[2] Yann-Ber Tillenon, "La Révolution Indo-Européenne"; Pierre Krebs, "Kampf
und Strategie der Neuen Kultur"; Pierre Vial, "Le Choc des Civilisations:
le Face-à-Face Nord-Sud" in: The White World’s Future (see preceding
note).
[3] Guillaume Faye, La Nouvelle Question Juive, Les Editions du Lore,
2007.
[4] Serge Thion, "Brève Histoire du Révisionnisme," text to be published
in German in Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, 4/2007.
[5] Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, René-Louis Berclaz, Philippe Brennenstuhl, Günter
Deckert, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Gerd Honsik, Ernst Indlekofer, David Irving,
Erhard Kempner, Horst Mahler, Vincent Reynouard, Manfred Roeder, Germar
Rudolf, Hans Schmidt, Pedro Varela, Siegfried Verbeke, Max Wahl, Udo Walendy,
Hans-Jürgen Witsch, Ernst Zündel. – My friend Ahmed Rami, who also displayed
great courage, was jailed supposedly for having criticised Judaïsm but it
was obviously his militant revisionism they wanted to punish.
[6] www.gush.shalom.org/archives/article242.html
[7] "Had you kept silent you’d have remained a philosopher."
|