Registreren kan je hier. Problemen met registreren of reageren op de berichten? Een verloren wachtwoord? Gelieve een mail te zenden naar [email protected] met vermelding van je gebruikersnaam. |
|
Registreer | FAQ | Forumreglement | Ledenlijst |
Rechts Dit forum is voorbestemd voor een beperkte groep die wil discussieren rond rechtse thema's. Om deel te nemen aan de discussies moet u zich hier aanmelden. |
|
Discussietools |
29 juli 2006, 19:18 | #1 |
Vreemdeling
Geregistreerd: 15 februari 2005
Berichten: 37
|
Opmerkelijk interview in France-Echos met Guillaume Faye !
INTERVIEW of Guillaume Faye with France-Echos :
27-08 on Subversiv.com (http://forum.subversiv.com/index.php?id=190644) 1 Franche-Echos: Mister Faye, what was your part in the founding of the New Right or GRECE? Guillaume Faye: From 1970 to 1986 I was first an adherent, and then one of the directors of the association, GRECE, which was reputedly one of the intellectual centres of the "New Right" or the "extreme right" depending on the names given to it by the journalists involved, although I would prefer the term " European identitarian nationalism". I was even GRECE's number two, as "Secretary for Study and Research", at the time. Today, this so-called "New Right", and GRECE, are no more than the shadows of their former selves and have abandoned the identitarian struggle. They have abandoned any idea of defending the European identity and become fake rebels, avid to be recognised by the system (though vainly so), totally aligned with the positions of the left wing and of Monde Diplomatique, positions such as : islamophile, pro-third-world, silence in radio broadcasts concerning immigration (the avoidance strategy - avoiding above all anything that might shock anyone), anti-capitalism, ineffective anti-americanism, hate-filled anti-zionism, etcetera. 2 France-Echos: Besides, you were a great humorous journalist, notably in the Filipacchi Group ... in the eighties, then you vanished. Is it true that your comrades in GRECE had something to do with your demonisation? Guillaume Faye: It was a mixture of things ; between 1980 and 1986 I published a number of political and ideological books (1). The situation was quite different from what it is today and my ideas have evolved considerably. Then, from 1986 onwards, seized by what the Romans called the vis comica, I plunged into show business : radio, TV, cinema, music, specialist press, etc. I did all this under pseudonyms, obviously. I also wrote some rather light books (2). This period taught me a lot, because, unlike the Paris intellectuals who see everything through their readers' clubs, I got into the habit of going to the heart of things. In 1998, driven by some internal demon ... I went back to the task of writing my ideological books and giving conferences. Then, in 1999, some little ill-wishers, who could only have come from the old milieu in which I had been previously, discreetly told my employers who I really was, purely out of jealousy. These latter then stopped giving me any work. One mustn't, after all, feed the Devil ... To get away from all this I founded my own review, I Have Understood All - which in its new format is now called Alarm Signal - and like a stakhanovite I multiplied my books, articles, and ideological conferences. 3 France-Echos: Since your return to the centre of debate in the circles of right wing thought you have not ceased denouncing the pro-Arab, anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist, even Third-World-ist, turn of the New Right and of your erstwhile friends in GRECE. What is it all about? Guillaume Faye: I parted company with GRECE and the New Right in 1986, because even then I could quite clearly perceive this ideological development. Since then polemic with them has never ceased. One important detail : most of the original guiding spirits of GRECE eventually came to the same conclusions as I had, and left the organisation, which is nowadays reconstituted solely around the writer Alain de Benoist and his court, whose positions are absolutely the same as those of Dieudonné and the insane Iranian Mullahs. I note that the aforementioned Alain de Benoist, forgetting all concepts of honour, has gone so far as to describe me in the Italian press as a "super-racist" (Area, Review, May 2000) ... He has chosen his camp, that of the politically correct, the vulgar herd, the poor man's analysis, the tactics of the courtesan (?) And the poor fellow doesn't even get invited to Paris salons or readers' clubs. It seems to me - and I shall return to this - that these people have the mentality of collaborators. As if they are anticipating the arrival of their future masters. They have the mentality of dhimmis, of "submitters". Nowadays, I work in close association with the old members of the New Right who quit, like me, and who have created their own networks and circles of cultural and ideological influence, throughout Europe, in Russia, in Portugal, in the USA, and in Canada. And I work, of course, on new books. 4 France-Echos: Have you found, in these new circles with which you work, or in the Front National, which has invited you on various occasions to give speeches, any hostility against the Jews, any remnants of anti-Semitism? Guillaume Faye: No, that isn't really the problem. Anti-Judaism (to use a term I prefer to 'anti-Semitism') melts like snow in the sun across a great part of what is known as the "extreme right". Of course, there are significant pockets of resistance ; one cannot defeat the long anti-Jewish tradition in a day. And there is also a segment of this "extreme right", to which GRECE belongs, which has turned to a violent anti-zionism, coupled with an acute Palestinophilia (I shall return to this). However, this ideological current has become more and more isolated in the movement I am speaking of, quite simply because of the massive threat posed by immigration into France ... Under these conditions, anti-Judaism is forgotten, the Jew no longer seems like a menace at all. In the circles in which I move, I never hear any anti-Jewish invective. I even come across people (as one did in the sixties) who approve and support the "Israeli Right". I have tried to understand (and my conclusions regarding this are finally, little by little, becoming shared) that anti-Judaism is a politically obselete, useless, overtaken position, even when it is disguised as anti-zionism. We are no longer living in the times of the Dreyfuss Affair. Besides, the anti-Judaists have never escaped from their own terrible contradiction : they seem to despise the Jews, yet pretend that these latter control the world. So, does this mean that they think the Jews are a superior race, or not? Anti-Judaism is a form of political schizophrenia, a sort of inverted philo-Semitism, the expression of a ressentiment [envy, inferiority complex - RB]. I don't judge anti-Judaism from a moral point of view ; after all, one can be frustrated and detest whomever one likes. I never mix the moral and the political. But my position is the same as Nietzsche's : hating the Jews serves no purpose, it is a politically stupid and unproductive passion. 5 France-Echos: A number of small extreme right groups who have read your work accuse you of being prejudicially pro-American and "neo-zionist". Why is that, do you think? Guillaume Faye: Those people are hemiplegic, in addition to being professional liars. To begin with, I have never been "prejudicially pro-American" . One has only to read my essay "Global Coup d'État, an Essay on the New American Imperialism" (which deconstructs the ideology of the neo-conservatives) to see that. My position, being strategic rather than manichean, is incomprehensible to these fanatics. I am neither an anti-American nor a pro-American, but a European nationalist. The USA is in no way the Great Satan, the number one enemy, but, depending on circumstances and according to its strategy as a state, it may be an adversary, a competitor, or even one day an ally. The anti-American dogma (which I call OHAA, "obsessional-hysterican anti-Americanism") is impolitic, like all dogmas. I'm sorry, but I prefer McDonalds' to mosques, pom-pom girls to shuttered, battered, violated women, American universities to obscurantist Islamist madrassas, etcetera. Regarding zionism, these people who call me a "neo-zionist" are labelling me like this quite simply because I am not hysterically anti-zionist, as they are, and because I can feel no sympathy nor interest in the "Palestinian cause". How can I defend a Muslim people (who claim to be being "martyred", though I dispute this), at the very moment that Islam undertakes the conquest of Europe? In what way does the "zionism" of the Jewish state threaten Europe? It is my fierce, defensive opposition to Islam, and to the Arabo-Muslim strategy, which explains why these people, who have become infatuated Arabophiles and Islamophiles, call me a "neo-zionist". They cannot bear the fact that I refuse to give the requisite free passage to their "anti-zionism". How can I be a "zionist" when I am not Jewish? And how could I become an "anti-zionist" when at no time has the zionist ideology (unlike Islamism, communism, leftism, rights-of-man-ism, or masochistic post-conciliar christianism) attacked or threatened either directly or remotely the idea I defend, which is the maintenance of European identity? In what way would the disappearance of Israel help my cause? To think of the Jewish state as an enemy is geopolitical idiocy for European identitarians. The current GRECE of Alain de Benoist (which has nothing in common with the original GRECE) the little "national-revolutionary" groups inspired by the fanatical Christian Bouchet, and the camarilla of "extreme right" militants who have converted to Islam, all of these being closely interconnected, are really totally aligned to the positions of the Iranian government, which fascinates them as a snake fascinates sparrows. For them, I am obviously the absolute enemy. This is how I interpret their tortured reasoning : to begin with, there is a visceral hatred (which needs psychoanalytic explanation) for everything Israeli, American, or zionist. (Note, I have not claimed that in every case this is a camouflaged form of neurotic anti-Judaism, analogous to the paranoic and dream like anti-Judaism of the Third Reich, but in the last analysis, in some cases, it is so). Secondly, given their obsessional anti-zionism and anti-Americanism, they arrive through the force of passion and simplistic thinking at Islamophilia, Arabophilia, and pro-immigrationism. They finish up aligning themselves with the views of Dieudonné (whom they are actively courting), and in the circles of the pro-Arab extreme left. Add to this, a third-world-ist, anti-capitalist rhetoric, derived entirely from the neo-marxist vulgate, of which Alain de Benoist has been for a long time the exemplar on the "extreme right". What I find really tragic in these intellectual contortions, is that these pseudo-European identitarians, because of their anti-zionism (and in some cases, anti-Judaism) completely sacrifice their defense of the European identity and hurl themselves into the arms of Islam, pro-Arabism, and third-world-ism. They focus all their fire on zionism, blinded by their hatred. The destruction, through immigration, of Europe? For them, this is inevitable anyway, and of secondary importance. The essential thing is the struggle against the hydra of zionism and the American Satan, shoulder to shoulder with militant Islam. They masturbate in ecstacy over the declarations of Ahmadinejad. The problem is that their new "friends" regard them as collaborators, and despise them as traitors. I do not envy their future lot. I suspect they look forward to the Islamisation of Europe, its "future". They want to be on the winning side. They would love to be cosseted dhimmis ("submitters"). But they won't be. Another thing, these people hope to conveniently forget their politically incorrect pasts and to forge for themselves phony passports as "anti-racists" (they hope in vain, though) - they hope to appear as the greatest friends of Islam, of the Arabs, of the Palestinian cause, of the poor third world, oppressed by the "American-zionist capital bloc". All this isn't just intellectually bankrupt, it needs one term above all - cowardice. 6 France-Echos: What does zionism mean to you? Guillaume Faye: Zionism is the affirmation of the re-installation of a people in a land which they consider to be their own. Zionism is also a highly composite ideology : it talks of aliya, which means the "return" of the dispersed Jews, but also, and right from its inception, it talks of a new form of society. I know this subject quite well because I am preparing a work, which will make a certain amount of noise in the "milieu", which will be called "The New Jewish Question". Zionism, which is a very recent element in Jewish history, theorised at the end of the nineteenth century by Herzl and Buber (who did not arrive at the same positions, hence the "Israeli compromise") is the attempt (successful, uniquely in history) to reconstitute a Jewish state, in fact the mythical Kingdom of David, starting from the Diaspora, in order to escape from persecution and renew the post-Mosaic tradition. One should note that the religious Jews were against this project (and this opposition still exists) because it seemed to envisage the construction of a profane state entity. The zionist project is an absolutely unique case in the annals of "archeofuturism" (this is the name of one of my books, "Archeofuturism"), that is to say, the reconstruction, the renaissance, the resurrection and the projection into the future of a political form past but not forgotten. The reconstitution of the national and state language, Hebrew, has no historical parallel. It is a major act of political voluntarism. The zionist movement has a "saga" which, from my point of view as a non-Jewish observer, corresponds to the values which I defend : attachment to a land, to the lineage of one's people, to its traditions, to its historical perpetuation, to fidelity to one's lines of descent, to ethnic homogeneity and collective will. Zionism therefore constitutes an example of the creation of a political and state form for a people, which is new, and which should inspire the re-founders of European identitarianism. However, let it be understood, although I applaud its principles, zionism is not my own cause, because I do not belong to the Jewish people. Quite simply, I cannot see what phantasm should cause me to oppose it... Now, I think (and I take no pleasure at all in this) that the zionist project and the existence of Israel are menaced by the demographic balance, in favour of the Muslims, also by the extension of a terrorist war which might provoke the flight of the élites, and also probably a reduction in international support for Israel. The great mistake that was made, was to grant Israeli nationality to the Muslim minority which remained after 1948, instead of organising a clear and thorough-going partition. This mistake was the result of the "humanistic" notions of Buber, and of his famous book "I and Thou". One last thing : people constantly parrot to me the official line, that the Jewish state has conducted itself in an ignoble, persecutory manner towards the unhappy "Palestinians". Even if this were true, it isn't my problem. However, in addition, I think it is an extreme exaggeration. It is in the political interest of European identitarians that the state of Israel survives. I shall talk about this in my forthcoming book. My position will shock the retarded ones. So much the worse for them. 7 France-Echos: Is it true that you have spoken at Senate conferences, at the invitation of the very influential zionist club of Jean Mandelbaum, a circle which has also invited speeches from Chirac, Spiner, and most of the more famous French zionists? Guillaume Faye: Absolutely true. In particular, I explained to them that the Jewish intellectuals and political men who have welcomed immigration and Islamisation, in the name of a delirious vision of "anti-racism", have been irresponsible. The public agrees with me. I respond to all the invitations I receive. I have spoken before the FN, the MNR, the Rotary Club, the PS branch of the 15th arrondissement, the Republican Party in Washington, the Rodina Party in the Moscow Duma, the Breton Party Adsav, the University of St Petersburg, and many French, Belgian, German, Italian, and Spanish cultural assocations, and other circles in France, Germany, Italy, etcetera. I am a free electron, I affirm my own ideas without any complexes. I have even been invited by certain Islamist circles, who wanted to know the thinking behind my anti-Islamist positions. I spoke alongside old friends from the "New Right" who had converted to Islam, and alongside obsessional anti-zionists. I sensed that the Muslims had a lot more respect for me than they had for these obsequious, cowardly converts. I explained to them that they were in the process of invading Europe, that I was not fooled by their strategy, that my duty was to fight them, and that - I am sorry to have to say - I have succeeded in completely cutting the threads of their propaganda for the "Palestinian cause" and their fable of "Islam, religion of peace". I explained to them that my task was to oppose their Jihad, that I was not deceived by their Qur'anic hypocrisy, that they could do what they liked in their own homelands but not in mine, that they should not take me for an idiot by talking about the "zionist menace", etc. They heard me out very courteously, in complete silence, quite discomforted, attentive, and, at the end, an Algerian intellectual told me with a big grin, "Luckily for us, most of the French do not possess your lucidity, and don't know us the way you do." 8 France-Echos: Do you accept the label "extreme right", and how do you explain your sulphurous, extremist image? Guillaume Faye: The expression "extreme right" is blurred and lacking in rigour, in terms of political semantics. My case is a bit special. I created my own ideology, which rather upsets everyone, because it offends the conformist Islamophiles and the prejudiced anti-zionists, both pro-US and the anti-US, even in the area of economics and geopolitics. I have tried to create a new ideology. I wish people would read me, and study my texts, before leaping to conclusions. In fact, I discomfort all camps, I offend their senses of etiquette. I am above all myself, but the fact that people treat me as an "extreme right ideologist" doesn't bother me at all. I am not like those old crabs which try to hide themselves behind their own claws (?) So why my sulphurous "extremist" image? Quite simply, because I attack frontally, in my writings and my public conferences, the Islamisation of Europe, the invasive immigration, the neo-totalitarianism of the ruling ideology, the reduction in freedom of expression, and the general decadence of this end-of-cycle civilisation. And because all this has brought me certain lawsuits and condemnations, it is normal that the bien-pensants should consider me an "extremist". The term "extremist" today means the same thing it meant in Stalin's USSR : a dissident who speaks the truth. 9 France-Echos: You have probably heard about the scandal unleashed by the astounding article written by an old GRECE member who has now apparently become politically correct, Joseph Macé-Scaron, now a journalist for Marianne, promoting a sulphurous, hate-filled book which calls all the thinkers of the right, like Alexandre del Valle and Guy Millière, who are allies of the Jewish community, or of rightist zionist Jews like Goldnagel or Kupfer (Likud) - "Fachos". What do you make of this, and what can you tell us about this astonishing accuser, Macé-Scaron? Guillaume Faye: With regard to this article in Marianne signed by Mr. Joseph Macé-Scaron, one passage of which claims or suggests that Mr. Alexandre Del Valle belonged to the aforementioned movement or was ideologically close to it, I can state, quite independently of my opinions of Mr. Del Valle, and even given a certain disagreement with him, that he never belonged, either closely or even remotely, to the "New Right", or to GRECE, or to any "extreme right" organisation at all, nor did he ever take part in any of our meetings during the relevant period. I would have known of anything of this sort, since I was right at the centre of this family of thinkers, and I knew every one of its "intellectuals" perfectly. Mr. Del Valle was never involved with us, nor was he ever asked to debate on our behalf, nor to write for us. On the contrary, at the conference cited by Macé-Scaron, he provoked some lively reactions in the chamber when he violently attacked the ideas put forward on behalf of GRECE by his opponent on the right, whose name as it happens was Champetier (a man who has himself, moreover, since left that organisation himself). I attest that, like Taguieff, who has since been lynched for similar reasons in Le Monde, del Valle argued against and not for the New Right, which changes the whole context, since debating against someone in no way suggests that one shares his ideas or solidarises with him. Whenever Del Valle has appeared in debate against the intellectuals of the neo-pagan New Right, whether they are from GRECE or not, he has always vehemently attacked the "anti-semitism and anti-zionism" of the obsessional pro-Arabists in this movement, of whom I spoke earlier. I can attest to the truth of this, which is completely different to the allegations of this inferior journalist, Macé-Scaron - I take no positions on Mr. Del Valle himself. On the other hand, the accuser, Joseph Macé-Scaron, who it seems, wants to make us forget his own past when he accuses certain others of having taken part in conferences with people supposedly close to the New Right, is in a very poor position to attack, especially, Goldnagel or Del Valle, since he himself was well and truly an adherent of, a partisan for, GRECE, and in fact one of its most fervent militants and directors between 1978 and 1985! Macé-Scaron worked during this entire period (in a "permanent" capacity) in the "press corps" of the New Right (GRECE) after having been initiated, in the company of his friend the journalist Thierry Deransart, according to the pagano-christian right of chivalry (??? - RB), during a conclave at which I myself was present, along with various others. His sponsor and initiator, who is still one of my best friends and will certainly support my statement, is now a cadre of the MNR (ex-FN). Another of my close friends, who was at the time secretary-general of GRECE (and who left the organisation for reasons similar to my own) could equally bear witness against the grave accusations of Mr. Macé-Scaron. There could be no more astonishing accuser than Mr. Macé-Scaron, who was himself a product of the "school of journalism" that we created within GRECE, which at the time allowed us to infiltrate Figaro Magazine, two of whose successive editors, Mssrs. Valla and Plunkett, were also members of the directorate of GRECE, and which employed in addition a significant number of other members of our association and our movement. I recall perfectly how, within the framework of this "school of journalism", I helped to form the ideology, the writing skills, and the propagandist capacity of Mr. Macé-Scaron, who was a very apt pupil ; he started his virtuoso career in journalism by going to work for Figaro Magazine, entirely thanks to GRECE. Subsequently, like many other journalists who, thanks to GRECE and the New Right, began their professional careers at Figaro, at Valeurs Actuelles, or elsewhere, he has tried to make us forget this inconvenient geneology and has - publicly - changed his views. This is human enough, who can blame him for it, in a time when one needs to show a white paw [this is a French idiom related to proverbs about rabbits - RB] to pursue one's career? Having said all that, the ideas circulating within GRECE today, I repeat, are not at all the strong identitarian positions (what the journalists call "extreme right" ideas) which it held when Mr. Macé-Scaron was a member and "young hopeful". What is unacceptable is that Mr. Macé-Scaron, like a common informer, lyingly accuses others of being members of a movement in which he himself took part, and proceeds to demonise this family of thinkers, which itself put his foot on the stairway to success ... I should add that I am perfectly willing to give details to support my testimony, if need arises ... and other directing spirits from the GRECE of the period should be equally ready to confound Mr. Joseph Macé-Scaron. 10 France-Echos: Did Joseph Macé-Scaron maintain and secret relationships with the extreme rightists, neo-pagans, or New Right? Guillaume Faye: How should I know? My guess would be, no. He must have needed to do everything possible to regain his political virginity and conceal his "traceability". Just like many others, now well ensconced in the media and in business, thanks to our movement, whose entryism, at the time (1975-1985), was extremely effective. But I don't reproach him for this break with his past, not at all, as I say again. Everyone has the right to change. Ingratitude is blameworthy, but it is not unforgivable. On the other hand, Mr. Macé-Scaron has committed a very serious error (a stupidity?) in howling with the wolves and soiling the name of this family, which once was his, and which helped him so much. You see, I know this scene by heart. I could give you a list of at least thirty people of both sexes who were deeply involved with the New Right and GRECE in its heyday (and even after that) whom we formed, helped, found places for, to a greater or lesser extent, or who were our militants, whom we regarded as permanent members. They are all kept nice and snug in my records, which are extremely well maintained. They all have splendid careers, some very celebrated by the media. But I shall never reveal their past lives, this would be a dishonourable betrayal. On the other hand ... if one (male) of them, or one (female) of them, starts spitting in the soup, spitting on our ideas, spitting on our movement and demonising us in public, or tries to harm us by any other means, I shall only be putting things back in their proper perspective if I reveal their pasts. I do not ask of them courage, but merely silence. As for the struggle, I vow that I shall continue it. 11 France-Echos: Regarding the central question of revisionism : is it true that GRECE and the New Right in that period were by a large majority, revisionist, and/or anti-Semitic? This seems to have shocked Joseph Macé-Scaron at the time. Guillaume Faye: I left GRECE in 1986. Revisionism was never the order of the day. In fact, no anti-Judaism could have been expressed then. Simply, from a sociological or socio-historical point of view, that whole milieu was saturated by an atmosphere which clearly was not favourable to the Jews, even though quite a few members of GRECE were of Jewish origin. One must recall that the Jewish-zionist right was very hostile to us. In 1979 at the Palais des Congrès de Paris our annual conference was attacked by the OJD, the Jewish Defense Organisation, which resulted in a great many injuries on both sides. This did not happen by accident. The ideology we were expressing (and the ideological climate was very different from today's) greatly displeased these Jewish circles, in particular Betar. The reasons for this hostility were not especially serious or coherent, but anyway this was the period in which Mr. Macé-Scaron belonged to GRECE, and he could hardly not know the grounds on which the Jewish circles opposed us. 12 France-Echos: There are rumours that Joseph Macé-Scaron, who never ceases to assert that his grand-mother was Jewish, made this genealogy up in order to offset the effects of his sulphurous past and his right wing "facho" friends like Deransard. What do you say to that? Guillaume Faye: I never give any credence to "rumours". In any case, at the time that Mr. Macé-Scaron was a member of GRECE, he never mentioned this mysterious "Jewish grand-mother". Had he done so, this would have been no obstacle to his membership. In parenthesis, I find the term "facho" polemical and without any socio-political validity. Consider my own case : the body of ideological thought I have put together over the last thirty years has no relationship to "fascism", for the simple reason that I am not acquainted with fascist political doctrine, and thus cannot be inspired by the thought of the period. I build upon new and contemporary principles. To return to Mr. Macé-Scaron, one thing is certain : he is trying, like a hunted hare, to make us forget about his past involvements. He would do better to keep quiet. You know the Chinese proverb : "Don't pull the tail of a sleeping tiger." 13 France-Echos: On a related issue, can you confirm that a good many media personalities a lot more sulphurous than you have been favoured, even though they spent time in more right wing circles than you did? Is it true that not speaking of immigration, and not attacking Islam, are the secrets to this sort of favour? Could one single out Karl Zéro in this connection? Guillaume Faye: This isn't the secret of getting ahead, but it helps. Karl Zéro was never a GRECE member, but he wrote some articles and did some comic strips which were politically incorrect in the satirical review "Jalons", run by his brother Bruno Thélène, in the '80s. [Jalons are poles used as landmarks - RB]. As it happens I also wrote for this review, which had an "ultra-rightist" editorial committee. Now this media star never ceases denouncing his old friends and the "extreme right" in general, in order to clear himself. I suspect him of being one of those who tried to get me into trouble and get me fired from the "mainstream media". His case is similar to that of Macé-Scaron. He lost a court case against an old member of GRECE whom he had accused in the press of being what you call a "facho". I have all this in my files. In any case, Karl Zéro isn't a very luminous personality. 13 France-Echos: Karl Zéro wasn't a member of GRECE, then? Are there any other anti-semites or fachos who are now getting ahead, and who are they? Guillaume Faye: I repeat, Karl Zéro was never a member, although he was part of the New Right "movement", the "outer circle" if you like. He came to informal gatherings, soirées. He rapidly realised he had to steer clear of us. Once again, I would not accuse anyone who was part of this movement at the time of having been an "anti-semite". The question simply never came up! Those (female) and those (male) who are now "singled out for stardom" are so because they have managed to "show the white paw" [see above - RB], to espouse the vulgate of the hegemonic ideology, and - above all - because they have carefully camouflaged their dissident pasts. This past will never be revealed to their masters, by either me or my friends, unless, obviously, the parties concerned give themselves up to campaigns and calumnies against us. 14 France-Echos: What do you think about Israel, its future, and the future of Europe in the face of islam? Guillaume Faye: I have already answered these questions. Israel is principally endangered by its own demographic weakness in the face of the hostile Muslims - much more by this than by the projected Iranian atomic bomb. I do not consider the state of Israel to be hostile or dangerous and I think that "anti-Israelism" is a grave geostrategic error for European identitarians. One of the strengths of Israel, among others, is its very high level of science and research (4.9 % of its GDP is devoted to research and development, the highest percentage in the world). For Europe, an "alliance with the Arabs" is a dramatic non-starter, and, like all "third-world-ism", supremely naïve. As for Islam, Europe is now facing the third attempt, historically, since the eighth century - and doubtless the most serious attempt - on the part of this "religion-civilisation" to conquer it and transform it into Eurabia. Europe is at the same time confronted by an uncontrolled wave of immigration which is practically exchanging its population for another. To divert one's attention onto a fantasmatic anti-zionism, and a primary anti-americanism, is the worst possible mistake one could make in politics, which Macchiavelli condemned : allowing oneself to be ruled by one's passions rather than by cold and clear reason. 15 France-Echos: Is the USA an adversary, or an enemy, or rather an ally, of Europe, in the face of this Islamic colonisation? Guillaume Faye: The USA is not a single homogeneous entity, this is something neither the anti-Americans nor the pro-Americans seem to comprehend. Certain forces in Washington (the "neo-cons") have tried to play the Islamic card to weaken both Europe and Russia. Unhappily for them, they have stirred up and attracted Islamic terrorism and have allowed themselves to fall into the trap of Iraq. Washington's current policies are stupid and unskillful. However, from their own point of view, the directing intelligences of Washington have always tried to obstruct the continental unity of Europe and Russia (what I call "Eurosiberia"). Meanwhile, there are new ideological forces in the USA, with which I am in close contact, who consider the restoration of European power indispensable, and who believe completely that we are at the onset of a clash of civilisations which will oppose the North to the South, globally (to put it schematically, and whether we welcome it or not) - even if this view shocks the intellectuals of the system, who mistake their wishes for realities. These new forces also consider (even those who are anti-Jewish Americans) that a historic compromise and a fundamental alliance with the Jewish élites is necessary, to bring under control both uncontrolled immigration and Islamism. They are finally beginning to understand (like their counterparts in Europe) that the anti-Jewish aversion is a complete non-starter. I have always written, and I write today, that the USA may be an adversary but it is not an enemy. It is essential to convince the American élites of the need for an ethno-political alliance of all the peoples of European origin. I should add that the arrogance and imperialism of American rulers has but one cause : the weakness, the renunciation, the softness, of the European rulers. As for the Jews, even if they are "a people apart", they manifestly constitute a people in their own right, and they should be members of this alliance. Clearly, they need to make efforts on their own behalf. I would use a term, which I repeat , "historic compromise". 16 France-Echos: You who made your mea culpa to have said Arab Europe-World formerly even combat, would you say Israel-Occident-Europe today even combat? Guillaume Faye: Carl Schmitt, the famous German political scientist, whom Raymond Aron has made known and translated for the French, said that it is not you who choose your enemy, but it is your enemy who chooses you as his enemy, whether you like it or not. The fact that the Islamist ideology (which benefits from the enormous sensationalism of its approach to the masses and which does not trouble itself with the subtleties of the Parisian intelligentsia) talks of "Crusaders and Zionists" as its principal enemy, should make us reflect. I shall answer your question and my answer will draw its inspiration from my master, Niccolo Macchiavelli. First off - I do not like the term, "the West", because it apparently excludes Russia, and because of its superficiality (why "the West"?) The realpolitik of the twenty first century will have to attempt to regroup all the peoples of European origin, whose interests are convergent and who confront the same menaces, whatever their continent of settlement may be. The Jewish state should join this regrouping, and should place itself under its protection, integrated without being assimilated, but without pretending to a leading rôle - with an absolute guarantee that anti-Judaism is an obselete sentiment, and a counter-productive one, which will be allowed no further influence. In any case, to deny to the Jews their place within European civilisation (as understood in its large-scale, multi-continental sense) has always seemed to me to be the purest delirium, a result of ignorance and of bad faith. In the twenty first century, Israel will no longer be at the centre of the world's preoccupations, because the world will be less and less "Western-centred". (The Chinese and the Indians have very little historical sense of a "Jewish Question"). Many Jews consider themselves to belong to a "central people", the famous "salt of the earth". This sentiment needs to be toned down a bit. All the same, Israel is today one of the primary locations for the struggle against the common enemy. I consider the Internet texts of the neo-rightist pro-Islamist groups which exalt the "martyrdom" of a Belgian of European descent, who converted to Islam and blew herself up in Israel, taking various innocents with her, to be absolutely pathetic. In terms of first principles, what do I have to do with this war between Jews and Muslims, between Israelis and Palestinians? Who is right, who is wrong? It is not my problem, except that ... yes, except that in my opinion the perpetuation and strengthening of the state of Israel is a vital priority for all Europeans. The destruction of Israel would present Islam with an open door to the conquest of the whole of Europe. In brief, I entirely support the state of Israel, while deploring the clumsiness and soft-heartedness of certain of its current rulers (contaminated by the humanitarianism of Buber). If I were in their place, I wouldn't wait for American permission before hitting the Iranian nuclear sites. 17 France-Echos: The positions you express here may provoke an earthquake in your own circle? People might call you a "Jew-lover"? Guillaume Faye: I am absolutely not a "Jew-lover". I think of the Jews as allies, as partakers in European civilisation, with a very particular and original status as "people apart" (this does not mean "superior"), and all this is something very different from being a "Jew-lover". But I have always felt a certain repugnance for anti-Judaism ; not because it seems to me "immoral", but because it seems to me quite simply useless, debauched, infantile, politically self-contradictory, and out of date. My whole purpose is to cause earthquakes, to make people think, to dislodge their prejudices, and to make their minds evolve. To free my milieu from counter-productive anti-Judaism and anti-zionism - with which it is still imprinted - seems to me to be a strategic necessity. This fact should be taken into account, dispassionately. To me, the Jews are themselves, proud of their interior truth, guardians of their own secrets. The Jewish community ought to reflect actively on the pertinence of my theories, and ought to decide upon its own ideological evolution. My forthcoming essay, "The New Jewish Question" will clarify a lot of obscure aspects of all this. I am engaged in digging holes in the ground, in order to bring about the eruption of volcanoes. NOTES: Works written between 1980 and 1986 : "The System For Killing The Peoples" (translated into Italian), "The New Ideological Joys", "Organic Man", "The New Consumer Society", "Sex And Ideology", "The West As Decline", "New Discourse On The European Nation". Works written between 1986 and 1999 : "The Guide To Invective", "The Abbreviated Guide To Seduction", "Extraterrestrials From A To Z". Laatst gewijzigd door Metaposos : 29 juli 2006 om 19:28. |
1 augustus 2006, 14:39 | #2 |
Vreemdeling
Geregistreerd: 15 februari 2005
Berichten: 37
|
Reactie van Michael O'Meara in VanguardNewsNetwork op Faye's interview
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=841
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. |
1 augustus 2006, 17:06 | #3 |
Perm. Vertegenwoordiger VN
Geregistreerd: 2 mei 2006
Locatie: Dietsland-Europa Ideologie: Solidarisme en corporatisme
Berichten: 10.620
|
Heb het niet op Vanguard. Zij zien alles als de Joden (zij halen dit dan nog eens door mekaar met zionisten, wat iets totaal anders ziet) hun schuld en de rust ligt volgens hen onder de knoet ervan.
Poging tot het schrijven van intellectuele teksten zou ik het noemen maar ook niets anders. |
1 augustus 2006, 20:47 | #4 |
Vreemdeling
Geregistreerd: 15 februari 2005
Berichten: 37
|
From the Adirondacks - Crisis in the Far-Right
http://www.faceright.com/archives/20...he_adiron.html
FaceRight - reactie op interview Faye My last entry mentioned a recent interview with Guillaume Faye. In it, Faye explicitly denounced anti-semitism as "unuseful, divisive, infantile, politically inconsistent, out dated." Faye's statement reflects a growing division within the "identitarian" (fundamentally, White nationalist) right over the question of anti-semitism. Following on the heels of the controversy at the American Renaissance conference earlier this year and Nick Griffin's article criticizing anti-semitism, Faye's comments reflect the growing belief on the part of a large part of this movement that they can and should play an actual role in the coming civilizational conflicts facing the West. Not content to sit on the sidelines awaiting the apocalypse, they are trying to establish a credible position on the far right of the mainstream political spectrum. This means, of course, a decsive break with the politics of marginality, in which anti-semitism plays a major part. Naturally, the Trostkyites purists among them have responded with outrage. Accusations that Faye is a "crypto-jew" and the like have been the response of some and even as intelligent a thinker as Michael O'Meara has rejected Faye's insights. While Faye and his co-thinkers are still far from acheiving their goals, their rejection by the unreconstructed neo-Nazis of the world can only help their cause. Note: I don't have access to links on the AR conference or Griffin's article, but I can get these in a week or so, if anyone cares. As I have said before, I am no White nationalist, but I have appreciated Faye's work. His rejection of anti-semitism is a further step in the right direction. |
2 augustus 2006, 06:32 | #5 |
Vreemdeling
Geregistreerd: 15 februari 2005
Berichten: 37
|
Interview Faye opzet of leugen ?
http://www.france-echos.com/actualite.php?cle=9791
lundi 31 juillet 2006Hoax : fausse interview de Guillaume Faye par France-Echos On nous signale que plusieurs sites internet, dont forum.subversiv.com et fr.altermedia.info, ont publié une « Interview de Guillaume Faye » où l'intéressé répondrait �* des questions posées par « France-Echos ». C'est un hoax : Guillaume Faye n'a JAMAIS été interviewé par un quelconque rédacteur de notre site qui n'a JAMAIS publié la moindre interview de Guillaume Faye. Il semble que la première publication de ce faux ait été faite sur le forum de subversiv.com, par un certain « Gwendi », ici : http://forum.subversiv.com/index.php ?id=190644 Des éléments de cette fausse interview ont été repris sur le site altermedia.info en http://fr.altermedia.info/general/guillaume-faye-avoue_9376.html, sous le titre « Guillaume Faye avoue » et avec cette délicate introduction : « Dans un entretien publié sur le site Subversiv.com et réalisé par l'équipe du site ultra-sioniste France Echos, Guillaume Faye, l'idéologue en chef de Terre et peuple et de la mouvance mongolo-identitaire, dévoile quelles sont les raisons de son combat. A lire ! » Il s'agit d'une désinformation qui frise la médisance. En effet : - Aucun rédacteur de France-Echos n'a jamais interviewé Guillaume Faye, que nous ne connaissons que de réputation et que nous n'avons jamais rencontré. - Le site France-Echos n'a jamais publié d'interview de Guillaume Faye par quiconque. On constate que ni forum.subversiv.com ni fr.altermedia.info ne peuvent donner le moindre lien sur notre site qui authentifierait leurs dires, et pour cause ! - Non seulement on nous prête une interview que nous n'avons jamais faite, mais en plus rien ne garantit que les propos prêtés �* Guillaume Faye aient réellement été tenus par lui. - « Gwendi » est parfaitement inconnu chez France-Echos. Nous ne mettons pas en cause subversiv.com, dont le forum est ouvert et par conséquent propice �* tous les mensonges possibles. Nous sommes surpris du commentaire d'altermedia.info, certes abusé par le message de « Gwendi », mais qui porte des jugements sur Guillaume Faye et France-Echos sans même vérifier l'authenticité de ce qu'il publie, alors qu'il serait aisé de vérifier que cette fausse interview n'est jamais parue sur notre site. Nous nous interrogeons sur les motivations des gens qui ont réalisé ce faux. La Rédaction[email protected] |
2 augustus 2006, 19:10 | #6 |
Vreemdeling
Geregistreerd: 15 februari 2005
Berichten: 37
|
Opération de désinformation contre Guillaume Faye
http://fr.novopress.info/index.php
Opération de désinformation contre Guillaume Faye Depuis quelques jours, plusieurs sites internet (dont le forum.de subversiv.com) publient une interview de Guillaume Faye dans laquelle l’intéressé, répondant aux questions du site france-echos.com, défend une ligne politique étonnement pro-sioniste. Faye en profite pour régler ses comptes avec certains anciens amis de la Nouvelle Droite. Sous le titre « Guillaume Faye avoue », Altermedia.info s’est immédiatement fait l’écho de cet entretien en présentant l’interviewé comme «l’idéologue en chef de Terre et peuple et de la mouvance mongolo-identitaire.» (sic !) Bien entendu, on imagine les réactions pour le moins épidermiques qui s’en sont suivies. Rien que de très classique… Or, cet entretien s’avère être un faux, un « hoax » en jargon internétique. Il vient d’être démenti en ces termes par France-Echo lui-même : « Guillaume Faye n’a JAMAIS été interviewé par un quelconque rédacteur de notre site qui n’a JAMAIS publié la moindre interview de Guillaume Faye. » Joint par téléphone, Guillaume Faye nous a confirmé le montage et il s’exprimera �* ce sujet sur Novopress dans les jours qui viennent. Cette supercherie n’étonne pas vraiment la rédaction de Novopress. En effet, ce pseudo-entretien nous a été adressé par courriel voici un mois (le 1er juin pour être précis) par un certain Emmanuel (inconnu au bataillon). Celui-ci nous a écrit : « vous trouverez ci-joint une interview de notre ami Guillaume Faye que j’ai réalisée et qui met les choses au point. Vous pouvez la publier tout �* fait librement et en exclusivité. » Le modus operandi comme les propos tenus nous ont incités �* la prudence. N’ayant pas obtenu de réponse sur les conditions de l’entretien et n’ayant pu joindre le principal intéressé pour qu’il nous en confirme la véracité, Novopress (qui, contrairement �* d’autres, n’a pas pour habitude de publier des informations sans préalablement les vérifier…) a décidé de ne pas « sortir » le scoop. Cette opération de désinformation est �* rapprocher d’une autre manipulation de l’information, qui concerne cette fois Novopress. Nous l’avons découverte sur le forum du site « La banlieue s’exprime » (1) qui a reproduit notre récent entretien avec le chef de la tribu KA. Un intervenant, commentant les propos de Kemi Seba, présente notre agence de presse en ces termes : « Ce site est un site sioniste d’extrême droite (…) Je citerai seulement un petit détail historique. Le 22 mai 2005, il y avait une manifestation de commémoration de l’anniversaire de l’abolition de l’esclavage. Nous étions en pleine campagne du site proche-orient.info contre Dieudonné (…) Les journalistes et les photographes du site proche-orient.info traquaient Dieudonné et les défenseurs de Dieudonné dans toutes les manifestations. Ce jour l�*, des militants repèrent un photographe du site proche-orient.info, nous lui demandons sa carte professionnelle et, �* notre grande surprise, il nous présente une carte de presse du site fr.novopress.info. Nous l’apprendrons plus tard, il y avait un contrat entre le site proche-orient.info et le site fr.novopress.info. » Bien évidemment, rien de cela n’est vrai. Mais ce qui va sans dire… Ces manipulations s’inscrivent dans l’actuelle tentative de certains de diviser ce qu’on appelle la « mouvance nationale » sur la question proche et moyen orientale. Il se peut que leurs auteurs appartiennent �* notre milieu. Certains se sont fait une spécialité de crier au loup « néo-sioniste » en tous lieux et �* toute heure pour se présenter ensuite comme les gardiens intransigeants d’une mythique pureté révolutionnaire. Ils peuvent être étrangers �* celui-ci. Nos ennemis politiques connaissent la propension de ce qu’ils nomment « l’extrême droite » �* se déchirer et ils auraient tort de se gêner. La « qualité » de ce faux prouve en tout cas que l’on s’est donné du mal pour parvenir �* ses fins. En conséquence, Novopress invite ses lecteurs �* toujours garder leur esprit critique et leur vigilance en alerte face �* des informations aux origines douteuses publiées sur des supports qui ne le sont pas moins. (1) http://www.labanlieuesexprime.org/article.php3?id_article=913#forum8926 La Rédaction de Novopress France |
3 augustus 2006, 18:17 | #7 |
Vreemdeling
Geregistreerd: 15 februari 2005
Berichten: 37
|
Guillaume Faye, the Jews, and Disinformation
by Michael O’Meara
On July 30, I wrote “Guillaume Faye and the Jews,” which was posted at VNN on July 31. This short article was based on an interview that Faye allegedly gave to the Zionist site “France-Echos” and which appeared on the web in the forum of subversive.com. The latter is an unreadable site I never visit, but it was announced at and apparently vouched for by the credible AMI France (fr.altermedia.info). Based on these sources, my article reported that the ardent anti-Islamism of Europe’s foremost ethnonationalist seemed to have morphed into an equally ardent form of Zionism, for in the alleged interview Faye not only depicted the Hebrew state as Europe’s geopolitical pivot, but the Jews as an integral part of Europe’s biocivilization. Such a stance constituted a flagrant contradiction to everything Faye had previous stood for and was a shock to myself and to all who saw Faye as our most brilliant light. The day my article appeared, “France-Echos” declared that it had never interviewed Faye and disclaimed all association with the posting at subversive.com. Was the interview, thus, a hoax or was the source of the interview simply incorrect? After re-reading the interview, I still thought it authentic — even though I hoped it was not. The language, ideas, references were all quintessentially fayian. The issue at this point was largely a question of the interview’s origin. Today, August 2, things took another turn. France’s Novopress (fr.novopress.info) reports that the interview was part of a disinformation campaign to discredit Faye in nationalist and identitarian ranks. It cites not just the “France-Echos” denial. It contacted Faye by phone, who confirmed the inauthenticity of the interview and will shortly issue a statement to that effect. Even more convincingly, Novopress reveals that the interview had been submitted to it on June 1 under suspicious circumstances, but it refused to publish it. At this point, the controversy is still not completely resolved. We need to hear Faye’s story, we need to find out who was behind the interview, and we need to determine if it was indeed part of a disinformation campaign. If it was disinformation, the next question is: was it the government, the left, Zionists, or rivals within our own movement who were responsible for it. (I know of at least two occasions when Christian Bouchet’s group of anti-Zionist Islamophile nationalists at voxnr.com attempted to slander Faye by mischaracterizing him as a Zionist). The culprit, however, could be anyone. Faye has produced a body of written and public works that has made him one of the most prominent spokesman for white interests in Europe. For this reason, it seems not at all coincidental that he should be the target of such a disinformation campaign. The story is likely to unfold even further and I will try to keep VNN readers informed. In the meantime, I have learned a lesson that all of us ought to heed. For the struggle we wage against the anti-white, money-grubbing Judeo-oligarchy is one in which the stakes are literally of world-historical consequence. No measure, honorable or otherwise, is likely to be spared to silence and marginalize our already meager forces. As a consequence, we need to exert the greatest vigilance in ensuring that the loathsome tactics of our enemies do not rob us of the leaders, the ideas, and the critical spirit necessary to the success of our movement. In this vein, I will do my utmost not only to clear Faye of the unjust aspersions cast against his good name, but to make certain that all possible subsequent disinformation (which is bound to increase as we become more powerful) be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=890 |
28 januari 2007, 12:26 | #8 |
Banneling
Geregistreerd: 15 juni 2004
Berichten: 2.922
|
Bij dezen wil ik nog maar eens doorverwijzen naar het hoogst interessante boek "New Culture, New Right".
|
5 april 2007, 10:07 | #9 |
Banneling
Geregistreerd: 15 juni 2004
Berichten: 2.922
|
Hmmm....Eerst verspil ik een half uur aan het lezen van dat interview om er dan enkele posts laster achter te komen dat het desinformatie is.
Kan iemand een kwalitatieve bron geven waar de ECHTE ideeën van Faye worden uitgelegd? Ik heb veel goeds over de man gehoord, maar ben weinig bekend met zijn ideeën. |