The New Jewish Question

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 Rudolf 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

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…[7]

Notes

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.”