Guillaume Faye - The Colonisation of Europe

Many have attempted to dissuade me from writing this book, saying that it was bound to cause me a great deal of trouble. Calling things what they are is dangerous and must not be done, you see? I could have chosen to produce an unintelligible and pseudo-philosophical book, or one that is vaguely sociological on the topic of the compared virtues of assimilation, integration, and communitarianism. However, this bourgeois type of intellectualism is of no interest to me. Tackling essential questions, taking on the system, and accepting the role of rebellion and truthfulness is indeed a risky matter, but nonetheless, a fruitful endeavour. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn himself proclaimed in an interview for The Washington Post during his American exile, If the quill does not act as a dagger, it is worthless.

The dissidence wager is the most fertile one nowadays. It is rooted in radical thought, as I explained in my previous book, Archeofuturism . Its all about going back to the source of things while keeping ones distance from extremism and dealing with the major issues of the day. It is not a debate about the sex of the angels at a time when the barbarians kept Constantinople under siege. The major issue of our time, indeed the most visible and most striking one, the one that everyone is obviously afraid to speak about, a topic people only address through hints and whispers, concerns the colonisation that Europe is being subjected to at the hands of Maghrebian, African, and Asian peoples, while Islam strives to conquer European soil . This is not a political curiosity, but an overwhelming historic event without precedent in our European history, stretching as far back as memory permits. The first step is to take note of it and to raise peoples awareness of this important fact. Nevertheless, our purpose is not merely to admit its existence and yet remain idle-handed, but to reject it and trigger a debate on how to resist and reverse the trend.

This fatal process is naturally added to and combined with the cultural and strategic subjugation of Europe to the United States of America. In complete accordance with the views of Alexandre del Valle, I will presently attempt to demonstrate that it is beyond foolish to believe that Islamisation could ever protect us against Americanisation. Both of these deculturation processes go hand-in-hand, just as the ethnic chaos that threatens Europe serves the joint interests of Islamism and Americanism. Those who imagine, under the influence of subtle intellectualistic contortions, that Islam is better than Americanisation succumb to the serious mental disorders known as selflessness, renunciation of being, and historical amnesia. Those who embrace Islam under the pretext that it brings traditional anti-American values, and thus chooses one enemy over another, are in fact relinquishing their European identity and proving that they are powerless in finding the resources for rebirth within themselves. Why should we look for moral resources and roots in a profoundly foreign religion when, since the age of Homer, ours have been flooding the entire European civilisation?

It is now time to put the strategy of radical thought into practice, and urgently so. Our beds are burning. It is not a matter of giving sway to folklore, insulting others, nor of sinking into a state of hateful delirium or lowly racism, but a necessity to assert ourselves rigorously and with determination. It is also about defending the inalienable right of Europeans to remain true to themselves, a right that they have been denied, yet one that is granted to all the peoples of the world. It is a matter of resisting this evil that gnaws at us, this ethnomasochism , while simultaneously denouncing those who would disfigure Europe through resentment or revenge.

The time of metapolitical prudence is long gone. Without fallacies or puny betrayals, I always return to Nietzsche and his concept of philosophising with a hammer.

I write and fight for our youth, not only the young of age but also those of spirit, as I happen to know some elderly people aged 25 or 30. It is a question of urgency. Things must be said once and for all.

It is always convenient (and cowardly) to designate a false enemy in order to keep oneself out of trouble. If intellectuals, as part of sophistical contortions which have a surface glitter yet lack any intelligent substance whatsoever, refuse to state things as they are, and content themselves with abstract logorrhoea, it is above all due to their fear of being socially ostracised and to their submission to hegemonial ideology. Pinpointing the real enemy is how one walks the path of efficacy.