Review Of Guillaume Faye’s “The Colonisation Of Europe” by Julian Langness

Review Of Guillaume Faye’s “The Colonisation Of Europe” by Julian Langness
July 14, 2016 Admin

Editors Note: This article is by Julian Langness and was originally published on Counter-Currents on 07.13.2016.

Guillaume FayeThe Colonisation of Europe
London: Arktos, 2015

It is likely that many centuries hence, when the historic events which will have taken place in Europe in the first decades of this century are discussed and referenced, famous books will be associated with them. Just as today we cannot discuss the fall of Rome without invoking Gibbon, it is likely that other books will gain a similar stature and relevance in connection to our own civilizational upheaval. Guillaume Faye’s book The Colonization of Europe deserves such an honor. Originally published 16 years ago in French, and now re-published in English translation by Arktos, it is a courageous, passionate, and exhaustive catalog of that which has brought Europe to its current state, and a strongly worded evocation of what Europe’s future could (and must) look like.

Faye lays out his mission in the book’s opening paragraphs: provocation. Not for its own sake, but in the same way a doctor “prescribes surgery.” Faye lays out his thesis:

The major issue of our time, indeed the most visible and most striking one, the one that everyone is so 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 people’s 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.

The majority of the book’s pages are dedicated to outlining exactly how this process of colonization has arisen and what it looks like. In this regard it serves as a strenuously inclusive collection of every cause, effect, and implication associated with mass immigration in Europe.

Faye discusses the demographic factors of the crisis and their implications. Europeans, the book explains, have ceased having children. Their birthrates are woefully inadequate to ensure the continued robustness of their people. The predominantly Muslim immigrants, on the other hand, have very high birthrates, both in their native countries and once living in Europe. These issues of fertility mirror the overall dispositions of the respective groups, especially the Europeans.

These mainstream European behaviors and beliefs are the recipients of much of Faye’s most lashing criticism. He invokes pathological altruism: “The folly of Europeans is their taste for giving, a fact which is accounted for both by the ideology of Christian charity and by our own gullible nature, which knows no mistrust.” He attacks “the feminization of white males” and all the concomitant societal insanity that results from their weakness. On the other side of this is the “myth of Black hyper-virility,” purposely propagated and propagandized by the media and advertising industries.

All of this is labelled under one of Faye’s most memorable linguistic creations: “ethnomasochism,” which refers to the white self-hatred that has overtaken the West at the hands of its intellectual elites. Faye describes the religious nature these beliefs have taken on, and the rise of the French (and European) doctrine of “miscegenation as Supreme Value.”

Faye is equally blunt regarding the Muslim hordes invading Europe. He declares as obvious the fact that Islam is a violent and expansionist religion, and states that, “On the whole, the only time when Islam practices a policy of peace and apparent tolerance is when it is in a position of weakness and when its followers are in a minority.” He discusses the supreme horrors that lay in wait for Europeans forced into proximity to Muslims, paying particular attention to the plight of the French educational system. As Faye states in his chapter on it: “. . . when one resorts to permissive methods and applies them to populations with a delinquent tendency, in other words the kind of population which, culturally speaking, only understands the language of authoritarian power, the result can only be one of anarchy and disaster.” This expands to the entire realm of immigrant youth as a whole. Faye catalogues the massive criminality, extreme violence, and purposeful victimization of whites (the “white cheese” as the Arabs call the native French) engaged in by these youth. As he states, “They are very well aware of the fact that they are conducting an ethnic civil war and that their goal is to aggress against the indigenous peoples.”

The response of the multiculturalist mainstream bears little connection to reality however. As Faye explains, their limitless self-hatred and ideologically-driven guilt mean that any action by immigrants, no matter how horrible, can be explained by them as being caused by white racism. Faye takes aim at the Progressive narrative that: “Immigrants struggle only because of structural inequality and racism, they commit crimes and become terrorists because they are excluded, once they feel as though they belong they will become fully integrated.”

This obsession with race and “anti-racism” not only blinds the European mainstream to the problems brought on by non-white immigration but exacerbates them, Faye declares, stating “Obsessional anti-racism leads to racism.” It also ignores the very nature of human existence and reality, he argues. Europeans engage in a constant denial of “racial facts,” as he laments throughout the book, “. . . never in history has any extensive and integrating political affiliation managed to overcome anthropological and ethnic differences and establish a ‘harmonious politico-cultural mixture’.”

In trying to accomplish goals that so drastically fly in the face of reality, the European elites have engaged in a process of such recklessness, and created a state of affairs so terrible, that one is struck dumb by the full magnitude of the situation. Yet this section of the book — which accounts for the majority of its length — does not come off in a droning, depressive manner, as many political books do. Faye does an admirable job of avoiding getting stuck in the gory details. He mentions the specifics of several historically relevant rape cases, and surely communicates the barbarity of our opponents, yet his writing is too strong and deliberate to become unintentionally mired in such details. Therefore rather than anything dark or brooding, the book reads more like machine gun fire, as Faye hammers out point after point, example after example, to bring the reader to the appropriate conclusions. While it may merely serve as refresher to many reading this review (those already conscious of the full situation in Europe), it is still worth their time to read. I also believe it would be successful in educating an average mainstream reader to the realities at hand, as its unrelenting yet balanced tone conveys authority and rationality throughout.

But this summation of Europe’s predicament — which encompasses the first eight chapters of the book — eventually brings Faye to the present (as of the original publication date that is). From there he outlines various popular “solutions” — none of which he feels could succeed. They include everything from a continuation of the status quo; to the utopian notion of successful assimilation; to peacefully co-existing parallel societies within the same nation; to the idea of paying migrants to return home (as Norway has attempted to a small extent). Faye however, declares that these ideas are hopeless and misguided, and that this equation (Europe in its present incarnation) is one without an answer, and that only by inserting an additional variable into it can it be solved. To Faye, that variable is civil war.

Faye argues that Europe is the world’s “sick man,” beset by nihilism, demographic decay, cultural rot, and imminent Islamization. He argues that civil war (between native Europeans and Muslims, not between various European governments) is therefore necessary as the only thing that can restore a drive for life to native Europeans and give them a reason to act, as well as the only thing that can save Europe from being conquered by its Muslim invaders. Civil war, Faye declares, would spur Europeans on to a Reconquista, or “Reconquest” of their continent. As he states:

The fourth historical phase of European civilization commences today. It is certain to be the most tragic and riskiest of them all. It will be a chaotic stage involving Europe’s consolidation and the defence of its natural space; in other words, the Eurosiberian one. It will be a period of internal reconquest and liberation, or perhaps of disappearance. All civilizational concepts must be reassessed. The new European civilization will have to embrace the notions of isolationism, autarky, ethnocentrism, and global ethnic coherence without renouncing its own world politics in any way.

This proclamation of the need for civil war (which we will get into more below) is one of several ways in which Faye’s book predates much of what has become standard Identitarian or “far-Right” thinking. While belief in the imminence of civil war in Europe — and an attitude of welcoming to it — are held by many if not all of those who share our beliefs today, Faye’s discussion of these ideas almost two decades ago shows his remarkable prescience regarding the nature of Europe’s predicament.

Similarly evocative are Faye’s pointed arguments to the connected nature of multinational-corporatism (which he is more apt to define as “Americanism”), and radical Progressivism. In this regard the book reminded me of the writings of Jack Donovan, who has expounded at length on the unspoken alliance between these two forces (the “Empire of Nothing”). As Faye explains:

Despite their anti-Americanism, what the proponents of ‘the right to difference’ actually do is reproduce the American tribal model! They claim to be ‘anti-modern’, when the very characteristic of modernity is the dilution of social ties into classes, castes, racial groups, and isolated individuals under an overhanging Administrative State which lacks any historical roots and supervises the reign of consumerism. The current form of neo-totalitarianism seeks to emphasize heterogeneity (whether ethnic, sexual, or social) in favour of the despotic establishment of ideological, fiscal, judicial, and mediatic order. Supporting people’s ‘right to be different’ is synonymous with reinforcing the system. It is the epitome of false opposition and only serves to mimic rebellion.

Faye also voices grudging respect for our Muslim opponents throughout the book, matching my own sentiments and ones that others have articulated as well. He encourages Europeans to learn from the Muslims, and embrace their ideals of communitarian solidarity. He praises them for dedicating their lives to the future of their people, as opposed to the cheap enjoyments of short-term pleasure. “We must learn from the enemy” he states forcefully, and calls for Europeans to “become ethnocentric,” and “strive for a hierarchical society of social heterogeneity” through which we can successfully defend against the Muslims, for whom these traits serve as ramparts of successful defense and conquest.

But what conclusions can we make of all this 16 years later? When we compare Faye’s manifold descriptions and arguments about the Europe of the year 2000 to the Europe of today, what can we learn, and what can be said of the intervening years?

A cynic (especially a progressive one) might point to the fact that no civil war has yet taken place. Yet Faye did not make any chronological prediction of when such an outcome would happen. He instead predicted that it would come when there was a confluence of three events: 1) when security forces are no longer able to contain Muslim criminality and aggression; 2) when the Muslims become powerful enough that they start demanding and imposing concessions upon society and the government; and 3) when the economy begins to fall apart (likely under the weight of mass immigration/multiculturalism).

All three of these eventualities must be acknowledged to have grown closer in the years since Faye’s book was published. Interestingly, one can point to examples or near examples of each in various countries in Europe, but no country where all three have taken place.

It is also the case that events have become magnified in other ways. There has been the vast escalation of immigration popularly referred to as the “migrant” or “refugee” “crisis.” We have seen an exponential increase in the level (and brazenness) of immigrant-perpetrated rape of white women and children. Similarly the scale and number of terror attacks has grown dramatically. We have also seen a vast increase in the level of government suppression of “far-Right” speech and activity.

This last item leads to another point of debate. For what can be said regarding Faye’s call for a Reconquista? Certainly such hopes have not come to fruition. Yet the situation is not that simple. We have in fact seen a monumental rise of such energy and advocacy. Groups like PEGIDA have forced their way onto the European stage, raucously and continually demanding a stop to Europe’s colonization. In Faye’s native France, we have seen the rise of Generation Identitaire and the Front National (the National Front). Parties similar to the National Front fight for electoral change across the continent (though unsuccessfully). Closer to home, we see the ascendancy of the New Right/Alt-Right and the rise of alternative media (of which Arktos itself is an example). In addition, countless normal Europeans are awakened to the reality of the situation every day.

Yet as noted above, all of this has failed to account for any shift in policy or governance in Western Europe regarding these issues. There has been no any deviation from its suicidal path, and this is for one reason. The mainstream political parties which hold dominion over it continue undeterred in their massive importation of Muslims, suppress or imprison all those who engage in dissent, and use all means at their disposal (legal and otherwise) to prevent the rise of right-wing political parties.

All of this points to the second conclusion we can make, which is that at this point in time Europeans very clearly have two enemies, rather than just one. While at some points in the book Faye conflates the people of Europe with their governments — combining both under the word “we” — it is clear today that the governments of Western Europe stand in full opposition to the interests of their native citizens. These governments and their leaders are hell-bent on bringing in tens of millions more immigrants, and swamping the continent in a massive Islamic wave. As there is nothing Europeans can do about their Muslim opponents while this continues, these governments’ behavior delineates them as the immediate (and therefore primary) enemy.

As Faye states: “The path that leads from ethnopluralism to ethnomasochism and from ethnomasochism to ethnotreason is a very short one.” Yet I wonder if even Faye could have imagined the depths to which Western Europe’s leaders have descended, as they cover up the mass-rape of their nations’ women and children, parry terrorism with apologies, and march headlong into a catastrophe of never-before-seen proportions.

Surely Faye’s civil war will come at some point no matter what. By the time Muslims make up 80% of the population, can any of us imagine native Europeans living with them free and unmolested? Faye hopes for the war’s arrival — indeed beseeches it: “Arise, oh ye desired storms!” He argues that when these storms come, the “thunderbolts of Zeus and the hammers of Thor” will rain down upon the Mosques of Europe. Those thunderbolts and hammers will be the energy and aggression of the awakened native Europeans. Such events must come to pass sooner rather than later for Europe’s peoples and lands to have a future, but with millions more Muslims being imported into Europe every year by its fanatic elites, is not the final conclusion we can draw from Faye’s book, 16 years on, obvious? It seems that if Faye’s civil war and a Reconquista become reality, and the hammers of Thor and the thunderbolts of Zeus do rain down, sent forth by European hands, they may end the war aiming at Mosques, but must start with their traitorous governments.


Editors Note: If you liked this article and have not yet read Fistfights With Muslims In Europe: One Man’s Journey Through Modernity, you can buy it on Amazon here, or email us to get a free ebook and free signed physical copy in exchange for writing a review. The more people who read the book the more who are awakened to the situation in Europe, and the greater our people’s chances for victory.

Comments (8)

  1. Death to traitors and cowardz 1 year ago

    Great review.

    I agree with the conclusion especially. We must begin with the traitors. We must clean out our filthy homes before we even think about tidying up the gardens.

    • Author
      Admin 1 year ago

      Appreciate the comment! Indeed the garden is stemming from the home and I could not agree with you more.

      I believe that once the home is swept the garden will follow organically. The word becomes flesh, and there is no way a united Native European government of any Western European country could not end up dealing with their Muslim population naturally as a result.

      Appreciate the comment and hope you leave more in the future!

  2. Lynda 1 year ago

    The African, Asian and Muslim peoples are not colonising Europe. The White ethnostates of Europe were already colonised by the Judaic Supremacy through the original proxies – the Revolutionary traitor class of the secret societies. These same classes form middle-management today as the political, military, financial, academic, church and media elites. They all serve the Judaic Supremacy.

    The peoples who are being migrated in are to make the large demographics of the White ethnic more managable and to assist the Overlords to hold onto and consolidate power on their plantations. The White demographic must become diluted because as long as it remains a majority demographic on native soil, it can always reorganise even after centuries of colonisation.

    • British Free Corps 1 year ago

      Nail on the head…
      These Africans and Arabs swarming in seem to have the same traits as the communist Bolsheviks a century ago.

      Compare this 2016…
      To this 1939!

      This same behaviour to me is just TOO MUCH of a coincidence. That an ideology which displays same trends regardless of race, culture or the passing of time shows the same entity behind them is axiomatic. If any other (nonwhite) country was undergoing ethnic and racial cleansing it would be an international outrage and called Genocide. However in the UK and Europe, where that is exactly what is happening, it’s called ‘progress’.
      Progressive, Cultural Marxism, Bolshevism, Communism and Feminism are ALL ideologies peddled by very dirty carpet-bagging Jews, as are their affiliated groups e.g LGBT, Black lives matter, ISIS, Antifa, Hope Not Hate etc.
      When we strong Europeans get off our collective backsides and start forming powerful, formidable groups (which we already slowly are) not content to just protest and be slandered, but march with dignity and when a smelly cloud of leftist trash turns up to ‘counter’ it, ASSERT OUR RIGHT TO EXIST WITH AS MUCH VIOLENCE AS THEY HAVE SUBJECTED US TO FOR SO LONG.

      Hail Victory

      • Author
        Admin 1 year ago

        There is no doubt this “Migrant Crisis” absolutely does represent an intentionally orchestrated colonization and slow genocide. I believe our descendants (shall we ensure their survival and freedom) will read about it as such in the history books.

        British Free Corp- I agree that we are (slowly) starting to do this (forming formidable groups I mean). I am hoping it picks up steam. This issue is something I plan on writing more about if you have any ideas you want to share on ways it can be accomplished.

        Lynda- I believe you are absolutely right in your description of the end goal of their behavior: to stop our native people’s re-organization along tribal lines. The average “Counter-Jihadi” or even average European “far-right” member probably wouldn’t even phrase it like that, but it is absolutely the case. Anything that reeks of native Europeans organizing along tribal lines is always that which they jump up to attack the quickest and most violently. Dilution is indeed the name of the game.

        Appreciate your guys’ comments immensely!

        • Author
          Admin 1 year ago

          Oh- and yes Lynda I was tempted to point out that in the book Faye does not spend any (I don’t believe) time analyzing the root causes of Western European Suicidalism/Ethnomasochism/Etc. Certainly that is an area that could have birthed many pages of material had he desired to go there.

  3. British Free Corps 1 year ago

    I have many ideas taking shape, developed from my own personal experiences for example effective propaganda (main rule all effective propaganda has to be true to retain credibility) and to persuade people to start to listen to you, (ironically the effects of ‘progressive socialism’ are proving an effective catalyst as everyone can see with their own eyes the so-called paradise of total ‘equality’) I am with several employment agencies, working in lots of different factories as a forklift truck driver. In this working environment I have approached cautiously, at first, this issue and was really suprised just how many British and European colleauges were nationalist, even ultra-nationalist. Also, I have been doing the same casual gauging of public opinion in any pubs, bars and clubs, same result. Not just middle to old age but young also. Patience is running out, lads who only talked about how many fit birds they shagged or how many fights they have had are talking-fucking-POLITICS! I’ve wrote lots of papers on various things and just need to put them into a coherent format and outline my views solidly. This I believe is a must. There is, say, no point in attacking Islamic ideology with leftist rhetoric like ‘persecuted gays’ or ‘feminism’ (looked at a good website about this, the red-green alliance sums this up quite well) when those elements are also poisonous to our society. It is a complete divorce from the ‘left’ that is required. Anyone organizing a group write a paper outlining your core beliefs, provide an explanation of them so as to answer as many questions the reader may have, or listener if demonstration is oral. I believe your movement must have a solid ideological core around which your whole group revolve.
    A Standard or flag and name are of course as first and formost as your movement’s aims and message.
    Discipline is also vital. No infighting. The stronger your convictions and how your movement asserts themselves will gain the respect of people you face. Also a uniform or dress code for people who become your movement. Not out of a desire to tell people what to do, but because of solidarity, belonging and the impact this has on joe public. If mr citizen is aligned towards your views or on the fence, the uniform will impress, as it shows a discplined mass with strength and purpose as opposed to a dis-organized throng of individuals. Those on the left- the unwashed rabble of students, identity groups and the like cannot join in this way because of their this is ‘me’ and ‘I’m
    so important’ mentality is so diverse in the groups that make up this collective ‘left’ that they would just implode. Another powerful element to a uniform is intimidation of the latter, particularly if your activism takes to the streets. Even a 20 strong movement, flash demonstrations, quick speech, out of the blue and often, just appearing disciplined, carrying your
    banner, marching two-abreast I believe that 20 would soon become 50, then 100, 200. 500…. The 20 though at first must stand by to defend, and fight any who try to assault you or shut you up. Have a badge or armband what has to be earned by them to wear, not just pay a few quid for, but real merit. It would take courage for a small group (because you WILL be persecuted in some form) to stand and be willing to fight for their cause. Although your group must have more than fighters, as intellectual and spiritual elements are equally as important. Soften up your town with propaganda, leafles and posters and the like especially if your movement is for the moment just 3 people, 2 or even just you! Do
    not just give up and concede defeat without trying, or wait and hope someone else will stand up. BE that someone else that many others like you are waiting for!
    ‘If you want to shine like the sun, first you have to burn like it’
    ~Adolf Hitler

    I have much more this is just a quick explanation of some of my ideas and methods but it is far too much to go into real detail here. Hope this helps or gives hope to at least one person
    Hail Victory

    • Author
      Admin 1 year ago

      Hey British Free Corps-

      This response is a bit delayed but there were several things in your comment I agreed with and wanted to respond to! Hopefully you will see it.

      First of all I derive great hope from your comments about men you work with and talk with opening their hearts to nationalism and defense. Hopeful stuff indeed!

      I agree that infighting has been the scourge of many Preservationist/Resistance organizations. That is what has particularly saddenned me regarding many of the British/UK ones. It seems like every time I would hear an interview with the EDL or Britain First or any of those groups they would be ragging on the others or more often other groups within the same group. Especially when they would call each other ‘racist’ it just lost them all credibility in my mind. That is a perfect example of not trying to fight for European-Preservation from within the perspective of the left, as you said in your comment.

      I also agree that a dress code or at least general guidelines in that direction are helpful.

      Anyway just wanted to respond and I appreciate you commenting please keep doing so!

      Hail Victory

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *