In seeing the response to their attacks, the jihadists should have laughed well: a parade of sheep never impresses the wolves.

This interview with Alain de Benoist was posted in French on 18 January 2015, on the Boulevard Voltaire Website. Nicolas Gauthier was the interviewer. It was translated by Eugene Montsalvat.

About four million people marched after the attacks, for a journal that hardly sold 30,000 copies. That’s an event in itself. Was it a great moment of national communion or collective psychosis?

The demonstrations would have had some meaning if they were limited to expressing the rejection of terrorism by the French people in a solemn fashion. Organised by the government and the political parties, they were transformed into an immense wave of identification with the victims symbolised by the slogan ‘Je suis Charlie‘, promulgated in an Orwellian manner as the new word of ‘republican’ order. Since then, it is no longer used to condemn the attacks and the murders, but to identify with the ‘values’ of Charlie Hebdo, that is to say with the culture of blasphemy and derision.

During the demonstrations and the days that followed, in a France plunged into a state of thoughtlessness and petty moralising, we have seen it all. The bells of Notre Dame de Paris tolled for the priest-bashers. ‘National unity’ without the National Front. ‘Freedom of expression’ reduced to the right to blasphemy and the arrest of Dieudonné. It is that of caricaturists who are dependent on the right people (Muhammad sodomising a pig: how funny! Christiane Taubira as a monkey [Taubira is the current French Minister of Justice, and is Black-Ed.]: intolerable!). Battalions of the heads of state (two times the G20!) sang the praises of a title that they had never heard spoken of eight days earlier. Millions of zombies rushed to the kiosks to buy it, like the latest smartphone, a journal that they had never had the curiosity to open for eight years. The ‘Je suis Charlie‘ badge succeeded the AIDS ribbon and the little hand of ‘Don’t touch my buddy’ [a French anti-racist slogan-Ed.]. Surrealist spectacle! Everyone is nice, everyone is Charlie, in the great Western hospice transformed into a nursery. The editors of Charlie Hebdo, who didn’t want anything but ‘consensual’, would have been the first ones to be awestruck to see themselves thus canonised. As for the jihadists, they should have laughed well: a parade of sheep never impresses the wolves.

These corteges, could they be put on the same level as the Gaullist march on the Champs-Élysées in 1968, the marches against Jean-Marie Le Pen in 2002, or the surge of the Manif pour tous?

I don’t believe so. For Valls and Hollande, the demonstration had at least six objectives: to marginalize the National Front and neutralize the Union for a Popular Movement (which obviously fell into the trap headfirst) in the name of the ‘sacred union’; rally the French around a discredited political governing class; justify the engagement of France in a new Iraq war where it has no business; put in place a European police regime where we know in advance that it’s not solely the Islamists who will be monitored (Manuel Valls affirmed without laughing that the ‘exceptional measures’ he is ready to take will not be measures of the state of exception!); make believe that the terrorism that confronts us today has more to do with the Middle East than with immigration and the situation in the suburbs; and, ultimately, to persuade us that, ‘faced with terrorism’, France, the faithful vassal of the American caliphate, can only be the the ally of the Western countries that never cease to encourage Islamism, all by drowning their errors and their crimes behind the curtain of smoke of the ‘clash of civilisations’ (Putin was not invited, of course!). We are forced to recognise that these objectives have been achieved.

I am guilty, in a preceding interview, of speaking out of spontaneous reactions. That to which the journalists of Charlie Hebdo were entitled – but not the unfortunate French hostage Hervé Gourdel, who was decapitated in Algeria three months ago – have in reality taken the form of social and media injunctions, the grand postmodern fabric of affects and emotions. It would take an entire book to analyse in detail this masterstroke that permitted, in the space of a few hours, the recovery of popular anger for the benefit of a ‘republican’ adhesion to the dominant ideology of a ‘national union’, above all destined to redress the falling popularity of the head of state. The political governing class thus appears to be the principal beneficiary of the legitimate emotion aroused by the attacks.

We noted in these last days a recurrence of anti-Muslim attacks (attacks against mosques, etc.). Does this surprise you?

It particularly surprises me that the attacks are carried out for this reason: to stimulate an Islamophobia that the jihadists consider as a privileged ‘vector of radicalisation’. Islamist terrorists adore Islamophobes. They wish there were always more. They know that the more the Muslims feel rejected by non-Muslims, the more they can hope to persuade and radicalise them. The jihadists assure them that they represent the ‘true Islam’; the Islamophobes give them a rationale by saying there is no difference between Islam and Islamism. That the first commit the attacks while the second would rather take pleasure in seeing them multiply their pogroms against those who ‘reject the Western way of life’ (the nice, globalised way of life of submissive consumption) changes nothing. The Islamophobes are the useful idiots of radical Islamism. In the epoch of the Algerian War, that I knew, we didn’t complain that the Harkis [Algerian volunteers who fought in the French Army-Ed.] were Muslims, and we were not astonished that they had mosques in the French provinces of Alger, Oran, and Constantine. For my part, I will not give the Islamist terrorists the gift of becoming an Islamophobe. And I will not harbor phantasms of the ‘Muslim France’, as Drumont harboured phantasms of a Jewish France (1885), by mechanically associating Islam and terror like others once associated the Jews and money.

On the Brink of the Abyss: The Imminent Bankruptcy of the Financial System

This book is a collection of essays written in response to the international financial crisis of 2008 and its aftereffects. The problem with most discussions of the crisis, Benoist notes, is that they focus on attempting to reform the present economic system in order to prevent such disasters from recurring. This is a mistake, he […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $22.50

Buy Now

Manifesto for a European Renaissance

This manifesto remains the only attempt to date by GRECE, the primary New Right organization in France, to summarize its principles and key concepts. It was written in 1999 by Alain de Benoist, GRECE’s founder, and Charles Champetier on the occasion of GRECE’s thirtieth anniversary. It offers a strong argument in favor of the right […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $9.75

Buy Now

The Problem of Democracy

The Problem of Democracy is the first of Alain de Benoist’s book-length political works to appear in English. It presents the complexity and depth which underlies all of de Benoist’s work and which is often neglected by those who seek to dismiss him by oversimplifying or distorting his arguments. De Benoist shows how democracy is, […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail

Price: $18.00

Buy Now

Beyond Human Rights

Beyond Human Rights is the second in an ongoing series of English translations of Alain de Benoist’s works to be published by Arktos. Alain de Benoist begins Beyond Human Rights with an examination of the origins of the concept of ‘human rights’ in European Antiquity, in which rights were defined in terms of the individual’s […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $19.50

Buy Now

About The Author

Profile photo of Alain de Benoist

Alain de Benoist is the leading thinker of the European ‘New Right’ movement, a school of political thought founded in France in 1968 with the establishment of GRECE (Research and Study Group for European Civilisation). To this day he remains its primary representative, even while rejecting the label ‘New Right’ for himself. An ethnopluralist defender of cultural uniqueness and integrity, he has argued for the right of Europeans to retain their identity in the face of multiculturalism, and he has opposed immigration, while still preferring the preservation of native cultures over the forced assimilation of immigrant groups. He has authored dozens of books and essays on topics such as immigration, religion, philosophy and political theory. In 1978, he received the Grand Prix de l'Essai from the Académie Française for his book Vu de droite [View from the Right].

  • Laguna Beach Fogey

    With peace, love, flowers, and fucking we will defeat Islam.

    Hail victory!

    • John Morgan

      Did you actually read what he said?

    • whatalife1

      Sounds good!!

  • Hard to distinguish from Hillary Clinton on that last point. The Christian and the liberal moralist always preaches against natural feelings, in this case against responding with hate to people who hate us. That’s only a trap in a magical world inhabited by God or “the Force” or high-mindeded liberal faith that everyone can be part of our culture. In the real world, it is a necessary step to liberation.

    • John Morgan

      I think Benoist has made it clear elsewhere that he’s not in favor of non-European immigration into Europe. I don’t think he is taking issue with hating our enemies (something he discussed in “Peace is a Fragile and Unnatural Thing”), his point is rather that this hate should be directed at the people who are actually attacking us rather than at Islam itself or particular ethnic groups as a whole.

      • EricStriker

        Some turn into neo-cons blinded to shades of gray, especially people from groups most terrified of Islamic violence (queers, liberals like Bill Maher and Dawkins, Jews, etc). Personally, I think Muslims attacking the aforementioned groups is a great thing, as these groups are more responsible for our races problems than Islam is. You can oppose counter-jihad and ultimately ANTI-WHITE (since it drags us into pointless wars where millions die) neo-con clash of civilizations discourse without supporting non-white immigration. This Geert Wilders act isn’t awakening anyone to anything, as the anti-thesis to Islam presented isn’t white self-assertion, it’s pluralistic, multi-racial rainbow liberalism protected by low IQ soccer thugs (EDL, for example).

        Muslims aren’t opening Europe’s borders. Muslims don’t control the media, or buy off our candidates, or force German children to be playing with their genitals in kindergartens. Muslims don’t promote the biggest war atrocity lie ever created (the Holocaust), and jail people who disagree.

        So why are we wasting 90% of our resources drawing mohammad getting fucked by a goat or whining about how Muslims treat fags and don’t like feminism? What do we gain out of this?

        The real solution is to support Arabs and muslims in their national liberation, and have good terms with them in order to facilitate future population transfers. The main reason the Islamic world hates France and America is simply because we’re always fucking bombing them or supporting their enemies.

        • Demography is Destiny

          Which national liberation do you mean? In most majority Muslim countries Muslims already constitute an (oppressive) master class and wherever the West tried to support popular movements against Arab dictators, the intervention went horribly wrong (Iraq & Libya).

          • EricStriker

            That’s a terrible argument because it assumes that any country run by a brown person who was born a Muslim means it is independent. Using that logic, most Western countries are free because our political master class/figureheads have white skin.

            National Liberation would mean breaking from the authentically oppressive Gulf Arab states and Israel, both who would not exist without American and European support. There was nothing wrong with Qaddaffi or Saddam, the movements against them weren’t “popular”, they were CIA fronts inciting coups for Israel’s benefit.

            In other words, our foreign policy should be like Russias, where we throw our lot in with the Iranians, and to a lesser extent, Palestinians and Houthis. That’s what I meant.

          • Ritter

            And in which way is it in European interests? What use Europe has of, let’s say, liberation of Kurds or Yemen shia muslims?

          • Manuel_Venator

            Of course, the invite them-invade them policy must stop. The same forces that are calling for open borders in Europe are the same that are out there to bomb Lybia, Syria etc. But: Arab and Muslim countries being “nationally liberated” from globalist politics doesn’t mean at all that they would automatically become our friends, and not support further Muslim colonialist style immigration to Europe (and hence conquest).

          • EricStriker

            They seemed pretty friendly during the Third Reich era. You operate on conservative assumptions that every single Muslim wants to colonize the West because they hate us for our freedom. Meanwhile, virtually every sober analyst out there (Michael Scheuer) and the Arabs themselves say that the only problem the Islamic world has with us is that we keep meddling in their region.

          • EricStriker

            Well the Kurds are irrelevant, but a prosperous, stable, and enlightened Middle East where the Shi’ites are the superpower without the Saudis or Israel means fewer people immigrating to the west. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why the overwhelming majority of the people flooding into Europe are Afghans, Iraqis, and Syrians.

        • Laguna Beach Fogey

          Targeting the Muslims infuriates the globalist elites and forces them to take sides. Against the West, that is. This will blow up in their face.

        • Catiline_Conspirator

          @paragraph 2,

          All true but insufficient. Muslims are beneficiaries of Jewish subversion. They are, and historically have been, perfectly capable and willing (even enthusiastic) collaborators with jews to the detriment of Europeans.

          Any grand anti-jew alliance involving us and Muslims needs to be a two-way street. Thus far it hasn’t been. Nor will it likely ever be.

          • EricStriker

            The United States and the European Union are a far bigger threat to the West and the white race than Islam has ever been. I think certain Muslims fighting by the side of whites in WW2 or the Grand Mufti throwing his lot in with the Aryan struggle is a pretty strong gesture of friendship. Not everyone who practices Islam is a Saudi Wahaabi or a neo-Ottomanist Turk.

            Muslims get more bad press than any other race or ethnic group because A) Jews allow and encourage whites to hate them B) they are visibly very different and smell funny. But when it comes to authentic threats, the religion of Islam matters as much as Catholicism matters in respects to the Mexican invasion of the USA.

          • Catiline_Conspirator

            Unholy alliances are common and predictable. Nothing remarkable here.

            Regarding point “A”, Muslims go out of their way to make it easy for jews to encourage hatred of them. Things aren’t as simple as you would have us believe Striker.

          • EricStriker

            The Arabs, by the way, could make this exact same argument about whites–that we are toadies for the Jews. And they wouldn’t be wrong, as many of us are.

            I don’t see what this has to do with the big picture however.

          • Catiline_Conspirator

            Historically, the balance between Arab and European collusion with jews to the detriment of one or the other is in favor of the Arabs. By a wide margin.

            Jewish animus to Islam is recent and largely incidental.

            You’ll notice there aren’t many Arab EricStrikers apologizing for Westerners the way you do for Arabs.

            The big picture is that we must be wary of both jews and Arabs. Not to complicated really.

          • EricStriker

            “You’ll notice there aren’t many Arab EricStrikers apologizing for Westerners the way you do for Arabs.”

            Actually, the Islamic world has constantly tried to reach out to dissidents , including WNs, in the West, and with the exception of David Duke and E. Michael Jones, they’ve mostly found crackpots or morons (not their fault) so they’ve somewhat given up. Even the costume Nazi Bill White had a gig with Iranian Press TV! Lol. Unfortunately, crass bigotry and contemporary infiltration of Jews and conservatives into our movement has understandably dissuaded them greatly in recent years, but attempts to reach out to the Left has left them equally as disappointed as it is even more Judaic.

            In Syria, the Syrian government hosted and met the Alliance for Peace and Freedom , which included delegates of NPD, Forza Nuova, and Golden Dawn not long ago. Open Nationalsocialists, some who practice Islam, are in a coalition with the Ba’athists there (SSNP) and they certainly are not against us (the racialist movement, not our imperialist Zionist government).

            To this date, the only statesman in the history of the world who has absolved the German people of the Holocaust and made issues at the UN for the freedom of Holocaust revisionists is the Iranian Ahmadinejad, and this policy still exists to a much lesser extent in Iran today. Even Jared Taylor won’t stand up for the rights of historians to question the blood libel against Germans.

            Johnson and the sissies basically admit they’re spreading sensationalism about Islam because it gets them traffic and they think they can steal the show from the neo-cons (yeah right). Yet, none of these pathological screeds misquoting the Quran and talking about how the entire Muslim world wants us all dead or enslaved have any tangible pro-white results (deporting/stemming the flow of non-white immigrants to the West) to show. They only make us sound more like the mainstream conservatives most people are sick of , and that’s not good.

          • EricStriker

            The first part is true, but Jewry is in a new phase today. The Jews have succeeded in globalizing liberal capitalism, and find any and all authoritarian personalities that could impede this to be frightening and in need of destruction. The Jews support ISIS and the Gulf states for short-term geopolitical reasons, but in the end, the goal they have in transplanting millions of Arabs into Europe isn’t to Islamicize it, it is to New York Cityize it.

            Arab Muslims in Europe are far better “integrated” than conservatives make you think. When I say integrated, I mean they have taken up the Judaic ethics of hedonism, crass materialism , and hypersexualization–all things Islam puts into dormancy to the furthest possible extent in races like Arabs that are far more susceptible to fall into these traps than even whites.

            Islam is great for non-whites, and pretty complete and interesting by Abrahamic religion standards. A white person visiting or living is safer walking the streets of Tehran or Dubai at night than Stockholm or London. I don’t see what attacking non-existent “Islamicization” of a disgusting cosmopolitan fag/liberal populated majority non-white district like Central Paris has to do with North African sexual assaults, purse snatchings, and drug dealing that they conduct against both whites and among themselves with no rhyme or reason.

          • Catiline_Conspirator

            Google “WHEN ISRAEL IS MIGHTY.”

    • EricStriker

      You paleo-cons have been working the anti-islam angle for like 15 years, promising the overton window is going to budge any minute, and so far your ilk have failed to deliver.

      Scumbags like Faye have only moved the overton window in one place: the WN space, and in favor of Jews/Israel. Mr Johnstein himself is a proud supporter of Israel, in fact, so take what Dr Greg prescribes with a grain of salt.

      • Manuel_Venator

        I wanted to answer to this, but then realized that you are a simply a major moron, if not worse.

        • EricStriker

          If you want to fight “Islam”, the US transexual army is always hiring. The IDF actually accepts Gentiles for front line positions so there’s another avenue you can take. But why do you have to bring your NewsMax baggage over here? I want to fight immigration and preserve our race, and attacking the Muslim religion from a pro-liberal stance has shown to be incapable of advancing this cause. The opposite, it sets us back and prevents us from talking about legitimate issues (Islam-influenced terrorist attacks aren’t even in the top 100 most dangerous aspects of living in San Bernadino, lol).

          This anti-Islam crusade is just as aimless and toothless as the post-war anti-communist one too many WN goofasses fell for back in the day. A distraction to keep your eyes off the real enemy (the Jew).

          • Catiline_Conspirator

            How about attacking Islam from a pro-rightist stance then?

            Last paragraph is partially-I would even say largely-true, but it misses some fine details.

            I like you Striker, but complexity and nuance are clearly not your forte.

          • EricStriker

            As an agnostic, I don’t deal with theological criticism of Islam. Outside of the fact that many (but by no means all or even most) immigrants living in Europe come from countries that practice Islam, I see it as just another world culture.

            Deep seated pathological hatred towards Islam is the exclusive realm of Jews, conservatives, and the Alt-Right gay lobby (Dr Greg’s Counter-Currents). I’ve read the Koran, met many types of Muslims, spoken to whites who have converted to Islam, and have the opinion that Islam is probably the most ethical, masculine, and reasonable of all the Abrahamic religions, even if not my cup of tea personally (Buddhism makes the most sense in my view).

            In the end, a country like Iran (one of the only countries that practice Islamic jurisprudence in the entire Muslim world) doesn’t look radically different from what we Nationalsocialists want for our own people, in spite of the traditions and rituals being different. Both Islam and NS share what Jews call “authoritarian personalities”, IE, we gain our strength from self-restraint and making the worldly secondary to idealism. Without Islam, shit holes full of racial refuse like Pakistan would be even more volatile and less civilized. 68 IQ Somalia has been without a government for years until an Islamic council of negroes brought back some modicum of law and order, and the black Muslims in America are safer to be around than the Methodist ones.

            When the vast majority of Muslims in Europe are either nominal in their faith, or outright irreligious, the discourse about the Islamic conspiracy to take away our freedumb Sean Hannity and Pam Gellar promote begins to look pretty moronic. What reason do people have to go on websites like Counter-Currents if Dr Greg is just going to rehash what you can get on TV from Jews without any taboo?

            While lots of cameras fixate on probable government informants like Anjem Choudary and his protests and paleo-cons think they can make a sneaky case based on this, in the end these people are a fringe minority Muslim equivalent of Creators or Christian Identity adherents, and most whites know this.

            If you read Dr Gregs stuff on Islam, he actually calls for a future white state to support every entity on earth that is fighting Muslims, including those outside of the West. Beware of kooks and queers letting their personal hangups cloud their ideology, if not it’ll just be neo-cons all over again.

          • Catiline_Conspirator

            You can attack Islam without being theological.

            Much of what you say of Islam can be said of Judaism. I reject both. You however are a slave to your single-dimensional obsession.

            Johnson’s position on Islam is not above criticism, but calling him a kook and a queer is infantile and in poor taste.

          • heraclitus

            “Alt-Right gay lobby”

          • heraclitus

            “and have the opinion that Islam is probably the most ethical, masculine,
            and reasonable of all the Abrahamic religions, even if not my cup of
            tea personally (Buddhism makes the most sense in my view).”

            Christianity is the best religion hands down,

        • Striker is obviously trying to recruit people who are dumber than him. If there are people who are dumber than him.

          • EricStriker

            Why don’t you answer the question Dr greg? You basically endorse Israel and base your position on Islam entirely on narratives invented by Jews like Bat Ye’or and queer coffee shop French intellectuals.

            We need to have our own point of view, one that supports universal nationalism and anti-imperialism. There’s nothing wrong with Islam per se (outside of Wahaabism and Salafism, which will go away once the US government and Israel stop sponsoring Saudi Arabia), and there’s a lot to learn from groups like Hezbollah, who unlike the “North American New right”, are actual effective vehicles for national revolution standing off against the NWO.

            One could even argue that the Iranian system today is more Aryan in its structure (Plato’s republic) than anything in Europe or the West. Pretending these people are our enemy when Iran is the sole country where figures like David Duke and E. Michael Jones are greeted as guests of honor is a gross mistake.

          • heraclitus

            persians are one thing, but arabs are another, and I’m always the first to say that arab christians are fairly jewy too. What you’re saying is only completely true for Iran. Iran was the center Islamic learning after all.

            Salafism has existed since the 18th century.Saudi Arabia doesn’t have judeo-liberalism, and yet it is a hotbed of latent faggotry.

            “stop imposing Judeo-liberalism on them, and to stop bombing them.”

            This deserves an upvote. Removing ZOG should be our top priority

      • machiaevil

        Kohnson is not a paleo-con. That goes to people like Buchanan that deserve respect. Kohnson is fully NRO type neocon/Daily Beast liberal who happens to have some racial views.

        • EricStriker

          Faggots turn into neo-con hawks when it comes to perceived threats (to their access to nubile young men) like Putin’s Russia or the Islamic world in general.

    • machiaevil

      You’re total moron and the least equipped to even talk about someone like Benoist. It’s hard to distinguish between Greg Kohnson and the values identified with Charlie Hebrew and their Judaeo-liberal sponors like BHL, Soros and despicable Western liberal regimes

  • Ritter

    In answers to the first and second question, de Benoist shows high ability for political analysis, but the third was not lucky for him. Can anyone explain why should any European not willing to live in multicultural distopia wish for his muslim neighbours to be integrated part of his society?

    What Islamism is doing right now is that it’s helping Europeans unaware of their ancestral heritage to clearly distinguish their own values and identity from those of global ‘Umma’. In fact, Islamism is boosting identiterian potentials on the European continent. Having that in mind, could we rather say that islamists are “the useful idiots” of ‘islamophobes’?

    And whose useful idiots are those that – while ethnic substition in Europe is slowly gaining momentum – stubbornly advocate peaceful co-existence with muslims on our continent?

    • Benoist has given up on the idea of repatriating non-whites, if he ever believed it in the first place. His hope is that the French can live alongside Muslims within France, perhaps by becoming a bit more ethnocentric. But not so ethnocentric that they think of having their own country again!

      Benoist wants to preserve the status quo, in which there is a center of people who distinguish between good and bad Muslims. If that center holds, it spells slow death for France through ethnic displacement and dhimmitude. The only hope for France, and Europe as a whole, is for Islamists and “Islamophobes” (i.e., people who understand the true nature of Islam) to continue agitating their communities until tensions rise and the middle disappears. Then and only then will Europeans be able to rid themselves of non-white colonizers.

      • Irving

        To present this as a choice between peaceful repatriation and civil war/ethnic cleansing is dishonest. You know that France is never going to be able to repatriate every single non-white in the country peacefully. According to Wikipedia, we’re talking about 15 percent of a total population of 60 million, which makes about 9 million nonwhites, although the real number is most likely higher. The reason why mass immigration could have happened in the first place is because the immigrants wanted to live in France and their countries of origin were more than happy to allow them to leave. But these 9 million non-whites are not going to want to leave and their countries are not going to want to accept them. The only way around the inevitable resistance to repatriation would be to buy the cooperation of both the non-whites and their countries of origin with large sums of money, but the amount of money required will have to be so large that France, which is already broke, would be bankrupted. And this is assuming that the French would be willing to pay it to begin with, but we all know that the ones willing to pay won’t be capable of paying and the ones capable of paying won’t be willing to pay.

        Benoist knows that the one alternative to the French making their peace with the continuous presence of a non-trivial number of nonwhites in their country into the foreseeable future is race war. If he thought that peaceful repatriation were possible, he, like every French person, would clearly choose that; but he doesn’t, and so he hasn’t. Benoist may well be wrong — race war may well be desirable and necessary — but it isn’t right to say that he has taken the position that he has taken because he somehow supports the status quo. The real issue is that he thinks that a race war would be worse than the status quo. The onus is on you to prove that he is wrong, because the position he has taken is certainly a reasonable one.

        • It has never been easier to move large numbers of people around. The only question is political will. If France wanted to rid itself of 9 million non-whites, she could do it. Begin by finding everyone who is there illegally and deport them. Send their families with them. Those who are involved in criminal activities could also be arrested and deported. It would be cheaper to pay the Algerians and Moroccans to jail them than to jail them in France. Beyond that, Algerian descended Muslims in France have Algerian citizenship. Algeria could not refuse them entry. If other countries do not cooperate, France could simply force their hands. The idea that France could not afford to get rid of a vast population of people who are a net burden on the state and economy of France is absurd. France cannot afford to keep these people. And there are things that are more important than money, such as securing a future for one’s nation. I wrote an article on ethnic cleansing that you should consult: French translation:

          • Irving

            Those 9 million nonwhites are French citizens. And frankly, it seems likely that the actual number of nonwhite French citizens is higher than 9 million. Sure, the illegal immigrants can be gotten rid of easily. But then I was talking about the ones who are French citizens. These nonwhites will understand any attempt to strip them of their citizenship in order to repatriate them to their countries of origin against their will as an act of aggression against them, and they will be absolutely right to. They will not go quietly or non-violently, let alone voluntarily.

            As far as Algeria is concerned, they would have every right to refuse to accept the Algerians that France would try to repatriate. After all, if France has the right to strip people of their citizenship, so does Algeria, and that is what they will do to the Algerians of France so as to not have to accept them. And the idea that France is in a position to force the hands of the Algerians, or the hands of any other country, is absurd. America will simply intervene to force France’s hand, and make it halt its attempt to peaceably deport its nonwhites. Or else, the countries simply won’t yield to the pressure. Countries like Algeria aren’t wealthy enough to accept millions of mostly unskilled, largely low-IQ people into their country without being economically destroyed, and they know that. And so they will be prepared to fight. The only thing that France could do at that point would be to threaten a nuclear strike, but if it got to this point France will be fighting a race war, thus confirming what I said in my previous post.

            Finally, the proposition that nonwhites are a net burden on the French economy is disputable to say the least. Nevertheless, even if they were, that wouldn’t change the fact that the amount of money that would have to be spent in order to make their repatriation peaceable would bankrupt the French economy. Even if the French were able to pay it, it isn’t clear that they would be willing to. Race war would be the far more economical path to take.

          • OK, you’ve convinced me. Race war it is.

          • Irving

            I’m skeptical that you needed convincing. You’re spoiling for a race war to break out all across Europe and North America, and probably have been for a long time.

          • Ritter

            What is disputable with the attitudes Alain de Benoist is expressing in his interviews, articles and lectures are not the solutions he is proposing to solve the problem of islamic invasion of Europe (because he is not proposing any), but his unwillingness to recognize the problem as such. The horrible fact that we are now witnessing is that ethnic substitution is slowly gaining place in Europe, and we simply must find some viable solution to this problem. Peaceful co-existence with hostile ethno-confessional groups while they are steadily becoming majority on our own land is obviously not the solution.

          • Manuel_Venator

            Also, his take on Islam, and the role it plays within the substitution process is simply wrong.

          • Irving

            Benoist has never denied that there is a problem. He recognizes that there is a problem and pretty much all of his writings are in one way or another dedicated to addressing that problem. The only thing is that he seems to think that a race war, which is what Greg Johnson and people like him are proposing, is not a viable solution to that problem. Say what you want about that position, but you’re going to have to give a reasoned explanation as to why that position is wrong, and why race war is the better way to go.

          • John Morgan

            Also, regardless of the issue of whether a race war is viable or not (it isn’t, by the way; Europe is completely unprepared for such a conflict on its own soil, and were it to occur the outcome would most likely not be what the counterjihadists desire), the fact is that it can’t happen. Even the most radical Right-wing parties in Europe who have a shot at taking power would never sanction such a thing, and while many Europeans are getting frustrated with immigration I wouldn’t say that the mood of the masses is moving toward all-out war. No European military officer corps would countenance such a war, and the vast majority of European civilians have been disarmed by their governments, so how such a war would be fought is a bit of a mystery to me.

          • Irving

            I agree that a race war unlikely, though I wouldn’t rule it out completely.

            I can imagine a scenario in which a small conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, which would take place at the local level–say, in Marseilles — and might not even map closely onto racial divisions (i.e. I can imagine that there are a few Frenchified, Christian blacks that would participate in a fight against Muslims), escalating into a national conflict Muslims and non-Muslims, and then escalating further as positions harden, things spiral out of control and people start thinking along racial lines, with blacks pitted against Arabs, Arabs against whites, whites against blacks and so on.

            Anyway, I frankly think that a race war would destroy Europe, probably for good. I was trying to make this clear to Greg Johnson, who seems to think that you can just move people around as if they’re pieces on a chess board. If they don’t like where it is that you’re trying to send them to, they’re going to resist. And whatever it is that people like him think about Muslims or nonwhites, they are certainly capable of fighting back when they feel threatened. And, just imagine suicide bombers blowing themselves up every other hour on the buses and metros, churches and mosques being torched, people massacring each other in the streets — it is insane for people to think that this sort of thing is what is going to save the white race.

          • John Morgan

            Yes, that was the main point I wanted to make – if, theoretically, an actual race war were to break out in Europe, it would be unlikely to go in Europe’s favor. Even if the Europeans managed to win in the end, Europe as we know it would be destroyed, as you said.

          • MaxStirner

            Agreed. I’m also not happy about him calling those who are concerned about the spread of Islam in Europe (i.e. islamophobes) idiots.

      • Lawrence

        Its great when somebody cuts through the haze of words, and tell it like it is. Having a peaceful repatriation, by making a life in ones rooted history and land as obsessive for the stranger as for the european, is a complimentary effort. A lot of young muslims long for the same rooted experience as the young europeans, they long for true home as we do. Hence the reawakening islam and garbs and all. So as we get more and more succesful in bringing this vision alive in the imagination of the young europeans, we will have to paint it as as attractive for the muslims. It can be done, the seed is there already.

  • Demography is Destiny

    In hindsight, it is clear that the “Je suis Charlie diversion” which the French establishment happily embraced to disperse the anger of the French people remained a one-off stunt. After the massacre on the Bataclan hardly any mass demonstrations worth the name took place; on too many French it had dawned that you cannot win the war against Islamic terror only with a candle in your hand and a Bob Dylan song on your lips.

    France has been subjected in the last three years to a series of low- and high profile terror attacks that make it virtually impossible for the elite to prevent the discourse spilling over to its root causes, the twin ideologies of multiculturalism and immigrationism.

  • Pingback: Islamophobes are the Useful Idiots of Radical Islam | Alain de Benoist | The Fourth Revolutionary War()

  • Manuel_Venator

    Benoist has been harbouring “liberal” illusions about Islam for years now, I think partly (and somewhat paradoxically) because of his view of the Islamic world as a major culture clash force opposing US imperalism/globalism. It particulary pains me to see a man like him use stupid leftist propaganda vocabulary like “islamophobia” without any reservations. Once you let a catchword like that infect you, it’s an intellectual slippery slope.

    That last sentence “For my part, I will not give the Islamist terrorists the gift of becoming an Islamophobe” reminds me eerily of that Frenchman Antoine Leiris whose wife was killed on November 13th, and who said “I will not give you the gift of hating”. No comment on that, really, as Benoist himself said that the French obviously don’t understand anymore what war is.

    He makes another mistake, which indeed also many make whom he would probably call “islamophobes”: “Muslim France” won’t happen primarily by Islamic terror, which in fact isn’t the biggest issue at all, but simply by demographic replacement, and Islam is nothing but a major fuel to that process which increases its dynamics in a way that cannot be underestimated, as it is a huge cohesive factor the ethnic groups replacing the Frenchmen, and by now in a stage of a quite aggressiv Kulturkampf. (The comparison with Drummond is off the point; D. never thought that a “France juive” would mean ethnic replacement of Frenchmen by Hebrews, but rather a Jewish domination of France by financial and political power).

    Many Muslim preachers are aware of that, as for example this very popular Egyptian one:

    There is no need for terrorism to make Europe islamic. Terrorism is just the bloody bitter cherry on a much bigger cake, which by is now “est un bloc”: mass immigration and islamization are one and the same thing; people who fear one will always fear the other, and they have good reasons to do so. There is no need for terrorism to make people “islamophobic” – daily life alongside replacing, ethnocentric, alien, religious Muslims is enough.

    It is absurd to talk about Harkis as if he was living in the France of the early 1960s. That is the very same mistake those liberals make who think “integration” is the magic solution to all problems. The concept of “integration” becomes useless and pointless if there is not a strong, self-conscious majority around one can oneself integrate to, which is not the case anymore in France, and it will get worse in the future. And Islamic creed and culture itself have proven in the past and present as factors that are extremely resistant against “integration”. I don’t know how Benoist can be so blind to these facts. Just because he happens to have some Muslim/Arab friends who also happen to be French patriots?

    • machiaevil

      There is nothing liberal about Beonoist’s stance or use of the term, something that can’t be said for the Charlie Hebrew apologists.

  • @Gregg Johnson etc

    How is it that the so-called racialists discuss Islam as a “Race”?

    Do you not even take your own doctrine seriously?

    • Lawrence

      Flesh and spirit goes together, its two parts of a whole. and The flesh and spirit expresses itself outwardly in different ways in accordance with this soul, genetic material and collective memory. Islam is the spiritual manifestation and expression of a different race. The arabic. Like the merchant ideals are non-aryan. They are both un-european and thus anti european when they are imposing themselves on the continent.

      You can not have a Europe without the european dna inhabiting it. But you can not have europeans if they are not inhabited by the european soul.

      • EricStriker

        If Islam is the expression of a different race, then so is distinctly oriental Christianity.

        In truth, Islam takes on the characteristics of the culture that takes it in, just like Christianity. Hence why Indonesian , Somali, Pakistani, Russian, and Iranian Islam are all vastly and radically different from one another.

        If anything, Islam overlaps with the folk/organic religions of the Vikings and other early European tribes far more than Christianity ever will. Islam was heavily influenced by the Indo-European Persians.

        • Lawrence

          Although christianity is a different animal completely from viking religion, the way it was implemented was more in tune with viking attitudes, in that it was a violent affair. And thus, from the outset, christianity in the north was germanized to a great extend. In Denmark, we still call christmas Yule, and the whole celebration is more an amalgation of old, native customs with christianity, than a christ-mess, which it could be said to actually be in latin or slavic Europe. Woden/Odin lives on in the “yule-man”, as santa is called here:
          I recommend The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation by James C. Russell, to weigh in on the claim that the north is uprooted completed, rather than having uprooted christianity to a great degree.

          The christian church in Denmark functions today more in line with the old pegan traditions, where the religion served a more spiritual and mythic ritualistic framework, than as laws and doctrines like the monotheisms. And Islam is at the moment the most detail and behavior-instructing of the three monotheisms, and the furthest from the mentality of the northmen, where freedom and independence was even then strong traits, and where women owned the household and all the children when the man was away, and she could keep it all and throw the man out and take a new if the husband stayed away longer than agreed, nomatter what the reason of his delay.

          The core of viking mentality and society is social trust. Danes and swedes come out to this day as the groups with the highest degree of social trust, even when they live in other nations for hundreds of years. The vikings build fleets and executed big coordinated raids with more than 50 ships, with no central command, all based on trust in their pre-arranged agreements. This demands very high levels of trust, and the scandinavian wellfare state is something that cannot be exported, because it is an outcome of this trust-centered, viking-derived mentality, genetic or cultural that it may be. (

          This mentality is alien to islam, and islam is as alien to the mentality of the old norsemen as it is to us, we still being an expression of the same soul as they. So why are we not as violent and brave as they were, and are the muslims not more like our ancestors who were violent too? No, both hyenas and lions have great potential for violence, but that doesn´t make them the same animal in essence. The reason the lion has become peaceful is its resent history of plenty to eat and predator free livingspace. The hyena is arriving from a hostile environment, and its violent capacities are mobilised and active. As our habitat becomes more like the one of our ancestors, so will we. Unless we become islamized. Then we will just degenerate like Constantinoble.

          • EricStriker

            The vikings were a barbaric and perpetually violent people who lived off plunder and slavery (including selling white slaves to the Islamic world). That doesn’t mean the Vikings weren’t cool or didn’t do great/impressive things as well, but if you are here trying to posit that they were teddy bears then you are wrong to say the least.

            If you had a religion the Vikings didn’t like (such as Christianity), you would probably be tortured to death, though the Christians themselves weren’t saints either.

            But anyway, my point is that if Germanic people had encountered Islam before Christianity, you would be saying the same things about Islam you say about Christianity. Swedish Christianity, which is what, Calvinism? That isn’t even Christianity, it’s Judaism with different curtains.

          • Lawrence

            The vikings were actually very tolerant when they came to religions, like many other pluratheistic peoples. Many wore both a Thors hammer and a cross when the new religion started to impose itself. Casting molds with both the hammer and a cross is not uncommon either.

      • Some fun facts that make a total nonsense of your theory:

        -Islam is only 20% Arab, as it stretches from North Africa to Indonesia. Do the Indonesians have “Arabic” souls? Did they get them from reading the Koran?

        -The only civilization with any valid claim to be “Aryan” is the Islamic Republic of Iran

        -The last major Caliphate was the Turkish Ottoman Empire

        • Lawrence

          If we had spread asatru to china and derived them of their confucianism, they would be living outside of the integrity of their racial soul. Like when the chinese hollow out the tibetan people by subverting their religions, traditions and replacing it with consumerism and chinese erzats culture.

          A people derived of their genuine inner expression might still stagger on, like the americans in their new merchant derived culture, but they are not living their true selfs. And the Iranians would be better of if they had continued to develop their own spiritual expression, as would all the other islamized and conquered peoples. Perhaps the turks have found a genuine expression of their soul through islam, since they adopted it by their own initiative, but anyone besides that has only been scewed and impoverished by the replacement of their own trajectory with that of the arab one..

          Islam is 100% arab, just like European civilisation is 100% percent european. The non-europeans living inside the culture of the europeans are merely a inauthentic mimicry of the european soul. Same is true for the poor islamized non-arabs. They are the tragic Mowgli´s of this world.

  • Greve Hans

    At least they are doing something while Benoist just sit on his high chair writing left and right. People like this do not stand for anything but the destruction of the current system. What then? They can’t say. Intellectualization kills. A jump into action give life.

  • machiaevil

    Benoist puts things in the right persective. Islamophobes are useful idiots, who said only leftists could be useful idiots? Just have a look at the Ukro-monkeys Soros-Nazis,

  • Pierre Sternegård

    What is an Islamophobe anyway? Is admitting to and using the term once invented by the terror organisation Hamas, one of many offshoots of the Muslim brotherhood?

  • If you want your pogrom against Muslims so desperately, first you should take all your books by Rene Guenon and burn them, since he was a Sufi Muslim. Then you should burn all your books by Julius Evola, since he was clearly a “Muslim sympathizer” and possibly even a practicing Sufi himself. Indeed the entire school of Radical Traditionalism will have to go into the flames, since it literally would not exist without the traditions of Sufism, and it is one of the major sources of European conversion to Islam to this day.

    Oh look Greg Johnson & John Morgan, the lynch mob you were so desperate to incite is headed straight for you with torches and burning pitch! Why is that?

    It seems that you have been publishing all these books by Muslims and Muslim sympathizers, indeed they say you must even be Muslims yourselves!