It’s a 2011 translation of a 2001 book. Sort of eerie how it predates what we see now so well.

I have my copy to reread, I'll try to participate

@Hessian You'll probably have to order it online

I like the name, btw. Good call back to a uniquely German part of history

Interesting that Faye doesn't talk about the JQ at all does he? I think I read in the forward of the copy of Why We Fight that I have (or maybe it was online) that he used to speak on the JQ, but then had a change of heart on it. Is that true?

Hes in Europe

Faye's position on the JQ is a complex subject. For a detailed analysis of Faye and the JQ i would recommend Michael O'Meara's books *New Culture, New Right* & *Guillaume Faye and the Battle of Europe*

I think Faye largely ignores, but is aware of the JQ, because he knows the real cure for our sickness is strengthening the European peoples first

Got my copy of Why We Fight in the mail. Might get a bit of a headstart if i get the chance to read.

It is unfortunate that Faye takes the line that America is a country for anyone, and not just whites.

Does he ever address Australia and Canada? Or does he view them same as the US?

His 'America is for everyone' line isn't consistent with his AmRen and NPI speeches. A lot of the book seems like rhetoric for Continential readers.

I'm only about a fifth way of the way done - he hasn't talked about them yet

Faye conflates geopolitics and ideology quite a bit. One of my serious problems with him is the antiamericanism throughout the book. The geopolitical criticism is sound, but projecting that onto a cultural critique of America is very irresponsible.

The problem here is the assumption that US foreign policy is guided by rational self-interest, instead of ideology.

He modifies that position quite a bit in *Convergence of Catastrophes* and his later books. Anti-americanism is deeply engrained in Alain de Benoist and GRECE. Faye's more recent stance is actually distinctly friendly toward America in comparison

Benoist's critique of America is essentially justified and extremely valuable IMO, even if we might want to dismiss aspects of it

His criticisms of the Greens are pretty good

the Green party here is pretty similar - unwilling to embrace population reduction and nuclear energy

even if they sometimes do talk (correctly) about the importance of sustainable growth, rather than unlimited growth

I agree. He did a wonderful job defending his position on nuclear energy

[pg. 56] *"What disturbs our neo-Leftist ecologists is the objective power (military and economic) and independence that nuclear power offers Europe, as well as its technological implications. There’s a distinct logic to the Left’s struggle: weaken the European devil, censure her traditions and ancestral memories, defuse her technological and military power, smother her independence, corrupt her mores, and destroy her ethnic germen through immigration. Its anti-nuclear and propetroleum stances are but part of a concerted, multifaceted strategy to destroy the identity and continuity of European civilisation. The Left’s environmental concerns and defence of public health are simply crude, oily pretexts."*

There's an interesting divide between the Old and New Left concerning population-control. A socialist organizer who lives in my building and I found a lot of common ground when I chatted with him recently about overpopulation. And yet, similar conversations that I have had with younger leftists usually derail into Third Worldist rhetoric.

From personal anecdotes, people seem a lot more understanding of the wall and mass deportation when it phrased in environmental terms. Probably that CA is running out of land and water

Made it to chapter 3. Good read so far. Taking notes and will expand on them for the discussion.

Awesome man, look forward to hearing the commentary

He has an interesting idea of a convergence of catastrophes - i.e. that changes in climate, economy, and demographics will result the collapse in the current system

Personally I'm not sure, it seems like Macron or Sisi or Modi or Trump figures might instead predominate

more political repression, with token nationalist actions and a largely unchanged economic system

Political repression, out right police states to control destroyed societies. *if it doesnt change. @Nemets

Great paragraph from page 39

> a rejection of aesthetics and the will to live

^ right. That’s a point that has been very understated but I think is widely felt by all of us. There’s no assertion of who you are and why you deserve to exist. It’s all taken for granted.

Heart problem.

I think the second chapter is out of place. Most sustainable energy pushes are good for government and big corporations. Conserving the environment is super important but commissioning a new nuclear facility costs billions and sometimes over a decade of planning

But it looks good, and has been marketed for us. It also gives us the impetus to highlight gross government overregulation and media frenzy over safer forms of energy

I think his point is that its better for Europe and bad for (((America))) and her (((ME allies))) long term. Pointing out American dominance is frustrating cause he doesnt name (((them)))

I see

@Deleted User Late to this discussion, but I agree with you. Saying America is responsible for the factors contributing to Europe's decline is like saying Russia is responsible for Bolshevism.

@XI Palaeologus they both serve as the host.