1 Comment

In terms of conflict, what Islam has over the European White population is that it functions as a coherent (albeit corrosive) bloc, a unity.

But is a 'White Islam' worse than no White European people at all?

Or is 'Islam' just a code-word for 'non-Whites'?

I'm having a problem squaring the the idea of some kind of *universal* ethnonationalism - in the form of 'the cause of peoples' with Faye's advocacy of 'vanquish or die'.

It feels like Faye really hasn't picked a side. You can either be for White people *no matter what* or you can be for some kind of idealism whether or not its what's best for White people.

I know where I come down in that set of options, but it's not altogether clear from the way Faye talks about things in this essay where Faye would come down.

Faye is right that 'biocultural identity and demographic renewal' is the 'center of gravity' of the struggle (to abuse Clausewitz) but it seems to me that Faye conflates 'Europe' with White people in a way that appears to obscure the very thing 'bioculural identity' is intended to illuminate: The critical role of the *biological* (racial) component.

If White Europeans embraced Islam in vast numbers and gleefully participated in the destruction of all the monuments to pre-Islamic White Europe, what would be the downside? Whites would still exist as a biological fact, White would begin to transform Brown Islam into White Islam and White Europe would move into history with Islam as its foundation. (This is more or less the 'future history' that Frank Herbert seemed to have imagined for the world of 'Dune'.)

If we're going to have an idea like 'bioculture' circulating amongst the White Vanguard, we need to realize that collapsing 'biology' into 'culture' obscures which aspect to privilege in situations where a choice may have to be made.

Expand full comment