Jeunesses Identitaires

[wilpuri]

What is your opinion on these guys?

+ YouTube Video

[Kernunnos]

They have got some balls, at least ...

[Carnyx]

It is positive.

[Galaico]

Except for the obssession of some Identitarians with Indo-Europeanism, I think they are great. Probably the future of the Nationalist movements.

[Menydh]

In some respects, the Identitarian movement looks as if it would be a remake in the 2000s of what it was the National Revolutionary groups if the 70s like Front de la Jeunesse in France (attached to Parti des Forces Nouvelles) and Fronte della Gioventù in Italy (a dissenting group in the Movimento Sociale Italiano), and in the 80s the Frente de la Juventud in Spain (a split from Fuerza Nueva/Fuerza Joven).

However, in my honest opinion the tragedy of these modern years is the "addition" of a neo-nazi influence: "the burden of the Nationalist militant".

While one would expect a modern days versioning of the National Revolutionary groups of those days, to have learned from the errors of the past, the truth is that a new and bigger error has been introduced. But, why am I not surprised? Of the errors of the past, many were purposefully introduced and there is no reason to believe that it is not the same case today.

Anyway, in the realm of the blind the one-eyed is king.

Those were the days, and we were the people.

¡Patria! ¡Justicia! ¡Revolución!



Europe! Jeunesse! Révolution!

[Sergius]

I'm in agreement with Mynydd on this. I personally opt out at the sight of street fighting, stilted "boot camp" training scenes and skinhead fashion. Obviously it isn't just a matter of aesthetics - it seems to me a reflection of this movement: Too much muscle, too little brain - too much youth sub-culture, too little actual political alternative...

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Of the errors of the past, many were purposefully introduced and there is no reason to believe that it is not the same case today.

Most certainly.

[Martín Zalacaín]

I think their approach is positive. Too much muscle and little brain? Sure. Most of the people cannot even understand simple texts, so they better use their time to work out and gain muscle. If you combine what these guys are doing with some basic ideologic indoctrination, you'll get an interesting result. Especially in today's context, where inmigrants are creating guettos and mobs.

I don't think this guy's will save Europe, but at least they are fit to protect their families when conflicts arise. If all europeans were doing just that I'm sure immigrants would respect us a lot more.

Between this and creating a political party that will sell out as soon as it gets a few votes, I choose this. It's not that great, but it is something.

[wilpuri]

Originally Posted by Faustas

I'm in agreement with Mynydd on this. I personally opt out at the sight of street fighting, stilted "boot camp" training scenes and skinhead fashion. Obviously it isn't just a matter of aesthetics - it seems to me a reflection of this movement: Too much muscle, too little brain - too much youth sub-culture, too little actual political alternative...

While you may be right about this particular group, I think its important to try to look at the big picture: we desperately need a youth sub-culture, a counter-culture, an alternative. These guys are part of it. Our counter-culture must be diverse and have many aspects to it, and I think street/grassroot activism is very important, especially in engaging and inspiring younger generations. They may not hold the ultimate solution for Europe's predicament, but I think and I hope that they can do a lot of good (although I know very little of them).

[Sergius]

If they had (have? I don't know that much about them) a good leadership and for instance contributed to public debate - through seminars, debates, comments in newspapers, and getting media attention through inventive and thought-provoking demonstrations - that would be a movement I would support more, including any youth wing that wasn't stealing positive attention.

[M.R.]

Well, I guess it's positive. I'm not really familiar with what you call "Identitarianism" here, but from what I read I guess their views on nationalism aren't much different than mine.

As for the street fighting, I don't see much trouble with this, this things happen and you better have guys that will step up around you if you don't want to end in a hospital. For a nationalist movement you need 95% muscle and 5% brain, those with brains lead the organization, the muscles are good on the street to scare immigrants or loud mouths who blabber about nationalism. Too much people with brain can mean trouble, imagine an army full of Napoleons, Hitlers or Ceazars.. It wouldn't work right?

Their fashion isn't skinhead, but they dress pretty much like all nationalists - jackets, hats, sneakers, jeans... I dress the same.

I agree with Gonzalvus 101%.

Originally Posted by Faustas

If they had (have? I don't know that much about them) a good leadership and for instance contributed to public debate - through seminars, debates, comments in newspapers, and getting media attention through inventive and thought-provoking demonstrations - that would be a movement I would support more, including any youth wing that wasn't stealing positive attention.

And what good will that bring? Getting trough tausands of debates and arguments with all kinds of intelectualls on seminars is a waste of time more or less. Or at least nationalist organizations should focus more on other things than this. What you need is 20-30 people who have knowledge about nationalism, history and can participate in those debates + they provide an ideological background for organization. Others are there to recruit on the streets, fight when necessary, spread propaganda. If there's some guy having problems with immigrants (there are millions of youths in Europe who have this problems), what would he do? Go on seminar? Or would he rather join some group which can cover his back on the street and in return he covers theirs when necessary?

As for media attention, this is what we're trying to avoide here. Media is against people like me and you, keep this in mind and think again if you want to be on the front page.

[Sergius]

I don't disagree with you. A proper leadership that would create the ideological basis and be the face of the movement is exactly what I was asking for. Even if most attention from the mainstream media is negatively laden, don't forget that all attention can be turned into something positive, at this early stage that would be awareness.

Originally Posted by Panonski

Their fashion isn't skinhead, but they dress pretty much like all nationalists - jackets, hats, sneakers, jeans... I dress the same.

This shouldn't divide us, but...let's just say I like ties.

[Menydh]

I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea.

For a start, the Identitarian movement is a bit eclectic at different given levels. It is not as much formed as some would like to believe. There is a core group of people in various countries who are perceived as the aim of the Identitarian movement and who are around or near to Guillaume Faye.

Not only it is not correct to assume that they are all muscle and no brain. At the intellectual level, they are active in organizing conferences and in producing literature and in some countries they excel any others in such activities.

My critique wouldn't go into that direction. Much on the contrary, I look with envy their work in that field.

Rather than my critique, my disagreement lies in a number of items in their agenda. Though they seek to grow at the shade of the Patriotic and Nationalist movements, they stand at an alleged Pan-Europeanism of sorts and I wouldn't identify them as Nationalists.. Never fully defined, however some elements come from an ideological background that would easily play at the hands of NS-Nordicism, to put it mildly. I'm not saying that they are, nor e even if some are while others are not. Never mind about that.

As a critique, I would point to their idea of identity. Or, in my opinion, of construed identity. Often I wonder how it is possible that they don't see how they drift away from a true sense of identity. We have discussed the points here on numerous occasions. Namely, the construction of pretended spiritualities going back to sources that are simply dead or, at best, merely mythical and worthless to provide an understanding of the soul of the men and women of Europe. While denying the true roots of Europe as strange, thus alienating themselves from the identities which they claim to protect.

Identities.. or identity. The fact is that a supposed identity of Europe for them it supersedes the national identity. Sometimes confusing them and sometimes even creating some kind of dualist allegiance.

And well, like I was discussing a few hours ago with someone else, you even get poles as opposed as some pretending to fragmentate the nations of Europe into micro-subethnic-states, while others advocating for Europea as no less than... a nation!

I see the Identitarian movement as with some hints of a phenomenon fin de siècle in terms of the XXth century and the National Right. And you know what they say of prophets in the turns of century.


p.s. We should not confuse strength with aggressiveness. Often the latter arises from a lack of the former.

[Savorgnan]

I see the Identitaires as something more complex than just basic scumheads.

But as said Mynydd, they seem, as a movement, to lack a real nationalist ideology.

They seem to be more anti- than pro-.

[Martín Zalacaín]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea.

For a start, the Identitarian movement is a bit eclectic at different given levels. It is not as much formed as some would like to believe. There is a core group of people in various countries who are perceived as the aim of the Identitarian movement and who are around or near to Guillaume Faye.

Not only it is not correct to assume that they are all muscle and no brain. At the intellectual level, they are active in organizing conferences and in producing literature and in some countries they excel any others in such activities.

My critique wouldn't go into that direction. Much on the contrary, I look with envy their work in that field.

Rather than my critique, my disagreement lies in a number of items in their agenda. Though they seek to grow at the shade of the Patriotic and Nationalist movements, they stand at an alleged Pan-Europeanism of sorts and I wouldn't identify them as Nationalists.. Never fully defined, however some elements come from an ideological background that would easily play at the hands of NS-Nordicism, to put it mildly. I'm not saying that they are, nor e even if some are while others are not. Never mind about that.

As a critique, I would point to their idea of identity. Or, in my opinion, of construed identity. Often I wonder how it is possible that they don't see how they drift away from a true sense of identity. We have discussed the points here on numerous occasions. Namely, the construction of pretended spiritualities going back to sources that are simply dead or, at best, merely mythical and worthless to provide an understanding of the soul of the men and women of Europe. While denying the true roots of Europe as strange, thus alienating themselves from the identities which they claim to protect.

Identities.. or identity. The fact is that a supposed identity of Europe for them it supersedes the national identity. Sometimes confusing them and sometimes even creating some kind of dualist allegiance.

And well, like I was discussing a few hours ago with someone else, you even get poles as opposed as some pretending to fragmentate the nations of Europe into micro-subethnic-states, while others advocating for Europea as no less than... a nation!

I see the Identitarian movement as with some hints of a phenomenon fin de siècle in terms of the XXth century and the National Right. And you know what they say of prophets in the turns of century.


p.s. We should not confuse strength with aggressiveness. Often the latter arises from a lack of the former.

Agreed.

At first I wanted to like identitarians. They seemed to uphold interesting ideas, they seemed to be dangerous for the establishment.

After reading a few of their books and lots of articles (Faye, Krebs, Tulaev, Vial), I've come to totally disregard their approach.

Their main mistake? They deny reality.

Firstly, they deny the reality of national states.

Secondly, they act contemptuously towards our european legacy, namely christianism. Their support of paganism is contradictory, fetishist and ridiculous. They lack the vision to see that our main task is to fix christianity, not to destroy it.

You'll go nowhere if the main pillars of your ideology are false (i.e. not in agreement with reality).

As Mynydd says, if their ideas would be put into practice, they would result in the obliteration of our identity. Paradoxically enough.

For further information, read this interview with Pavel Tulaev conducted by the great ideologist and visionary Constantin Von Hoffmeister. (There's another interview with Faye about paganism that is also quite pathetic, but I cannot find it in english).