View Full Version : What Was, Must Be: Guillaume Faye's Archeofuturism

Sunday, August 19th, 2012, 04:53 PM
What Was, Must Be: Guillaume Faye's Archeofuturism

By Alex Kurtagic


One thing that always struck me about William Pierce’s broadcasts is that out of the two hundred or so that he recorded during the late 1990s, only one ever talked about the world he aspired to see following his revolution. One. Worse still, his utopian vision was not at all inspiring, being, for all practical purposes, a return to 1933. This, unfortunately, is not uncommon among those who, in some measure or another, share his ideas—even among those who are far less radical and apocalyptic, and think in terms of a ‘velvet revolution,’ or co-opting, or electioneering.

As I have written on previous occasions, if our camp is to catalyze a transvaluation of values, and eventually cause a purge of the top echelons of academic, media, and political power in the West, those whom we seek to inspire need to be given more than just a return to the past: they also need a vision that is forward-looking, indeed futuristic, even if ultimately founded on archaic principles. Otherwise, our camp will condemn itself to irrelevance, perpetuating the impression many ordinary people have that we are just aging nostalgics, who feel left out in the brave new world of progress and equality, and are reduced to waving an angry fist at modernity because we have no new ideas of our own. ‘Bankrupt’ is the term often used within the mainstream to describe our ideas and morality.

To get anywhere, one needs to know where one is going; and to get others to come along and make the hard journey to one’s paradise, one has to be able to at least describe what it looks like.

This is why I was interested in Guillaume Faye’s book, Archeofuturism, which Arktos Media published for the first time in English translation during the Summer of 2010. Along with Alain de Benoist, Faye is a leading exponent of the Nouvelle Droite, the European New Right. Faye, however, is more radical than de Benoist, who has accused him of extremism. And some say he is also more creative. Until recently, I only knew Faye by name and affiliation, having never taken the trouble to read him. Was it because of that photograph I have seen of him, grey-haired and scowling with bug-like mirror shades? Whatever the answer, I was pleasantly surprised when the present tome revealed that Faye’s outlook is very similar to my own. Indeed, it turns out that inArcheofuturism he articulates positions that I have articulated in some of own my articles. No wonder the book’s editor, John Morgan, was keen on my reviewing it.

Readers will easily infer at least one of the positions Faye and I share, as I have reproduced it in the second paragraph of this review. The difference is one of emphasis: I think archeofuturism is necessary to move forward; Faye thinks of it as the paradigm that must replace egalitarian modernity, come what may.

There is no question for him that the liberal project is doomed: although its proponents paint it as good and inevitable, egalitarian modernity is, in fact, a highly artificial condition, an unsustainable one, which will fall victim to the very processes it set in motion. Faye believes that we are currently facing a ‘convergence of catastrophes’. These include: the colonization of the North by Afro-Asian peoples from the South; an imminent economic and demographic crisis, caused by an aging population in the West, falling birthrates, and unfunded promises made by the democratic welfare state; chaos in the countries of the South, caused by absurd Western-sponsored development and development programs; a global economic crisis, much worse than the depression of the 1930s, led by the financial sector; ‘the surge of religious fundamentalist fanaticism, particularly in Islam;’ ‘the confrontation of North and South, on theological and ethnic grounds;’ unchecked environmental degradation; and the convergence of these catastrophes against a backdrop of nuclear proliferation, international mafias, and the reemergence of viral and microbial diseases, such as AIDS. For Faye, the way out is not through reform, because a system that is contrary to reality is beyond reform), but through collapse and revolution. As a catastrophic collapse is inevitable, revolutionary thought and action must today be post-catastrophic in outlook. He further suggests that inaction on our part will only open European civilization to conquest by Islam.

How does Faye visualize the post-catastrophic Earth? For him, the deprecation of modernity results in a two-tier world, in which most of humanity reverts to traditional or neo-Medieval societies (essentially pre-industrial reservations), while an elite minority—composed of Europeans and South East Asians—rebuilds advanced technological societies across Eurasia and parts of North America. These societies are to be, of course, archeofuturistic—hierarchical and rooted in ethnotribalism, fiercely protectionistic, yet also ones that fully exploit science and technology, even if ‘esoteric,’ non-humanistic versions of them, ‘decoupled from the rationalistic outlook.’ There is to be no global flow of capital, spreading wealth and technology everywhere: the world economy is to be inegalitarian, elitist, based on quality over quantity. There are also to be no nation states: the European Imperium is to comprise over a hundred regions, with their own languages, customs, and garb. The United States is to split in to ethnic regions (Dreamland for the Blacks), and is to stabilize for the most part according to an eighteenth-century agrarian model. The world, in sum, and in contradiction to liberal aspirations, is to become more ethnic and moredifferentiated, not less.

In other words, if Faye rejects modernity it is not because he a nostalgic who dreams of returning to a bygone golden age, like so many White racial nationalists today; but because he is an elitist who thinks the world must be rebuilt on entirely different foundations—foundations that are more in harmony with nature.

In order so that we may get a better sense of what he means, he concludes the book with a Science Fiction novelette, titled One Day in the Life of Dmitri Leonidovich Oblomov, and set in the year 2073. Interestingly, and to Faye’s credit, the latter does not really describe a utopia, where everyone sings and lives happily ever after; but rather showcases Faye’s imagining of what he considers will be the most likely consequence of an archeofuturist new world order. It has its own unique set of problems, as any reasonable person would expect. Yet for Faye dealing with problems is part of living, and the choice is therefore not between having or not having problems, but which set of problems is preferable to another. In any event, one can well imagine Faye’s archeofuturistic vision will make egalitarian liberals, and perhaps even some White Nationalists, shift uncomfortably in their seats.

Oblomov, however, is just a scenario. As I have previously mentioned, and as Faye states repeatedly, we must not forget about Islam. Faye stresses that it is here, among us, facing us, right now, and that no amount of appeasement or accommodating will cause it to become less of a threat. This is because, he argues, Islam is an inherently intolerant, aggressive, theocratic movement that will abide no religious pluralism. Faye believes that Islam, and for that matter the Afro-Asian immigrants colonizing our continent, must be expelled from Europe, as was done in the past. ‘Where there is a will, there is a way,’ he states. Naturally this presupposes either deposing the White ethnomasochists, the deluded cosmopolitans, the xenophiles, and the immigration fraudsters, or being ready to replace them once they fall by the weight of their own corruption and the catastrophic consequences of their own ideology.

How do we get there? The first step is understanding where we came from, where we are, and where we are going. Faye begins the book by evaluating the current with which he was formerly affiliated, theNouvelle Droite, and outlining the factors and ideological errors that led to its loss of vitality and eventual eclipsing by the Front National. He then presents his vision, which includes corrections of some previously held positions. This is followed by a series of politically incorrect statements—fast sniper attacks against the contemporary West that aggregate into a global analysis of its present condition. An outline of Faye’s future world system follows, in incremental order. Finally, the reader is immersed in the finished result through an exercise in fiction.

That is the first step.

The next step, having read Faye’s text, understood it, reflected, discussed it, and reached individual conclusions, is elucidating how to put the theory into practice—a task that will require our most astute minds and political operators, not to mention funding, courage, and discipline.

I find Faye’s one of the most lucid analyses and statements of a metapolitical proposition I have yet encountered. It is both creative and logically structured. It is both analytical and refreshingly constructive. And it is both intelligent and unflinchingly radical. What is more, the text flows with urgent velocity, thanks to a skilled English translation, and is copiously supplemented with useful informative notes. What more can you ask?



Sunday, August 19th, 2012, 05:08 PM
Foreword to Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism

By Michael O'Meara

“We have kept faith with the past, and handed down a tradition to the future.” –Patrick Pearse, 1916

Guillaume Faye was long associated with that school of thought, which, in 1978, the French media labeled ‘la Nouvelle Droite’ — though it was Right wing in no conventional sense, representing, as it did, the distinctly postmodern cause of ‘European identitarian nationalism’.

Not to be confused, then, with the various neo-liberal, implicitly Protestant, and market-oriented tendencies bearing the same designation in the English-speaking world, the French New Right grew out of GRECE (the Groupement de Recherche et d’Etude pour la Civilisation Européenne), an association formed in 1968 by various anti-liberals hoping to overcome the failed legacies of Pétanism, neo-fascism, Catholic traditionalism, regionalism, colonialism, and Poujadism — in order to resist the cancerous Americanization of their homeland.

To this end, GRECE’s founders believed they would never overthrow America’s liberalizing hegemony, as long as the general culture remained steeped in liberal beliefs. In the formulation of its master thinker, Alain de Benoist: ‘Without Marx, no Lenin’.

That is, without the ascendancy of anti-liberal ideas in the general culture and thus without a revolution of the spirit, there would be no viable movement against le parti américain.

GRECE was established, thus, not for la politique politicienne, but for the sake of metapolitically rearming European culture.

And in this, it was not unsuccessful. For GRECE’s philosophically persuasive revival of anti-liberal thought and the subsequent affiliation of several prominent European thinkers to its banner made it an influence of some immediate import. Indeed, it can almost be said that for the first time since the Action Française, ‘Rightists’ in the ’70s achieved a level of sophistication and attraction nearly ‘comparable’ to that of the Left, as France’s ‘intellectual right’ threw off the defenseless conservatism that came with Americanization to challenge the liberal consensus imposed in 1945.

* * *

While still working on his doctorate in Political Science at the elite Institut d’études politiques de Paris (Science Po), Guillaume Faye began gravitating to GRECE. By 1973, he had become its ‘number two’ advocate, a role he would play until 1986.

Like other Grécistes in this early period, Faye was influenced by those European currents that had previously countered the imposition of liberal ideology.

Foremost of these counter-currents were the Conservative Revolution of the German 1920s (Spengler, Moeller van den Bruck, Schmitt, Freyer, Heidegger, Jünger, etc.); the traditionalism of Julius Evola; the Indo-Europeanism of Georges Dumézil; and the heritage of pre-Christian paganism.

Contemporary anti-liberal ideas in stream with these deeper currents — such as the ethology of Konrad Lorenz, the philosophical anthropology of Arnold Gehlen, or the illusion-destroying field of genetics — were similarly incorporated into GRECE’s anti-liberal curriculum.

Faye, though, took to these ideas differently (more radically, in my view) than de Benoist — perhaps because of his earlier affiliation with the Situationists and the ‘aristocratic’ ex-Communist Henri Lefèbvre; more probably because of his apprenticeship with the Italian journalist, Germanist, and post-fascist firebrand Giorgio Locchi; and ultimately, of course, because of his specific temperament.

Less prolific and encyclopedic than de Benoist, the younger Faye was considered by some the more creative (le véritable moteur intellectuel de la nouvelle droite). He played second fiddle, though, to the master, who seemed bent on blunting the edge of New Right radicalism. There was, as a consequence, a certain implicit tension between their different notions of the anti-liberal project.

* * *

For reasons explained in the first chapter, Faye quit GRECE in 1986. During the next dozen years, he worked in the ‘media’ as a radio personality, journalist, and occasional ghost writer.

The publication of L’Archéofuturisme in 1998 signaled his return to the metapolitical fray.

At one level, this work accounts for the dead-end de Benoist’s GRECE had got itself into by the mid-1980s, suggesting what it could have done differently and with greater effect.

At another, more important level, it addresses the approaching interregnum, endeavoring to ‘transcend’ the historical impasse, which pits the ever changing present against the heritage of the past, between European modernism and traditionalism.

To this end, Archeofuturism calls for ‘the re-emergence of archaic configurations’ – ‘pre-modern, inegalitarian, and non-humanist’ — in a futuristic or long-term ‘context’ that turns modernity’s forward, innovative thrust (totally nihilistic today) into a reborn assertion of European being, as the temporal and the untimely meet and merge in a higher dialectic.

Archeofuturism is thus both archaic and futuristic, for it validates the primordiality of Homer’s epic values in the same breath that it advances the most daring contemporary science.

Because the Anglophone world outside the British Isles is a product of liberal modernity, the struggle between tradition and modernity, pivotal to continental European culture, has been seemingly tangential to it.

This struggle, however, nevertheless now impinges on the great crises descending on the U.S. and the former White dominions.

Faye’s Archeofuturism holds out an understanding of this world collapsing about us, imbuing European peoples with a strategy to think through the coming storms and get to the other side — to that post-catastrophic age, where a new cycle of being awaits them, as they return to the spirit that lies not in the past per se, but in advance of what is to come.

Michael O’Meara
Saint Ignatius of Loyola Day, 2010



Sunday, August 19th, 2012, 05:13 PM
The Essence of Archaism

By Guillaume Faye

Translator’s Note:

In L’Archéofuturisme Guillaume Faye envisages, sometime within the next two decades, a large-scale civilizational crisis, provoked by what which he calls a “convergence of catastrophes.” For the post-crisis world Faye proposes, in terms that at times recall the Italian Futurists of the early twentieth century, the construction of a European Empire founded on essential, archaic values and on a bold, aggressive exploitation of science and technology: hence the concept of “archeofuturism,” the re-emergence of archaic social configurations in a new context.

* * *

It is probable that only after the catastrophe which will bring down modernity, its world-wide saga and its global ideology, that an alternate vision of the world will necessarily impose itself. No one will have had the foresight and the courage to apply it before chaos erupted. It is thus our responsibility — we who live, as Giorgio Locchi put it, in the interregnum — to prepare, from this moment forward, a post-catastrophic conception of the world. It could be centered on archeofuturism. But we must give content to this concept.

It is necessary, first, to return the word “archaic” to its true meaning, which, in its Greek etymon archê, is positive and non-pejorative, signifying both “foundation” and “beginning” — that is, “founding impetus.” Archê also means “that which is creative and immutable” and refers to the central concept of “order.” To attend to the “archaic” does not imply a backward-looking nostalgia, for the past produced egalitarian modernity, which has run aground, and thus any historical regression would be absurd. It is modernity itself that now belongs to a bygone past.Is “archaism” a form of traditionalism? Yes and no. Traditionalism advocates the transmission of values and, correctly, combats the doctrines of the tabula rasa. But it all depends on which traditions are transmitted. Not every tradition is acceptable — for example, we reject those of universalist and egalitarian ideologies or those which are fixed, ossified, demotivating. It is surely preferable to distinguish from among various traditions (transmitted values) those which are positive and those which are detrimental.

The issues that disturb the contemporary world and threaten egalitarian modernity with catastrophe are already archaic: the religious challenge of Islam; geopolitical contests for scarce resources, agricultural land, oil, fisheries; the North-South conflict and colonizing immigration into the Northern hemisphere; global pollution and the physical clash of empirical reality against the ideology of development. All these issues plunge us back into age-old questions, consigning to oblivion the quasi-theological political debates of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which were little more than idle talk about the sex of angels.

Moreover, as the philosopher Raymond Ruyer, detested by the left-bank intelligentsia, foretold in his two important works, Les nuisances idéologiques and Les cents prochains siècles, once the historical digression of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has finally closed, with egalitarianism’s hallucinations having descended into catastrophe, humanity will return to archaic values, that is, quite simply, to biological and human (anthropological) values: distinctive sexual roles; the transmission of ethnic and popular traditions; spirituality and sacerdotal organization; visible and supervisory social hierarchies; the worship of ancestors; initiatory rites and tests; the reconstruction of organic communities that extend from the individual family unit to the overarching national community of the people; the deindividualization of marriage to involve the community as much as the couple; the end of the confusion of eroticism and conjugality; the prestige of the warrior caste; social inequality, not implicit, which is unjust and frustrating, as in today’s egalitarian utopias, but explicit and ideologically justifiable; a proportioned balance of duties and rights; a rigorous justice whose dictates are applied strictly to acts and not to individual men, which will encourage a sense of responsibility in the latter; a definition of the people and of any constituted social body as a diachronic community of shared destiny, not as a synchronic mass of individual atoms, etc.

In short, future centuries, in the great pendulum movement of history that Nietzsche called “the eternal recurrence of the same,” will in some way revisit these archaic values. The problem for us, for Europeans, is not, through our cowardice, to allow Islam to impose them on us, a process which is surreptitiously occurring, but to reimpose them on ourselves, while drawing upon our historical memory.

Recently, an important French press baron — whom I cannot name, but known for his left-liberal sympathies — made to me, in essence, the following disillusioned remark: “Free-market economic values are gradually losing out to Islamic values, because they are exclusively based on individual economic profit, which is inhuman and ephemeral.” Our task is to ensure that the inevitable return to reality is not imposed upon us by Islam.

Obviously, contemporary ideology, hegemonic today but not for much longer, regards these values as diabolical, much as a mad paranoiac might see the features of a demon in the psychiatrist trying to cure him. In reality, they are the values of justice. True to human nature from time immemorial, these archaic values reject the Enlightenment error of the emancipation of the individual, which has only ended in the isolation of this individual and in social barbarism. These archaic values are just, in the Ancient Greek sense of the term, because they take man for what he is, a zoon politikon (”a social and organic animal integrated into a communitarian city-state”), and not for what he is not, an isolated and asexual atom fitted out with universal but imprescriptible pseudo-rights.

In practical terms, archaism’s anti-individualist values permit self-realization, active solidarity and social peace, unlike egalitarianism’s pseudo-emancipating individualism, which ends in the law of the jungle.