Archeofuturism Read ↠ 5

review Archeofuturism

Archeofuturism an important work in the tradition of the European New Right is finally now available in English Challenging many assumptions held by the Right this book generated much debate when it was first published in French in 1998 Faye believes that the future of the Right reuires a transcendence of the division between those who wish for a restoration of the traditions of the past and those who are calling for new social and technological forms creating a synthesis which will amplify the strengths and restrain the excesses of both Archeofuturism Faye also provides a critiue of the New Right; Another entry into the mad bastard political theory genre this time combined with the schizo French erraticism that makes jumping from a page about how neoliberalism doesn't work to one about why we need to reopen state brothels to one insisting normies haven't taken REAL drugs and don't understand them make senseI think this might be the most dangerous genre of writing intellectually because it's extremely easy to sprinkle in a few names and seem superior You can be kind of lulled into a sense of confidence with the writer because he talks about Heidegger and he does seem to have an understanding of Nietzsche then he hits out with statements calling medieval Europe imperialist theocracy or insists that the 19th century was the dawning of the era of egalitarianismDoes egalitarian have a different meaning in French or something? For a guy so hung up on semantics you would think he'd try to have a clear definition of what the fuck he spends than a hundred pages schizophrenically ranting about Apparently egalitarian ideology has caused the political and financial class to become out of touch with the prolet sorry the Folk And it's also responsible for progressivism? Or is progressivism the key tenant of egalitarianism? And egalitarianism is opposed to communism Or wait maybe it supports communism? And liberalism is sympathetic to communism But also has been driven mad by its destruction of communism?It's a funny book and the writer is funny in the sense that constantly bragging about knowing famous people you can't name out of politeness in your manifesto for after the race war is funny or that bragging about making porno inside metaphysical repudiation of Christianity is funny And I will admit a critiue and discussion of the French New Right from within is pretty historically interesting Shame it's supplanted by a schizophrenic tirade explaining that we need to turn the world into shitty young adult fiction dystopia Darkland you would think he'd try to have a clear definition of what the fuck he spends than a hundred pages schizophrenically ranting about Apparently egalitarian ideology has caused the political and financial class to become out of touch with the prolet sorry the Folk And it's also responsible for progressivism? Or is progressivism the key tenant of egalitarianism? And egalitarianism is opposed to communism Or wait maybe it supports communism? And liberalism is sympathetic to communism But also has been driven mad by its destruction of communism?It's a funny book and the writer is funny in the sense that constantly bragging about knowing famous people Spirit Babies: How to Communicate with the Child You're Meant to Have you can't name out of politeness in I Married a Billionaire (I Married a Billionaire your manifesto for after the race war is funny or that bragging about making porno inside metaphysical repudiation of Christianity is funny And I will admit a critiue and discussion of the French New Right from within is pretty historically interesting Shame it's supplanted by a schizophrenic tirade explaining that we need to turn the world into shitty Abduction young adult fiction dystopia

Download ☆ PDF, eBook or Kindle ePUB free  Guillaume Faye

Archeofuturism

An analysis of the continuing damage being done by Western liberalism political inertia unrestrained immigration and ethnic self hatred; and the need to abandon past positions and dare to face the realities of the present in order to realise the ideology of the future He prophesises a series of catastrophes between 2010 and 2020 brought about by the unsustainability of the present world order which he asserts will offer an opportunity to rebuild the West and put Archeofuturism into practice on a grand scale This book is a must read for anyone concerned with the course that the Right must chart in or The first half is a diagnosis of Enlightenment thinking The author manages to say nothing that hasn't already been said better by other 20th century philosophers and makes a particularly heinous misreading of Nietzsche's concept of eternal return I managed to grit my and read on until the fourth chapter but decided to abandon thereafter as Faye indulges in the most base right wing arguments against positive discrimination homosexuality etc The sole highlight is his critiue of rap and techno music which is thoroughly hilariousFrom a musical point of view rap – like techno – is a very poor genre It is not open to any renewal Its range of harmonies is too small and its rhythms too repetitive Its lyrics written by talentless people with public funding are worthless plaintive and falsely violent NTM is nothing but subsidised propaganda and gratuitous provocation133 an aping of the tough Black bands active in the Bronx in the 1970s minus the musical talent power and sincerity Utter impostors The same goes for all contemporary rappers It is working for the moment but won’t last long MC Solaar is a good writer of lyrics trapped in a musical deadlockAs for techno it is not music but percussion This ‘music’ also won’t last long It is devoid of any content Techno and rap like hip hop will go the same way as twist and disco because they do not belong to any aesthetic or musical current but merely provide a social look – and looks are transient thingsRock’n’roll on the other hand is eternal for it can take various forms and rests on a range of harmonies It has managed to survive and remain in fashion What is now spreading across the world though are ethnic forms of music Latin Asian Celtic Greek Arab African etc – renewed forms of popular musicAlso worth mentioning that this book has no proper bibliography only a haphazard list at the end of each chapter that summarizes the ideas of mentioned individuals

Guillaume Faye  5 Download

Der to deal with the increasing crises and challenges it will face in the coming decades Guillaume Faye was one of the principal members of the famed French New Right organisation GRECE in the 1970s and '80s After departing in 1986 due to his disagreement with its strategy he had a successful career on French television and radio before returning to the stage of political philosophy as a powerful alternative voice with the publication of Archeofuturism Since then he has continued to challenge the status uo within the Right in his writings earning him both the admiration and disdain of his colleagues Faye's vision of the future is an incredibly fresh reimagining of mid 20th century pan European ideas from a right wing perspective His critiue of his compatriots of GRECE and FN is delivered with some measure of acrimony but an acute sense of necessity Faye's moral structure and cultural relativism are a distinct low point of the overall idea he delivers in the text but he is also keenly self aware of his own ideas and ideological attachments which robs critics of the opportunity to accuse him of any sort of pretensions As with most Arktos translations the piece is thoroughly readable and engaging albeit in terms of content somewhat fantastical in its expectations and desires Perhaps its greatest strength is the clear recognition of the danger posed by Islam coupled with the clear import of Christianity to European culture something which seems lost on the greater part of the French New Right This is not to say Faye has any sort of developed sense of Christian morality or theology but rather that he has hung close to Charles Maurras not perfect but good enough for a modernist alliance with Christianity as an indispensable part of all European right wing politics He could benefit from a parallel reading with Hilaire Belloc


10 thoughts on “Archeofuturism

  1. says:

    First although this book is far from perfect it is certainly an important revolutionary work Faye looks to the future of Europe while analyzing what led to failure in the past Faye is also symbiotic of our times openly admitting in the book that he has acted in pornographic films and indulged in hard drugs That being said Faye certainly understands the epidemic diseases that are polluting the Occidental work Archeofuturism is also an important works because Faye covers all aspects of culture from cinema to the self masochistic behavior of modern Europeans Faye has also studied the important works of his enemies as well as the great minds of the west Archeofuturism also provides an eclectic collection of important figuresevents that will give the reader a lead into other important worksEssentially Faye hopes to use the EU when things reach an all time apocalyptic low to eventually from a United States of European Long gone are the days of petty disagreements and wars between European nation states If Europe is to survive the colonization of individuals from the South Africans Asiatics etc all countries will need to unite and resist Naturally the Slavic nations will play an imperative role in thisArchefuturism is an excellent work to consume after first reading Yockey's ImperiumIt is ok to look for heroes from the past but when it comes down to it the only thing that really matters is the future Individuals like Faye know this and are forming theories that are practical for today's world Anyways I highly recommend Archeofuturism to anyone that cares about preserving Europe and European culture


  2. says:

    Another entry into the mad bastard political theory genre this time combined with the schizo French erraticism that makes jumping from a page about how neoliberalism doesn't work to one about why we need to reopen state brothels to one insisting normies haven't taken REAL drugs and don't understand them make senseI think this might be the most dangerous genre of writing intellectually because it's extremely easy to sprinkle in a few names and seem superior You can be kind of lulled into a sense of confidence with the writer because he talks about Heidegger and he does seem to have an understanding of Nietzsche then he hits out with statements calling medieval Europe imperialist theocracy or insists that the 19th century was the dawning of the era of egalitarianismDoes egalitarian have a different meaning in French or something? For a guy so hung up on semantics you would think he'd try to have a clear definition of what the fuck he spends than a hundred pages schizophrenically ranting about Apparently egalitarian ideology has caused the political and financial class to become out of touch with the prolet sorry the Folk And it's also responsible for progressivism? Or is progressivism the key tenant of egalitarianism? And egalitarianism is opposed to communism Or wait maybe it supports communism? And liberalism is sympathetic to communism But also has been driven mad by its destruction of communism?It's a funny book and the writer is funny in the sense that constantly bragging about knowing famous people you can't name out of politeness in your manifesto for after the race war is funny or that bragging about making porno inside metaphysical repudiation of Christianity is funny And I will admit a critiue and discussion of the French New Right from within is pretty historically interesting Shame it's supplanted by a schizophrenic tirade explaining that we need to turn the world into shitty young adult fiction dystopia


  3. says:

    This is a flawed work a deeply flawed work and in some respects a disgraceful one but flawed and disgraceful works have a habit of becoming historically significant despite or even because of their very flaws if their approach or honesty is not matched by staid and respectable writers of the day So it may well prove with this book Faye relishes provocation Faye used to be a member of GRECE the flagship organization of the French New Right The core of Faye's critiue of GRECE today is a major argument in this book and those unfamiliar with the ideologicalhistorical background may be bewildered It is a paradox and one about which Faye is aware in his book that the European New Right in general has failed to make an impact at the very time that the march of events might have been expected to play into its hands the end of the cold war the decline of political Manicheanism East versus West the decline of nationalism as a relevant political alternative to liberalism It is as a counter to this and other failings that Faye wrote his ArcheofuturismArcheofuturism and probably like all his books the only other book by Faye which I have read is Nouvel discours à la nation européenne which has not been translated suffers from coming from the pen of a man at home before a gathering than a keyboard It is unbalanced and paradoxically given the content in some respects extremely provincial and theoretical in its approach and design At the same time it owes nothing to the respectability and detachment from reality which can make cowards of many writers This is not to say that the book lacks structure It has a very definite if unorthodox structure It consists of three theses as Faye calls them 1 the end of civilization as we know it owing to what Faye calls a “convergence of catastrophes”; 2 the necessity for revolution notably in the European mindset 3 propositions for the post catastrophic world and the title of his book expresses the essence of Faye's solution An imbalance in this book consists in the importance which Faye attaches to a number of issues which are of ephemeral interest and which do not bring us to the core of the issues which Faye seeks to discuss Many of the “ideologically dissident statements” are astonishingly provincial that is to say caught up with French internal issues which are already out of date and even at the time would not have greatly interested many people outside France This book is nothing if not pessimistic albeit out of disaster emerges the new and better world this is a core believe of a man who is happy to call himself a revolutionary and a Nietzschean less a clash of civilisations although he seems to write at times in a similar vein to Huntingdon with his view of Islam especially as a challenge in itself to the hegemony of European civilization than what he terms a “convergence of catastrophes” Like Huntingdon Faye regards Islam as a single cultural religious political bloc with a an expansionist will There is no mention at all in this book of the internal divisions among different Mohammedan nations for Faye there exists just one Islamic bloc determined to destroy the European Whatever Faye's strengths nobody will claim that subtlety is one of them To be politically relevant one had to look forward and not back and to adapt to radically changed circumstances GRECE stressed from the beginning the importance of what it called “the right to be different” arguing less in terms of European superiority than in terms of European uniueness Europe's right to the nurture of its own identity and destiny The great enemy was seen not so much as military or political threats as such as the forces which sought to attenuate reduce trivialise and ultimately abolish differences The great enemy in this respect was neither Islam nor communism but “the American way of Life” the manifest destiny to reduce all peoples to consumers whose sole struggles were ones of economic competition There is a problem with any non specific assertion of superiority Superiority can only be understood within a frame of reference It is meaningless for example to claim that a frog is “superior” in general to a toad but not meaningless at all to claim that a frog is superior to a toad as a swimmer While egalitarians and their opponents may uarrel over whether or not one can be superior to another they are uick to forget the eually important and essential uestion superior in what respect The multi pluralism of much writing and speeches given by members of GRECE and their supporters in the 1980's rightly noted an ambiguity in the word without pursuing adeuately the obvious point that superiority of one culture to another makes abundant sense when the terms of reference are properly explained That European civilization has been superior in terms of transport to other cultures to take one simple example is hardly subject to debate Faye spends no time in fleshing out his arguments about superiority and in what respects the European is “superior” This is a pity because it would provide the book with a stabilising effect As it is Faye assures us that he believes the European is superior and rushes on the next point Rights to be different are likely to conflict with the rights of others to be different The right to conflict is therefore the right to survival of identity and it is Faye's point that such a right can only be preserved by those who actively engage in the politics Faye stresses that GRECE and he willingly includes himself here ignored the reality of the Islamic threat and that ethnopluralism paved the way for an inactive “head in the sand” response to the long term significance of massive Mohammedan immigration into Europe “Like in the Middle Ages or Antiuity the future reuires us to envisage the Earth as structured in vast uasi imperial unity in mutual conflict or cooperation” p77 Seen in this light Faye's admiration for atomic power implied in this work and explicitly indicated elsewhere dramatically in his comic book notre avant guerre where he gleefully depicts a degenerate Europe being destroyed in mushroom clouds and futuristic technology in general is the ghost in the machine of Faye's project However unlike most modernisers Faye does not duck the dilemma of reconciling a world of modern technology with a world of tradition be it racial political or other Faye's solution is what he calls “archeofuturism” the title of his book and the project to which he believes European revolutionaries and Faye believes we must be revolutionaries to save European civilization and not conservatives the assimilation of the future with the past building a future not as modern or post modern but archeo modern a modernism acutely aware of and with its roots in a deep and profound past There will be a small elite of rulers with access to the highest forms of modern technology while the majority of less gifted will make do with crude forms of technical accomplishment a completely two tier society in fact This seems difficult to reconcile with Faye's expressed support for populist initiatives Faye cites the unlikely figure of Peter Mandelson as an “archeofuturist without knowing it” as someone who has recognised that democracy as we know it from the Mother of Parliaments is tired and no longer able to cope with the challenges which European man and indeed humankind is facing Faye's examination of the real issues behind the palaver of most contemporary politicians is refreshing Here is a taste “The new societies of the future will finally abolish the aberrant egalitarian mechanism we have now whereby everyone aspires to become an officer or a cadre or a diplomat even though all evidence suggests that most people do not have the skills to fulfil those roles This model engenders widespread frustration failure and resentment In respect of nationalism Faye has remained true to the original position of GRECE he rejects nationalism in favour of a grand imperial project We are according to Faye living in revolutionary times and revolutionary times call for a new direction and a new beginning This reviewer would add that nations have their term of life there is a time when they are born and a time when they disappear National division in face of the crises of our times is a fatal return to the past according to Faye Europe must be transformed from within to withstand the challenge of the South Another conflict or contradiction which Faye examines is that which he sees as inherent in the notions of growth and progress Growth and progress lie at the heart of every liberal and left leaning project They are essential to capitalism but they were never rejected by communism uite the contrary Faye sketches a scenario of extreme pessimism to justify his view of a forthcoming two tier world of technocratically advanced and traditional societies The “post catastrophic” world will be one Faye believes divided between the futuristic achievements of an elite and the archaic conditions and status of the majority it will be archeofuturistic Before we examine this idea closely it is worth taking a moment to consider the notions of growth and progress which Faye dismisses as overhauled H Faye fails to distinguish between growth and progress but because they are different they reuire a different approach Growth is an organic facet of nature Progress is a description of a dynamic relation with departure and end as necessary points of reference Modern liberal society speaks of both without a frame of reference that is to say growth and progress without respectively end or aim Growth is an organic process which one would expect to proceed according to natural laws and which will or should cease w hen its natural course has reached its alloted end In nature organisms grow to predefined lengths and uantities Growth which is not part of the natural code abnormal growth that is to say is usually dangerous and may be fatal Cancer is an obvious example The very idea that growth should be “stimulated” or “promoted” should be regarded with the deepest suspicion since it is likely to be the reference to a project which is in the deepest way possible unnatural The underlying assumption of capitalist and communist societies of the desirability of growth without end? as good for and in itself is uintessentially pathological Progress unlike growth contains the connotation of volition It refers necessarily if the word is to have any meaning to a specific end It is usual to regard radicals as “progressive” and conservatives as sceptical The argument is that radicals supposedly believe that progress continues ad infinitum whereas conservatives insist that “you cannot change human nature” Dismissing progress is absurd just as accepting it is so long as Progress is presented as an abstract The uestion must always be posed “progress to what?” Progress without a destination is meaningless because progress itself can only be measured in relation to a point of departure and a point of arrival Leaving aside my regret that Faye does not distinguish between growth and progress there is much to be said for his argument that the rewards of progressgrowth are not at all what they seem Again and this is characteristic of the entire book it is much less Faye's understanding or analysis as his ability to highlight the importance of certain issues at stake which constitute the essential value of Archeofuturism The issue which Faye focusses on here and which modern politicians deftly avoid is who is making an audit of the costs of the sacrifice to growth and progress? Who has made a balance sheet so to speak of the profit and loss? And Faye is contemptuous of those who argue that “progress is inevitable” “I am Nitezschean” Faye notes in response to this meaning that life is shaped by those with the will and energy and faith to shape it This reminds me of AK Chesterton's remark in his work The New Unhappy Lords that he hates no word in the English language than the word “inevitable” Faye's rejection of what he calls “the paradigm of economic development” is simple “An intellectual revolution is taking place people are starting to perceive without daring to openly state it that the old paradigm according to which the life of humanity on both an individual and collective level is getting better and better every day thanks to science the spread of democracy and egalitarian emancipation is uite simply false Today the perverse effects of mass technology are starting to make themselves felt new resistant viruses the contamination of industrially produced food shortage of land and a downturn in world agricultural production rapid and widespread environmental degradation the development of weapons of mass destruction in addition to the atomic bomb not to mention that technology is entering its Baroue age” pp 162163 The last comment excepted which is pure Spengler this writing must strike the impartial reader as familiar It is a fairly good example of the pessimism of environmentalist writers in general and it has been said many times before Faye contemptuously dismisses the French Green movement in these words “the political platform of the Green movement contain no real environmentalist suggestions such as the transport of lorries by train instead of on highways the creation of non polluting cars electric cars LPG etc or the fight against urban sprawl into natural habitats liuid manure leaks ground water contamination the depletion of European fish stocks chemical food additives the overuse of insecticides and pesticides etc Each time I have tried to bring these specific and concrete issues up with a representative of the Greens I got the impression that he was not really interested in them or that he had not really studied them” p 145 It is not clear possibly a fault of the translator's whether Faye is referring to one or several spokesmen It is not my experience at all that environmentalists are not interested in these issues A cursory review of the activities and commitments of environmentalists tells another story Faye's statement that the French Greens have no “real” whatever he may mean by “real” environmental intentions is in the same biased and arrogant vein It is Faye's own environmentalist bona fides than those of the French Green party which I suspect might benefit from sceptical scrutiny His attack on the environmentalist movement is hypocritical and mendacious Faye claims to deplore ecological degradation and predicts imminent ecological collapse but the reader may be forgiven for doubting the writer's sincerity This cynical combination of doom mongering and a refusal to either see or create efforts to prevent catastrophe amount to a gleeful anticipation of catastrophe There is no uestion that that is exactly what the book looks forward to This is the classic ploy of Marxism and if Faye is a Nietszchean as he says he is he is also a Leninist He hints in this book and elsewhere at the manipulation of “useful idiots” including those who are pro European for pacifistic reasons Faye's environmentalism is indeed problematical because it can be seen here and strongly elsewhere in his writings and speeches that Guillaume Faye is an admirer of nuclear power Faye darkly refers to a confession made to him by Brice Lalonde of the French Green Party who “discretely informed me” rather indiscretely where Faye is concerned the book contains several private remarks of this kind made to Guillaume Faye in the course of a convivial lunch or drink that the “true target of the greens is nuclear energy” p145 It is not clear whether Lalonde is supposed to be implying that this target is the only target of the greens It is true that nuclear energy does draw an arguably disproportionate amount of political effort by Green activists and is one subject which seems to unite Greens everywhere Conservative critics of environmentalism freuently point out that the Green opposition to nuclear energy is illogical or hypocritical because the alternatives are supposed to be worse Faye does exactly that”The fight against nuclear plants thus goes against environmentalism The Greens are voicing few protests against the black sea of petrol and the carbon dioxide emissions by which we are engulfed but go off as soon as the slightest nuclear incident occurs” pp 145146 Does Faye expect his readers to believe this? Does he believe it himself? Unsurprisingly Faye omits mention of the reason for Green ire against nuclear power firstly the relation of nuclear energy to nuclear weapons and secondly the permanence of nuclear contamination Other forms of energy may cause pollution and desolation today Nuclear contamination does so for hundreds of thousands of years It is not one of the least of ironies that the manner of Faye's writing and his approach to issues is typical of the movement from which he has broken away The crowning ability of both Guillaume Faye and Alain de Benoist which makes both of them always worth readable always likely to surprise and provoke is their ability to look at an issue from a fresh perspective and strike at the roots of apparently historical spontaneous or “innocent” proposals Faye begins this work with a sharp critiue of GRECE for being too theoretical but in what sense is Faye himself not theoretical? His Archeofuturism is a fantasy and a proposal There is nothing in this book which could not have been written perhaps should have been written by a member of GRECE today Like GRECE too Faye shies away from one of the most critical issues facing anyone on the radical right namely the Jews Are they friend or foe or neither? It has been noted that GRECE's hectic anti Americanism was in some ways the only permitted alternative and was indeed a code for anti semitism Faye has moved away from GRECE on two issues which could be expected to bring him closer to Jews and even Zionism one is his toning down of anti Americanism and the second is his extreme hostility indeed his setting as a priority and nec plus ultra of European survival the defeat of Islam It should come as no great surprise that Faye subseuently after this book was published aligned himself with Zionist groups Faye presents the reader with many of the truly important issues of our time It is for another to provide not so much answers as a response Perhaps someone much younger than either Faye or this reviewer will read this book and know that they are able to provide that response In that case this book will have shown itself to be of the past and the future in a word archeofuturistic


  4. says:

    12 still bound to the democratic republican participatory paradigm


  5. says:

    The first half is a diagnosis of Enlightenment thinking The author manages to say nothing that hasn't already been said better by other 20th century philosophers and makes a particularly heinous misreading of Nietzsche's concept of eternal return I managed to grit my and read on until the fourth chapter but decided to abandon thereafter as Faye indulges in the most base right wing arguments against positive discrimination homosexuality etc The sole highlight is his critiue of rap and techno music which is thoroughly hilariousFrom a musical point of view rap – like techno – is a very poor genre It is not open to any renewal Its range of harmonies is too small and its rhythms too repetitive Its lyrics written by talentless people with public funding are worthless plaintive and falsely violent NTM is nothing but subsidised propaganda and gratuitous provocation133 an aping of the tough Black bands active in the Bronx in the 1970s minus the musical talent power and sincerity Utter impostors The same goes for all contemporary rappers It is working for the moment but won’t last long MC Solaar is a good writer of lyrics trapped in a musical deadlockAs for techno it is not music but percussion This ‘music’ also won’t last long It is devoid of any content Techno and rap like hip hop will go the same way as twist and disco because they do not belong to any aesthetic or musical current but merely provide a social look – and looks are transient thingsRock’n’roll on the other hand is eternal for it can take various forms and rests on a range of harmonies It has managed to survive and remain in fashion What is now spreading across the world though are ethnic forms of music Latin Asian Celtic Greek Arab African etc – renewed forms of popular musicAlso worth mentioning that this book has no proper bibliography only a haphazard list at the end of each chapter that summarizes the ideas of mentioned individuals


  6. says:

    I sometimes think of my project to pass Reaction through the refiner’s fire as beginning with the raw material of a simple stout tree which has grown straight but has many branches My task is to examine and prune those branches and to plane down the tree to its core creating a smooth and solid piece of wood to which can be fitted a forged head—a lance of destiny we can call it This book Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism is one of those branches and today we will lop it off though perhaps some of its wood can be used to fuel the forging furnace That said this book is mostly insane But not completely And if I am being honest it prefigures in part my own preoccupation with a future that combines the politics of Reaction with the technology of tomorrowI had heard occasionally of this book but very vaguely It’s well regarded in circles in which I do not travel One can guess this from the short forward by someone named Michael O’Meara who beneath his signature lists “two vital books” he has written one called Toward the White Republic Very evidently we are not in Kansas any The author is French of course and not of the American scene George Hawley’s excellent Right Wing Critics of Conservatism spends uite a bit of time on the European New Right primarily a French phenomenon of the 1970s and 1980s referred to as the Nouvelle Droit with which Faye is connected It’s still around but today has little impact and is dying out Its core leader was and is Alain de Benoist and their thought usually features what is to American ears an odd blend—opposition to immigration from outside Europe combined with anti racism declaimed a bit too loudly to persuade their enemies; opposition to America viewed as a cultural and economic enemy; dislike of the free market; and to cap it all off violent opposition to Christianity and an endorsement of various ill defined forms of what is supposed to be paganism but boils down or less to testosterone laced pantheismAll this overlaps it appears with elements of the “white nationalist” movement in America there really is such a thing although it’s tiny and the term itself has been ruined by its use as a propaganda term of abuse and with other European thinkers that are even farther afield such as Julius Evola the thought of whom Steve Bannon is famously acuainted with to what end exactly is not clear Bannon is at this moment in Europe drumming up support for a new populist right wing coalition; yesterday he signed up Matteo Salvini the leader of the Italian League and according to the New York Times the most important politician in Italy today so we have apparently not heard the last of him The Nouvelle Droit is therefore not “right” in any recognizably American sense and to compound the confusion de Benoist today regards himself explicitly as a man of the Left and says he would have voted for Bernie Sanders Regardless of where we can pigeonhole their thought some of it is now available in English due to the efforts of Arktos Press started by a Swedish businessman to spread such “alt right” works a press of which I heard from Hawley and who published the copy of Archeofuturism that I read—though the first translations of Nouvelle Droit works into English were done by Telos Press a left wing publishing house Go figure I will note that the translator here did an excellent job with the footnotes; without them most references to events and people would be incomprehensible to an AmericanHowever we are not here to survey the Nouvelle Droit but its second most famous member Faye He was one of the original core members of the Nouvelle Droit but he split from them and mostly disappeared from view around 1985 only resurfacing with the publication of this book in 1998 In the meantime he did things like radio comedy acting and starring in pornographic films Like I said go figure Archeofuturism is a set of somewhat disjointed and rambling essays but with a solid core of repeated assertion of what Faye believes and why In fact while it is not well organized to convey a coherent message a coherent message nonetheless comes through uite clearly Two men hover over nearly every page—Friedrich Nietzsche whom Faye seems to regard as the ultimate seer and Carl Schmitt largely for his vision of the Ernstfall Schmitt’s thought about how emergencies justify actions by the state that could not otherwise by justified in particular suspension of the rule of law as Mark Lilla has pointed out Schmitt was fond of the Roman practice of temporary dictators though Faye does not mention this specificallyWhat Faye wants at its broadest level is for humanity to recapture the “victorious life” which is certainly a Nietzschean sounding phrasing The overall frame of the book is a specific rejection of the modern world the “catastrophe of modernity” This means for Faye the denunciation of all mainstream political thought Left and Right the former is unalloyed evil; the latter “traditionalism” is just neutered weak and stupid Faye insists that what we want and what we will get is “a return to archaic and ancestral values while at the same time envisioning the future as something than a mere extension of the present Against modernism futurism Against attachment to the past archaism”Archeofuturism is not a set of recommendations for creating a new world though It’s like a future history and in fact it ends with a long fiction piece looking backward from 2073 Faye is telling us what is certain to happen and what he is trying to do is prepare us for it not really guide or change the future I’ll go through it blow by blow but Faye’s claims can be boiled down to their essence as follows First the entire global political and economic system is going to collapse before 2020 Billions will die Second from the ashes will arise six megastate blocs consisting of ethnicallyracially similar people Europeans; Africans; Muslims; East Asians; North Americans; South Americans which will be autarkic as between each other and which will contain within them numerous smaller states organized around sub cultures of the culture that characterizes the megastate bloc each of which will have very high degree of autonomy Migration between blocs will not occur though limited travel will Third 90% of the people in each imperial bloc will live like fifteenth century peasants with era appropriate technology health care and life expectancy 10% will live awesome techno futurist lives completely separately from the peasants Everybody will be happy in his sphere The end For Faye says this is the natural state of man and striving for any other state is a fool’s errandHere also Faye first formally defines “Archeofuturism” Faye loves neologisms This seems to be a big thing among radical thinkers who think perhaps correctly that using new words avoids constraining thought He cites Foucault for the proposition that words “have a crucial importance” “to state and describe is already to construct” The key philosophy that underlies Faye’s thought he terms “vitalist constructivism” Vitalist constructivism is meant to be the opposite of egalitarianism and to embody a “Faustian spirit” meant as a good thing of progress to embody a “will to power” that stands for “an organic and non mechanistic mentality” though he defines it at some further length Anyway Archeofuturism is “a future society that combines techno scientific progress with a return to the traditional answers that stretch back into the mists of time It is necessary to reconcile Evola and Marinetti the apostle of Italian Futurism and do away with the notion of ‘modernity’ produced by Enlightenment ideology” The problem I face is that when I hear this it that it sounds pretty good It’s in the details that we get lost in the weeds and then realize the weeds are nightshadeFaye begins before we talk about the specifics of the future with a long explanation or apologetic about his relationship and break with the Nouvelle Droit At first this seems of only modest interest who cares what obscure Frenchies did in the 1980s? but if you realize that what he describes is relevant to any group that is pushing discourse outside the Overton Window it becomes uite insightful and potentially useful His first major claimed flaw is that the ND attempted to apply the principles of Antonio Gramsci by achieving dominance of a society’s cultural institutions from which is to follow political power but failed to grasp that all such actions must take place within a political frame not just an intellectual one or they are ephemeral He specifically objects to the ND’s willingness to endorse “Third Worldist and pro Islamic positions” evincing “post colonial masochism” when those were rejected by any normal people likely to be interested in the ND as well as refusing to endorse a coherent economic plan which is something average people demand The ND refused to talk about concrete things that is and preferred abstractions hoping to influence the upper crust of intellectual culture which focus does not lead to powerHis second major flaw is that the ND when censored by those who held the levers of power in the media and the academy as conservatives are today in America did not fight by implementing “disorienting and provocative action” but rather was complacent Faye says if they had fought if they had “sought to launch provoking debates and formulate radical ideas” the media would have had to cover them because “the media must necessarily attack—and hence advertise—everything that opposes their system” There is some truth to this—Exhibit A is Donald Trump On the other hand Exhibit B is the successful blackout of the Sweden Democrats and any facts that would support them such as that essentially 100% of the very many rapes now committed in Sweden are committed by young immigrant men by the Swedish establishment As of yesterday we can see that blackout is not suppressing the Sweden Democrats effectively though And Exhibit C is the opening skirmishes by the American Lords of Tech in their formal plan to totally uash all conservative thought on all tech platforms with proof of concept being the total depersoning of Alex Jones I don’t think the ND or anyone else is Donald Trump—there is only one for now—so I suspect Faye is wrong here and it is not generally true that “talent always prevails over censorship when it is accompanied by daring and intelligence” It certainly didn’t work under Communism and there is no reason to believe that our neoliberal overlords will be any less censorious in the teeth of rising opposition than Communism wasHis third major objection to the ND is their attempt to turn paganism into an actual religion rather than a mere internal feeling to be encouraged This alienated many potential supporters who are “sentimentally tied to local traditions” by which he means Catholics And paganism as religion was a silly distraction from real concrete political problems which the ND then failed to address in the eyes of those who could have added to their power Faye’s fourth major objection is that contrary to mainline ND thought actually the United States “is better regarded as a rival and opponent inimici than as an enemy hostes” And certainly it is not the case that “Africa Asia and Latin America” should be viewed as allies of Europe against the “Yankees” Finally and related to the first claim Faye strongly holds that the ND should be “ethno nationalist” not “ethno pluralist” The immigration of or rather colonization by other cultures is a disaster for Europe and Faye notes is purely one way It creates “rapid ethno anthropological alteration; the erosion of European cultural roots; and strong economic and social setback leading to poverty and endemic crime” These three factual claims are difficult to argue certainly and it’s bizarre to think that when Faye wrote the problem was some tens of thousands of alien invaders not the million in a year that Angela Merkel and George Soros have blessed the continent with recentlyThe weeds show up here though Faye has a solution for the problem of “ethno anthropological alteration” which is to deport anyone who’s not of “European stock” including those here for generations To Madagascar Which you will remember was the Nazi idea before they decided on another not that Faye adverts to that dubious historical precedent I suppose this is a common enough historical action and solution there are no Prussians in East Prussia today but whatever your political orientation it’s not something most people could countenance nowadays No observant Christian could stomach it certainly You have to hand it to Faye though—he does offer internal consistency My stock objection to even any attempts to limit inbound immigration has been that they are inadeuate unless the desiccated Europeans experience a renewal of virtue something they appear far from No point in being Japan a homogenous country that will soon be homogenously empty Faye thinks this problem will solve itself because as part of the coming catastrophes so many people will die and there will be so much violence started by the undesirables no less that mass deportations won’t seem like such a big deal and at the same time those catastrophes will bring out and bring back the natural moral fiber of those of European stock pan European—from the Bering Strait to Brest; the English do not seem to figure Note that he does not say “superior” moral fiber—as with those on the American right who not very convincingly say they are white “separatists” not white “supremacists” Faye is careful to never say that any of the forthcoming ethnically based megastate blocs is necessarily better—just different “One land one people this is what human nature reuires” So he skips the problem of convincing people today that deportations are good idea substituting a magic wand of a future time of troubles Which is as I says consistent if not persuasive as suchStill even with the unpleasant taste Faye’s program of deportation leaves the reader keeps getting pulled back to the things that Faye says that do make sense It is true unfortunately that every modern multiracial society is actually “multiracist” It is for the most part true that Islam “is an intrinsically conuering theocratic and antidemocratic religion that seeks—as General DeGaulle had foreseen—to replace each church with a mosue” It is probably true that Islam in the terms of Carl Schmitt is an “objective enemy he who identifies you as an enemy for the very reason that you exist whatever you may do” though even Faye admits that part of his objection to Islam is that paganism like his own is still less approved of by Islam than Christianity That said Faye was certain that European multiculturalism would collapse by 2008 and yet Europe staggers along so his actual predictions of disaster haven’t been proved rightThe problem I think is Faye’s identification of culture with ethnic groups While it is a complete myth that Europe has been in any time in the past thousand years the result of significant movements of people it is true that Europe is the result of many influences under the overarching rubric of Christendom Not only is there far less ethnic commonality among Europeans than Faye suggests a strong vibrant culture has a nearly infinite capacity to absorb those from outside without falling into the error of tribal identity politics—as long as those allowed in from outside are forced directly or indirectly to conform to the new culture and to mostly abandon their in the case of non Westerners inferior cultures Needless to say modern Left “multiculturalism” is the exact opposite For example I am sure Faye loves Alexander Pushkin who is as Russian as they come but after all Pushkin’s great grandfather was from Cameroon and served the Tsar as a military engineer This conformity doesn’t have to be a state coerced adoption of a new culture although it could be and probably has to be with massive immigration; informal pressures such as the need to adopt the new culture in order to advance in society can work just as well—witness the old American melting pot or the gradual adoption of Islam and Islamic culture across the lands conuered by the Arabs Not for Faye though—for him the choice is binary and based on ethnicity by which he means mostly undefined race Which is both foolish and antithetical to the Christian view of all men as brothers that was essential to making the West what it wasBut Faye can never admit that It cannot be over emphasized how opposed to Christianity Faye is Like Nietzsche he rejects any inherent human dignity and says that “love thy neighbor like thyself” is “an apology for weakness and a pathological form of emasculation and self blame” He also blames Christianity for suggesting that science should benefit everyone rather than just the elite resulting in despoliation of the planet Although he does not say so directly Faye basically envisions the future as pre Christian Scandinavia with rockets having “a certain harshness a resolute frankness a taste for pride and honour pragmatism a rejection of all non selective social organizations” along with a willingness to use violence Etc Faye seems to forget that for as much as Vikings fascinate us they were a predator society that produced nothing at all except awesome sagas They are not a template for civilizational progressThus Faye claims that the Romans executed “dangerous criminals and the physically or mentally disabled” by throwing them off the Tarpeian Rock I don’t think this is correct—it was traitors primarily The translator notes not infreuently uotations or minor facts that Faye gets wrong because he was working from memory although he does not note that this claim is incorrect I think this slip is revealing though—what Faye wants though he only says it here is for the physically or mentally disabled to be killed The Romans did expose disabled babies a practice ended only by Christianity and which has returned today but I have never heard that they killed disabled adults much less by such a dramatic method Faye’s future time of blood is really an eternity of bloodSo on the details of how we are getting to Archeofuturism As far as the predicted collapse Faye’s belief is that we are facing an imminent “convergence of catastrophes” There is much florid language surrounding this idea such as “the century of iron and fire is looming near” but the specific alleged causes of this convergence are three First environmental collapse of unspecified origin but derived ultimately from overuse of permanently limited resources by trying to give everyone a high standard of living Second economic collapse due to an aging population which is caused by “anti natalism” a function of Left modernity Third destruction of the European social fabric by colonization by immigrants from the South primarily Muslim ones This is both a cultural destruction and a huge increase in crime ultimately leading to “urban revolts” which will combine with environmental and financial collapse to create a firestorm of anarchy and destruction with the ultimate re imposition of order in Europe by local warlords and righteous Russian invasionReview continues as first comment


  7. says:

    Faye's vision of the future is an incredibly fresh reimagining of mid 20th century pan European ideas from a right wing perspective His critiue of his compatriots of GRECE and FN is delivered with some measure of acrimony but an acute sense of necessity Faye's moral structure and cultural relativism are a distinct low point of the overall idea he delivers in the text but he is also keenly self aware of his own ideas and ideological attachments which robs critics of the opportunity to accuse him of any sort of pretensions As with most Arktos translations the piece is thoroughly readable and engaging albeit in terms of content somewhat fantastical in its expectations and desires Perhaps its greatest strength is the clear recognition of the danger posed by Islam coupled with the clear import of Christianity to European culture something which seems lost on the greater part of the French New Right This is not to say Faye has any sort of developed sense of Christian morality or theology but rather that he has hung close to Charles Maurras not perfect but good enough for a modernist alliance with Christianity as an indispensable part of all European right wing politics He could benefit from a parallel reading with Hilaire Belloc


  8. says:

    A mixed bag of nonsense and a few good and interesting ideas


  9. says:

    Way Right of Center and applying to some old ideas instead of looking forward There will be those who will love this and those that will hate it Rating 3 out of 5 Stars


  10. says:

    What if?This uestion is the premise on which the uncompromising and sharp toned Guillaume formulates his thesis about a not so futuristic post apocalyptic scenario where a new Euroseberian political entity emerges after a series of converging disasters like climate change continental civil war epidemics as well as an economic crisis which all culminate in the collapse of social order as we know it Not a lot of Authors would even fantasize about crossing the Rubicon of Political correctness in the way Faye does The first roughly 80% of the book is written as a political tractate and an intellectual embryo for future cultivation precisely what Faye does with his following works published by Arktos while the second one is about a Fictional State Dignitary of the Empire who while on a train ride with an Indian exchange student tells about the cataclysmic events happening between 2014 2024 and the emergence of the new Euroseberian Empire its Socio Political system as well as its international relationships with the rest of the global powers and what's left of the United States