1,241 words
I was deeply saddened to learn today of the death of French New Right philosopher and polemicist Guillaume Faye after a battle with cancer. Faye had been sick for some time, but he was so focused on writing what will now be his last book that he postponed seeing a doctor until it was complete. When he finally sought medical attention, he was diagnosed with stage four cancer. There is no stage five. Guillaume Faye gave his life for his work, and his work for Europe.
Faye, like New Rightists and White Nationalists in European societies around the globe, was motivated by a sense of danger: the reigning system — liberal, democratic, capitalist, egalitarian, globalist — has set the white race in all of its homelands on the path to extinction through declining birthrates and race replacement through immigration and miscegenation. If we are to survive, we must understand this system, critique it, and frame an alternative that will secure the survival and flourishing of our race. Then we need to figure out how we can actually implement these ideas.
I like Faye’s approach for a number of reasons.
First, Faye thinks big. He wants to take all of Europe back for Europeans. I completely agree with this aim. Furthermore, to secure the existence of Europe against the other races and power blocs, Faye envisions the creation of a vast “Eurosiberian” Imperium, stretching from Iceland to the Pacific, with a federated system of government and an autarkic economy. He believes that only such an imperium will be equal to the challenges posed by the other races in a world of burgeoning populations and shrinking resources. As I argue in my essay “Grandiose Nationalism,” I think that such ideas are neither necessary nor practical and they entail dangers of their own. But nobody can fault them for visionary boldness.
Second, Faye thinks racially. His answer to the question “Who are we?” is ultimately racial, not cultural, religious, or subracial: white people are a vast, extended family descending from the original inhabitants of Europe after the last Ice Age. There are, of course, cultural and subracial identities that are also worth preserving within a federated imperium, but not at the expense of the greater racial whole.
Third, Faye is not a Luddite, primitivist, or Hobbit. He values our heritage, but he is attracted less to external social and cultural forms than to the vital drives that created them and express themselves in them. He also wishes to do justice to European man’s Faustian drive toward exploration, adventure, science, and technology. His “archeofuturism” seeks to fuse vital, archaic, biologically-based values with modern science and technology.
Fourth, Faye turns the idea of collapse into something more than a deus ex machina, a kind of Rapture for racists. We know a priori that an unsustainable system cannot be sustained forever and that some sort of collapse is inevitable. But Faye provides a detailed and systematic and crushingly convincing analysis of how the present system may well expire from a convergence of catastrophes. Of course, we need to be ready when the collapse comes. We need a clear metapolitical framework and an organized, racially conscious community to step into the breach, or when the present system collapses, it will simply be replaced with a rebranded form of the same ethnocidal regime.
Fifth, Faye is a strong critic of Christianity as the primary fount of the moral universalism, egalitarianism, and individualism that are at the root of our decline.
The only really fundamental disagreement I have with Faye was on the Jewish question. His views are closer to those of Jared Taylor, whereas mine are closer to those of Kevin MacDonald.
I only met Faye once, at the 2006 American Renaissance conference, where we had a couple of enjoyable conversations. We corresponded occasionally before and after that meeting. One of my treasured possessions is a copy of Faye’s first book, Le Système à tuer les peuples (Copernic, 1981), which he had given to Savitri Devi. Unfortunately, he was never able to locate his brief correspondence with Savitri. Perhaps it will come to light in his papers, which should be carefully preserved. If European man has a future, it will be due in no small part to Faye’s works. He belongs to history now, and future European generations will look dimly upon us if we fail to conserve and carry on his legacy.
Counter-Currents will publish several memorial tributes to Faye in the coming days. In the meantime, I wish simply to draw your attention to many pieces by and about Faye at Counter-Currents.
By Guillaume Faye:
- “Call to Young Europeans,” trans. Greg Johnson (Translations: Czech, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish)
- “The Cause of the Peoples?,” trans. Michael O’Meara
- “The Conquest of Europe Begins,” trans. Guillaume Durocher
- “Cosmopolis: The West as Nowhere,” trans. Greg Johnson
- “From Dusk to Dawn,” trans. Michael O’Meara
- “The Essence of Archaism,” trans. Irmin Vinson
- “The Geopolitics of Ethnopolitics: The Concept of Eurosiberia,” trans. Greg Johnson
- “Guillaume Faye on Nietzsche,” trans. Greg Johnson (Czech translation here)
- “The Intentional Genocide of European Peoples?,” trans. Greg Johnson (Spanish trans. here)
- Interview on Dominique Venner, trans. Greg Johnson (Spanish trans.)
- Interview with Guillaume Faye
- “The Islamic Conquest of Europe,” trans. Irmin Vinson
- “Islamism is Less Dangerous than Islam,” trans. Greg Johnson
- “Jihadist Carnage in Paris,” Part 1 (Spanish trans.), Part 2, trans. Greg Johnson
- “The Lesson of Carl Schmitt,” with Robert Steuckers, trans. Greg Johnson
- “Macron: Artifact and Puppet,” trans. Guillaume Durocher
- “Mars and Hephaestus: The Return of History,” trans. Greg Johnson (Russian translation here)
- “The Migratory Invasion,” Part 1 (Spanish trans.), Part 2 (Spanish trans.), Part 3 (Spanish trans,), trans. Greg Johnson
- “On the Essence of War,” trans. Greg Johnson
- “On the Russian Annexation of Crimea,” trans. Greg Johnson (Czech trans.)
- “People” (from Why We Fight)
- “State and Society,” trans. Greg Johnson
- “Ten Untimely Ideas,” trans. Michael O’Meara
- “Traditionalism: This is the Enemy!,” trans. Greg Johnson
- “Tribute to Dominique Venner,” trans. Greg Johnson (Translations Czech, Greek, Spanish)
- “Trump: Revolution or Simulacrum?” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, trans. Guillaume Durocher
- “Ukraine: Understanding the Russian Position,” trans. Greg Johnson
About Guillaume Faye:
- Francis Alexander, “Toward Euro-Siberia” (Portuguese translation here)
- F. Roger Devlin, “The Rectification of Names: Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight“
- F. Roger Devlin, “A Serious Case: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism“
- Jack Donovan, “‘Corporatism’ or Mercantilism?“
- Ricardo Duchesne, “The European New Right and its Animus Against Western Civ“
- Georges Feltin-Tracol, “Back to the Future: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism“
- Andrew Hamilton, “Pan-Nationalism“
- Thomas Jackson, “Life After the Collapse: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism“
- Greg Johnson, “Grandiose Nationalism” (Translations: French, German, Russian, Spanish)
- Greg Johnson, “Project Septentrion: The Last Line of Defense” (French originals here)
- Greg Johnson, “Review of Michael O’Meara’s Guillaume Faye and the Battle of Europe” (Czech translation here)
- Greg Johnson, “Theory and Practice” (Translations: French, Polish)
- Julian Langness, “Desired Storms: Guillaume Faye’s The Colonisation of Europe“
- Robert Lind, “A Field Day for the Titanic Pessimist: A Review of Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism 2.0“
- Michael O’Meara, “Europe’s Enemy: Islam or America? Guillaume Faye’s Le coup d’Etat mondial“
- Michael O’Meara, Foreword to Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism
- Michael O’Meara, “Guillaume Faye and the Jews“
- Michael O’Meara, “The New Jewish Question of Guillaume Faye“
- Michael O’Meara, “Preparing for World War III: Guillaume Faye’s Avant-Guerre“
- Michael O’Meara, “Sex and Derailment: Guillaume Faye’s Sexe et Devoiement“
- Michael O’Meara, “The Transitional Program: Guillaume Faye’s Mon Programme“
- Michael O’Meara, “The Widening Gyre: Guillaume Corvus’ La convergence des catastrophes“
- Christopher Pankhurst, “Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism 2.0“
- Christopher Pankhurst, “Guillaume Faye’s Sex and Deviance“
- Michael Walker, “Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism“
10 Comments
My favorite Faye book is Why We Fight. Each time I look through it I am impressed at how concise, comprehensive and unusually insightful it is.
Nice Eulogy Greg,
Concerning the 2006 Amren Conference, was Faye the speaker who when questioned by David Duke set off Michael Hart to stomp out of the conference hall screaming at Duke that he was a “ffn Nazi?” My wife and I were standing right behind Duke and it was quite an interesting moment to say the least.
Valhalla awaits him
I too was quite upset to learn about Faye’s death this morning. He was a formative influence when I was younger and his writing will always mean so much to me. It’s strange how people you have never met can have a stronger influence on you than people you have known your whole life.
Faye is a hero. He had great humor also.
I’ll never forget meeting him at the 2015 Halloween NPI conference. Antifa were waiting for us all outside the building when the event wrapped up, so there was a mad dash out of the building and through the streets of DC after dark with half the normies in costumes everywhere you looked. It was incredibly surreal. Guillaume Faye and I ended up jogging alongside one another and got to talking. Once we were far enough away from the antifa to start walking at a regular pace he must have bummed five cigarettes from me, repeatedly saying “Thank you comrade, thank you” with each one in his signature French accent.
An unpleasant surprise for this reader, too.
I mainly have an idea of his work from CC, but had read a little before.
Vale.
This may not be the best place to say it, but it is clear from what I have read of his writing and reviews here that he had closely read Situationist writing, and was reflecting it at times in his own. He was not alone on the French Right there.
So, I recommend, on analysis and propaganda, CC readers read Situ material. No leftist current has more value on those points. Whether it was leftist or not, esp. some post-Situ writings, is a point of controversy. Of course, they were parroting leftist tropes much of the time.
M. Faye was clearly aware of the best points that were not simply such.
Met him once (twice actually, though same day), did not know enough to engage in deep conversation. I will say his English was better than my French. But now I have the leisure to read his books without trying to catch up with the latest.
You know there is a saying ‘Do not speak ill of the dead’?
I do not think it generally applicable, but surely for some time after the death, one can raise ideological dislikes, but not such complete disrespect.
A sincere question, what is *your* country? Not trolling, just want to see the reason for the animosity.
Are you sure that it is still *your* or *your people”s* country now?
He was a great speaker, full of energy.
RIP Mr Faye