Remembering Guillaume Faye: November 7, 1949–March 7, 2019

1,217 words

Today is Guillaume Faye’s first birthday since his death earlier this year 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.

I wish to draw your attention to many pieces by and about Faye at Counter-Currents.

By Guillaume Faye: