What I learned from Faye
Guillaume Faye taught me that you must be authentic. Even if what you are going to say may aggravate those who follow your work you must say it regardless. Nobody will ever agree with all your ideas, if someone says that they agree with everything X says then they are in bad faith. They are not a genuine individual.
Guillaume Faye made me realise that we cannot rely solely on an academic approach when delivering hard truths.
We live in a overly sensitive society in which not matter how much evidence is behind your argument, no matter how many citations you use, how many highly praised studies support your argument, people will denounce what you present on ‘moral grounds.’ It is not the content which they rebuttal (or fallaciously “rebuttal”), it is the subject matter which gives or rejects credibility to your piece.
Take an academic who presents an argument with nothing but good intentions, they merely want to raise awareness to something which should be considered, and potentially poses a threat to the social cohesion and safety of the country they live in. (You can pick whatever scenario you wish, there is an endless amount to choose from). If what that academic has put forward as a potential threat is considered to be an (in the word of Guillaume Faye) ‘ideologically dissident statement’, it is dismissed solely by emotionally charged responses. The topic is no longer given consideration. Rebuttals towards it are not made in good faith, they are made on fallacious grounds driven by an author who seeks only to dismiss the argument for the subject matter. Academics who do support what is presented are also dismissed with ad-hominem, they are slandered naïve, worthless students with no idea of what the text actually contains protest and demand the dismissal of an intellectual who has earned their credentials – while the students know nothing outside of what they hear second hand, read on websites that masquerade as news. These ‘activist’ students are nothing more than a bumbling herd of airheaded lemmings directed by the flies in the marketplace. These activist students are indeed mocked and laughed at by other students, but sadly that small effort is the extent of their reaction. They could play part in the redirection of academia, but they instead remain passive and allow this cycle of decadent degeneracy to perpetuate itself.
Those that do not follow the politics which effects their lives, those who ignore their anger, suppress it and do not speak out, are as pointless as the politicians that are screwing them over. The West is populated with people riddled with Despair, Stockholm syndrome has removed any desire to achieve genuine change.
This passivity is what allows discourse to be restricted. It allows the manipulation of what we can say and how we express ourselves, our we express concerns about the direction our countries move in to be silenced – to strike fear in the every day person from expressing their genuine concerns about the changes in the environment that they grew up in.
Oh, the irony in the young middle-class degenerate insulting an elderly Australian couple for being uncomfortable about the area they have lived in for 80 years going from peaceful, quite, a tight community spirit, to having people at night smashing bottles in their street, spray painting their fences, vandalising the shop down the road, people driving around in the middle of the night with loud music blaring. The people making these comments about the old couple are the same people who pretend to be fighting for the working class, yet they insult the old couple with “out of touch,” “racist old white people,” “they don’t matter, it is our future, they will be dead soon.” The old people who played part in the building of the country are dismissed because they express concerns about the change of environment. Those people who are descended from anywhere in Europe, be it Ireland, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Greece or Scotland are no longer allowed to state their fears because their words are ‘offensive’.
The increasing infringement upon what I can say, the impact that it can have on my future, it brought a sense of concern; the uncertainty of regular income in a society which equates every aspect of our existence with monetary value for people who speak out against the direction we are moving in.
Sometimes what we write must contain heavy blows. The controversy it stirs creates interest towards what you write, it draws people towards what contains blatant truths and awakens a revolt. It confirms what people already know but are too afraid to say.
Guillaume Faye taught me that big ideas are what we must seek, small solutions within our current system are like focusing on a few tiny leaks in a pipe riddled with massive ruptures:
“Radical thought is neither ‘extremist’ nor utopian, for if it were it would have no hold on reality; rather, it must anticipate the future by making a clear break with the irreparably worm-eaten present.” (Archeotfuturism, pg. 53)
Every now and then I return back to a point where I merely start to attack and critique ideas instead of providing something else to replace them. When I reopened Archeofuturism a few days ago to start writing an essay on Guillaume Faye, motivated by Arktos sharing a post I wrote after his death, it made me rethink my approach. If we went to make change, we must provide an alternative instead of merely attacking that which we don’t like.
“A leading idea cannot be merely defined by opposition to something else: it must be affirmative and meaningful in itself. […] Any critique of a notion is only meaningful if it is accompanied by a new and affirmative notion.” (pg. 56-7).
We should never solely praise someone, this is inauthentic. While Guillaume Faye wrote positively about Israel, I completely disagree with this stance (I disagree with Faye on a few things, but listing them would not stop anyone at an outlet like BuzzFeed falsely labeling me as far-Right, Alt-Right or any other label that does not fit me anyway).
Israel is a hornets nest in the Middle East that provides nothing positive to any Western nation. It antagonizes surrounding nations, thus dispersing Middle Easterners outwards. It is understandable that they would leave an area where a psychopathic genocidal nation backed by the largest country on the planet, sitting on a pile of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t excuse the conversion of the nations they move to, if you leave your country to go to another, if you were doing so in good faith, you would embrace the culture that you were moving into. Would you move to Japan to immerse yourself in Austrian culture? I think not. But back to the point. The existence of Israel does not help Western nations, if anything, it helps radicalize Islamic youth within our nations.
People are terrified to make these criticisms about Israel. Though there seems to be a growing amount of people willing to public criticise Israel, media outlets and pointless cretins like Ben Shapiro do all they can to maintain the fake link between criticism of Israel and antisemitism alive. Like a lot of people I am critical of Faye and his stance, but we cannot always see eye-to-eye with anybody on anything.
Guillaume Faye taught me that we cannot escape the decline of Western society by returning to a state in the past. But we can bring forward old values and make a modern society that is compatible with them.
Think of it this way.
Friedrich Nietzsche tore down our old idols. He brought down the crumbling structure so we could lay a new foundation and move forward. Heidegger took on the project Nietzsche left, he began to sift through the pieces and find what still had value.
Like rebuilding an old stone cottage.
Heidegger started to look for stones we could use again in the remaking of the building. He put in motion a new process of Becoming. (Nietzsche was the eidos, he gave us the the new idea, a vision, something to aspire to. He gave us the new man, the man that transcends what he was instead of remaining stuck, perpetuating his own decline by not seeking to advance himself, to transcend himself. He knocked down what was holding us back).
Heidegger returned us to the original question so we could start again: “Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?” We cannot start fresh by starting from where we are now, we must rethink what is in the past and seek those valuable notions which worked for us, which held us together, the values that allowed us to be a community, to have social cohesion, those values which are organic to Europeans.
This process was carried on after Heidegger by groups like Nouvelle droite, of which Guillaume Faye was once a part of. It was in finding Nietzsche, Heidegger, Benoist and Faye that lead me to this project, and soon onto my own new beginning, The Modern Condition.
I will forever be indebted to Faye. While I have my disagreements, he was, and will always be, an important part in my own thought. In pursuing a grand idea, providing a positive notion to combat notions I find problematic. Rest in Peace Guillaume Faye.