Archeofuturism by Guillaume Faye

Archeofuturism is a book by Guillaume Faye, published by Arktos in 2010. It was originally published in French in 1998. While the underlying principles remain as valid as ever, many of the predictions and examples feel dated. Old Grandfather Modernity has shown a remarkable tendency to cling to life while even on his deathbed. The work itself is more a collection of essays than a coherent whole.

The writing itself reminds me of Hakim Bey, though without the lengthy paeans to self-indulgence and pedophilia. The extensive footnotes the translator and editor felt necessary for understanding the work remind me of Ezra Pound. There are worse things to which one could be compared. The text is divided into six sections: a short biography detailing why he left, and his differences with, the European New Right; an explanation of Archeofuturism and how it will allow us to navigate the Catastrophe (more on this later); a collection of position papers and musings (by far the longest section of the book); an outline of his proposal for an economic system; a discourse on questions of ethnicity; and, finally, a short story outlining a day in the life of an official in his future Archeofuturistic world.

The Catastrophe, if I understand Faye’s thought, is the impending crash of the world system as the various socio-economic crises come to a head. While I agree, broadly, with his assessment of the unsustainable nature of Western Civilization/Modernity, looking back on his predictions, they have not progressed as quickly as he thought they would. Modernity has proven more elastic and adaptable than predicted. The strain is visible, the disorder rampant, but entropy has not yet brought down the system. My children, or my grandchildren, may see the dissolution of the modern world, but I am doubtful it will occur in my lifetime.

I am not an economist, but his dual tiered system, whereby the majority of humanity lives in a pastoral low-tech environment and an administrative elite live a high-tech one, strikes me as unworkable. On one hand, it does seem that it would provide the desired sustainability, but I doubt that the low-technology people will be so acquiescent. I am unsure how the Archeofuturistic world would avoid resentment from the have-nots toward the elites. Then again, it reminds me of the book Gather, Darkness by Fritz Leiber, and I might very well be too indoctrinated by Modernity to imagine a world where people have not been indoctrinated to resent those who are more successful, powerful, etc.

Frankly, the whole thing came across as a bit confused and muddled. I agree with the basic premise that the past is a guidepost for incorporating the future, and I can grasp the benefits of the dialectic of merging traditional life with the modern. Archeofuturism is meant to be the child of this union, but like any sonogram, the picture seems to be a bit fuzzy.
I do have his other works. As I read them, I will see if things become more clear. I’ll get back to you…