Skip to main content
Limited time offer: Get 10% off on all orders above $100! Shop now

Constantin von Hoffmeister compares the geopolitical visions of Guillaume Faye and Alexander Dugin.

This article was originally published here.

Guillaume Faye was a French political philosopher and writer who coined the term Archeofuturism, which refers to a synthesis of ancient and futuristic ideas. Faye thought that globalization and mass immigration were threatening Europe’s cultural and historical heritage and that a new vision was required to secure the survival of European civilization.

Faye’s attitude is based on preserving European traditions while embracing technology and innovation. He imagined a world in which Europe will perfect its own species, colonize the universe, and construct spaceships named after pagan gods. This vision was influenced by his concept of Eurosiberia, a power bloc reaching from Dublin to Vladivostok partially inspired by Belgian thinker Jean Thiriart’s ideas. Thiriart believed that a unified Europe as a geopolitical and cultural entity, based on the concept of a unified European superstate that would be strong enough to compete with the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War era, would not only serve as a counterbalance to the dominant powers of the time but also provide a more effective means of preserving Europe’s cultural heritage and identity, which he perceived as being under threat.

Alexander Dugin is a controversial Russian political philosopher and activist known for supporting Eurasianism, a geopolitical ideology that seeks to unite Russia with other countries in the Eurasian region in order to establish a “Eurasian civilization” against the West. Faye’s Archeofuturism is opposed to Alexander Dugin’s Eurasianism in the area of political philosophy. Faye’s vision highlights the importance of preserving Europe’s traditional values and traditions, which date back to ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. He contends that Enlightenment ideas such as individualism and secularism have eroded these traditions and pose a threat to the continuance of European culture. Dugin, on the other hand, criticizes the idea of European cultural supremacy and instead favors a multipolar world in which diverse civilizations, including Russia and China, may coexist and cooperate.

Since the US is essentially a member of the European civilizational domain, Faye sees it as an adversary rather than an enemy. He warns of the dangers of neglecting Europe’s ideals and traditions and regards Dugin’s notion of Eurasianism as a threat to the survival of European civilization. Dugin, on the other hand, sees the West, which includes Europe and the US, as the primary nemesis and argues that its liberal values endanger the survival of other cultures. He feels that the US embodies everything wrong with the modern world and rejects the concept of Western cultural supremacy entirely.

Faye and Dugin have opposing viewpoints on Russia’s involvement in Europe. Faye believes that Russia should be a member of a Eurosiberian power bloc stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which would be a self-sufficient political and economic entity with global influence. Given their shared cultural and historical ties, Faye sees Russia as a natural ally of Europe and feels that cooperation between Europe and Russia is critical for the future of European culture. Dugin, in contrast, believes that in a multipolar world, Russia should take the lead as the unifier of the Eurasian heartland. He opposes the concept of a unified Eurosiberia (or “Euro-Russia”) in favor of a more fragmented world order, in which diverse civilizations cooperate and compete with one another. Dugin sees Russia as a counterweight to the West’s cultural hegemony and believes it should fight to advance the interests of the so-called “non-Western” world.

The combination of Faye’s emphasis on cultural continuity and Dugin’s multipolar viewpoint allows Europe to retain its own character while fostering a more harmonious and peaceful global order.

In his book Archeofuturism, Faye discusses transhumanism. He examines the potential for technology to transform humanity and society while warning about the dangers of blind faith in technological progress. Faye contends that, while transhumanism has the potential to advance medicine and longevity significantly, it also carries the risk of dehumanizing and commodifying individuals. Faye also warns that transhumanism might exacerbate existing social inequalities because only the wealthy can afford advanced technologies. Dugin has mentioned transhumanism in a number of works, including his book The Fourth Political Theory. Dugin criticizes transhumanism as an ideology that aspires to replace the traditional human being with a technologically enhanced post-human creature, ultimately leading to the abolition of humanity as we know it. Transhumanism, he says, is a symptom of the modern world’s fixation with technical advancement, which has resulted in the dehumanization of society and the erosion of conventional values. Dugin contends that transhumanism is a harmful and nihilistic worldview threatening humanity’s destiny.

The clash between Faye and Dugin’s visions exemplifies the more significant disagreement between their perspectives on the significance of tradition and legacy in the modern world. While Faye believes in the need to preserve Europe’s cultural and historical inheritance and sees the US as having strayed from its mother, Dugin rejects the idea of Europe’s cultural superiority entirely and considers the US a threat to other civilizations. Despite their differing perspectives on Russia’s place, Faye and Dugin agree that the current world order is controlled by Western liberal values, which must be challenged. Faye believes that a united Europe and Russia are needed to fight this supremacy, whereas Dugin supports a more fragmented world order in which diverse civilizations coexist peacefully. Finally, their divergent perspectives on Russia’s involvement reflect a broader dispute about the best approach to conserve and develop their areas’ cultural and historical legacy.

A new vision for Europe can be produced by combining the concepts of Faye and Dugin. Although accepting technological advancement, this vision emphasizes the preservation of Europe’s cultural and historical heritage. Carl Schmitt’s concept of Großraum is utilized to imagine Europe as a sizeable high-tech space. In this view, Europe would be a member of a multipolar order, interacting politely with other civilizations. The combination of Faye’s emphasis on cultural continuity and Dugin’s multipolar viewpoint allows Europe to retain its own character while fostering a more harmonious and peaceful global order. The difficulty, however, is in reconciling these seemingly contradictory viewpoints. Addressing this dilemma is critical if Europe is to play a key role in shaping the world’s future. Instead of being identified by its colonial past or cultural supremacy, the proposed vision presents Europe as a leader in technology and innovation.

The Arktos Restoration Initiative

We have handpicked a few distinguished titles, previously lost to censorship, befitting any refined bookshelf. These esteemed classics are now offered in limited leather-bound editions, with a mere 100 copies per title. Owning one not only grants you a collector’s item but also supports our mission to restore them in paperback for all.

Your contribution aids the metapolitical battle, ensuring that vital ideas and concepts remain accessible to an ever-expanding audience.

IArcheofuturism (Limited Edition)
$129.50
Racial Civil War (Limited Edition)
$99.50
Constantin von Hoffmeister

Constantin von Hoffmeister studied English Literature and Political Science in New Orleans. He has worked as an author, journalist, translator, editor and business trainer in India, Uzbekistan and Russia. You can subscribe to his newsletter here: https://eurosiberia.substack.com

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x