On Baudet and the Final Struggle

But, having said all this, is there any hope in Houellebecq’s oeuvre? If, as in his view, the modern world is based on a fundamentally flawed anthropology—and has, as a consequence, produced a completely dysfunctional society—then it cannot continue to exist for very long. Individualism has reached its final stage and cannot develop any further. It has started to consume itself.

We are now at the point where we must begin to think about what comes after—and this will necessarily be some form of tra­ditionalism. Because individualism makes our societies so weak (re­sulting, as we have seen, in an unwillingness to defend our civilization, to resist mass immigration, and even to reproduce, among other things), our society shall either regress and regenerate, or it will be replaced.

In most of his books, Houellebecq refers to some form of identitarian movement, of nationalists and populists, or, as in Séroto­nine, a popular uprising à la today’s gilets jaunes. Indeed, Soumission even involves a paramilitary resistance group led by the fascinat­ing Godefroy l’Empereur, who incidentally appears to serve the finest pear liqueur in all of France. In all these movements, Houellebecq sees (correctly, in my view) an attempt to preserve traditional European culture or indeed to reestablish it: a world in which the family is once again at the center, in which nations are restored, maybe even a form of Christianity is reinstated.

In contrast to such movements stands the alternative: the con­quest or replacement of our civilization by a new “metaphysical mutation.” Such a metaphysical mutation also conforms, though in a different way, to some traditionalist standard and involves the sacri­fice of the individual’s desires and liberation in favor of the group. This is most concretely seen in the strong internal loyalties of Ara­bic, African, and Turkish immigrants who follow Islam, which Houellebecq describes in Soumission.

As things stand today, this second scenario clearly represents the most likely future for Europe. And in a famous 2015 interview in the Paris Review, Houellebecq in fact commented: “I accelerate history, I condense an evolution that is, in my opinion, realistic.” He added: “The Koran turns out to be much better than I thought. I feel, rather, that we can make arrangements. The feminists will not be able to, if we’re being completely honest. But I and lots of other people will.”

Are the cards then dealt? Or do we still—despite the Herculean challenge of overcoming modern individualism—have the option of revitalizing our civilization?

Houellebecq, in the end, does not really answer the question. And, to be honest, I am a little disappointed that Sérotonine has not explored this greatest question of our age any further. Soumission ended in a vague conditional tense, like a dream, with a distant vision of an Islamized Europe. The final struggle between Godefroy l’Empereur and the Islamists remained undescribed—and in our world, too, the future remains undecided and our vision is often warped by the frame of liberal individualism. But, given the aston­ishing rise of populists and nationalists in Europe and beyond, the question cannot be avoided....

We must wait not just for his next book, but for the next generation of authors to pick up the challenge and run with it a little further: and to help us express, and even revive, the Western will to live.--Thierry Baudet "Houellebecq’s Unfinished Critique of Liberal Modernity" in American Affairs III,  2 (Summer 2019): 213–24.

Baudet's book review of Houellebecq, if it is indeed by Baudet, appeared to the public's attention just before he was to debate the prime minister on prime-time TV just prior to the European elections, generated a lot of criticisms in our native Holland because of Baudet's apparent willingness to reject "individual autonomy," his willingness to challenge the right to abortion and euthanasia, and his questioning of the effects of women's emancipation.*

Baudet's illiberalism is not a bug, but a feature: he is distinctly reserved about “inalienable rights,” (especially because he interprets them as a means to "eclipse all other claims," by definition, "and to which all other ties, loyalties, and connections must ultimately be subordinated.") His political ideal involves the restoration of the family, nation, and, somewhat more hesitantly "maybe even a form of Christianity."

While a number of commentators noted Baudet's reductive reading of Houellebecq, I worry that the full implications of Baudet's review are not taken seriously enough. For, Baudet is the undisputed leader of Forum voor Democratie (FvD) after removing the other founders from leadership positions. With the Dutch political landscape extremely fractured -- at the moment no party is polling consistently over 20% --  FvD is the rising party in Dutch politics capable of setting the agenda and news and capable of playing kingmaker in the (less important) Dutch upper house.

What has received less notice is what I'll call Baudet's endgame. The review of Houellebecq offers crucial clues about this, which is tied up with a surprisingly metaphysical conception of history. It seems that Baudet thinks the age of liberal individualism has exhausted itself (see the first two paragraphs of the quoted passage on top of this post). We are literally on the dawn of a new epoch. This is the "necessary" next step in history.

It's here Baudet's fascination for Godefroy l’Empereur, the leader of  a "paramilitary resistance group" as an exemplary means to restore European civilization is so troubling. For, Baudet foresees a struggle on the ruins of the individualist epoch. The struggle is between two approaches that have much in common: both "sacri­fice...the individual’s desires and liberation in favor of the group." But the question is which group, one is nativist the other is immigrant. That is, rather than seeing a clash of civilizations taking place across and among different continents, Baudet foresees this clash within the political units of the (European) continent.

Unlike many other among the "aston­ishing rise of populists and nationalists in Europe," Baudet does not offer lip-service here to democratic ideals. Rather he explicitly suggests that the "Western will to live" may require folks like Godefroy l’Empereur to fight on behalf of European civilization. Given that Baudet is alarmist about "demographics decline," the danger is that Baudet and his allies across Europe will encourage (with a nod to The Internationale)** a "final struggle" not just as a spiritual contest, but as a violent conflagration in which all of us will be forced to choose sides. 

 

*It is notable that Baudet does not challenge gay emancipation. It seems likely he embraces what is now (recall) called homo-nationalism.

**The self-proclaimed critic of so-called cultural marxism is rather fond of marxist terminology.