An extraordinary issue of Front Populaire (December 2022), edited by Michel Onfray, features a long discussion (pp. 2–45) between him and Michel Houellebecq. I wouldn’t read the magazine anymore, nor do I, even out of curiosity, and Onfrat, who declared himself a libertarian and Proudhonian only to end up on the far right. For those who doubt that the idea of ​​the decline of the West is an ultra-right idea today, I note that the issue is entitled “The End of the West?” (“The End of the West?”). When this solimpago wrote various sports essays against Christianity, “progressive” France (and the rest of the world) applauded him, but when he turned against Freud and psychoanalysis with the same ignorance and wretchedness, then many began to cave in. However, I read the debates because I am interested in Welbeck, whom I have always considered a great writer. The discussion caused a lot of publications in the French press (including in Greek) and was interpreted by the majority as Welbeck’s complete affiliation with the far right.

The sharp and provocative Welbeck says a lot of interesting things in this dispute, but he also says a lot of nasty things. He is not against the death penalty (and let’s add “I don’t know” – what does “I don’t know” mean, that is, what do you need to know in order to be unconditionally against the death penalty?) and he is for hunting. He expresses the same well-known hatred of Muslims and believes that the “great replacement” introduced into public debate by the extreme right Renaud Camus no longer poses a threat, but has already happened (p. 40), the place of the French and Europeans in general was taken by foreigners from Africa . Muslims steal and rush and the best solution is to get up and leave (p. 31-32). France, slavishly enslaved by America, is powerless to react, so “the only chance for survival is for white supremacism (suprémacisme blanc) to become fashionable in the USA” (p. 30)!

If I had to summarize Welbeck’s position in a nutshell, I would say that he would very much like to believe in God, but he cannot.

However, I would like to dwell here in more detail on another point in the discussion. We know that God has a large place in Welbeck’s thinking and work. He realizes the terrible consequences that “the death of God” has in people’s lives, that heavy speech, which is often delivered with such ease by many. He wrote excellent pages about it, some even a devout Christian writer would not dare to write, such as the shocking last page of Serotonin (Estia, 2019). If I had to summarize Welbeck’s position in a nutshell, I would say that he would very much like to believe in God, but he cannot. This is the attitude of far too many people today, whom I respect immensely, because I know well how difficult it has become to believe in a personal God. In this discussion, Houellebecq will touch upon this issue for the hundredth time, emphasizing the role and importance of the Catholic Church in the culture of France and Europe. When an atheist or agnostic passionately defends the Catholic Church, I begin to fear that Christianity (in this case, Catholicism) will become an ideology, one ideology against another, usually a far-right ideology. We know this phenomenon in Greece as well. This ridiculous and always an atheist, according to him, Onfray supported in 2021 a liturgy in Latin against Pope Francis, and in 2022 supported Le Pen in the presidential election. What does it matter to an unchurched person in what language a small community of believers will worship God? A striking representative of the genre is Charles Maurras (1868-1952), a man who was not at all accidental and who seduced great personalities not only in France, but throughout Europe. In addition to being a monarchist, he was, let me remind you, an anti-Semite, an anti-Protestant, a xenophobe, a supporter of Vichy and an enemy of the Resistance. Even the Vatican was forced to condemn him (1926). Welbeck says at one point: “Finally, I believe in only one thing, but a very important one: the doctrine of original sin” (p. 39). When you believe in original sin without believing in God as the Redeemer, you simply believe that humans and all creatures are born evil (p. 38) and usually remain, so that any violence against them is justified. At another point in the discussion, in response to a related question, he states that he prefers his anti-Protestant writings to those of Joseph de Maistre, adding that “all evil, including the French Revolution, comes from Luther.”

After all, Welbeck is far-right? I would answer that his thinking is full of extreme right elements, but at the same time he is not quite typical of the far right (he is not a nationalist, for example). The key question, however, is this: Should we stop reading novels by an author who articulates disgusting far-right ideas? I will not reveal the big question about the relationship between work and life, I will only say that reading literature is not obligatory for anyone, and even that there are no obligatory ones in literature, each of us reads what he likes. Literature is not science or philosophy, where there are forced transitions. We will not scoff at anyone who, after all this, refuses to read Welbeck. I will, however, continue to read him for the time being, along with thousands of others, because in his novels I feel the darkness within me and recognize the desperate faith in love.