Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age (Faye, Guillaume - 1998)
First claim
[…] current civilisation, a product of modernity and egalitarianism, has reached its final peak and is threatened by the short-term prospect of a global cataclysm resulting from a convergence of catastrophes.
The present civilisation cannot endure. Its foundations are contrary to reality. It is clashing not so much against ideological contradictions – which can always be overcome – but, for the first time, against a physical wall. The old faith in miracles of egalitarianism and the philosophy of progress – which suggests one can have his cake and eat it too – is now coming to an end. This fairytale ideology has led to a world of illusions that is less and less credible.
To face the future, it will be more and more necessary to adopt an archaic mind-set, which is to say a pre-modern, non-egalitarian and non-humanistic outlook – one capable of restoring the ancestral values that inform ‘orderly societies’.
That’s right: European superiority
What ought to have been done, with Nietzschean anti-egalitarian logic and Cartesian ‘common sense’, was affirm the superiority – that’s right: the superiority – of European artistic and cultural forms above all others. But the ethno-pluralist dogma – which stands in contradiction to anti-egalitarianism – prevented this.
Wrong ideas have the seductive elegance of decadence, not the ‘modest and simple harshness of truth’ (Nietzsche). An ideology can only prevail by setting itself in opposition to an already declining order.
Collapse & Reasons
A series of macro-lines of catastrophe are converging towards a breaking point situated somewhere in the early Twenty-first century: an environmental, economic and military apocalypse** brought about by ‘faith in miracles’ – including the belief that ‘development’ can continue indefinitely without posing the risk of general collapse.**
[…] associated in particular with the collapse of the Churches in Europe, which has become a land of conquest for Islam; the failure of multiracial society, which is increasingly racist and neo-tribal; the progressive ethno-anthropological metamorphosis of Europe, a veritable historical disaster; the return of poverty in both East and West, and the slow but steady increase in crime and drug consumption; the ongoing disintegration of family structures; the decline of the educational system and the quality of school curricula; the disruption of the passing down of cultural knowledge and social disciplines (barbarisation and incompetence); the disappearance of folk culture and its replacement by the brutishness of masses rendered passive by audio-visual technology (Guy Débord took his own life because he had already foreseen all this in 1967 in his book Society of the Spectacle);
Senseless utopia
The dominant paradigm of materialist egalitarianism – a ‘democratic’ consumer society of ten billion people in the Twenty-first century without any indiscriminate plundering of the environment – is a senseless utopia.
The challenges that shake the world and threaten the downfall of egalitarian modernity are already of an archaic sort: the religious challenge of Islam; the geopolitical and thalassocratic battles over scarce agricultural, fishing and energy resources; the conflict between North and South, and colonising immigration into the northern hemisphere; the pollution of the planet and the physical clash between the ideology of development and reality. All these challenges lead us back to age-old problems. The almost theological political discussions of the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries, which were like debates concerning the gender of angels, are being cast into oblivion. This return to ‘archaic’ (and hence fundamental) questions baffles ‘modern’ intellectuals, who expound on homosexuals’ right to get married and other such inanities.
On the other hand, as foretold by philosopher Raymond Ruyer – someone hated by Leftist intellectuals – in his seminal works Les nuisances idéologiques and Les cents prochains siècles, when the historical period of the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries will have come to a close, and its egalitarian hallucinations will have been sunk by catastrophe, humanity will revert to its archaic values, which are purely biological and human (i.e., anthropological):
- the separation of gender roles;
- the transmission of ethnic and folk traditions, spirituality and priestly organisation;
- visible and structuring social hierarchies;
- the worship of ancestors;
- rites and tests of initiation;
- the re-establishment of organic communities (from the family to the folk);
- the de-individualisation of marriage (unions must be the concern of the whole community and not merely of the married couple);
- an end of the confusion between eroticism and conjugality;
- the prestige of the warrior caste;
- inequality among social statuses – not implicit inequality, which is unjust and frustrating and is what we find today in egalitarian utopias, but explicit and ideologically legitimated inequality;
- duties that match rights, hence a rigorous justice that gives people a sense of responsibility;
- a definition of peoples – and of all established groups or bodies – as diachronic communities of destiny rather than synchronic masses of individual atoms.
Actually, these are the values of justice. Forever suited to human nature, these values reject the erroneous idea of individual emancipation promoted by the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which leads to the isolation of man and social barbarism. These archaic values are just in the ancient Greek sense of the term, for they see man for what he is, a zoon politikòn (‘social and organic animal within a communitarian city’) rather than for what he is not – an asexual and isolated atom possessing universal and enduring pseudo-rights.
Hence the paradox of Archeofuturism, which rejects all ideas of progress, as everything pertaining to the world view of a people must rest on unchangeable bases: for over the past 50,000 years homo sapiens has changed very little, and archaic and pre-modern models of social organisation have proven valid. The fallacious idea of progress must be replaced with movement.
Confrontation
[…] it is essential to prepare for a likely confrontation by doing away with the modern altruism of universal harmony. It is a matter of rethinking war, not in its modern form as war between nations, but as it existed in Antiquity and the Middle Ages: as the clash between vast ethnic or ethno-religious blocs.
A neo-archaic mindset – which is in no way barbaric, as it includes the pre-humanitarian and inegalitarian principle of justice – will be the only one compatible with the character of the approaching century.
The return of religion
One of the few obvious things about our age, which both traditionalists and modernists agree about, is that Western civilisation has de-spiritualised life, destroying all transcendental values. The failed attempts at established secular religions, the empty disenchantment created by a civilisation that bases its ultimate legitimacy on the value of exchange and the cult of money, and the self-destruction of Christianity have engendered a situation that cannot endure. Malraux was right: the Twenty-first century will witness a return to spirituality and religion.
From Censorship to Distraction
The system only makes use of brutal censorship in very limited areas: it generally resorts to intellectual diversion, i.e., distraction, by constantly focusing people’s attention on side issues. What we are dealing with here is not simply the usual brutalisation of the population via the increasingly sophisticated mass-media apparatus of the society of the spectacle – a veritable ‘audiovisual Prozac’ – but rather a concealment of essential political problems (immigration, pollution, transportation policies, the ageing of the population, the financial crisis of the social budgets expected to occur by 2010, etc.) through a constant discussion of superficial debates on secondary issues: homosexual marriage, PACS (‘Civil Pact of Solidarity’), gender equality among political candidates, doping in sports, the legalising of cannabis, etc.
The focus on these insignificant problems prevents the discussion of urgent and crucial questions. Clearly, this is most convenient for a political class whose members are only interested in furthering their own careers and ‘avoid stirring the waters’, according to the principle ‘after me, the deluge’.
Constantinople is under siege and we’re debating the gender of angels.
Sports
On a global scale, sport has not only become an industry - a cause of widespread corruption, doping, and astronomical earnings – but it is also an essential part of showbiz. For this reason, as a new opium for the masses in a West lacking any religion, it fully contributes to the overall lobotomisation of society. The spectacle of sport infantilises consciences, conceals social problems and the failings of politics.
France’s success in the last Football World Cup is a sensational example of this. It has been presented as the ‘victory of multi racialism and successful integration’ and the ‘symbol of a France that is finally winning’, but this is only mockery, falsehood, and dissimulation.
Has the victory of the French team contributed to mend the ‘social fracture’ and fight ‘marginalisation’? Has it served to create new jobs or prevent the flight of French brains to California? Has it strengthened the diplomatic and cultural standing of France in the world? Has multiethnic society shown itself to be superior to the monoethnic? The answer is no. Sport has simply been prostituted to lend credit to political lies.
Pleasure principle
A society founded on order is perfectly capable of integrating parallel practices which only concern a minority of people. This is not a matter of being tolerant or lax, but of adopting an organic approach.
In an organic perspective two opposite principles can co-exist: the fertile and traditional family and deviances, the mother and the prostitute, the serene hearth and the debauchery of the brothel – all within a hierarchical order. The homosexual lobby and intellectual Left are implicitly attacking the family model and the female role of the housewife, often giving proof of incredible hatred and intolerance. Conservatives, on the other hand, who have a mistaken and fossilised view of ‘tradition’, always take a puritanical stance.
The ‘pleasure principle’ must be tolerated and hypocritically managed – for it is human and inextinguishable – yet without allowing it to become the dominating norm and become an order in itself. It should exist subordinately, surrounded by ‘social silence’.
Does this constitute an apology of lies and hypocrisy? Well, yes. Have you ever seen human societies founded on transparency? Generally, they lead to totalitarianism. Brothels should be reopened.
To put heterosexual couples, which perpetuate the population, and homosexual couples (whether male or female) on the same level** is a sign of the pathological exasperation of individualism.** It means mistaking desires for rights. It means scorning the collective interest and riding roughshod over common sense, a notion with which the French Left – the most stupid Left in the world – has been in conflict ever since 1789 thanks to its ideological hallucinations.
Education & politics
The same is happening with parents’ education of their children. This is also failing because it is based on the blissful adulation of one’s offspring (these by-products of love), which undermines the legitimacy and authority of parents, perceived as loving sheep.
Politicians are similarly doomed to failure because their ideology and actions are marred by residues of love – good feelings, do-goodism, humanitarianism, pity, masochism, and a misdirected and hypocritical altruism – instead of resting on the decision-making will of pursuing one’s goal to the very end, whatever the cost.
This civilisation, which has long been implicitly founded on the distorted notion of love, must one day return to the allegory of Don Juan, the symbol of anti-love par excellence.
The rejection of school and university selectivity, which aimed at replacing equality of results with equal opportunities, by a heterotelic effect, brought less social justice. The results, thirty years after the introduction of this perverse principle (‘orientation replacing selection’), are:
- a depreciation of diplomas, which contributes to unemployment;
- a flight of brains towards Anglo-Saxon universities;
- a general worsening of teaching and a growth in illiteracy;
- the end of school as a place of competition and education, and its partial transformation into an unbearable jungle;
- the creation of a two-tier school system: one private, qualified and selective for the rich, and one public and under-qualified for the poor.
Paradoxically, the egalitarian opposition to selectivity launched in May ’68 is one of the causes of the present ‘exclusion’.
By contrast, worthless BAs and junk diplomas in ‘psycho-sociologies’ or ‘aesthetics’ are handed out like sweets or leaflets to rows of good-for-nothings who will queue up at social security offices to get underpaid jobs as switchboard operators, pizza boys, or waiters at McDonald’s.
This is the outcome of demagogy and egalitarian ideology, which rejects reality and ignores – and has been ignoring for a while – social mechanisms.
Fighting back
Only when on the brink of disaster – when economic hedonism has come to an end – will the European peoples find the strength to react against what awaits them. No effective solutions can be expected prior to the unleashing of the catastrophe that will most likely take place. People’s power to resist has been sapped by consumerism, comfort, and the countless ‘commodities’ of the society of the spectacle. People are weakened by the slack life they lead, by their boundless individualism, by the dreams promoted via television and advertising, and by their virtual experiences. This is what the anthropologist Arnold Gehlen has termed ‘second-hand experiences’ – socio-economic opium. Societies based on conspicuous consumption – as Thorstein Veblen noted in the early Twentieth century – have undermined their own economic and social foundations. They have destroyed their own dreams of freedom, emancipation, equality, justice and prosperity by pushing them to their very limit, to the absurd, so that by a boomerang effect these societies are no longer capable of resisting financial crises, criminal organisations, and the social upheavals they have caused. This is an example of the dialectical reversal that Marx and Jules Monnerot have described.
These societies have caused a global anthropological weakening, whereby all the immune defences of humanity are collapsing. The cure can only be a radical and painful one. We are heading towards a revolution that will make the Russian one seem like a brawl in comparison.
Justice of the future
Everyone is talking of ‘the failure of the educational system’ and of ‘violence in schools’, but these are only the fruits of a system that opposes selectivity and discipline in the name of utopias it wishes to preserve like dogmas.
Selection and discipline: these archaic but effective principles are the basis of true individual freedom – the social justice of the future. Today, instead of striving to rebuild things, it might be better to leave the educational system to collapse completely, given its inability to accomplish its task and the state’s utter lack of interest in the matter. The new state that will emerge in the post-catastrophic world may take things in hand again.
The left…
The Left came up with PACS not so much because it sought to win the favours of the homosexual lobby, but because it made the following reasoning: our ‘progressivism’ is moribund, and we’re no longer able to pursue social justice in any concrete way; the struggle against unemployment and poverty is beyond us. The only solution for the Left, then, is hypocritical progressivism. Hence the idea of PACS, which like other pseudo-humanitarian measures – such as the regularisation of illegal immigrants – brings not an ounce of good to the people, but only increases the burden on everyone’s shoulders.
The whole PACS affair illustrates the spinelessness and impotence of governments in this declining democracy of ours. The process is always the same. Incapable of solving concrete problems, governments feed public opinion abstract reforms that are always justified as further acts of humanitarianism and tolerance.
All this is happening because the latter dogmatically refuses to acknowledge the inequality in skills among different individuals and ethnic groups. ‘Nature’ does not share our views? Then let us change nature by decree, as is done with history!
Actually, the Left has long abandoned the social sphere. Today, it seeks refuge in ‘ethics’ – a new fraud. It no longer cares about ‘defending the oppressed’, except in a pretend way; actually, it never did: the Marxist-Trotskyist tradition has always taken little notice of the ‘working class’ and ‘proletarians’ – and ‘immigrants’ today – whom it continues to treat as masses to be manipulated to stir up social chaos in the hope that its cynical and ambitious (as well as perfectly ‘anti-Republican’) circles may one day come into power for good. Unfortunately, it is not enough to merely seize power: power must also be preserved. With its pseudo-moral strategy, the Left and far Left have been playing with fire while forgetting the joker: Islam.
Environmentalism
Political environmentalism, as shown by Greenpeace campaigns, is a large-scale fraud. Like many charitable, humanitarian and cultural associations, it is only one of the countless disguises the political far Left uses to move its pawns and compensate for its notable lack of any alternative socio-economic project.
Immigration
Why do all Leftists favour immigration? Why is it that the more people are to the Left, the more they welcome unrestrained immigration? The reasons invoked are both sophistic and ridiculous:
[…] political psychoanalysis would reveal that these people regard the ‘White man’ as being intrinsically guilty and stained by the unforgettable and unpardonable sin of having exploited non-European peoples (through colonialism, racism, etc.). Immigrationism and theories promoting the idea of a multiracial, mixed society thus represent the work of being redeemed for our sins. We must make up for our faults by disappearing as a homogeneous folk and allowing ourselves to be colonised and dominated.
The self-righteous advocates of political correctness find themselves caught in an ideological trap: fighting the idea of national preference while emphatically defending ‘citizenship’ (or embracing ‘French’ patriotism and the idea of France) will prove an increasingly difficult acrobatic feat. On the other hand, the Left is being forced to confess its hidden thought: that a Senegalese enjoys all the rights of France, but a Frenchman enjoys none in Senegal. This disregard for common sense can’t go on for long.
Progress
‘Progress’ is clearly a dying idea, even if economic growth may be continuing.
Yet, no one is really deriving the right conclusions from this. People no longer believe that ‘tomorrow will be better than today, just as today is better than yesterday’ thanks to technological and scientific advancements and the alleged educational and moral improvement of humanity – the dogma promoted by Auguste Comte and the French positivists – as well as the spread of ‘democracy’.
Evidence is mounting that ‘growth’, this measurable mockery, does not actually lead to any objective increase in well-being.
[…] for technological science and the industrial market economy cannot be abandoned, as they are too rooted and already in the process of becoming global. But the idea of universally extending industrial society to all individual humans will have to be ditched, for it is unsustainable in terms of energy, health and the environment.
Multiracist society
Can people simply be mixed together, as a cook would mix his vegetables to make a salad? We should not hesitate to speak up against the crypto-racist ideology of the partisans of unchecked mass immigration. Immigrationist lobbies are perfectly aware of the fact that multiracial society means multiracist society: something that has already been noted many times in the present work but which it is worth stressing again and again.
Only Europe and North America are being subjected to immigration. Only Europe and North America – or, rather, their intelligentsias – believe and make others believe in the inevitability of a global melting-pot.
Now, globalisation and immigration do not concern the rest of the world. It is an intellectual deception to argue that globalisation is a world-wide phenomenon reflecting the course of history.