Resistencia de los soportes (ELU de resistencia de la sección)

‘machine’ and the risk of widespread confrontations. The nation-states of the U.N. – from the United States to the Fiji Islands – are incapable of managing the overcrowded spaceship the Earth has become. This was clearly seen at the Tokyo Summit, where these states failed to reach any common agreement to avoid the environmental catastrophes looming near.

As a medium-term solution, it would thus be necessary to organise the planet according to a few, vast ‘neo-imperial’ units capable of reaching decisions and negotiating with one another. This would mean a return to the ancient world order, which was based on such blocs, albeit under a different form.

The scenario would be as follows: a Sino-Confucian block, a Euro-Siberian unit, an Arab-Muslim one, a North American one, a Black African one, a South American one and finally one including the Pacific and peninsular Asia.

F. The answer to economic and environmental chaos. As we have seen, the modern economic paradigm based on the belief in miracles will meet insurmountable physical obstacles. The utopia of

‘development’ open to ten billion people is environmentally unsustainable.

The foreseeable collapse of the global economy allows us to envisage and formulate the hypothesis of a revolutionary model based on a self-centred and inegalitarian world economy, which may be imposed upon us by historical events, but which it would be wise to foresee and plan for in advance.

This hypothesis is based on three great paradigms. Here is the Archeofuturist scenario:

First off, most of humanity would revert to a pre-technological subsistence economy based on agriculture and the crafts, with a neo-medieval demographic structure. The African population, like that of all other poor countries, would be fully involved in this revolution. Communitarian and tribal life would reassert its rights. ‘Social happiness’ would most probably be greater than it is in jungle-countries like Nigeria or mega-slums like Kolkata and Mexico City today. Even in industrialised countries – India, Russia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Argentina, etc. – a significant portion of the population could return to live according to this archaic socio-economic model.

Secondly, a minority percentage of humanity would continue to live according to the techno-scientific economic model based on ongoing innovation by establishing a ‘global exchange network’

of about a billion people. A considerable advantage of this would be a strong reduction in pollution.

Besides, it is difficult to envisage any other solution that would ensure the salvation of the global ecosystem, for even in the near future it will be impossible to make any wide-scale use of clean energy sources.

Finally, these vast, neo-archaic economic blocs would be centred upon a continental or multi-continental plan, with basically no mutual exchange between them. Only the techno-scientific portion of humanity would have access to the global exchange.

This two-tier world economy thus combines archaism and futurism. The techno-scientific portion of humanity would have no right to intervene in the affairs of the neo-medieval communities that form the majority of the population, nor – most importantly – would it in any way be obliged to ‘help’ them.

No doubt, this presents a monstrous picture to the modern and egalitarian spirit, yet in terms of actual collective well-being – which is to say justice – a revolutionary scenario of this sort may prove rather pertinent.

On the other hand, freed from the economic burden of areas ‘to be developed’ and ‘helped’, the minority portion of humanity would live in a techno-scientific economic system where innovation would take place at a far higher speed than it does now. Here too, the return to archaism can be

seen to foster futurism and vice versa.

This is only a sketch, an outline. It would be the job of economists to carry on this reflection.

G. The revolution in biotechnologies. It is in the sphere of biotechnology that the need for Archeofuturism appears most evident. Modern and egalitarian ways of thinking, caught up as they are in the guilt-engendering pitfall of human-rights ‘ethics’, are incapable of dealing with biotechnological progress and face moral obstacles that are actually para-religious in nature. In such a way, modernism ends up being anti-scientific. It hinders the development of genetic and trans-genetic engineering. Paradoxically, only neo-archaic ways of thinking enable the use of the trans-genetic technologies that are constantly being curbed today. The modern outlook runs against a substantial obstacle: anthropocentrism and the egalitarian sacralisation of human life, which it inherited from secularised Christianity.

Let us consider the numerous ways in which the biotechnology that is already being developed could be used, now that the stage of animal experimentation is over.

Technologies related to positive eugenics would make it possible not only to cure genetic diseases, but also to improve – by transgenic means – the hereditary performance of individuals, according to chosen criteria. We should also mention the (now imminent) application to man of a process that has already been successfully tested upon animals: the creation of inter-specific hybrids, ‘human chimeras’ or ‘para-humans’ that would find countless applications.

Two American researchers have already patented such practices,^[53] which have been blocked by politically correct ‘ethical committees’. Man-animal hybrids or semi-artificial living creatures would have countless uses, as would decerebrated human clones, which could be used as organ banks. This would put a stop to the odious traffic that particularly affects the poor people in Andean America.

Let us also recall the potential human application of a technology that has already been tested on sheep in Scotland: ‘birth without pregnancy’ through the development of embryos in an artificial amniotic environment (‘incubators’).

Clearly, those who support modern ideology consider the mere mention of such technologies as something Satanic. Yet, their use is becoming possible... Is it better then to brutally censure a scientific discovery or to carefully consider its social applications?

H. The Archeofuturist ethic. Archeofuturism would enable us to do away with the scourge of egalitarian modernism, which is hardly compatible with the century of iron that awaits us: the weak spirit of humanitarianism, a sham ethic which raises ‘human dignity’ to the rank of a ridiculous dogma. This, not to mention the hypocrisy of the many well-meaning souls who yesterday forgot to denounce Communist crimes and today have nothing to say about the embargo on Iraq and Cuba by the American superpower,^[54] Indian nuclear tests, the oppression of the Palestinians, etc.

This spirit serves as a means of moral disarmament, for it establishes paralysing proscriptions, taboos that engender guilt and concretely prevent European public opinion and leaders from facing the present threats.

Actually, what is promoted and implemented under the guise of moral principles is a Leftist policy that aims to destroy the very European substratum of Europe. For instance, the campaign against the (legal) deportation of ‘sans-papiers’ – which is to say illegal immigrants – led by the French intelligentsia and show business’ efforts to make the deportation of any immigrant impossible in the name of human rights and the pseudo-principles of charity. The underlying ideology and true strategic objective here is – according to a neo-Trotskyist plan – the flooding of Europe with the surplus

population of peoples from the South.

A further dilemma: the campaigns against the nuclear power industry, which are leading to the dismantling of Swedish and German plants and to the complete abandonment of nuclear power by some of the European states, with the exception of France, which continues to resist – but for how much longer? Everybody knows that, controllable accidents notwithstanding, nuclear energy is the least polluting among the energies currently available.

This operation, too, aims at weakening Europe through the excuse of humanitarianism, by depriving it of the leading energy technologies, economic independence, and – at the same time –of any integrated form of nuclear deterrence. The stimulus behind this manipulation, of which the credulous intellectual and artistic bourgeoisie of Europe has been made a victim, is a sort of monstrous and irresponsible exaggeration of the maxim ‘love thy neighbour like thyself’ – an apology for weakness and a pathological form of emasculation and self-blame. What we are facing here is a sub-culture of emotionality, a cult of decline that serves to lobotomise European public opinion.

Defeatism, however, is utterly foreign to archaic ways of thinking. It will be necessary to restore the archaic frame of mind if we are to survive in the future.

A certain harshness, a resolute frankness, a taste for pride and honour, common sense, pragmatism, a rejection of all non-selective social organisations, an ethic capable of legitimising – if necessary – the use of strength and that will not back down out of dogmatic humanitarianism when faced by the challenges of technological science, an inclusion of warrior virtues and the principles of urgency and inevitable confrontation, a notion of justice whereby it is duties that legitimise rights rather than vice versa, the natural acceptance of an inegalitarian and pluralist organisation of the world (also on an economic level), an aspiration towards collective power, and finally the communitarian ideal: these are some of the virtues of the archaic outlook. They will be essential in the world of tomorrow, which will be marked by bitter confrontations. 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.

I. Archeofuturism and the question of meaning. What 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^[55] was right:

the Twenty-first century will witness a return to spirituality and religion. Fine, but in what form?

Already, Islam is making inroads through the breach, offering to fill the spiritual void of Europe.

Yet this hypothesis – which may well become reality – is dangerous. Because of its extreme dogmatism Islam would risk destroying the creativity and inventiveness of the European soul, its Faustian free spirit. On the other hand, the Machiavellian plans of certain American strategists has led them to encourage the penetration and entrenchment of Islam in Europe in such a way as to induce paralysis. General de Gaulle’s words come to mind: ‘It is not desirable to see Colombey-les-deux-Églises turn one day into Colombey-les-deux-Mosquées.’^[56]

3.

I

D

S