Arkeofuturist

Intervju i Menzo

2006-04-15T13:16:00.000-07:00

Som ett tecken på att hans förutsägelser genom Pariskravallerna visat sig slå in betydligt bättre än etablissemangets bleka önsketänkande, har Faye intervjuats i den belgiska "mainstream"-tidningen Menzo. Vi misstänker att i takt med att etablissemangets illusioner alltmer slås i grus av verkligehetn, kommer intresset för Fayes analyser att öka även i etablerade media.

Intervjun har översatts till engelska här:
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7431

Kommentarer till l'Archeofuturisme

2006-03-02T06:24:00.000-08:00

Arkeo-futurismen är en mycket givande utgångspunkt för den som vill vara med och tänka de radikala tankar som kommer att forma 2000-talet, och jag rekommenderar därför var och en att sätta sig in i Fayes skrift (även om översättningen lämnar mycket att önska). Om jag fick välja en skrift som skulle översättas till svenska under 2006, ligger l'Archeo-futurisme väl till. Någon som har mycket fritid och kunskaper i italienska? ;-)

Mina kommentarer till de fem delarna nedan:

I: Följande är ett försök att översätta Fayes bok L'Archeo-futurisme till hjälpligt läsbar engelska. Faye torde vara av potentiellt intresse för delar av den värdenihilistiska miljön som inte helt svalt PC-klyschorna, och pekar på ett nietzscheanskt politiskt projekt som är mer givande än att sitta hemma och dregla över parisiska bilbrännare och rosengårdska stenkastare. 30-talets högerradikala rörelser hade inte sällan rötter i sin tids mest avancerade vänster (syndikalism), och frågan är om samma sak kommer att ske i vår tid med postmodern autonomism, i form av en fruktbar syntes med spiritualitet (numen/puissance ;-), identitet (difference) och tradition. Den som lever får se.

Original på italienska här: http://www.arctogaia.com/public/fay.htm

II: Här beskriver Faye hur han letat efter ett namn på sin ståndpunkt, och hur han förkastat både "anti-egalitarism" och "post-modernism", eftersom man ska vara för något, inte anti eller post. Vitalistisk konstruktivism är den filosofiska grunden, medan arkeo-futurism tycks vara dess tillämpning på den sociala och politiska verkligheten.

III: Den rudimentära översättningen går oförtröttligt vidare. Här beskriver Faye mer djuplodande sin tes om "katastrofernas konvergens", att moderniteten har minst sju inbyggda motsättningar, som inom kort kommer att utmynna i öppna kriser. Och en kris kan ett system klara, kanske två, men inte sju samtidigt (hur ska exempelvis våra "ledare" hantera det mångkulturella samhällets inbyggda konflikter när världsekonomin kraschar och de inte längre kan muta olika grupper till lugn med våra skattepengar? Och återkommande krascher (Kondratieffcykler och allt vad de heter) är inbyggda i kapitalismen...). Modernitetens dagar är räknade, enter arkeo-futurismen.

Särskilt givande är stycket om Nord-Sydkonflikten och vilka känslor som egentligen ligger bakom denna.

V: Man kan ha en del invändningar mot Fayes teser (särskilt vad gäller bioteknologin, där man anar en hybris, och det faktum att det rör sig mer om futurism och postmodernism än arkaism. Detta blir särskilt tydligt av det faktum att avsnittet om religion känns "påklistrat"), men som utgångspunkt för en fortsatt diskussion om Europas framtid är de utmärkta.

Archeo-futurism IV

2006-03-02T06:22:00.000-08:00

4. The content: the archeofuturism It is probable that only after the catastrophe which will bring down modernity, its world-wide saga and its global ideology, that an alternate vision of the world will necessarily impose itself. No one will have had the foresight and the courage to apply it before chaos erupted. It is thus our responsibility -- we who live, as Giorgio Locchi put it, in the interregnum -- to prepare, from this moment forward, a post-catastrophic conception of the world. It could be centered on archeofuturism. But we must give content to this concept.

It is necessary, first, to return the word "archaic" to its true meaning, which, in its Greek etymon archê, is positive and non-pejorative, signifying both "foundation" and "beginning" -- that is, "founding impetus." Archê also means "that which is creative and immutable" and refers to the central concept of "order." To attend to the "archaic" does not imply a backward-looking nostalgia, for the past produced egalitarian modernity, which has run aground, and thus any historical regression would be absurd. It is modernity itself that now belongs to a bygone past.

Is "archaism" a form of traditionalism? Yes and no. Traditionalism advocates the transmission of values and, correctly, combats the doctrines of the tabula rasa. But it all depends on which traditions are transmitted. Not every tradition is acceptable -- for example, we reject those of universalist and egalitarian ideologies or those which are fixed, ossified, demotivating. It is surely preferable to distinguish from among various traditions (transmitted values) those which are positive and those which are detrimental.

The issues that disturb the contemporary world and threaten egalitarian modernity with catastrophe are already archaic: the religious challenge of Islam; geopolitical contests for scarce resources, agricultural land, oil, fisheries; the North-South conflict and colonizing immigration into the Northern hemisphere; global pollution and the physical clash of empirical reality against the ideology of development. All these issues plunge us back into age-old questions, consigning to oblivion the quasi-theological political debates of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which were little more than idle talk about the sex of angels.

Moreover, as the philosopher Raymond Ruyer, detested by the left-bank intelligentsia, foretold in his two important works, Les nuisances idéologiques and Les cents prochains siècles, once the historical digression of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has finally closed, with egalitarianism's hallucinations having descended into catastrophe, humanity will return to archaic values, that is, quite simply, to biological and human (anthropological) values: distinctive sexual roles; the transmission of ethnic and popular traditions; spirituality and sacerdotal organization; visible and supervisory social hierarchies; the worship of ancestors; initiatory rites and tests; the reconstruction of organic communities that extend from the individual family unit to the overarching national community of the people; the deindividualization of marriage to involve the community as much as the couple; the end of the confusion of eroticism and conjugality; the prestige of the warrior caste; social inequality, not implicit, which is unjust and frustrating, as in today's egalitarian utopias, but explicit and ideologically justifiable; a proportioned balance of duties and rights; a rigorous justice whose dictates are applied strictly to acts and not to individual men, which will encourage a sense of responsibility in the latter; a definition of the people and of any constituted social body as a diachronic community of shared destiny, not as a synchronic mass of individual atoms, etc.

In short, future centuries, in the great pendulum movement of history that Nietzsche called "the eternal recurrence of the identical," will in some way revisit these archaic values. The problem for us, for Europeans, is not, through our cowardice, to allow Islam to impose them on us, a process which is surreptitiously occurring, but to reimpose them on ourselves, while drawing upon our historical memory.

Recently, an important French press baron -- whom I cannot name, but known for his left-liberal sympathies -- made to me, in essence, the following disillusioned remark: "Free-market economic values are gradually losing out to Islamic values, because they are exclusively based on individual economic profit, which is inhuman and ephemeral." Our task is to ensure that the inevitable return to reality is not imposed upon us by Islam.

Obviously, contemporary ideology, hegemonic today but not for much longer, regards these values as diabolical, much as a mad paranoiac might see the features of a demon in the psychiatrist trying to cure him. In reality, they are the values of justice. True to human nature from time immemorial, these archaic values reject the Enlightenment error of the emancipation of the individual, which has only ended in the isolation of this individual and in social barbarism. These archaic values are just, in the Ancient Greek sense of the term, because they take man for what he is, a zoon politicon ("a social and organic animal integrated into a communatarian city-state"), and not for what he is not, an isolated and asexual atom fitted out with universal but imprescriptible pseudo-rights.

In practical terms, archaism's anti-individualist values permit self-realization, active solidarity and social peace, unlike egalitarianism's pseudo-emancipating individualism, which ends in the law of the jungle.

b. Essence of the futurism

One constant of the European mentality consists in its refusal of the immutable and in its faustian, tentatore character (in the two senses of the term: "R-he who ago of the tried ones to you" and "R-he who ago to endure of the temptations"), experimenter of the new shapes of civilisation. The European cultural bottom, inherited from the America, and adventurous. And above all it is volontarist. It aimed to transform the world through the creation of Empires, or tecno-science, and always into means of great plans. These last ones are the anticipated representations of an elaborated future. The "future", and not repetition of the historical cycle, and the heart of the European vision of the world. Paraphrasing Heidegger, history is a "path interrupted" that serpeggia in the forest, or the course of a river in which it incessantly must face always new dangers and always new discoveries.

Of other part, in this futurist vision, the inventions of the tecnoscience (or the political or geopolitical plans) think to us as challenges are not assumed in only utilitarian way, but also aesthetic. Aviation, the missiles, the submarines, the industry nuclear is been born from dreams rationalizes in which the scientific spirit to you has realized the plan of the aesthetic spirit. The European and marked spirit from an inclination to the future, sign of giovinezza. In a word, the European and historical spirit is imaginative (it imagines the future history incessantly second a given plan).

Of the par, in the art of the European culture it was the single culture to know a constant renewal of the shapes. Every repetition cyclical of the models and proscritta to you. The spirit of the immutable work and (archaic pole) but the shape must continuously renew (futurist pole). The European spirit is placed under the sign of the creation and the permanent invention - that which the Greek antique called poiesis, very aware of the fact that the directional axis, the values, must remain consistent to the tradition.

The essence of the futurism consists in thinking the future in an architectonic way (and not to make tabula rasa of the past): in thinking the culture - in this European case - like a work in motion, like the conception of own music of Wagner; in other words, in considering the politician not only like the limited "designation of the given enemy" from Carl Schmitt, but like designation of the friend and above all like formation of the people in the future without never losing sight the ambition, independence, creativita and the power.

But this dynamism, this volonta of power, this projection in the future meets with various obstacles: first of all modernitys egualitarism is a threat to them through its moral of the "colpevolizzazione of the force" and through its historical fatalism. Then, in social field, which had futurism to give place to the utopist aberrations, for the pure taste of the "change for the change". In third place, the futurist mentality, abandoned to itself same above all in the tecno-scientific field, to reveal itself kills, mainly in the field of the atmosphere and the ecology. The risk here is born of deification of the technique, deduction in a position to resolving every problem.

The futurism, therefore, must quite be moderated by the archaism -, with one risked formula a po': the archaism must epurare [?] the futurismo.

In order to end, the futurist and the archaist mentality has to cozzare against the barriers: limitation of the conquest spaces them for via of the costs elevates to you, banalization and loss of sense of tecno-science, disincantamento in the comparisons of all its positive values "poietici" you and of mobilitation, spoetizzazione and "disestetizzazione", generalized mercantilismo etc. [?]

It must dedurne that the futurism to become of new agente/attore to pact only launch itself on new tracks. And only the neoarcaism world that delineates itself to the horizon puo to reorient mental the futurist one beyond the impacci of the modernita one. [?]

c. The archeofuturist synthesis is like the philosophical combination apolline-dionysic

The futurism and the archaism represent everyone interlace it indissolubile of the principles apollineo and dionisiaco, that always they have been apparently opposite but in realta complementary. The futurist and apollineo pole for via of its sovereign plan and rations them of put-in-shape of the world, and at the same time dionisiaco for via of its aesthetic and romantica mobilitation of the pure energy. From the song its, the telluric archaism and dionisiaco perche: it recalls itself to the eternal forces and the fedelta of the arche; but at the same time and apollineo perche I found myself on the wisdom and the established one of the human order.

Draft, in good substance, to think with, second inclusive logic of ET-ET and not piu second that exclusive right of the aut-aut, the iperscienza of the future and the return to the traditional solutions emerging from the night of the times. The futurismo and in realta the piu powerful of the archaism; on the base of the purest realism, in order to come true a futurist plan it must necessarily resort to the archaism.

Here a paradox: the archeofuturismo refuses whichever idea of progress - all how much concerns to the conception of the world of people must be founded on immutable bases, even if the shapes and the formulations vary with the time: from 50.000 years to this changed part the homo sapiens and little, and the models I arched to us and premodern of social organization they have demonstrated their validita one. Therefore to the progress idea the archeofuturismo must replace that one of movement.

And possible to notice extraordinary a compatibilita one between the values I arched and the revolutions to us concurred from tecno-science. Perche? Perche, as an example, and possible not to manage with mentalita egualitaria and umanitarista modern possibilita explosive of genetic engineering or the those of the new electromagnetic crews. Incompatibilita between the modern egualitaria ideology and the futurismo civil nuclear in the West is looked at well in the improbable limitation of the industry through a manipulated public opinion, or in the pseudo-ethical obstacles it raises to you against the transgeniche techniques, the creation of "human reconstructions" or the positive eugenetica.

The futurismo sara as well as piu radical archaic ridiventera how much piu; and from the song its the archaism sara as well as piu radical futurist diventera how much piu.

Of course, the archeofuturismo rests on the nietzscheana notion of Umwertung - radical upsetting of the modern values - and on one spherical conception of the history.

We clear the concept. The ugualitaria modernita one, resting on the faith in the progress and suillo development without aim, vision has adopted one linear, ascending, eschatological and soteriologica of the history. Draft of a laicizzazione of the vision of the own time of the salvifiche religions, of the wide shared rest is from the Socialisms is from the liberal democratismo. Instead the societa traditional (above all not-European) they develop one cyclical, repetitive vision and therefore fatalist of the history. But the nietzscheana vision (that one that George Locchi defined "spherical") takes to the distances as well as the linear conception of the progress how much from the cyclical conception.

Of that draft? We imagine a sphere, a biglia, that it is left over disordinatamente along a plan, even moved from the volonta, necessarily imperfect, of a billiards player. By force of things, after various spins, the same point of the biglia trovera newly to contact of the carpet. And the eternal return of the identical one - but not of the same one. Perche? Perche biglia the not and piece of real estate: if and true that to touch the carpet and the same point of the sphere, however the same sphere is not found previously piu in the same point of the touched carpet. Verification therefore one similar situation, but in a various place. The same comparison puo to be worth for the seasons, and the vision of the own history of the archeofuturismo.

The return of the values I arched us does not have to be conceived like a cyclical return to the past (from the moment that this past has, in all evidence, failed, poiche has given life one catastrophic modernita), bensi like riaffiorare of archaic social configurations in a context of all the new one.

Saying in other words, draft to apply to ancient solutions to problems unknown totalmenti; that is to resort to an order forgotten but trasfigurato from different an historical context.

Still three precisazioni of philosophical nature: in the first place the archeofuturismo is distinguished from accustoms them "traditionalism" thanks to a different analysis of the tecnoscienza. which last dev' not to be demonized and and essentially not tied to the ugualitaria modernita one. To the contrary, it sinks its roots in the European etnoculturale patrimony, mainly to inherits Greek. We do not forget that the French Revolution "did not have need of scientists" and of it it has guillotine several.

Second precisazione: the archeofuturismo and one metamorfica vision of the world. It projects to you in the future, the values of the arche are riattualizzati and trasfigurati. Therefore the future not and the negation of the tradition, the historical memory of the people, but their metamorphosis and therefore, in conclusion, their strengthening and their regeneration. We risk one metaphor: that cos' they have in common a submarine nuclear and one triremi Athenian? Nothing and all. One and the metamorphosis of the other, but all and two, in two various ages, head exactly for the same objective and answer to the same values - also on the aesthetic plan.

Third precisazione: the archeofuturismo and a ordinatore thought - laddove "order" and the word that piu of all the sensibilita one of the modern brains scratches, preda of fallace ethics individualista of the emancipation (or pseudo-such) that it has produced is the impostura of the contemporary art is the disorders of the educational system or political-economic puts into effect them.

But second the platonic vision expressed in the Republic the order not and ingiustizia. Every ordinatore and revolutionary thought, and every revolution and a return to the justice of the order.

An effective concept that it does not know to supply examples of the own historical application. The marxism has failed in part because Marx and Engels, makes muddy to you in the "philosophy of not" and in the hypercriticism, they have not given realistic descriptions, also indicative, of theirs "communist society". Result: if the critic of Capitalism were in sure points pertinent, to the contrary the concrete construction of the communist and realized paradigm in the improvisation, resulted in the will of autocrats and tyrants. The collapsed comunism is this, although it was a radical thought in connection with the bourgeois order, it remained one logical separated of the resentment that it has tried to apply itself expeditious by means of political dogmas it outlines to you. For the moment draft to only open itself of the tracks. [?]

The answer to the crash North-South in gestation and the rise of the Islam In that process of archaisation of the world begun in the eighties, modern geopolitics is upset[?]: Islam resumes its interrupted conquest been left over for some century from the European colonization; great movements of colonizing migration spread in the hemisphere north, like repercussion of the colonialism and the aging of the North; all the problematic one of the XIX and XX the century - that Europe opposed from a part to the America of the North and from the other, within the euroasiatic continent, the "western ones" (of which the Germans not always make part) the Slavs - it is declining. The tension - and tomorrow a crash - and by now between the North and the South. We find ourselves in the prelude to archeofuturist challenges.

_ and aberrant soccombere to the myth angelista of the "integrazione multiracial" or of the "comunitarismo" etnopluralista. The mentalita one of the Muslims (puo not to exist a moderate "or" lay "Islam"), like that one of "emigrating of popolamento" of the South, and also that one of the young sons of immigrates to you (insediati, in numerous and always aggressive masses, in the European conurbazioni), and even that one of the leaders of the muslim powers and near-orientals in rimonta, disguised under a hypocritical western and modern varnish, and remained archaic: supremacy of the force, legittimita of the conquest, esacerbato etnismo, animalisation of the enemy, religiosita aggressive, tribalism, machismo, cult of the leader and the hierarchical orders - though it disguises itself to you under a democratic republicanism. We live, under one various formula, the return of the great invasions. Hour, the much serious phenomenon and that to the age, poiche today the "invaders" have conserved of the "country-base", of the madrepatrie with which they are always loyal and that they can defend them. And that in secret they aspire to make it, also militarily, in future. And for this reason that we speak about colonization rather than of invasion. [svåröversatt]

The egualitarian mentality of modernity is totally incapable to resist this. It would not be better, then, to adopt newly the same values I arched to us that they animate the objective adversaries; and that they are, with important varying, those of all the people, before and after the parenthesis of modernity?

b) the answer to the European decline of the State-nation and to the challenge of European unification

In this perspective, what it imports and to prepare themselves for possibility of the crash and break off with the angelic modern utopy of one universal concord. Draft to rethink the war not under the modern shape of the national wars, but rather, like in the Antique and the Medievals, under shape of large vital crashs of insiemi ethnic or etno-religious. It would be interesting to rethink, under future shapes in gestation, those macro-solidarities that were the roman Empire or the European Cristendom. It would be interesting to define in pragmatic way the idea of Eurosiberia, from Brest to the Strait of Bering, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, extended along fourteen jet lag on which the sun not sets ever: the immense with geopolitical of the Earth, on which the Russian leaders reflect clumsily between the smoke of the vodka, but at least they reflect. It would be interesting to wonder if the French nationalism is not totally obsolete, if the State-nation in Europe is not equally anachronistic as the maurrassian monarchism in 1920; if the construction stuttering and reeling of one federal Europea (also thanks to the idiot profits of which Lenin spoke), in spite of the disadvantages in the short term, is not instead the average only, in the long term, like metamorfica answer of the roman and Germanic imperial model, of preservare the people-siblings of our Great Continent from the disappearance and the sommersione pure and simple.
And then to interrogate itself: in this new hand to play, are the United States an enemy (like I had proclaimed time ago), as an entirety that weigh a threat, or is it simply an adversary and an economic, political and cultural competitor? Draft to place the neo-archaic problem of the total solidarity - ethnic, fundamentally - of the North to the threat of the South Is those that is, the notion of the West disappears in order to yield the place to that one of World of the North, or Nordland.

As in the Middle Ages and the Antichita - you tornero piu beyond - the future demands to consider the Earth like mosaic of large insiemi nearly-imperial in conflict-cooperation between they.

Perhaps the future does not belong to one founded neo-federal Europe on independent regions? That it would be the riattualizzazione of the ancient and medievale organization of the continent. A lot simply perche a tecno-brussellese Europe, increased, composed from one score of nations indecise, uniforms, ineguali, is a submitted non-political magma to the USA and the NATO, opened to the migratory colonization and the wild competition of the new industrial countries. After the Euro, return to one continental currency for before the time from the end of the Antichity. And possible to assume of the United States d' Europe like federal high power, opened to the alliance with Russia? [svåröversatt]

c) the answer to the crisis of the democracy
Peter Mandelson, leftist British political theorist craftsman of the New Labour of Tony Blair, in the course of an interview 1998 to the London daily paper "The Guardian", expressed: "it is legitimate to think that the reign of the pure representative democracy has reached the end [... ] the democracy and the legitimacy they demand are constantly being renewed. They need being redefined to every generation. The representation now finds a complement in directed shapes of engagement - from Internet to the referenda. And this implies a change of style of politics, in order to being able to answer to these changes. People do not know that to make itself some of a government method who them infantilisation and that does not hold them in some consideration ".
Difficult to imagine a better attack against "the modern" model of democracy teoriry of western parliamentarian thought from Rousseau in the Contract Social that by now has become obsolete. The Anglo-Saxon pragmatism often allows ideological openings - unfortunately badly conceptualized - forbidden to the French doctrinalism, to the German idealism or the Italian byzantism.

Mandelson, eminent thinking head of the New Labour, and archeofuturist without knowing it. What, in fact, is it that it says? That "the modern" democracy parliamentarian, inherited from the paradigms of the XVIII and XIX century, is not adapted to the world of the future. Slowness and mollezza of the decisions; reign of the compromise; absence of autorithyl, the "urgent", always frequent case; distance between the true aspirations and volonta/Will of the people and the politics of the governments "democratics"; dictatorship of the bureaucracies and the speculators; paralysis of the parliaments; corrupted carrierism of the party men; unexpected apparition massiccia [?] of the Mafias etc.

The modern democracy does not defend the interests of the people against those of the illegitimate minorities. It does not trust in the real people and discredits the concept of "populism" assimilating it to that of dictatorship - and the overflow. Mandelson suggests also needs to restore audacious and decisionist political autorithy, deprived of ideological or pseudo-moral prejudgments, but supported on the volonta of the real people, thanks above all "to immediate electronic means of ballots and consultations, extensions of Internet and Intranet, that they could allow to multiply the referenda". These are interesting tracks. They conjugate, in order to reform the democracy, two elements I arched and a futurist element to us.

First archaic element: directed the mobilitata sovereign decisionist power from the volonta/Will of the people. Here reconnects back to the model of the auctoritas of the first roman republic, symbolized from acronym SPQR (Senatus PopulusQue Romanus, the Senate and the roman people), the tightest association of constituted popular and autorita aspiration; and this auctoritas imposes its decrees without the censorship of the judges or an "advanced law" to the good wish of the people. With regard to this it is also possible to evoke the Athenian model of the IV and V century before ours was.

According to archaic element: the riavvicinamento between political institutions and population. The modern State-nation, at first conceptualized from Hobbes, has separated the people from the sovereign, under the illusion of one better representant of the "volonta general"/general will. Implicitly Mandelson proposes to return to the principle - that Athenian, roman and medioevale - of contiguity between the people and the decisionist. On this rests the term demos (democracy: to be able of the demi) literally means "quarter" or "rural district". In this perspective, a decentralized Europe could be in sight, in which the "local people" they could give themselves their own laws. According to the roman imperial model or Germanic medioevale.

Third element, stavolta futurist: the possibility of immediate referendary consultations through e-mail services safeguards to you from codes characterizes them. The political-mediatic establishment, since it has fear of the people, evidently refuses this solution, since it fears to see compromised its maneuvers. Moreover, the hegemonic ideology of modernity strikes and applies the censorship (like in Biology) in order limiting the possibilities offered from the tecnoscience. Modernity has become reactionary.

But what is the people?

And the laos, the "mass" of the Marxists or the liberals, the "founded present population" on the right of the ground [territoriella medborgarskapsprincipen]; instead the ethnos, comunita popular founded on the law of the blood, the culture and the memory? Modernity stretched from all over to define the people like laos, like uprooted mass of coming from individuals. But the future that is left over, inexorable, risuscita the etnism and the tribalism, on local scale like on world-wide scale. Tomorrow the people will be, still and like always before the modern parenthesis, the ethnos. He is worth to say one comunita to a cultural and biological time. I insist on the importance of the biological relationship in order to define people, and I refer in particular to the family of the European people (and all the others): humanity (contrarily to the melting-pot) is not only defined always as "with of etno-biological blocks", but the hereditary characteristics of people fuse its culture and its mentality.

d) the answer to the social disintegration

It is looked at in the landslide of the systems educated to you, than they do not know how to contain the illiteracy and the criminality in draining, but rather is melted on the illusion of "the not-authoritarian" methods of instruction; it is seen in the progressing of city crime, whose cause is not only uncontrolled immigration, but the irrealistic dogma of the "prevention" omnipotent and the oblivion of the ancient principle of repression that it does not have null of tyranny if it is based on the right; it is looked at in the demographic decline, whose cause is not only the antinatalism of the governors and the ethnic masochism of the diffused ideology, but also practice of the excaggerated hedonist individualism that provokes the outbreak of antinaturality: automaticity of divorces, soon reduced to simple formal administrative procedures, ridicolizzazione and obstinate, fiscal and social refusal, of the housewife, outbreak of the ephemeral and sterile concubinage, acceptance of homosessualita with homosexual braces the lawyers in a position to adopting children; appearance of weddings from strapazzo (the ridicules CUS, contracts of social union) etc. As we have seen before, the demographic deficit, consequence of the antinatalism, and destined to provoke an European economic disaster from year 2010, in reason of the increasing deficit of the social budgets caused from the aging. Wherever the trionfalista but death modernity fails in its attempts of social regulation. This is because, as it had comprised anthropologist Arnold Gehlen, it is based on one utopic vision of human nature, based on failed anthropology.
And probable that the world of the after-chaos dovra to reorganize woven social second the principles I arched to us, it is worth to say, in bottom, humans.
Which are these principles? The power of the autority and responsibility equipped familiar cell of on the progenie; the penal prevalence of the punitive principle over the one of prevention; the subordination of the rights to the duties; organization - and not imbrigliamento - of the individuals within communitarian structures; the force of the social hierarchies newly visible yields through solennita of social rituali (the aesthetic-magical function); the rehabilitation of the aristocratic principle, cioe ricompense to the best ones and deserving (second the three principles of the courage, the service and the talent), knowing that a surplus of rights involves a surplus of duties, but knowing also that an aristocracy does not have to degenerate into plutocracy and must diffidare of the hereditary drift.
Draft therefore "to abolish the liberty"? Paradoxicalally, and just "the emancipating" modernity has rosicchiato liberta concrete proclamando one abstract Liberta. While in Europe it becomes practically impossible to expel the illegal immigrant, the Mafias take foot and the bands delinquents benefit of a relative impunity, to the contrary the citizens who still play the game of the social contract always are filed, watch to you, financially frame to you, dissanguati and subordinates to excessive fiscal pressure.
Against this scacco, it would not convene to restore the medioeval and ancient, but concrete slight knowledge, of exemptions, local communitarian pacts, solidarieta organic of contiguita?
A lot enough for the principles generates them. Probably they will be these to found the society of the future, been born from the ruins of modernity. In order to apply them, in order to prepare them and need of concretely, there new ideologi of ours thought current. And there are some interrogated to you realizes that it is worth the pain to place.
C$r-alla.rinfusa: perche to maintain the obligatory school until to 16 years and not pleasing themselves of simple scolarita an elementary one, in which discipline and effectiveness would be taught with the base matters? After the 13 years, it would be free to choose for a working apprenticeship or the proseguimento of the studies. It would be exited cosi from the sclerosis of the system puts into effect them, source of scholastic failure, incivismo, ignorance, illiteracy and unemployment. A disciplined and framed primary cycle would form young people of a level elevated of that they exit today from a scalcinato secondary cycle, often nearly illiterate. Every discipline and liberatrice. In that what one scolarita to two velocita, founded on a rigorous selection and a system of scholarships in a position to avoiding plutocrazia and the dictatorship of the money, and unjust if thanks to it you and circulation of the elites and meritocrazia? [?]

The new society of the future will be able to assist the abolition of the aberrant egualitarian system put into effect them in which "everyone want to be official", or squared, or graduates, when evidently the majority does not have any talents for that. This model is a source of frustrations and generate failures and social resentment. Societa innervate from always sophisticated technologies will demand to the contrary the return to the archaic hierarchical norms, in which one minority competent and meritocratic and selected hard in order to direct together. Those who will occupy subordinate positions, in a society not egualitarian, not if they feel some frustrates and their not put dignita one to you sara in argument, poiche they will accept their condition, profit within the organic comunity. They will be freed from the hybris characteristic of modernity that postulates, implicitly, than everyone have the right to become scientists or principles.
Other example: in the treatment of crime, future us obblighera to rethink the ineffective modern methods of prevention and reinserimento to advantage of a legal revolution that rehabilitates the methods of repression and forced reeducation. Moreover it must change mental logic.
In short, the social models of the future, in virtu of the introduction of the "hypertecnologie", do not direct to us towards a situation of greater egualitarism (as believe the stupid apologists of the pancomunicazione thanks to Internet), but towards the return to social models that are hierarchical. Of the rest, also the imperatives of world-wide technological competition and the economic warfare for the markets and the rare resources go in so far as: they will conquer to their cause the people in possession of the "powerful elitarian blocks" and the masses that are organically integrated.

and) the answer to the planetary indecisione, the inadequacy of the "arnese" UN and to the risk of crashs generalizes

The State-nation of the UN - from the USA to the Fiji Islands - is incapable to lead this ship spaces crowded them that and become the Earth. And seen to the apex of Tokyo, incapable to found an understanding on one political common in order to avoid the ecological catastrophes that begin. It would be best to have in sight the organization of the planet, in the mid term, in seven or eight great insiemi "neo-imperial" decisionists and negotiators. Cosi would be red-establish to us, in various shape, to the ancient organization of the world founded on analogous blocks. Scene: a until-confucianist block, an entirety euro-Siberian, then an other Arab-Muslim, and still one North American, one African, one South American and finally last comprising a Pacific and peninsular Asia.

f) the answer to the economic and ecological chaos

We have seen that this is over: the modern economic paradigm, founded on the sideboard in the miracles, scontrera with of disables physics. The utopy of the "ecologically impossible development" for 10 billions of men. The expectable landslide of the economy-world puts into effect allows them to intrevedere and to formulate the hypothesis of a revolutionary model founded on one autocentrata and inegualitarian world-wide economy. Which perhaps sets up from the circumstances and the chaos, but that is better to preview and to organize. This hypothesis rests on three great paradigms. The archeofuturist scene:
1) the majority of humanity returns to a rural economy and handicraft pre-technique of subsistence, with one neo-medioeval demographic structure. Africa, like all the populations of the poor countries, entire would be involved in this revolution. The communitarian and tribal life would resume its rights. "it congratulates social" would be probably advanced to that one of the jungle-countries today like the Nigeria or of the megalopoli-drain like Calcutta or Citta of Mexico. Also in the countries it industrializes - India, Russia, Brasi them, China, Indonesia, Argentine etc - an important part of the population could return to this archaic associate-economic model.
2) a minority of humanity would conserve the founded techno-scientific economic model on the permanent innovation. It would form one "concerning net of planetary exchange" of less than only a billion persons. The considerable advantage would be a pollution much less important than that one today puts into effect. Of the rest other poiche solution is not looked at in order to save the world-wide atmosphere the not-polluting energies will not be available in the immediate future.
3) the great blocks to neo-archaich economy would be autocentrati on continental or pluricontinentale scale, and they will not carry out mutual exchanges. Only the tecnoscientific part of humanity would be dedicated to the planetary exchanges.
This velocital world-wide economy of two conjugates therefore archaism and futurismo. To the tecnoscientific part of humanity it would have to be forbidden to take part in the neo-medioeval community of the majority, and above all "to help them". Of course, for one that is modern and egalitarian spirit this is a monstrous scene. But in terms of real collective well-being - therefore of justice - this revolutionary scene could be shown pertinent.
Of other part, lightened from the economic weight of the zones "in via of development" and "needy of aid", the minority part of humanity living in a tecno-scientific economy could follow an innovation rhythm today a lot supported. Moreover, the return to the archaism benefits of the futurism and viceversa.
Of course, here draft only of a first draft, one track. Tocchera to the economists to realize it.

g) the revolution of the biotechnologies

And in biological field that needs it of the archeofuturismo it seems piu explicit. The mentality of modernitys egalitarism, trapped in the ideology of the "rights of man", is not able to assume the vanguards of Biology. They focus on moral barriers, in reality quasi-religious barriers. Modernity ends with becoming antiscientific. It compromises the developments of genetic engineering. It compromises the developments of genetic and transgenetic engineering. The paradox is that only the neo-archaich mentality permits us to use the applications of the genetic technologies today continuously refrained. The modern mentality is in reality an important block: the antropocentrism and the egualitarian sacralization of human life, inherited from the laicist Christianity. We take numerous applications of the biological technology soon ready for realization, the stage of the animal experimentation being exceeded.
A lot in order to begin, the technologies of positive eugenetics, that will not only allow to recover the genetic diseases but to improve, for transgenic way, the hereditary performances given chosen criteria. Then we remember the application - already previewed - on the man of one technology happily succeeded on the animals: the creation of intraspecific hybrids, "manipulates" or "human chimeras to you" from the innumeral applications. Two American investigators have deposited a licence of this type, for blocked hour from the "ethical committees" politically corrected. Hybrids living man-animal or beings semiartificial would have innumeral applications moreover. As an example the cloned human it decerebrates to use like bank of organs. That it would avoid the hateful traffics of organs to the damages of the poor populations of the Andean America.
We evoke also the application to the human being of one technical experienced on the ovines in Scozia: the birth without pregnancy, through the development of the embryo in artificial and amniotic atmosphere, the incubator.
It is obvious that the supporters of the modern ideologies consider satanic the simple evocation of the cited techniques. However, they become possible... Then what is better: to censure brutally a luminous scientific small opening or to reflect cleverly on its social use?

h) archeo-futurist ethics

Archeofuturism would allow us to clear us of the plague of the egualitarian modernism, much little compatible with the century of iron that is coming closer to us: the sickly spirit of the humanitarism, a simulacro of ethics that erects the "dignita of humanity" to ridiculous dogma. Without forgetting the hypocrisy: that all these beautiful spirits often forgot yesterday to denounce the communist crimes and today the embargo of Irak and Cuba decreed from superpotenza American, the Indian nuclear experiments, the oppression of the Palestinian etc. This spirit works like an enterprise of moral disarmament, placing paralyzing prohibition, tabu colpevolizzanti, that they concretely prevent to the public opinion and to the European leaders to face the threats.
But in reality, under the cover of the moral principles, draft to only promote one political extremist aiming to the destruction of the European substrate and Europe in how much such one. As an example, the campaign against the expulsions (however legal) of "sans-papiers" [asylanter utan papper], or of immigrants who are clandestine and illegal, churned from the intellighentsia and the show-business French, it aimed to render untouchable every immigrant in name of the rights of man and the pseudoprinciples caritati you of pity. The subtended ideology, the true design, and - in one perspective neo-trotskist - the sommersione of Europe because of the demographic surplus of the people of the South.
Other drama: the campaigns against the nuclear industry that sfociano [?] in the dismantling of centers them Swedish and German and to the renunciation to the nuclear from part of the Europeans, except France, the only one to still resist, but for how much time? While instead, eccettuati little incidents for other controlable, all they know that the less polluting nuclear and of the energies available.
Draft moreover to weaken Europe under the pretest of the humanism, depriving it of energetic technologies advanced of economic independence and, at the same time, one dissuasion nuclear integrated. The lever of this manipulation of which and victim the ingenuous European intellectual and artistic bourgeoisie, reveals a monstrous and irresponsabile hypertrophy of "ama next yours like same you"[?], an apology of the weakness, one pathological svirilizzazione and one autocolpevolizzazione [?]. And a sottocultura of the easy emotion, a cult of the decline through which the European opinions come literally decerebrated [fördummad?] also thanks to the average.
Hour, the disfattismo and totally absent gives them an archaic mentality. It would have to find again that mentality in order to survive in the future.
A sure hardness, a decided franchezza, the sense of the pride and the honor, the good sense, the pragmatism, the clear distinction of the alien, the refusal of every not selective social organization, a legitimate ethics that the resource to the force, than does not withdraw, making a shield before a dogmatic humanitarism, of forehead to the audacities of tecno-science, integration of the virtu to guerriere, of the principles of urgency and ineluttabile crash, a conception of the justice according to which it is the duties that found the rights and not the contrary, the natural acceptance of a inegualitarian and plural organization of the world (also on the economic plane), the aspiration to the collective power - here some virtu of mental the archaic one. They will be indispensable in the world tomorrow dominated from bets of extreme sourness. An neo-archaism mental - than the justice principle does not have nothing of barbaric poiche integral - prehumanistic and inegualitarian, is the only that iscompatible with the essence of the century that comes.

i) the archeofuturismo and the issue of the sense.

Which religion? One of the rare pertinenti truismi of our time, very formulated is from the tradizionalisti that give the modernisti, and that the western culture has despiritualized life, destroying the important values.
The scacco of the tried ones you of the lay religions, the empty one disincantato created from a culture that sinks its legittimita last in exchange value and cult of the money, the scuttling of the Christianity has created one situation that potra not to still last in order a lot. Malraux had reason: XXI the spiritualista and religious ridiventera century. , but under which shape?
Gia the Islam is precipitateen in the rubble. Candid it in order to fill up empty the spiritual of Europe. But this hypothesis, than puo to come true, would be dangerous. The Islam, through just the unbridled dogmatism, would risk definitively to break creativita and the mental inventiveness of the European, its faustian spirit. Of the rest and just this the Machiavellian calculation of sure strategists Americans: to encourage the Islam and its to implant itself in Europe to the aim to paralyze it. An other answer to the despiritualizzazion is emerging slowly gives a little time this art: the return to the "wild religions" of pagan nature, that it seems in compliance with ancient sensibilita the European: happening of guru, veggenti, astrologi, seven, charismatic groups us, but also been left over of a ridipinto buddismo of Californian colors. Unfortunately, this solution would carry to a impasse. For being credible and to play a social role, a religion must be organized and be structured, and to possess a unified spiritual axis. As far as the lay and political religions, of which modernity was eager - the repubblicanesimo French, the Soviet comunism, the maoism, the castrism, the nazionalsocialism, the fascism etc -, they are, beyond to their generally tiranniche consequences, inadatte to "king-ligare", to mobilitare people on along period, to apportargli durably a spiritual food and one historical reason to survive. The archeofuturist answer could be following: could not be imagined a neo-medioeval, quasi-politeista, superstizioso Christianity, ritualizzato for the masses and a gnosticism pays - one "religion of the philosophers" for the elites? The cathedral are always in feet. Puo to rassegnare itself to see to us to transform itself them in museums? And us potra to eternally rassegnare itself to see the clergy European to play a motor role in the ethnic masochism, the encouragement of clandestine immigration and the transformation of the religious rituali in movements parapoliti to us? Checche is some, that one that today seems only a fiction unthinkable potra, also in this field, to become the attualita one of the future. Perche the catastrophes that attend to us will be able to provoke sisma a mental collective.

5. Conclusion It must reconcile Evola and Marinetti. And in the thought organic, compositivo and radical of Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger that sinks its roots the new concept of archeofuturismo, but structured: to think with the tecnoscienza and the eternal comunita one of the societa traditional. Never one without the other. To think, as presentiva Heidegger - but also Raymond Abellio and Jean Parvulesco - the European man at the same time like deinotatos (the piu risked), futurist and the endowed being of memory.
The eternal return of the identical one against the cyclical and linear visions.
Totally, the future demands the return of the ancestral values, and this for all the Earth.

Archeo-futurism III

2006-03-02T06:21:00.001-08:00

3. The diagnosis: the modernita one begins the convergence of the catastrophes In order to define the content of a future archeofuturism, it is necessary to reassume the fundamental critic of modernity. Been born from the laicism, the Anglo-Saxon mercantilism and the individualist philosophy of the Lumi [vilka Lumi?], modernity has been succeeding to establish its planetary plan, founded its evangelism on the economic individualism, the allegory of Progress, the cult of the quantitative development, on the "abstract human rights" etc. But and a Victoria of Pirro, from the moment that the plan (successful) of this conception of aiming the world to get hold of the Reign Land enters in crisis before collapsing, probably to the beginning of the next century. The Tarpea Cliff rises beside the Campidoglio. [?]

For before the time in its history humanity is threatened by a convergence of catastrophes.

In recent years one series of "drammaturgiche lines" are approaching each other in order to converge, like fluvial affluents and in perfect concomitance, around the years 2010-2020, towards a point of breach and unrestrainable oscillation towards the chaos. From this chaos - which will be extremely painful on world-wide scale - there has to emerge a new order founded on one vision of the world, the archeofuturism, considered like conception of the world of the after-catastrophe.

We shortly reassume the nature of these lines of catastrophe.

1. The first is the canceration of the European social fabric. The colonization of the Northern hemisphere from the peoples of the South, always imposing to dispetto of the reassuring affirmations of the average [?], and pregnant with explosive situations, above all in relation to the landslide of the Churches in Europe, which thence becomes the object of conquest from parts of Islam: failure of the multiracial/-cultural society, multiracist and always neotribal; the progressive etno-anthropological metamorphosis of Europe, authentic historical cataclysm; the return of the pauperism in the East and the West; the progression, slow but constant, of criminality and narcotic consumption; the continuous chipping of the familiy structures; the decline of the educational organization and its quality; jamming of the transmission of the cultural knowledge and the social disciplines; disappearance of the popular culture giving way to all advantage of a brutalization of the masses passivised from the eletctro-audiovisual aid (Guy Debord and his Societa of the show, written in 1967); the constant decline of woven city or communitarian to the all advantage of the fluctuating pear tree-city zones without gradevolezza of coherence of legalita of emergency; establishing itself, in France particularly, of an endemic situation of city putsches - an always crawling May day serious -; the every disappearance of civil autority in the countries of former USSR in preda to the economic decline. All this happens in the moment in which the State-nation see the decline of its sovereignty without being able to contain pauperism, unemployment, criminality, clandestine immigration, without being able to contain increase of the Mafia and corruption of the political classes; and in the moment in which the creatrici and productive elites, in preda to the fiscalismo and to a increased economic surveillance, they are tempted by the great adventure American. A society that is egoist and always wild, started on the primitivism, paradoxicalally disguised and compensated from the speech of the "only", angelic and pseudo-humanist moral - here what it waits for to us, year after year and in always increasing measure, until the breach point.
2. But in Europe these factors of social breach will be aggravate to you from the crisis economic-demographic, destined to always get worse. To leave from 2010, the number of active citizens will be insufficient in order to finance pensions of the papy-boom [ "papy"=pensionär?]. Europe will crumble under the weight of the old ones; the countries in via of aging see their economy slowed down and penalized from the financing for pension sanitary expenses and the indennita one of the unproductive citizens; moreover the aging sterilise the tecno-economic dynamism. The egualitarian ideology of (the old) modernity has prevented to place a remedy to this situation, in virtu of two dogmas: first of all antinatality (the authentic etno-masochismo) that it has censured the tried ones you of volontarista restoration of our natality/birthrate; and then the egualitarist refusal to pass from the distributive insurance system to a capitalization system (pension funds). In order to make it short, we have not still seen nothing of what is to come. There will reign unemployment and pauperisation, while prosperering only a class minority, connected ai world-wide markets and supported gives it to class goddesses civil employees and pays wages to to you protect. The economic horror is in order to arrive. The egualitarism, for an effect perverso that it tries as it is in realta the exact contrary of the justice in platonic sense, constructs an oppressive society on the associate-economic plan. Social democratic Welfare SDate, founded on the myth of Progress, crumbles as certainly as the communist system - but with a greater failure. Europe and in via of terzomondizzazione [?]. We are at the beginning of the crisis, or rather the breach of the latches of the associate-economic building.

America, immense continent voted to the pioneering migrations, accustomed to a brutal culture and a conflict system of ethnic and economic ghettos, seems less vulnerable than Europe: it puo to embed one breach of equilibrium, above all of ethnic and cultural type, perlomeno on the established plan of social - she potra not to sottrarsi to an eventual generalized sconvolgimento [?].

3. Third line of catastrophe of modernity: the chaos of the South of the Planet. The Countries of the South, choosing industrialization against their own traditional cultures in spite of a fragile increase fallace and, have created in their breast a social chaos that is gone aggravating. The French-English speculator Jimmy Goldsmith had analyzed it to the perfection: unexpected affirmation of colossal metropoli-fungus (Lagos, Citta of Mexico, River de Janeiro, Calcutta, Kuala-Lumpur...) that they become an infernal jungle; arrogating co-existence of a pauperism much next one to the schiavitu with rich and supported authoritarian and minority bourgeoisies from armies of private police assigns you to the inner repression; accelerated destruction of the atmosphere; rise of the associate-religious fanatism etc. The countries of the South are authentic to polveriere. The recent genocides in Africa center them, the leap in ahead to violent civil conflicts (base to you or on the religious extremism and often it does not poke from the USA) in India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mexico etc to you are not that the assay of a future that is preannounced gloomy. The egualitarian ideology disguises this as a promising reality for the "progress of the democracy" in the Countries of the South Speech deceiver, which is a draft of simulacri of the democracy. And then, perhaps that the "democracy" of the Greek-European model, for effect perverso (the eterotelia of Monnerot) and for incompatibilita mental, not and anch' pregnant it of tragedies if it is applied forzatamente to the cultures of the South? In short, the transplant of the western socioeconomic model to the Countries of the South demonstrates explosive.

4. Quarter catastrophe line, recently explained from Jacques Attali: the threat of a crisis of the world-wide financial institution, that would be infinitely more serious than the one of the Thirties and would involve a general recession. The landslide of the ags and currencies of Asia orients them, united to the recession that hits these regions, of would be the premonitory sign. This crisis financial institution would have two causes: to) the fact that too many countries are become indebted in connection with it enables banking credit world-wide - and it is not only spoken about the poor countries: the amount of the debit of the European nations is also worrisome. b) the fact that the world-wide economy always rests on the speculation and logic of the profitable flows of investment (ags, societa fiduciary, international pension funds etc): this prevalence of the speculative monetarism on the production makes to run the risk of a panic generalized in landslide case of the course in a determined field - if the international speculators withdrew their assets, the world-wide economy would be found "dehydrated", with the investments in free fall; the consequence would be a recession total and violent, a funeral for a culture that rests entirely on economic employment.

5. Fifth line of catastrophe: the rise of the religious intégrist fanatism, mainly Islam but not only, from the moment that hour us puts also the Indian politeisti. Unexpected rising of the radical Islam and the repercussion of the cosmopolitan excesses of modernity, that has the intention of imposing on the entire world the model of atheist individualism, the cult of the market, the despiritualisation of the values and the dictatorship of the Spectacle/Show. For reaction to this aggression, the dominating and at the same time conquering radicalized Islam and ridiventando, in compliance with its tradition. Totally the number of those who practices it is in constant increase, compare with Christianity, that lost every aggressive proselitism it ever had, and declines - even in the America of the South and black Africa - as a result of that suicide that was Concilio Vatican II, piu colossal the boat-hooks theological in the history of the religions. To dispetto of the dinieghi reassuring it pronounces to you from the average western, the radical Islam propaga ovunque like a fire and threatens new countries: Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. Consequences: unavoidable civil wars in the countries of double religiosita like India; crashs in Europe - above all France and Great Britain - where Islam risks to become nel.giro.di vent' years the first religion practiced; multiplication of the international crises being involved the States Muslims, some of which will be able to stop "dirty" nuclear crews. To this purpose, it is necessary to denounce the scempiaggine of how many believe to the possibilita one of a "Islam westernized and rispettoso of the republican laicita one". And instead impossible, perche the Islam and substantially and for its same teocratico nature, and refuses the laicita idea of. The conflict seems unavoidable. Outside of Europe, and to its inside. [svåröversatt stycke]

6. The crash between North-South is outlined from the theological-ethnic roots, and with every probability more dangerous than East-West conflict. Nobody knows what form it will assume. But it will be serious, it will be founded on feelings and interests of strong collectives very unlike the former polarity USA-URSS/capitalismo-comunismo controversy, which had an artificial nature. The powerful roots of this threat are first of all the tenacious resentment, suffocated and disguised of the Countries of the South based on their former colonisation. The racialisation of the/their speeches is impressive. Recently a first Asian minister has given of the "racist" to the French government to the economic term of a litigio banal in which an Italian investor had been preferred to an enterprise of its country. This racialisation of human relationships, is a concrete consequence (eterotelica) of "the antiracist" cosmopolitism of modernity, and emerges with clarity also in the West: the black muslim leader Farrakhan American, as the groups rap in the USA and France do not stop of surreptitiously invocare "vendetta against the White men" and civil disobedience. Paradoxicalally, the egualitarian cosmopolitism has caused global racism - still crawling and now still implicit, but not for much longer. Puttinges the uni of forehead to the others in the "total village" that and become the Earth, the people prepare themselves to face themselves. And Europe, victim of a population-colonization, it risks being the main battlefield. And no matter how many expect that the future humanity will be a half-breed: they are mistaken: in reality that only risks happening in Europe. The other continents, mainly Asia and Africa, always form the impermeable ethnic blocks that export the surplus of their populations but they do not import any of strangers. Point understood them: Islam becomes the flag of this revolt against the North, this freudian revanchism against the western "imperialism". In the unconscious collective of the people of the South it takes to foot this key idea: "the mosques are settled in Christian earth". Old revanchism from on the crusades, return to the archaism, return of the history, like a boomerang. The intellectuals - muslim or western - second which the conquering and intollerante fondamentalismo and the essence of the Islam are not mistaken of large. The essence of the Islam, like that one of the medioevale Christianity, and the imperial teocratico totalitarianism. As far as those who they take heart explaining scholarly that the muslim countries are "uniforms", think instead next to the fact that those same countries are little uniforms between they that joined against a common adversary, when above all scoppiera the emergency. This colonization of the North from part of the South seems a colonialism of a weak person, only confused, supported from appeals to the piety, to the right of asylum, the eguaglianza. And it is the strategy of the vixen (opposite to that one of the lion) identified from Machiavelli. But in reality the colonizer, justified from the western and "modern" ideology of its very victim, it pretends to adopt the values that it does not share minimally. Its [de icke-nordliga kolonisternas] ideology is antiegualitarian, dominating (while it pretends being the dominated and the persecuted one), revanscista and conquering. Beautiful astuteness of one mentalita remained archaic. In order to contrast it, it would not be therefore the case to ridiventare mentally I arched to us and to get rid itself once for all of the represented penalization demobilizing from "the modern" humanism? Other foundation of a probable conflict North-South: a litigio political-economic total. War for the markets and the rare resources in via of exhaustion (drinkable water, ittiche reservoirs etc); refusal of the quotas disinquinamento from part of the countries as soon as it industrializes you of the South; requirement of these last ones to pour their surplus of population in the North. In the history, to imporsi they are the simple outlines. A complessato, poor, young, esageratamente prolific South, direct pressure on a morally disarmed North and in via of aging. And we do not forget that the South is being equipped of nuclear crews while the North pusillanime fills up the mouth with the words "disarmament" and "denuclearization".

7. Seventh line of catastrophe: the development of an uncontrolled pollution of the Planet, than does not threaten only this last (it puo to still count on at least 4 billions of years before the aim and puo to recommence daccapo all the evolution) bensi the physical survival of humanity. This ruin of the atmosphere and the fruit of the liberal-egualitarian myth (but a Soviet time also) of the universal industrial development and one energetic economy for all. Fidel Castro, in his speech to the WHO (Geneva, 14 May 1997), declared: "the climate changes, the seas and the atmosphere is heated, the air and the water is polluted, the lands is eroded, the deserts extends, the forsete disappears, the water is made rare. Who salvera our species? The blind and uncontrollable laws of the market? The neoliberal globalization? An economy that grows in if and for if like a cancer that devours man and destroys nature? Puo not to be this the way, or at least potra is it only for the short period of the History ". In pronouncing these words inspired Castrate must have in head the irresponsabile arrogance of the USA that refuse to then reduce (summit of River and of Tokyo) their carbon dioxide emissions. But sure this "paradoxical Marxist" thought also next to the adhesion of all the people to the model of pure mercantile profit and in the short term, that he pushes to pollute, to deforestare, to have the oceanic ittiche reservoirs, to plunder the rare resources without some total planning. Fidel Castro appeals here, without to know it, not to the marxismo, devastator how much the liberalismo, but to the ancient platonic giustizialista wisdom.
It must add that canovaccio of these the seven convergent catastrophic lines and I saturate of aggravating factors - accelerating, it would be said. C$r-alla.rinfusa: the fragilizzazione of the tecno-economic systems through computer science (the famous bug of year 2000); the proliferation nuclear in the medium and extreme East (Israel, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Korea, Japan...) from part of countries in intense rivalita, from the nervous and unforeseeable reactions; the weakening of the States of forehead to the power of the Mafias that control and amplify the commerce of the drugs (natural and also lately chemical-genetic), but support also on new economic fields that go from the field of the armaments to that real estate one passing for those agricultural and food- - these international Mafias, admonished a recent relationship of the UN, decides of advanced means to those of international the repressive institutions. And we do not forget the return about the ancient diseases turns them and microstacks: it collapses the myth of the sanitary immunita one. The AIDS of it has opened the first rubble. Above all to antibiotic cause dell' weakening mutageno degli and dell' intensita degli human movements we are we threaten dal return to you of world-wide a sanitary disorder. Recently, in the Madagascar, fourteen cases of pulmonary plague could not have been resolved. In little words, not are therefore all the reasons to think that the modernita one is going straight straight to crash against a wall and that the planetary and irreversible incident? Perhaps not... but perhaps. The essence of the history, its motor, not and therefore the fuel of the catastrophe? For before the time, the catastrophe risks to being total, in a globalizzato world. Robert Ardrey, etologo diamond and dramatist American, in 1973 profetizzava: "the future of the umanita one is similar a train loaded with ammunitions launch to all velocita and lights extinguished in one night of fog".[svåröversatt stycke]

* * * These announced catastrophes are the direct fruit of the incorrectible faith in the miracles of modernity: we think next to the myth of the high possible standard of living for all on planetary scale, and next to the generalization of economies strongly energetic consumption. The paradigm of the dominant materialista egualitarism - one societa of consumptions "democratic" for 10 billions of men in XXI the century without generalized pillage of the atmosphere - and utopy to the pure state. This onirica sideboard meets with of disables physics. The civilta that it has produced potra therefore not to last to along. Paradox of the egualitario materialismo: it and materially unattainable idealist and. And this for corporate names (it destruttura the societa) and above all ecological: the planet potra physically sopportare the general development of accessible iperenergetiche economies to all the human beings. The "progresses of science" are not then cosi neighbors. It does not have to refuse tecno-science, but to give them a new point of reference, in one perspective inegualitaria. We will see ahead piu. The problem, therefore, not and piu of knowing if the civilta planetary erected from the egualitaria modernita one it is in order to collapse, but when. We find ourselves therefore in one be of urgency (the Ernstfall about which it spoke to Carl Schmitt explaining that the liberal egualitarismo had not never comprised any integrated this fundamental notion, perche thinks the world in miraculous providential way and, dominated from the ascending line of the progress-development). Modernita and the egualitarismo has not never taken in consideration fine theirs, never recognized their errors, never known that the civilta they are died them. For before the time, you and one certainty: a total of civilta and threatened order of disaster perche founded on a materialismo paradoxical and hybrid idealist. Hour, we invochiamo one new vision of the world for the civilta of the after-catastrophe.

Archeo-futurism II

2006-03-02T06:21:00.000-08:00

2. The conceptual picture: the total notion of Vitalist Constructivism My master, the defunct George Locchi, had characterized the egualitarism like the nodal center, the driving-axle, ethically and practically, of the western modernity in full failure. From this I work, and from it I had traced one important critical and historical description, within the G.R.E.C.E., between 1973 and 1985. In that context I had proposed for the future the anti-egalitarism concept. But this term was still insufficient. One should never only define oneself "against". An acting concept should be affirmative and to carry sense. Which would be the content, the active principle of this virtual antiegalitarism? What would be, concretely, the antiegalitarism? The question remained without an answer. Nevertheless from one clear answer should be born mobilization.

Also, inspired from the works of Lefevre, Lyotard, Debord, Derrida and Foucault, and also from the witnesses of Porzamparc, Nouvel or Paul Virilio, I had tried to show the needs of post-modernity. But also here, the prefixed Latin "post", just like that Greek "anti", is not in a position to definine the content. Enough to say that the egalitarism and modernity (a theory and a practical one) is not adapted to our needs. It still must imagine, define and propose something that is adequate. The critic of a concept has value only through the affixing of a new affirmative concept.

And he is: but quale/i concetto/i to provoke? [obegripligt stycke] You allow me to make a step behind.

With Olivier Carre, the brilliant painter, we had invented, in the course of a subversive wireless emission ("Avant-wars!") of black aesthetic fantasy and humor that put in scene an imaginary eurosiberian Empire (the "Federation"), whose flag was the one of the very small province I was born in - the Angoumois - but also the flag of Croatia.. All an imaginary one. One of the concepts in them was the one of vitalist constructivism, that the company "Typhoon" served to characterize the titanic doctrine of one of the giant companies of this Empire bizzarro, that nothing was proposed less than than to place the Earth on an other orbit in connection with the Sun... And then, to reflect well, they are said me that this gag wireless-literary, that gave origin also to a comic strip, was perhaps the fruit of a "lacked action" ideologically, of a lapsus linguae ac scripti. After all, the surrealism and the situationism had always taught that "the agitator-concepts do not have to never be born from that they give the principle of it appeal to" (Raoul Vaneighem); and that the foundations go raised on the derisoria and altered folgorazione [eh?]. And Andre Breton has said: "and in cio that not and serious that is hidden cio that and most serious". Digging to the bottom of this intuitive concept I had uncovered four things.

1. The words count enormously, as already Foucault discovered (in his text Les mots ET well les choses). They are the foundation of the concepts, which are to they turn the semantic stimulus of the ideas, these last ones constituting the motor of the actions. To give a name and to describe and to construct.

2. It does not have to resume as emblems the named to you semantic or aesthetic symbols delle surpassed ideologies that they have failed nella history - they have understood the Italian Communists well. Also the label of conservative revolution too much seems neutral, old, too much too much historical, too much attacked to the twenties. A similar fideism and inadequate cause of mobilitazion and to the new challenges. In conformity with the enlivened tradition of the European culture, and opportune to throw on the chessboard of the history of the new words of order. The style remains in its essence, but it changes shape. Whichever thought agent must be furious and metamorfological.

3. The term of "vitalist constructivism" defines a total conception of the world and a concretely synergical vision of entirety, in degree cioe to associate two mental structures. For "constructivism", therefore, it means: volontarist (vilje-) historical-political of power, aesthetic plan of construction of culture, faustian spirit. For "vitalism", it means: organic and not mechanist realism, mentality, respect of the life and self-discipline in the comparisons of an independent ethics, humanity (the exact contrary of "humanitarism"), consideration of the bio-anthropological problems (between which the ethnic reality).

4. Vitalist Constructivism and the expression that I propose in order to define in an affirmative way that up to now, in lack better, we have called antiegalitarism.

Of other part, this antiegalitarism defined just the plan through post-modernity the sfocato and pure descriptive concept of. I propose to call the ideological plan I center them of the vitalist constructivism archeofuturism - like verra explained piu beyond. [sfocato, verra?]

Archeo-futurism I

2006-03-02T06:20:00.000-08:00

Det otursförföljda försöket att översätta l'Archeofuturisme till engelska, här första delen av fyra.

1. The method: the "Radical Thought" Only the radical and fecund thought will do. Since it only creates audacious concepts that break the hegemonic ideological order, and allows an escape from the vicious circle of a system of a culture that is bankrupt. In order to resume the formula of the mathematical Thom Kidney, author of the "Theory of the catastrophes", only the "radical concepts" can make a system in the chaos to collapse - the "catastrophe" that is change of violent state - to the aim to give life to an other order.
The radical thought is neither "extremist" nor utopian, from the moment that in this case it would not have some taken on the real one, but to the contrary it must anticipate the future breaking off with a present in decline. [svårbegripligt stycke]

The radical thought is revolutionary? Today it must be, since our culture has reached the end of a cycle and not the threshold of a new progress; and since currently some school of thought does not exist that dares to proclaim anything revolutionary after the final failure of the communist attempt.
Therefore it is the only thought having in sight new concepts of culture that are indeed bearers of historicity and of autencity
Only the new concepts, radically aiming to an other culture, are bearers of historicity. Is that a radical thought? It goes just to the root of things, is worth to say "until the bone": it replaces in argument the conception of the substantial world of this current culture, the egalitarism - which, utopist and obstinate, thanks to its inner contradictions is carrying humanity to the barbarisms and the ecological-economic horror.
In order to act on history, it is necessary to create of the ideological storms attacking, as Nietzsche saw it, the values, foundation and skeleton of the system very well. Today it does not make it nobody: here the fact that, for before the time, and the economic sphere (television, average, video, cinema, industry of the show and the entertainment) that it stops the monopoly of the reproduction of the values. That door evidently to a hegemonic ideology without concepts of plans in a position to imagining one breach, but instead founded on dogmas and anatema to me. Today, therefore, only a radical thought would allow the intellectual minorities creating a movement, shaking the mammoth, of squassare through electrochock (or "ideochock") of society and the order of the world. But this thought must imperatively sottrarsi to the dogmatismo, and the contrary to cultivate the permanent rearrangement ("the revolution in the revolution", only just maoist intuition); in the same way it must protect its radicality from the neurotic temptation of the fixed ideas, from the onirici ghosts, the hypnotic utopies, extremist nostalgia or the delirious obsessions, risks inherent to every ideological perspective.
In order to act on the world, a radical thought must articulate an ideological body that is coherent and pragmatic, equipped with adaptive separation and flexibility. A radical thought and first of all a porsi of the questions, and not gia one doctrine [porsi, gia?]. What it proposes has to be declined the modalita one second of "and if...?", and not sure of "it must...!". [?] This type of thought abhores the compromises, the false "prudent" wisdoms, the dictatorship of the "ignoring experts", and the paradoxical conservatorism (the status-quoism) of the worshippers of modernity, rather than believing it eternal.
Last characteristic of an effective radical thought: knowing to accept the eterotelia, the fact that the ideas do not carry necessarily to the facts hopes to you. An effective thought must recognize of approximate being.
Our vision is gotten dizzy, is turned of edge in function of the wind, but it is known where it is gone, towards which port. Integral the radical thought the own risk and the error to all human how much and. Its modesty, taken to loan from the cartesian doubt, and the motor of its power of putting in motion of the spirits. Nothing dogmas - imagination to the power. With a pizzico of amoralism, it is worth to say of creatrice tension towards one new moral.
And today, alle thresholds of this XXI century that is one century of iron and fire and whose mail in colossal, but that and fraught with menance game and authentically died them for humanity, nel the moment in which the our contemporaries they are decerebrates dal "thought to you weak person" and today gives it society of the Spectacle/Show - and, just when us a deafening one explodes of forehead empty ideological, than and finally possible and puo to have succeeded a radical thought. In order to plan new solutions, a time unthinkable.
The intuitions of Nietzsche, Evola, Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, Guy Debord or Alain Lefebvre - all who were closely related to the upsetting of all values - are demonstrated finally realizable, like the nietzschean philosophy of hammer blows. Our "state of culture" is mature for this. This was not so in the recent past, when modern brace XIX-XX century incubated its infection turns them without still to endure it. Of other part, it convene to reject endured the pretest according to which a radical thought "would be persecuted" by the system. The system is stupid. Its censorships are now clumsy. It is only able to hit the folklorist provocateurs and ideological goffaggini [?].
In intellighenzia the European official and to the power, the thought and state lowered to the stucchevole level of globalism mediatica and to the repetition of the egualitari dogmas. For topic to smash the laws of the "politicamente correct one", for lack of conceptual imagination or ignorance of the real mail in game of the present world.
The society of Europea in crisis today they are ready to being run through from radical thoughts determines to you, fortified from a plan of revolutionary values and bearers of a complete but pragmatic and not utopica contestazione of put into effect them culture world-wide.
A thought radical, and ideologically effective in the tragic world that it is prepared, could join the quality of the cartesian classicism (the principles of possibilita reason and effective, permanent examination and critical volontarism) and the romanticism (flashing thought called back to the emotion and the aesthetic one; audacity of perspectives). In order to conjugate in one coincidentia oppositorum qualita of the philosophy the idealist of "" and the critical philosophy of "not". As they knew to make it Marx and Nietzsche in their method of the "hermeneutics of the suspicion" (imputation of the dominant concepts) and the "positive upsetting of the values".
A similar thought that joins audacity and pragmatism, perspective intuition and realism observer, aesthetic creativity and will of historical power, destined to be "a concrete creator of order through will".

Tal till den europeiska nationen

2006-03-02T06:18:00.000-08:00

Faye har omprövat sin tidiga inställning till Tredje Världen sedan '91, men det är ändå ett intressant tal.

Speech to the European Nation (1991)

Europe - third world: The new alliance

Europe and the third world have actually a common interest against the western system; in contrast to the third world itself it is in Europe however not conscious. It is entitled to the clear-sighted elite and the intellectual ones of the southern countries thus to convince the Europeans of the necessity for an alliance against the Occident. The community of interests is strategical [... ], cultural (against the American mass civilization), economic (against the displacement of the native production forces and dependence). The third world is on economical level more concerned than Europe, less on more cultural, equal to much in the strategic and geoeconomic ranges. We may not be surprised that the earlier left-progressistic opinion and the proponents of the salon-moderate anti-racingism regard today the third world idea measure-due, it still yesterday at large expenditure of Petitionen admired. The third world does not agitate already no more the beautiful souls, because these are afraid of it. And the former proponents of the ' dialogue ' between the peoples follow now the circles conservative-reactionary, Atlantic rights in their aversion against the south peoples and use themselves for a multiracial society, in order to suffocate their nationalism (likewise Europe). This change of mind is simple to explain: The third world let the left one ' fall ', because it recognized last that the third world represented a powerful, crucial resistance not only against Soviet socialism and American capitalism (even if it obviously succumbs to it), but also against the democratism, the mythology of the ' development ' as well as the fables of the human rights.

The progressistic opinion recognized the fact that the third world, fruitful storage tank of the traditional spirit structures which badly took up individualism and the Jewish-Christian Egalitarismus and could - large sin - to some Europeans a model to the remedy offer. The progressists came to the further realization that the most astute intellectual ones of the third world its nationalism no more would strengthen at the guidance stars of western socialism, but at the roots of their own traditions; that the imperial idea ' auto+centered development ' forward came; and the fact that a special third world ldee threatens to lead into international relations, those became ' machiavellisch ' again (is called naturally) and the world their polyzentrische arrangement to return trachten. In short, the third world finds today its allied ones under the trailers new European size, which enjoy of its nationalism and itself destined to it. And it finds its adversaries with their former friends, who understood meanwhile that a new could undermine the third world ldee two supporting columns of the dogma of the international relations since 1945: the Kosmopolitismus and the abolishment of European power. It asks itself nevertheless whether the colonial controversy complex just like the different restaurant level not from the beginning exclude each alliance between the nationalists in the third world and the Europeans. The European colonialism, which revealed the Vitalitaet Europe, for this finally certainly as negative proved, was not to blame for not directly depletion and the current Entkulturisierung of the southern countries. The debt is equally because of the Neokolonialismus of the capitalistic [... ] Okzidents: with the execution of a one-sided ' economic development ' it destroys the national economies of the third world (by merging it into the world trade system), introduces a Eradikation of their own civilization and zerschmettert the equilibrium of total population and resources: thus it opens dramatic nourishing perspectives for the turn of the century. The Christian Humanitarismus basing on the fight against hunger (myth of the human progress and the sanitary prophylaxis) is therefore directly responsible for the hunger emergency... In which way the way to hell nevertheless is paved with good resolutions! Europe would have to take distance from the current form of the assistance to the third world, which nothing when the care of a neokolonialen ' development system ' is. Europe must promote rather the education development ' auto+centered by halfself-sufficient zones of ', which would summarize geographically and culturally United Nations. Such areas form North Africa, west Africa, South Africa, the Indian Subkontinent (with all American a sharpening the auto+centered development uses).

The interest of everyone will only lie on a long-term basis this area in the emergence more independently (quite than ' lmperien ' to characteristic) large units, which would carry out their independence on economical and political level. Thus would be the logic amerikanisch[... ]en [... ]herrschaft just as broken as those the mondialistischen civilization. Europe, which one this Imperien could quite form, would be able to extend the pallet of its alliances and its relations. Everyone would win thereby at independence and integrity. The effects of the individual rule forms, if they would be far more scattered in polyzentrisch a world become, would lose their current Widernatuerlichkeit. Which concerns the international relations, then they, from which Heuchelei of a democratic Weltmodelts or the UNO Pazifismus releases, became again at honesty win. The wars, conflicts, contests would not be missing, since they belong to the nature of the things, nevertheless that one-sided, which lose purposes of crew power a serving character, which they point out presently/immediately in the alienating situation [... ]. The peoples would fight for itself [... ] in short, which could become international relations again that, which they were before the colonial age, when the action carriers of history were numerous. The third world countries would likewise experience the end of that ' north south syndrome ', which impairs all and - whether one wants it or not - a ' highly developed ' and a supported mankind confront. Only if each people and each state protect and promote its autonomy, its characteristics, its just as economical as anthropologische and cultural independence, genuine exchange will be possible - and against all prejudices of the fanatics of a mondialistischen, mehrrassischen civilization, which is based on the lunatic faith in a ' communication of humans '. Genuine ' communication ' can take place only between independent and different units. The Mondialismus and the melting pot model produce egoism, Ghetto spirit and wrong ' communication '. If relatively homogeneous Europe donated against it exchange and alliance relations with select peoples of the third world, finally connections in equal numbers and fair between the European and the colored peoples would come to light. Such connections, since that the 19. Century were destroyed, could neither by the wrong human of the ' third Weltler ' still by the advocates of a ' co-operation ' or a ' development assistance ' in the context of a world-wide economic system be restored. Above all the presence of strong, non-European population minorities on our continent works against healthy relations between Europe and the third world nations, which, the illusions of the social-democracy introduce more questions revaluations contrary, ever and the fright ghost of the mass racingism into our society. Beginning before the Second World War, immigration took the form of the slavery camouflaged by workers from the European colonies from the beginning. This immigration and its consequence, the structure of a mehrrassischen society in Europe, are harmful not only for the anthropologisch cultural integrity of the European peoples, but also for the relations between the Europeans and the peoples of the third world. The mehrrassische society is interested in the emergence of a world-wide subculture as well as a multinational, neokolonialistischen ' world economy '.

So that the entire world, and in particular Europe resemble, New York, so that all civilizations become coordinated, the nations must offer, the resistance could, into [... ] multi-cultural and mehrrassische societies be transformed. It applies to align it to the North American society model: a mosaic by Ghettos and minorities, those by the mechanical net of the companies and technocracies are connected... Because the ' anti-racistic ldeologie ' the melting pot proponent under the pretext of the human the ethnical barriers, which denies nationalities and the associatednesses, creeps the term race paradoxically as poison and only distinction factor into the humanoiden vibration cramps of the mehrrassischen society. This brought in Europe as in Brazil, in the USA or wherever the Proletarisierung of the colored minorities, the Entwurzelung, the race hatred and the Ghettos out. It destroyed the characteristic of the Fremdstaemmigen and the native ones; it keilte between white ones and Nichtweissen of hate feelings, which affected extremely unfavorably the diplomatic alliances between Europe and South America. Apart from the Neokolonialismus and the underdevelopment mehrrassische society and immigration are further products of the western society and their short-sighted economistism, products of the progressism as well as the free trade theory. Because an existing world a mehrrassischen world state to out homogeneous, territorial peoples is to be preferred, because the Europeans must retain their ethnokulturelle identity likewise, as the immigrants roots and a homeland need, because the racingism, which is racial segregation and the apartheid on sides (a new Sklaventum creative) of the importers of immigrants, on sides of the Errichter of the mehrrassischen society, because we do not bear the fact that a stupid stranger hostileness, a schaebiger hate is to prevent Europe to donate historical and geopolitical Solidaritaeten with the third world peoples because we contrary to the Americans (their creating myth the genocide at the Indians and their logic the Ethnozid of all remaining peoples is) one In the context of a world civilization just as little like the mehrrassische society [... ] are we bear supremacy of the white race the conviction that of Europe goes interest there, it, to remain in its culture and anthropology personalisiert. That lies also in the interest of the third world, because the colored peoples cannot draw an advantage from Europe, which would have lost its characteristic. The third world states must facilitate [... ] the ' homeland return ' for the immigrating: Only this way the disaster of the integration or the obligation classification can be avoided.

The return of the immigrants to its homeland (also that with Doppelstaatsangehoerigkcit) will be able to take place naturally only in the context of a new form of the ' assistance '. The Europeans are to therefore contribute to create jobs in the countries of origin and to rebuild by the Neokolonialismus damaged nations. If Europe the race problem became loose, which can poison its relations with some countries of Africa and Asia, in the special with the Arab world, only, then it could open alliance politics basing on intergovernmental friendly relations broadly put on. A cultural could follow a political, military, technological co-operation. Their meaning would be substantial. In the fight against the okzidental American cultural invasion we can actually find an example at authenticity and at resistance, the material in the extraordinary culture wealth of the third world to fruitful exchange, which could only enrich our own inheritance. The Americaism by isolating resistance to carry out would be surely deadly. If we relied however on the living cultures of India, South America, the Maghrebs and the far east, a front would form outside of the mass world culture, which would be able to well-being of all equally threatened peoples the regularity of the present system to possibly break. One-sided English instruction would have to yield that the remaining European and the strange languages; one thinks particularly of today the tremendously neglected Arabic language. Those undivided dictatorship of the anglo-saxon rhythms [... ] (those becomes gradually quite monotonous) could be dammed by the consideration of mediterraner, asiatic or South American music in the broadcast. In the film nature, in the literature and all ranges of mental activity (mathematics included) a undreamt-of enriching could occur, if Europe opened the third world, if it adjusted its today systematically on the USA arranged view. In addition Europe would benefit much not to become on an equal footing any longer with that okzidentalen culture which takes so often dekadente forms. The elite of the third world would for its part find an effective remedy in regenerated European cultures to the Entkulturisierung, they are pleased which to the victim today. And the European influence on the world could attain the strength again, which it had before the Second World War. In Paris, Milan, Madrid or Brussels the recent elite of the southern countries should study, and no more, like presently/immediately the case, in Pittsburgh or Los Angeles. Why the European students should not again in Brazil, India, Egypt and other place one into other procedures, other training forms, other world views are inaugurated, instead of completing their ritual wallfahrt into the amerikanisehen professional schools, their enriching is not by any means proven. Against the totalitarian internationalism of the Okzidents [... ] Europeans and Suedvoelker are well advised, their nationalisms, their characteristics, to unite their will, to remain independent and different: Europe - third world as international ones of the nationalities. Against the myth of the progress, against the Judaeo Christianity and the human rights, against the entropische ' development model ' in accordance with the same technical technisch-industriellen value scale, against the anglo-saxon way of life, [... ] against the international free trade, against the national Bourgeoisien [... ] entkulturisierter Businessmen conscious avant-gardes of Europeans, Afrikanern, Arabern, Asiaten and Indern must revolt themselves.

The civilization of the general race crossing, which becomes deadly projects of linear humans, final product of the monotheistischen insanity, it the return of the peoples and Imperien to oppose, who at the same time traditional and revolutionary model of a mankind, which contest-end in different, each other nations, races, cultures are divided, whereby everyone selects its economical way and its political system, everyone their legitimate will to power had, everyone tried, to give oneself a fate. Within only one range the ' liberalism ' can be used (the preference/advantage of the spontaneous order before planning, the priority of the coincidence-dependent, is called vitalistic contest before the organized consent) without disadvantage: it is the range of the international order of the menschengeschlechts. While the today dominant current uses the liberalism unfortunately, where it is actually wrongly at the place, i.e. in the economy and in the internal affairs of the peoples, one would have to turn around this perspective and operate liberalism, where he is not considered: within the range of the relations between peoples and nations. If it erroneous-proves the liberals states that the best economic policy for a government is not to be had (which falls certainly the state concerned into the offering moderateness of the prevailing western order), then one would have to apply this principle to the organization of mankind, on a range, where the same liberals become paradoxically very dirigistisch and dogmatisch, and at the same time the principle to set up that the best civilization goal for the menschengeschlecht and the optimum international order is not to be had: that is called each cultural and political unit the possibility grants of developing their own model in anarchische way (in the etymologischen sense) and without generally accepted standard. It would be called philosophy and application of practices in other words, non alignment to generalize. [... ] Of Europe interest, the Mediterranean goes by to a sea of the peace and Koprosperitaet, the common prosperity to make. Presently/immediately the circumstance stands to the implementation of this great goal in the way that by the problematic position of Israel (the actual base of American interests in this continent) [ ] the USA [... ] occupy the Mediterranean area, there their fleet shameless to cross leaves, its order forces upon [... ] equally subjected, divided and ohnmaechtig, permits Europeans and Araber this unbelievable interference in an area, which is own to them. Furthermore the implementation of this goal is made more difficult by of Europe demographic weakness in relation to the fertility of the peoples of the suedmediterranen bank. And the absurd stranger hate, which the questions produced around the immigration, transforms a facing of two groups of peoples, two large civilizations, to whose communication actually everything should contribute, into a argwoehnische, even gehaessige confrontation. This splitting is artificially maintained, by creating a race problem in Europe by Aufmunterung for immigration, by one the European governments compelled to be blind for the imperialism of Israel him to promote. Europeans and Araber must recognize that this splitting is to due to international circles, those first of all the tremendous economic, political and cultural power to fear, which would represent a eurarabisches large alliance. This would reunite that Mare Nostrum, that Mediterranean, the birth place of the most outstanding civilization of the mankind, which is entrusted to the today's coastal nations for verwahrung. The pressure group educated in France of the zionistischen thinking circles drives the French governments on the dire way of the discord with the Arabs, our natural allied one. The Syrian president Assad and other Arab heads of the government pointed out that in the USA the objectives are identical the zionistischen ' lobby ' to the geostrategic interest of American power: the American order, the zionistischen groups of opinions and the State of Israel have common, at the same time geostrategic and cultural, interests of power. We cannot make reproach for them, because that is the law of the life. And nevertheless one must recognize that these interests those are opposite possibly the Arab, Europeans and all third world peoples... [... ] The second priority alliance concerns the Indian ocean [... ] Europe must an extensive agreement with India, (beside China and Japan) most important power in the far east, close. India is attractive in three-way way: provided with a large technological leistungskraft, the giant nation in the full upswing can form a macrocosm, ' lmperium ', equal the Arab world a ' own world ', which can help Europe to illustrate the imperial model of the auto+centered development and the independent civilization. In addition the deep cultural relationship of the Europeans and Inder is past far - by the existence of a common ' indoeuropaeischen ' memory. The Indian are more continuous, as we ourselves and the Arabs, peoples ' high culture ' and are enough memory. India, which already considers the auto+centered economy, us the break with the official international order demonstrated, bends Europe, which Arab and the Indian world established solidary, but in own way three ' Jmperien ', since long time to the pact liberty [... ] if three giant things, which would be characterized by a common pact [... ] of the armed neutralism, a grossautarkische economy, a cultural and technological center misalignment, then [... ] a world revolution the current lauen status quo would certainly replace and a problem solution for the terrible north-south gap would appear. Is such a project mentally not more fastidious for the European youth than the socio-economic Pfuscherei of the konsumgesellschaft?

From Dusk to Dawn

2006-03-02T06:15:00.000-08:00

Guillaume Faye Speaks in Moscow

Translator's note: The following talk was given in Moscow on May 17, 2005 and recently posted, in French, on the Russian site Athenaeum.

For at least three reasons, I think it deserves the widest possible circulation in White Nationalist circles. The first is one which more and more English speaking nationalists are beginning to realize: Guillaume Faye is today the most interesting, if not pertinent spokesman for the genetic-cultural heritage associated with the White Resistance. All that he says or writes on the subject of who we are, what we are fighting for, and where the main battle fronts will lie are worth thinking about. In France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and now Russia, his ideas have touched the leading debates (even, in some cases, descending to ad hominem issues, which seem the least important of our concerns).

The second reason this article deserves attention is metapolitical. Faye is a veteran of the first major effort to practice a "Gramscian of the Right" -- that is, to wage a cultural war against the ethnocidal principles of the dominant liberal culture. Not unrelatedly, he stands out among anti-liberal nationalists, creative force that he is, in having developed a language and a discourse that reaches beyond the narrow confines of our movement, yet at the same time serves as a radical alternative to the anti-White language and discourse of the existing System.

The third reason is that this talk is a succinct and eloquent synthesis of the ideas -- the vision -- Faye has developed in the seven books (and countless articles) he's produced in the eight years since the appearance of his path breaking "L'Archéofuturisme" (1998). However provisionally sketched, these ideas aim at helping us through what promises to be the worst storm of our collective existence. At the same time, these ideas speak to something more primordial. As an earlier student of our historical destiny writes: "All that is great stands in the storm" (Plato). What is coming will undoubtedly determine if we have any greatness left in us. The Whitemen of the West, the men of the Evening Lands (Abandländer), having gone under before, have, though, a long history of recognizing that it is only in resolutely opening themselves to the dangers bearing down on them that they stand a chance of weathering them and, in doing so, of rediscovering what is still great within themselves. Faye, I believe, is one of the seers calling us to return to ourselves and to the greatness inherent in who we are. -- Michael O'Meara

Not since the fall of the Roman Empire has Europe experienced such a dramatic situation. It faces a danger unparalleled in its history and doesn't even know it -- or rather refuses to see it.

It's been invaded, occupied, and colonized by peoples from the South and by Islam. It's dominated by the United States, which wages a merciless economic war on it. It's collapsing demographically, as its population ages and it ceases to reproduce itself. It's been emasculated by decadent, nihilist ideologies cloaked in a facile optimism, and it's been subjected to an unprecedented regression of culture and education, to primitivism and materialism. Europe is the sick man of the world. And its political classes, along with its intellectual elites, are actively collaborating in this race suicide. The argument I'm making is not, though, just about immigration, but also about a colonization and an invasion that is transforming Europe's biological and ethno-cultural stock; it's about not giving way to despair; about seeing that the struggle is only just beginning; and knowing that the closely related peoples of Europe have no alternative but to unite in their common defense.

THE DESTRUCTION OF EUROPE'S ETHNO-BIOLOGICAL STOCK
The demographics of the non-White invasion of France and Europe is terrifying. In a recent work, "France africaine" (African France), a well known demographer predicts that if present trends continue, more than 40 percent of the French population will be Black or Arab by 2040. Twenty-five percent of school children in France and Belgium today and more than 30 percent of infants are already of non-European origin. Of France's present population of 61 million, more than 10 million are non-European and have a far higher birth rate than Whites. Every year 100,000 non-Europeans are naturalized as French citizens and another 300,000, most illegal, cross our undefended borders. The situation is not much different in the rest of Europe and signals the virtual end of our civilization, though the political classes have apparently yet to notice it.

Worldwide, including the United States, the White race is in steep numerical decline. It's often said that our technological superiority will compensate for this disparity, but I don't think so: The only meaningful forms of wealth and power are in human beings. For a civilization is based primarily on what the Romans called "germen," that is, on the ethno-biological stock, the roots, that nourish a civilization and culture.

The non-European invasion of Europe that began in the 1960s was largely self-engendered, provoked: By left and right-wing politicians contaminated with Marxist and Trotskyist ideas; by an employer class greedy for cheap labor; by Jewish intellectuals demanding a multiracial society; by the ideology of human rights that had sprung from the secularization of certain Christian principles.

In France and in Europe, the collaborators abetting the invasion have established a system of preferences for the invaders that native Whites are obliged to pay for. Illegal immigrants are thus not only rarely repatriated when caught, they continue to receive the lavish social welfare benefits handed out to them by the anti-White forces in control of the state. At the same time, "anti-racists" have introduced a host of discriminatory laws that protect immigrants from normal social restraints, even though they are largely responsible for the on-going explosion of criminality (more than a thousand percent in the last 50 years).

The invasion is taking place as much in the maternity wards as it is along our porous borders. Combined with the demographic decline of the White population, immigration has become an economic disaster for Western Europe. It's estimated to cost $180 billion per year (if the growing insecurity, as well as the innumerable forms of social assistance benefiting immigrants, including illegals, is figured in). This, in turn, creates new lures for the invaders: It is simply far more interesting to be unemployed in Europe than to work in the Third World. While the educated and creative segments of our population are beginning to flee, mainly to the United States, they are being replaced by Africa's refuse, which has to be fed and supported by us and hasn't anything in the way of skills or intelligence to offer.

All these facts suggest that the 21st-century European economy will be a depressed, Third-World one.

ISLAM'S THIRD MAJOR OFFENSIVE
In addition to this mass, non-White invasion, Islam is again on the offensive. With single-minded persistence, its totalitarian and aggressive religion/ideology seeks the conquest of Europe. We've already suffered three great assaults by Islam, which today stretches from Gibraltar to Indonesia. The first of these offensives was halted at Portiers in 732 by Charles Martel; the second in 1683, during the Ottoman siege of Vienna; the third [in the form of the present invasion and colonization] is now underway [and virtually unopposed]. Islam has a long memory and its objective is to establish on our continent what [the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, the ayattolla] Khomeiny called the "universal Caliphate."

The invasion of Europe has begun and the figures [testifying to its extent] are alarming. The continent, including Russia, is now occupied by 55 million Muslims, a number that increases at a 6 percent annual rate. In France, there are at least 6 million. Like those in Belgium and Britain, these French Muslims are starting to demand a share of political power. The government, for its part, simply refuses to take seriously their objective of transforming France into an Islamic Republic by the year 2020, when the demographic weight of the Arab/Muslim population will have become determinant. Meanwhile, it is financing the construction of Mosques throughout the country in the hope of buying social peace; there are already more than 2,000 in France, nearly double the number in Morocco. Islam is at present the second largest religion in France, behind Catholicism, but the largest in the numbers of practitioners. [The republic's president] Jacques Chirac has even declared that "France is now an Islamic power." Everywhere in the West there prevails the unfounded belief that there's a difference between Islam and "Islamism," and that a Western, secularized, that is, moderate, Islam is possible. There's no such thing. Every Muslim is potentially a jihadist. For Islam is a theocracy that confuses the spiritual with the temporal, faith with law, and seeks to impose its Shari'a [Islamic law] on a Europe whose civilizational precepts are absolutely incompatible with it.

THE ADVENT OF RACE WAR
The criminality and delinquency in Western Europe caused by mass immigration and the collapse of civic values have reached insupportable levels. In France in 2004, more than a 100,00 cars were torched and 80 policemen killed. Every week race riots erupt in the banlieues [the "suburbs" housing the immigrants masses]. In the public schools, violence is endemic and educational levels have almost collapsed. Among youth under 20, nearly 20 percent are illiterate. While racist assaults on Whites are steadily rising, they are routinely ignored in the name of the anti-racist vulgate, which holds that only Whites can be racists. At the same time, an arsenal of repressive legislation, worthy of Soviet communism, has imposed "laws" whose purely ideological and subjective intent make no pretence to fairness, let alone objectivity. All criticism of immigration or Islam is prohibited. I myself have been tried several time and levied with an enormous fine for having written "La colonisation de l'Europe" [The Colonization of Europe].

A race war is foreseeable now in several European countries, a subterranean war that will be far more destructive than "terrorism." The White population is being displaced, a sort of genocide is being carried out against it with the complicity or the abstention of the ruling class, the media, and the politicians, for the ideology these collaborating elites uphold is infused with a pathological hatred of their own people and a morbid passion for miscegenation.

The state's utopian plan for "republican integration" has nevertheless failed because it assumed peaceful coexistence between foreigners and natives, non-Whites and Whites, was possible in a single territory. Our rulers haven't read Aristotle, who taught that no city can possibly be democratic and orderly if it isn't ethnically homogenous... European societies today are devolving into an unmanageable ethnic chaos.

I'm a native of Southwest France, of the area along the Atlantic coast [a Gascon?], and speak not a word of Russian, but I feel infinitely closer to a Russian than to a French-speaking Arab or African, even if they happen to be "French" citizens.

THE MORAL CRISIS AND ARCHEOFUTURISM
The present situation can be explained, almost clinically, as a sort of "mental AIDS." Our present afflictions come from the virus of nihilism, which Nietzsche foresaw, and which has weakened all our natural defenses. Thus infected, Europeans have succumbed to a feverish self-extinction. They have voluntarily opened the city gates.

The primary symptom of this disease is "xenophilia:" a systematic preference for the Other rather than for the Same. A second symptom is "ethnomasochism," a hatred of one's own civilization and origins. A third is emasculation [dévirilisation], or what might be called the cult of weakness and a preference for male homosexuality. Historically proven values associated with the use of force and a people's survival -- values associated with honor, loyalty, family, fertility, patriotism, the will to survive, etc. -- are treated today as ridiculous shortcomings. This sort of decadence owes a good deal to the secularization of Christian charity and its egalitarian offshoot, human rights.

Europeans may take inspiration from certain values still upheld in Russia: For example, the consciousness of belonging to a superior civilization and of maintaining a "right to distance" from other peoples. We need to break with all forms of "ethnopluralism," which is simply another kind of egalitarianism, and reclaim the right to "ethnocentrism," the right to live in our own lands without the Other. We also have to reclaim the principle: "To each his own." Besides, only Westerners believe race-mixing is a virtue or envisage the future as a melting pot. They alone believe in cosmopolitanism. But the 21st century will be dominated by a resurgence of ethno-religious blocs, especially in the South and the East. Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" will never happen. Instead, we're going to experience an acceleration of history with the "clash of civilizations." Europeans also need to break with the "presentism" in which they are sunk and learn to see themselves again (as do Muslims, Chinese, and Indians) as a "long-living people," bearers of a future. The mental revolution needed to bring about this change in European attitudes is, though, only possible through a gigantic crisis, a violent shock, which is already on its way and which I will say a few words about below.

THE NEW AMERICAN IMPERIALISM
Europeans also have to come to terms with what I called in my last book "the new American imperialism," an imperialism more heavy-handed than that of the Cold War era, but one that is also more blundering. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, American administrations seem to have lost all sense of measure, becoming even more hubristic, as they embark on a fantastic quest for world domination, dressed up in the simulacre of a new Roman empire. Much of this, of course, is explainable in terms of neoconservative ideology, linked with Zionism, but it's also driven by a messianic, almost pathological, sense of having a "divine mission."

What are the goals of this new American imperialism? To encircle and neutralize Russia, preventing any meaningful alliance between her and Europe (the Pentagon's worse nightmare); to deflect Europe's challenge to its hegemony by making Islam and Muslim Turkey a part of it; to subjugate the Eastern and Central European parts of the former Soviet empire; to wage a relentless economic war on the European Union and do so in such a way that the latter doesn't dream of resisting. Everywhere, the crusading spirit of this new American imperialism endeavors to impose "democracy", especially on Russia's periphery. "Democracy" has come to mean "pro-American regime."

But we shouldn't complain of these American ambitions, which accord with the country's geopolitical and thalassocratic desire for domination. In history, everyone is responsible only for oneself.

That's why I oppose the "obsessional and hysterical anti-Americanism" so prevalent in France, for it is counter-productive, self-victimizing, and irresponsible.

A people or nation must learn to distinguish between its "principal adversary" and its "principal enemy." The first tries to dominate and undermine, the second to kill. We shouldn't forget Carl Schmitt's formula: "It's not only you who chooses your enemy, it's more often your enemy who chooses you." America, specifically its ruling class, is Europe's and Russia's "principal adversary" at the level of geopolitics, economics, and culture. Europe's "principal enemy" is the peoples of the South, increasingly assembled under the banner of Islam, whose invasion of the continent is already well underway, facilitated by a political class and an intelligentsia who have opened the gates (to Washington's delight) and who seek a miscegenated, non-European Europe.

Like Atlanticists, the hysterical anti-Americans overestimate the United States, without understanding that it is only as strong as we are weak. The Americans' catastrophic and counter-productive occupation of little Iraq, to which they have brought nothing but chaos, makes this all indisputably evident. In the 21st century, the U.S. will cease to be the premier world power. That will be China -- or, if we have the will, what I call "Euro-Siberia" -- a federated alliance between the peoples of the European peninsular and Russia.

THE CONVERGENCE OF CATASTROPHES
I've postulated the hypothesis that the present global system, founded on a belief in miracles, a belief in the myth of indefinite progress, is on the verge of collapse. For the first time in history, humanity as a whole is threatened by a cataclysmic crisis that is likely to occur sometime between 2010 and 2020 -- a crisis provoked by the on-going degradation of the ecosystem and climatic disruptions, by the exhaustion of fossil fuel sources and food producing capacity, by the increased fragility of an international economic order based on speculation and massive indebtedness, by the return of epidemics, by the rise of nationalism, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, by the growing aggressiveness of Islam's world offense, and by the dramatic aging of the West's population.

We need to prepare for these converging catastrophes, which will mark the transition from one era to another, as their cataclysmic effects sweep away liberal modernity and bring about a New Middle Age. With such a convergence, there will also come an opportunity for rebirth, for every major historical regeneration emerges from chaos. This is especially the case with a civilization like our own, whose very nature is "metamorphic."

EUROSIBERIA
The Europe of the future must no longer be envisaged in the mushy, ungovernable forms of the present European Union, which is a powerless Medusa, unable to control its borders, dominated by the mania of free-trade, and subject to American domination. We need to imagine a federal, imperial Grande Europe, ethnically homogenous (that is, European), based on a single autonomous area, and inseparably linked to Russia. I call this enormous continental bloc "Euro-Siberia." Having no need to be aggressive toward its neighbors because it would be inattackable, such a bloc would become the premier world power (in a world partitioned into large blocs), self-centered, and opposed to all the dangerous dogmas now associated with globalism. It would have the capacity to practice the "autarky of great spaces," whose principles have already been worked out by the Noble Prize winning economist, Maurice Allais. The destiny of the European peninsular cannot be separated from continental Russia, for both ethno-cultural and geopolitical reasons. It's absolutely imperative for America's mercantile thalassocracy to prevent the birth of a Euro-Siberian federation.

This is not the place to speak of the Israeli state. Only a word: For essentially demographic reasons, I believe the Zionist utopia conceived by Hertzl and Buber and realized since 1948 will not survive any longer than Soviet communism did; indeed, its end is already in sight. I'm presently writing a book on "The New Jewish Question," which I hope will be translated into Russian.

CONCLUSION
Fatalism is never appropriate. History is always open-ended and presents innumerable unexpected caprices and turns. Let's not forget the formula of William of Orange: "Where there's a will, there's a way." The period we are presently living through is a one of resistance and of preparation for the even more threatening events to come, such as might follow the juncture of a race war and a massive economic downturn. We need to start thinking in post-chaos terms and organize accordingly. In closing, let me leave you with a favorite watchword of mine: "From Resistance to Reconquest, From Reconquest to Renaissance."

Guillame Faye och Nord-Sydkonflikten

2006-03-02T06:14:00.000-08:00

De senaste dagarna har vi fått se en våg av hat riktas mot vårt brödrafolk i söder, en våg av hat som de flesta nog inser inte står i proportion till något vårt lilla brödrafolk rent faktiskt gjort. Rent instinktivt anar vi att vi därför måste söka andra svar än "Jyllands-Postens hemska bilder" för att förstå de djupare sammanhangen. Kort sagt måste vi besvara frågan: "varför hatar de oss?". Och vi ska undvika den masochistiska versionen av frågan ("de hatar oss. Vi måste ha gjort något oförlåtligt. Vi är svin. Eftersom det finns folk som hatar oss"), och istället besvara den genom att översätta ett stycke av Guillaume Fayes l'Archeo-Futurisme. Faye har funnit ett antal historiska trender som under 2000-talets första hälft sannolikt kommer att leda till katastrofer, och till modernitetens undergång. Två av dessa trender är tillväxten av religiös fanatism, och Syds hat mot Nord. Fayes text är intressant såtillvida att den identifierar motsättningar utan att förfalla till vulgära nidbilder. Kort sagt, man kan respektera både islam och afrikansk kultur, samtidigt som man inser att de befinner sig på andra planhalvan i det spel som är historien. Hur som helst, över till Faye:

5. Den femte katastrofen: framväxten av religiös fanatism, främst Islam men inte bara (även Indisk polyteism exempelvis). Den oväntade framväxten av radikal Islam och återverkningarna av modernismens kosmopolitanska överdrifter, som har som avsikt att påtvinga hela världen den ateistiska individualismen, kulten av marknaden, avspiritualiseringen av alla värden, och Skådespelets diktatur. Som en reaktion mot denna aggression, står ett dominant och samtidigt erövrande Islam, i enlighet med sin tradition. Som helhet är dess antal utövare ständigt växande, jämför bara med kristendomen som har förlorat varje aggressiv proselytism det en gång haft, och som nu minskar, till och med i Sydamerika och sub-sahariska Afrika. Detta är resultatet av det självmord som var Vatikan II [en liberalisering av katolicismen]. Det radikala Islam sprider sig som en eld, och hotar nya länder: Marocko, Tunisien, Egypten, Pakistan, Indonesien osv. Konsekvenserna är oundvikliga inbördeskrig i länder med dubbla religioner som Indien, sammandrabbningar i Europa, särskilt i Frankrike och Storbrittannien, där Islam mycket väl kan komma att bli den största praktiserade religionen, ökning av antalet internationella kriser där muslimska stater är inblandade, kanske rentav "smutsiga" atombomber. Det är därför nödvändigt att genomskåda dem som talar om ett "västligt Islam". Det har en teokratisk natur, och konflikten tycks därför oundviklig. Utanför, och inuti, Europa.

6. Konflikten mellan Nord och Syd kan spåras i de teologiska och etniska rötterna, och kommer sannolikt att vara farligare än Öst-Väst-konflikten. Ingen vet vilken form den kommer att anta. Men den kommer att vara allvarlig, och den kommer att bygga på starka kollektivs känslor och intressen vilket är mycket olikt Öst-Väst-konfliktens kapitalist-kommunistiska kontrovers som var artificiell. De kraftfulla rötterna till detta hot är för det första den långlivade förnärmningen i Syd som baseras på deras tidigare kolonisering. "Rasialiseringen" av deras tal är imponerande. Nyligen har en asiatisk minister använt rasist-kortet när den franska regeringen föredrog en italiensk investor framför en asiatisk. Denna rasialisering av mänskliga relationer är en direkt konsekvens av modernismens "antirasistiska" kosmopolitanism, och den växer också fram i Västern. Rapgrupperna i både Frankrike och USA förklarar öppet "vendetta mot de vita männen" och civil olydnad. Det är paradoxalt, men den egalitära kosmopolitanismen har lett till global rasism - fortfarande på babystadiet och implicit, men inte mycket längre. Folken gör sig redo att konfrontera varandra. Och Europa, offer för en befolkningskolonisation, riskerar att bli det främsta slagfältet. Och oavsett hur många som tror att mänskligheten kommer att bli "blandad" i framtiden, så har de fel. Detta riskerar bara att ske i Europa. De andra kointinenterna, särskilt Asien och Afrika, utgör fortsatt etniska block som exporterar men aldrig importerar människor. Point förstod dem: Islam blir fanbäraren i denna revolt mot Nord, denna freudianska revanchism mot västlig "imperialism". I det kollektiva undermedvetna bland Syds folk tar följande ide rot: "moskeer har byggts på kristen jord". Gammal revanchism från korstågen, återgång till arkaismen, historiens återkomst, som en bumerang.

Denna kolonisering av Nord från delar av Syd tar sitt uttryck i den svage mannens kolonialism, ständigt förvirrad, ständigt bygger den på vädjanden till humanism, på rätten till asyl, på jämlikhet. Och detta är rävens strategi (motsatt lejonets), för att låna ett uttryck från Machhiavelli. För i verkligheten delar inte kolnisatören dessa ideal som den låtsas omfatta, och som är dess offers. De sydliga kolonisternas ideologi är i verkligheten anti-egalitär, dominant (trots att den låtsas vara den dominerade och förföljda), revanchistisk och erövrande. Denna mentalitet är fortfarande arkaisk. För att kunna möta den måste vi därför göra oss av med den "humanism" som försvagar och ideologiskt avväpnar oss.

Det finns ännu en orsak till den troliga konflikten mellan Nord och Syd, och det är politiskt-ekonomiskt, i form av kamp om knappa marknader och resurser.

Till en kritik av arkeofuturismen

2006-03-02T06:13:00.000-08:00

Efter att ha fördjupat oss i Guillaume Fayes arkeo-futuristism, finner vi att den som alla andra mänskliga ideer har sina starka och svaga sidor. De starka sidorna är framförallt försöket att uppnå en syntes av arkaism och futurism, Västerlandets två mest radikala svar på moderniteten. Faye lyckas måla upp en tilltalande bild av en möjlig framtid, där Nordlandet skakat av sig självhatet och moderniteten och återupptagit det faustiska projektet på interplanetarisk skala. Betoningen på volontarism och vitalism är också en välkommen kontrast till den senmoderna betoningen på determinism och nivellerad hjälplöshet.

Samtidigt finns det källor till kritik.

Den första kritiken är samtidigt den mest fundamentala: Faye har i mina ögon inte uppnått en syntes av arkaism och futurism, utan en postmodern futurism med arkaiska drag. Vissa former är arkaiska, men kärnan är futuristisk, postmodernistisk. Anledningen till detta är att spiritualitet spelar en perifer roll i Fayes tankebyggnad. Detta blir särskilt tydligt i hans förslag till en religion för framtiden, där massorna skall få dyrka katolska helgon i katedralerna medan eliten är gnosticister. Att elit och massor har en esoterisk och en exoterisk version av samma tro är en sak, men detta? Spiritualiteten, den biokulturella nationalismen, dessa djupa, arkaiska, egenskaper hos personen och gruppen känns mer som instrumentella medel för ett vitalistiskt mål hos Faye. Det är som om han satt sig ner och ställt frågan: hur skall Europa organiseras, socialt, politiskt och ekonomiskt, för att kunna möta utmaningen från Syd? Och hans svar är "med en del arkaiska former".

Min version av en arkeo-futuristisk syntes skulle baserats betydligt starkare på en spirituell Weltanschaung. Den skulle fortfarande vara vitalistisk (även om vi traditionalister hellre använder begreppet spirituell virilitet, vilket fångar det mesta av vitalismen och går bortom den), fortfarande vara "post"-modern, men den skulle sakna de titanisk-prometeiska inslagen av hybris som gör sig synliga hos Faye. Kloner som organbanker? Att flytta Jordens bana runt Solen? Att tvinga Syd till rural ekonomi (och att förvänta sig att detta är möjligt utan fullskaligt kärnvapenkrig?)? Faye hänvisar till Evola, men tycks inte ha tagit lärdom av hans distinktion mellan titanisk och heraklidisk inställning till världen. Titanen är "gudarnas" fiende, medan herakliden är deras vän. Titanen utnyttjar människor och natur utan tanke på kosmiska lagar eller natur, herakliden verkar i harmoni med dem. En titanisk arkeo-futurism skulle sannolikt resultera i ekosfärens undergång, vi behöver därför en heraklidisk version.

Man kan inte "klippa och klistra" i historien, plocka sociala former från Rom exempelvis utan att se till den världsbild och spiritualitet som de var en del av.

Frågan vi tvingas ställa oss är därför: har postmodernismen gått bortom moderniteten? Om vi räknar referenser, blir det nämligen tydligt att Faye är betydligt mer inspirerad av postmodernismen än av traditionalismen eller fascismen, och detsamma blir uppenbart när vi sätter oss in i hans koncept vitalistisk konstruktivism, som är närliggande exempelvis Deleuze och Foucalt. Svaret på vår fråga beror på hur vi definierar moderniteten. Om Framsteget, Sanningen och Subjektet är centrala för vår definition är det uppenbart att Deleuze, Foucalt och Faye gått bortom moderniteten. Men om vi istället ser Materialismen (i motsättning till Spiritualiteten) och en särskild Hybris som dess kännetecken, är postmodernismen bara Modernitetens sista dödsryckning.

När Faye exempelvis förnekar "människovärdet" som ett modernt metafysiskt och egalitärt koncept, missar han att alla Traditioner faktiskt haft detta koncept (om än i annan form än Moderniteten). Det finns en metafysisk realitet även bakom begreppen "människovärdet" och "mänskligheten". Att rakt av förneka denna för att man förläst sig på fransk postmodernism, är ett uttryck för titanisk hybris och för senmodernitet.

Vi har därför mycket att hämta hos Faye, både när det gäller det storskaliga försöket att skapa en arkaism för framtiden, när det gäller strategin att använda postmoderna termer, och när det gäller detaljerna, men till syvende och sidst måste vi skapa vår egen syntes, vår egen arkeo-futurism. Och för oss måste det vara Traditionen, arkaismen, som står i centrum, och futurismen som är den sekundära aspekten.

Guillaume Faye om de Gröna

2006-03-02T06:12:00.000-08:00

En fri översättning av en kortare Faye-text som behandlar de "Gröna". Från att ha innehaft en potential för nytänkande, bioregionalism och Blod-och-Jord-filosofi (alltså en djupare grön Weltanschaung än den rent instrumentella, den rent moderna), har de flesta europeiska "miljöpartier" kommit att bli mer inriktade på etnomasochism än på egentlig grön politik. Det finns gröna strömningar som fortfarande bär på den ursprungliga potentialen (djupekologism och anarkoprimitivism exempelvis), men i få eller inga miljöpartier är de framträdande.

Det futuristiska elementet i Fayes arkeo-futurism blir tydligt när han anklagar de Gröna för att inrikta sig på kärnkraften, som han menar är den renaste energikällan, av rent känslomässiga skäl (atombomben), och därigenom objektivt bistå oljekomplexet. Vidare menar han att de inriktar sig på hur man ska kunna minska utsläppen genom att minska produktionen, men nästan helt saknar förslag på hur man ska kunna producera på bättre sätt. "Det gröna folkhemmet" verkar mest handla om en återgång till ett fattigare samhälle, Traditionalism minus alla former av spiritualitet, nationalism och personlig frihet.

Även de Grönas immigrationspolitik är Faye negativ till, han menar att många av dem är mer intresserade av maximal invandring snarare än miljöpolitik (och när man ser till de svenska Mp, är man böjd att ge honom rätt).

Här är i alla fall Fayes text, förslag på bättre översättning mottages tacksamt:

Det främsta politiska projektet för de Gröna i Europa, är öppnandet av gränserna för all invandring. I Tyskland utverkade de 1998 från den olycksaliga Schröderregeringen en kvasi-automatisk naturalisering efter åtta års vistelse, med rätt till dubbelt medborgarskap. På så vis ersatte de blodets rätt [alltså rätten för etniska tyskar utifrån att bli medborgare i första hand], med den franska, tydligen högre, modellen av territorialitetens rätt. "De tyska Gröna stör sig särskilt på", noterar Jean-Paul Picaper i the Barber (16/11/1999), "att socialisterna begränsar invandringen."

När det gäller etnomasochistisk kollaboration med Europas kolonisatörer, är de tyska Gröna de mest framstående. Men tack vare trotskitsten Cohn-Bendit, "Röde Dany" i ny, grön färg, har de även fått anhängare i Frankrike.

Under de europeiska valen 1999, stod öppna gränser för all invandring och amnesti för de illegala, överst på Cohn-Bendits, Noël Mamères och Domenica Voynets kravlista. Det var det viktigaste när det gällde deras påtryckningar på Jospin, och deras strategi av fascistförklarande av den olycklige Chevènement.

10% av deras förslag var till försvar för miljön, 90% till försvar för invandrarna, och 0% mot arbetslösheten och fattigdomen.

Guillaume Faye, La colonisation de l'Europe, Aencre 2000, S. 39.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/faye2_fr.htm

Global Coup d'Etat

2006-03-02T06:08:00.000-08:00

I år kommer den odinistiska arketyp som är Jultomten (eller är det Tor-arketypen, därom tvistar de lärde) med sällsynt fina julklappar av den virtuella sorten, närmare bestämt en recension av Michael O'Meara av Fayes artikel Global Coup d'Etat, där han studerar den nya amerikanska imperialismen och den anti-amerikanska reaktionen på denna. Faye ser den alltför ofta helt onyanserade anti-amerikanismen och pro-islamismen i delar av europeisk nationalism som rent neurotisk, då den glömmer banden mellan Euro-Amerika och Europa och skillnaderna mellan en Fiende och en antagonist. Hans beskrivning av hur svagt Amerika egentligen är, är dock läsvärd. Amerika är inte ens särskilt amerikanskt längre enligt Faye, massimmigrationen har förändrat dess kulturella landskap bortom räddning. Avsaknaden av gemensamma värderingar och gemensam kultur (utöver att man äter på Burger King och surfar på nätet) gör USA till en gigant på lerfötter. Utifrån ett hegelianskt perspektiv är det lätt att se vad Faye menar, USA har sakta men säkert försvagats kvantitativt de senaste decennierna och det kommer förr eller senare att bli synligt genom en kvalitativ förändring (evolution blir revolution, så att säga).

Som PDF: http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol5no3/53-mo-faye.pdf
Som HTML: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:JI47IpRsjY8J:theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol5no3/53-mo-faye.pdf

Kai Murros

2006-03-02T06:07:00.000-08:00

Dagens inlägg kommer att tillägnas den finska nationalbolsjeviken Kai Murros, tillsammans med ekofascisten Pentti Linkola den mest intressanta finska tänkaren just nu.

Murros nationalism ligger nära maoismen, och hans hyllningar till folket och arbetarklassen kan därför bli en aning enahanda efter en stund. Om man tolkar honom som att den nya aristokratin tar form i arbetarklassen är det en trolig utveckling (förutsatt att man har en bred definition av vilka sociala skikt som utgör arbetarklassen), om man tolkar honom som att arbetarklassen är den nya aristokratin är vi tillbaka i en odifferentierad egalitarianism. Hur som helst, jag finner själv Murros poetiska beskrivningar av Europas pånyttfödelse inspirerande. Ibland på gränsen till patetik, men i det stora hela givande.

Our task is to turn myths into concrete reality. Myths will guide us, myths are the very stuff the national philosophy is made of. We need a myth, a powerful story, the greatest story ever told through which we will shape the mind of the masses.

The people have an intuitive understanding for the importance of myths. The people sense their powerful immaterial forces and how they bind individuals together as a nation. No wonder intellectuals who despise the people also look down upon myths.

The ordinary man of the street is guided through his life above all else by the myths embedded in the collective consciousness. Take away the myths and he has nothing, he is lost without a direction. A sterile, theoretical and speculative philosophy cooked up by shady intellectuals has nothing to offer to the people.

Accept the fury, let the hatred guide you, find the beast in you. Break your shackles and burn the bridges behind you. Nothing good will ever come out of you before you know who you truly are.

If the troubles of modern Europe were only economical and political in nature, we would surely lose. But there is an element that our enemies fail to grasp in full -- the rage of the masses fighting for their right to excist as a nation. To understand the severity of this phenomenon it would require our elite to finally open its eyes to the harsh realities of life and in process give up the naive illusions it harbors...

... Luckily for us the elite is unable to do it.

This war will be the decisive push of the Europeans to reclaim their place in the world. We are fed up with being the scape goats of the world, we are tired of being blamed for our achievements and we are sick and tired of yielding to every possible demand by non-europeans simply because we are supposed to carry the collective white man's guilt AD INFINITUM.

For over a thousand generations our people have lived of this land, over a thousand generations of people have grown out of this land, physically come into being by the riches of this hallowed ground. For over a thousand generations this sacred soil has nurtured and provided our people. We are one with this soil for every ounce of our flesh and blood comes from this soil, there is nothing in us that is alien or hostile to it...

... and when our life comes to an end, we will return to this land like a traveller who returns home...

... and all this we should give away at the drop of a hat since we are being told so by our morally corrupt elite...

Our enemies do not know what kind of powers they are dealing with and that is why they are about to unleash beasts whose existence the world so dearly would like to forget.

You have to see our revolution in a biological context. We are basically a pack of wolves defending its territory and cubs… a pack of wolves fighting for its survival, defending its right to exist.

Linkola finns i korthet här: http://www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/penaintr.htm

Guillaume Faye on Carl Schmitt

2006-03-02T06:05:00.000-08:00

Guillaume Faye studerar även i denna text Europas näst största, och snabbast växande, religion. Att Faye ser denna som ett hot är vid det här laget ingen nyhet, men det finns ett par stycken i texten som är av större intresse. Dels stycket om Carl Schmitt, där Faye går in på Schmitts distinktion mellan vän och fiende som den politiska distinktionen (precis som "vackert och fult" är estetikens distinktioner, och "gott och ont" är moralens). Faye har på annan plats återknutit till den gamla grekiska åtskillnaden mellan fiende och antagonist, och tillämpat den på Europas situation idag. Antagonisten är den som tillhör din egen Civilisation, men som kan vilja breda ut sig på din bekostnad eller förändra dig. Fienden däremot, strävar efter att utplåna dig. Bland de små grekiska stadsstaterna var Aten och Sparta antagonister, men mot det Persiska imperiet enades de mot en Fiende som hotade själva den hellenska kulturen. Det stora problemet för en Civilisation uppstår när dess stater glömmer bort denna grundläggande insikt, och allierar dess Fiender mot sina antagonister (såsom Frankrike allierade ottomanerna mot Tysk-Rom på 1600-talet exempelvis, eller som de flesta kombattanter under Världskrigen). För Faye är USA inte en Fiende, som det är för många systemkritiker, utan bara en antagonist. Istället ser han av geopolitiska och civilisationella skäl Islam (betraktat som politisk-civilisationell enhet) som Europas Fiende i den nära framtiden. Viktigt är här Schmitts grundtanke. Man hatar inte sin Fiende. Man tycker inte nödvändigtvis att Han är ful, ond eller dålig. Fulhet, ondska och dålighet är inte politiska kategorier, även om man naturligtvis kan känna så också. Men i grunden är det en politisk distinktion, och man kan mycket väl respektera sin Fiende (vilket väl för övrigt är den mer värdiga, och rationella, inställningen).

Stycket där Faye beskriver varför Islam är oförenligt med europeiska traditioner återknyter till Spenglers beskrivning av Europa som den Faustiska Civilisationen, och tar upp flera faustiska egenskaper (jag skulle kanske inte vara lika kategorisk som Faye, exemplet Iran visar hur en indo-arisk kultur kan behålla en hel del gamla särdrag efter islamisering. I detta fallet genom att blanda islam med gamla zoroastriska och "Cult of Angels"- ideer, och skapa shia. Men det är detaljer).

Inlägg om Schmitt och Spengler kommer, här är Fayes text, ett utdrag ur La Colonisation de l'Europe:

There are officially four million Muslims in France today. The real figure is almost certainly higher, probably between six and seven million believers. Islam is already France's second largest religion, with 1,430 official mosques. Its followers are young, whereas practicing Catholics are old. If demographic trends are taken into account (a steady, uncontrolled flow of immigrants and a higher birth rate) Islam will become the dominant religion in France as early as 2015, if nothing is done to prevent it. France currently has more Muslims than Albania and Bosnia combined. In the European Union, the number of Muslims is estimated at fifteen million. It is growing in all European countries.

To claim today that France could never become an Islamic republic or even a Muslim country is as risky as someone denying in the 1980s the possibility of German reunification or the demise of Communism in the USSR.

None of my remarks will be hateful toward Islam, though it does not always reciprocate. On the other hand, I do indeed consider Islam a grave threat and an enemy, since this conquering religion is engaged in a massive and deliberate settlement of Europe. You do not despise an enemy; you combat him. And in attempting to understand your enemy, you should not descend to the naivety of contemporary intellectuals, who reflexively declare Islam tolerant, without ever having studied it.

It is perfectly possible to share values in common with your enemy. His character as enemy arises, in this case, only because he has first imposed himself on you as an occupier. We can, in agreement with Islam, resist or deplore the West's materialism and its exaggerated, deranged individualism, but nevertheless regard the establishment of Islam in Europe as an act of war, according to the Koran's own rigorous teachings. Carl Schmitt's warning aptly applies to all Europeans who remain naive and tolerant toward Islam: "You don't decide who your enemy is; he decides. You can easily declare him your friend, but if he decides that he is your enemy, there is nothing you can do about it."

Contrary to the opinion of Islamophiles, Islam is not simply a "universal faith" like Christianity; it is also a community of civilization (umma) which aims at expansion. The implicit project of Islam is quite simply the conquest of Europe, both religiously and ethnically, as the Koran stipulates. We are already at war. Westerners, unlike the Russians, have not yet grasped this fact.

For even if Islam conveys transcendent values and proposes an individual and a collective doctrine of life -- imposing high, intangible standards on its believers, thus endowing their lives with meaning -- it nevertheless corresponds to nothing in the European soul and temperament. Its massive introduction into Europe would disfigure a European culture already damaged by Americanization. An assertive dogmatism, an absence of the Faustian spirit, a fundamental denial of humanism (understood as the autonomy of the human will) in favor of an absolute submission to God, an extreme rigidity of social obligations and prohibitions, a theocratic confusion of civil society, religion and the political State, an absolute monotheism, a profound ambivalence toward artistic freedom and scientific inquiry -- all these traits are incompatible with traditional European patterns of thought, which are fundamentally polytheistic.

Guillaume Faye on Euro-Islam

2006-03-02T06:04:00.000-08:00

Ännu en intressant text av Faye, denna gång en insiktsfull inblick i Europas näst största religion, sedd ur ett politiskt perspektiv. Och det är just ur det politiska perspektivet även jag ser Islam som ett hot, som religion betraktad är det en väg till upplysning och ett gott liv, precis som de andra religiösa traditionerna. Jag hyser exempelvis den största respekt för sufismen, Hossein Nasr och Martin Lings, men det innebär inte att jag inte inser att ett Eurabien skulle vara en plats där förortsbornas ättlingar skulle härska över mina ättlingar, och där mina ättlingar skulle tvingas anamma kultur och religion från Mellanöstern. Efter att ha talat med berber, indier och iranier, ättlingarna till högtstående civilisationer som brutalt tvingades in i dar-al-Islam, och hört deras tragiska historier om hur deras historia och rötter tagits ifrån dem, är det inget öde jag önskar mina barnbarn.

Jag antar att Mona Sahlin och Gudrun Schyman så totalt saknar inblick i människans och historiens natur ("Man is a beast of prey", för att citera Spengler) att de fullt ut lyckats förtränga historiens realiteter. På fullt allvar tror de att vi lämnat sådana sociologiska fakta som gruppsolidaritet, erövringar, civilisationers uppgång och fall, och politiskt våld bakom oss, bara för att vi har en sossestat som hyllar "mångkulturen". Tanken att en massiv invandring av vitala element med en expansiv religion skulle kunna leda till konflikter eller ett maktövertagande inom 100 år, är sannolikt bortom deras fattningsförmåga, eftersom de mentalt fortfarande befinner sig på dagis. Och om sanningen ska fram tror jag inte att de har den Vilja till Makt som krävs för att man ska beröras illa av tanken på att ens ättlingar ska behärskas av andra (eller för att man ska vara kapabel att känna igen Viljan till Makt hos andra grupper). Vissa av oss har en gnutta stolthet och en gnutta Vilja till Makt, Vitalitet, Virilitet eller vad vi nu vill kalla det, kvar. Och vi ser både en nödvändighet och ett visst nöje i att kämpa för vår existens och vår del av kakan. Men en skrämmande stor del av befolkningen är masochistiska zombies som helst av allt vill sjunka in i den eviga vilan. Thanatosdriften är stark hos dessa Nietzsches "last men", och de ser med jämnmod på när deras grupp, deras lag på historiens brutala spelplan, slungas rakt in i RE Howards svarta avgrund. Men för de av oss som betraktar masochism som ett lyte snarare än en dygd, kommer här ännu en givande text av Guillaume Faye:

Islam is in essence intolerant, and its highly Machiavellian logic alternates between force and deception: deception, when Muslims are weakest and form a minority; force, when their dominance begins to be assured. Among Arabo-African immigrants Islam is not conceived of as a spiritual religion (its moral precepts are seldom followed) but as a revanchist form of ethnic self-assertion against Europeans, often called "crusaders." Much more than Christianity, today enfeebled, Islam is fundamentally a religion of the imperative revealed truth and it has always believed, with a thoroughly blind conscience, in its own rightness, and it has justified all acts, even atrocities, committed in the name of Islamic expansion and for the glory of Allah.

Europeans, naive defenders of Islam, fail to comprehend it and interpret the Koran as a sincere whole, as a single unified text with a consistent logic, whereas in fact it is rich in prevarication, a text with multiple gears.

Islam can propose "tolerance and fraternity among religions" and "the freedom of the believer's preferred faith" on the basis of a Koranic precept: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Sura 2.256); it can insistently reject any fundamentalism and fanaticism: "Islam is the community of the just balance" (Sura 2.143) or "no violence in matters of religion! Truth stands out clearly from error" (Sura 2.257). Islam can commit itself to compassion and forgiveness of offenses: "evil must be requited by good" (Sura 41.34; 22.96); Islam can even commit itself to humane treatment of an enemy and the Islamic obligation to offer him aid (Sura 9.6). Yet these verses are absolutely contradicted by fourteen centuries of Islamic behavior, for Islam has always preferred violence whenever the balance of power is in its favor, ignoring forgiveness and compassion, eradicating or subjecting in ghettos other religions in the territories that it has conquered, and tolerating in the latter neither pagan polytheists nor atheists.

These peaceful Koranic verses are a ruse. Theologically they have been annulled by the bellicose verses written later, in particular those of Sura 4 ....

Almsgiving (zakat), which constitutes the third "pillar of Islam," is completely different in character from Christian charity. The latter is universalist and altruistic -- which seems quite naive to a Muslim. Although Muslims and their allies, by a pure propaganda trick, attempt to convince us that Islamic almsgiving is a philanthropic requirement that demonstrates the humane and peaceful spirit of Islam, reality is very different.

Zakat concerns only the umma, the community of Muslim believers. A Muslim is by no means held responsible for giving alms to impoverished Jews and Christians, nor to succor them in any way; as for acts of charity toward the pagan or the atheist, they are deemed blasphemous. Charity is not based on commiseration or love of one's neighbor in this conquering, intolerant and warlike religion. It is motivated, according to the Koran, by two considerations: first, to practice solidarity toward indigent members of the umma, in order to foster cohesion within the community; second, to teach any Muslim that he is not the real owner of the goods at his disposal, which are merely a loan authorized by Allah in order to illustrate his power and to spread Islam everywhere, by conversion or the sword.

There is thus no question of a Muslim indiscriminately coming to assistance of other human beings. For this implacable revealed monotheism, the Infidel is unworthy. Some may have noticed, though the media largely ignored it, that the Muslim Red Crescent during the wars in the Balkans only aided Bosnian refugees or Muslim Kosovars, completely indifferent to the fate of the Orthodox Serbs or the Croatian Catholics afflicted by war. The Red Cross, on the other hand, did not make any ethnic or religious distinctions.

Generally, Islam practices a policy of peace and apparent tolerance only when it is weak and remains in the minority.

Many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, absolutely proscribe the construction of churches in their territory. Christian worship is prohibited to foreigners stationed in these countries. In the majority of Muslim countries, the entry or residence of Christian priests is almost impossible; any proselytism is prohibited, under penalty of immediate expulsion. In Europe, however, Muslim proselytism is encouraged and financed (e.g. the construction of mosques) by the authorities, whose secularism is tantamount to naivety. The rule of reciprocity that governs international law is completely scorned; to their discredit Europeans readily accept this double-standard, which in the eyes of Muslims betrays a sign of weakness and resignation that encourages and legitimates, as though justified by divine will, their movement of ethno-religious conquest in Europe.

For the Islamic mind, the fact that Europeans do not demand from Muslim countries the same secular neutrality, the same freedom of worship that we extend to Muslims, means this: "Europeans know that they are in error, they recognize the superiority of Islam and the superiority of Allah; they prostrate themselves before us and acknowledge themselves to be Infidels, and thus it is just that they should become a land for our conquest." These remarks were made by an Egyptian imam in the Cairo newspaper Al Ahram.

Dar al-Islam

In the conservative tradition of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of God, and dar al-Harb, the house of war; the home of the infidels or unbelievers. The goal of the Islamists is to expand the borders of dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-Harb, and to create a universal Islamic community. This is one meaning of the term Jihad. The Saudi Wahhabists and their philosophy are a prime example of this doctrine. Bin Laden's rhetoric is also reflective of this dichotomy ....

From Wikipedia.

Europeans are unaware of the very foundations of Islam, notably the cynical imperative of the three stages of conquest. Initially a Muslim community established in a foreign land and still forming a minority practices Dar Al-Sulh, "temporary peace," because the Infidel, in his blindness and naivety, permits Islamic proselytism in his country, without demanding any reciprocity on Muslim soil. This is the stage that Europe is currently experiencing, which makes many believe that a "secular and Europeanized Islam" is possible.

Only in the second stage, after the settlement of an Islamic community has been established, does the requirement of conquest and violence become apparent. This is Dar Al-Harb, in which the Infidel's soil becomes a "zone of war," either because of resistance to the establishment of Islam, resistance that must be broken, or because Muslims, now in sufficient numbers, no longer need peace and can abandon the prudence that marked the first stage of their conquest. This phase will soon be upon us: We can already see its premises.

In the third stage Muslims end up dominating. This is Dar Al-Islam, the "reign of Islam." The Jew and the Christian are tolerated but reduced in status, enjoying at best an inferior position, that of dhimmis ("protected") paying a special poll-tax and deprived of most of their rights; pagan polytheists ("idolaters") and atheists are persecuted; and the whole population must submit to Islam's social regulations. Under this "reign of Islam" the non-Muslim has no chance of occupying any leading social position. In Morocco, where Christians and Jews were the most tolerated and protected, they were nevertheless compelled to leave at the end of the French protectorate, even though there had been no war, as was the case in Algeria.

For many of the leaders of international Islamic networks today, the ultimate objective is to impose on Europe the law of Dar Al-Islam. It is a consequent project, propelled by an unwavering political will, which has already been set in motion. Because God has so ordained.

Mer citat av Guillaume Faye

2006-03-02T06:03:00.000-08:00

De som följt denna blogg har sannolikt förstått att jag inte förklarar kravallerna i Frankrike med "fattigdom och förtryck" som vänstern gör, utan att jag istället för deras socio-ekonomiska förklaringsmodell föredrar en spengleriansk med nietzscheanska övertoner, där det rör sig om en kamp för ökad makt av en redan stark grupp. Min tes är följande: "ungdomsgängen är ingalunda förtryckta eller särskilt fattiga, deras oproportionerligt höga nivå av brott och våld kan istället förklaras med deras egen rasism och med deras vilja att öka sin tillgång till makt, kvinnor, revir, "respekt" och pengar".

Detta perspektiv delar jag med Guillaume Faye, vilket framgår tydligt av följande citat:

"The ethnic war has begun.... For now, it has taken the form of larval-stage urban guerilla warfare: burning cars or businesses, repeated attacks on Europeans, attacks on public transit, ambushes of the police or firefighters, raids on the urban centers from the suburbs, etc...

Begining in the suburbs, enclaves or 'lawless zones' have been created which spread out like an oil slick. Once the foreign population has reached a certain proportion, crime has made the 'petits blancs', harrassed by the ethnic gangs, move out....

The politicians... blame the 'petits blancs' of the popular classes... who they accuse of racism. They are said to be the ones responsible for the creation of 'ghettos'....However, properly speaking, we are not dealing with ghettos, but with conquered and colonized territories. A ghetto is a zone relegated to a people suffering ostracism. Today in France, it is the foreign populations which have conquered, by force, their territorial spaces." - Guillaume Faye(1)

...the criminality of the young North Africans is... a means of territorial conquest and of expelling Europeans within the territory of France itself.... Today in France, it is the foreign populations which have conquered, by force, their territorial spaces. - Guillaume Faye(1) from La Colonisation De L'Europe

Guillaume Faye’s argues that the influx of mostly North African immigrants into France over the past decades represents the gradual conquest of the country. To Faye, the clustering of these unassimilated (and unassimilable?) immigrants in the grim suburbs which surround France’s major cities and the de facto expulsion of the French themselves from these in an ethnic-cleansing-through-crime represents a piecemeal foreign occupation.
Faye rightly rejects the notion that the massive increase in crime which has afflicted France in the last decades is the result of poverty, racism, or any of the usual leftist excuses, arguing instead that it is the product of the arrival at adolescence of a generation of immigrant’s children:

… who reject integration into “white” French (and European) society and who demonstrate a willfully aggressive attitude, based on a mixture of feelings of resentment and a desire for revenge, but also on a fascination with the consumerist model in which they believe they have the right to share, here and now, without any effort and without taking any social responsibility….

In Faye’s model, then, the street fighting in Paris during the past 8 days has been not a civil war – instead, it would be more properly considered a particularly acute episode in the low intensity conflict between the French and the invaders which has been underway in one form or another for decades.

Alla citat hämtade från Faceright-bloggen (kursiverad text är Fayes, vanlig text är Facerights): http://www.faceright.com/archives/2005/11/the_colonizatio.html

The Gothick God of Darkness

2006-03-02T06:02:00.000-08:00

Många utövare av rekonstruerad asatro och hedendom är egentligen föga mer än liberaler i lustiga kläder. Arkeo-futurister är de inte, utan de är lika typiska barn av 2000-talet som dina grannar och arbetskamrater. Men det finns asatroende som lyckats frigöra sig från det moderna tänkesättet, och som är företrädare för en identitär, anti-modern, och a-dualistisk spiritualitet. Följande stycke av Edred Thorson är ett mycket läsvärt exempel på detta. Edred menar att Odens arv finns i blodet/generna på hans utvalda folk, och att det inte är envar förunnat att upptäcka detta arv. Edreds asatro är därför både elitär och identitär/etnisk. Vidare är Edreds beskrivning av Oden som både en mörk gud, och en visdomsgud, klart skild från den monoteistiska dualismen där allting är antingen "gott" eller "ont". Läs och njut:

There is a Secret God, a Hidden God, who dwells in a spiralling tower fortress and who has guided and overseen our development from time immemorial--and who has remained concealed but very close to us awaiting the "future" time of re-awakening. The time of the re-awakening is near. Already we have heard the distant claps of thunder which signal the coming storm.

The legacy of the Dark Gothick God is one which can guide those chosen by him to a state of development wherein they have attained a permanent (immortal) consciousness which is free to act or not act in the material universe as it desires. This consciousness becomes privy to all manner of secrets of life and death and life in death. The price for this attainment is contained in the cost of attaining it--for one who has been so chosen there can be no rest, no respite from the Quest which is, and remains, the Eternal Work.

Because the way in which knowledge of this Dark Gothick God is passed from generation to generation contradicts the favored methods of the so-called "major religions" of the world--the religions of the "book"--Judaism, Christianity and Islam--this knowledge and its methods have been forbidden and made increasingly tabu for all of the centuries since the cunning ideological conversion of Europe by Christianity.

Books can be burned, religious leaders can be killed--but the blood endures.

Fullständig text här:

http://www.runegild.org/secretdark.html

Beyond ethnopluralism

2006-03-02T06:00:00.000-08:00

Guillaume Faye visar än en gång var skåpet skall stå, i denna text där han visar hur etnopluralismen trots allt är uppbyggd på abstraktioner av samma sort som "individualismen" och "liberalismen". För en stirnerian som inser sin egen unicitet, och för en socialdarwinist som inser att det är viljan till liv/makt som avgör vilka som får leva och vilka som får gå under i det oändliga krig som är historien, så är det endast Fayes neo-vitalistiska budskap som räcker hela vägen. Läs och njut:

Guillaume Faye
“The Cause of the Peoples?”
From Terre et Peuple 18 (Winter Solstice 2003)
The [GRECE's] cause des peuples is an ambiguous slogan. It was initially conceived in a polytheistic spirit to defend ethnocultural heterogeneity. But it has since been reclaimed by egalitarian and human rights ideologies which, while extolling a utopian, rainbow-colored world order, seek to inculpate Europeans for having 'victimized' the Third World.

Failure of a Strategy

When [GRECE-style] identitarians took up the cause des peuples in the early 1980s, it was in the name of ethnopluralism. This 'cause', however, was little more than a rhetorical ruse to justify the right of European peoples to retain their identity in face of a world system that sought to make everyone American. For in resisting the forces of deculturation, it was hoped that Europeans, like Third World peoples, would retain the right to their differences [la droit àla différence] -- and do so without having to suffer the accusation of racism. As such, the slogan assumed that every people, even White people, possessed such a right. But no sooner was this argument made than the cosmopolitan P.-A. Taguieff [a leading academic commentator on the far Right] began referring to it as a 'differentialist racism' [in which cultural difference, rather than skin color, became the criterion for exclusion].

In retrospect, the New Right's strategy seems completely contrived, for la cause des peuples, la droit à la différence, and 'ethnopluralism' have all since been turned against identitarians. Moreover, its irrelevant to Europe's present condition, threatened, as it is, by a massive non-European invasion and by a conquering Islam abetted by our ethnomaschoistic elites.

Reclaimed by the dominant ideology, turned against identitarians, and tangential to current concerns, the GRECE's ethnopluralist strategy is a metapolitical disaster. It also retains something of the old Marxist and Christian-Left prejudice about Europe’s 'exploitation' of the Third World. As [the French Africanist] Bernard Lugan shows in respect to Black Africa,this prejudice is based on little more than economic ignorance. The cause des peuples is nevertheless associated with a Christian-like altruism that demonizes our civilization, accuses it of having destroyed all the others, and does so at the very moment when these others are busily preparing the destruction of our own civilization.

The 'right to difference' . . . What right? Haven't we had enough Kantian snivelling [about abstract rights]. There exists only a capacity to be different. In the selective process of History and Life, everyone has to make it on his own. There are no benevolent protectors. This right, moreover, is reserved for everyone but Europeans, who, [in the name of multiculturalism or some other cosmopolitan fashion], are summoned to discard their own biological and cultural identity.

This slogan poses another danger: it threatens to degenerate into a doctrine -- an ethnic communitarianism -- sanctioning the existence of non-European enclaves in our own lands. For in the Europe it envisages, communities of foreigners, particularly Muslim ones, will, for obvious demographic reasons, play an ever-greater role in our lives. This affront to our identity is accompanied by sophistic arguments that ridicule the 'fantasy' of a [possible White] reconquista. In this spirit, we are told that we will have to make do [with a multiracial Europe]. But I, for one, refuse to make do. Nor am I prepared to retreat before an alleged historical determinism [which aims at making Europe a Third World colony].

Life Is Perpetual Struggle

The cause des peuples has now become part of the ‘human rights’ vulgate. By contrast, the neo Darwinian thesis of conflict and competition, which assumes that only the fittest survive, seems to our bleeding-heart communitarians a vestige of barbarism -- even if this vestige corresponds with life’s organic laws. This thesis, though, in recognizing the forces of selection and competition, is alone able to guarantee the diversity of life's varied forms.

The cause des peuples is collectivist, homogenizing, and egalitarian, while the 'combat of peoples' is subjectivist and heterogeneous, conforming to life's entropic properties. In this sense, only nationalism and clashing wills-to-power are capable of sustaining the life affirming principle of subjectivity. Given its egalitarian assumption that every people has a 'right to live', the cause des peuples prefers to ignore obvious historical realities for an objectivism that seeks to transform the world’s peoples into objects suitable for a museum display. As such, it implies the equivalence of all peoples and civilizations.

This sort of egalitarianism takes two basic forms: one is expressed in a homogenizing but metissé concept of what it means to be human (the 'human race'), the other endeavors to preserve people and cultures in a way a curator might. Both forms refuse to accept that peoples and civilizations are qualitatively different. Hence, the absurd idea that one has to save endangered peoples and civilizations (at least if they are Third World) in the same way one might save an endangered seal. History’s turbulent selection process has, though, no room for preservation -- only for competing subjectivities. In its tribunal, salvationist doctrines are simply inadmissible.

The cause des peuples also assumes an underlying solidarity between European and Third World peoples. Again, this is nothing but a dubious ideological construct, which Grécistes invented in the early Eighties to avoid the accusation of racism. I don’t have the space here to expose the myth of Third World 'exploitation'. However, to explain its misfortunes in crude, neo-Marxist terms, as if it were due to the machinations of the IMF, the Trilaterals, the Bilderberg group, or some other Beelzebub, is hardly worthy of a response.

According to media or academic pundits, the 'culture of the other' is now under siege in France -- even though 'Afromania' is all the rage. I, on the other hand, think it is not at all exaggerated to claim that America's deculturating influences no longer threaten Europe, for its dangers have been surpassed by another.

Europe First!

I respect the destiny of the sometimes afflicted Inuits, Tibetans, Amazonians, Pygmies, Kanaks, Aborigines, Berbers, Saharians, Indians, Nubians, the inevitable Palestinians, and the little green men from outer space. But don’t expect crocodile tears from me. When the flooding threatens my own house, I can think only of my own predicament and haven't time to help or plead for others. Besides, when have these others ever cared about us? In any case, the dangers threatening them are greatly exaggerated, especially in view of their demographic vigor, which, incidentally, is owed to Western medicine and material aid -- for the same Western forces that have allegedly exploited them also seems to have made them prosper (or, at least, to reproduce in unprecedented numbers).

If our communitarians really want to defend the cause des peuples, they might start with Europeans, who are now under assault by the demographic, migratory, and cultural forces of an overpopulated Third World. In face of these threats, you won't find us sniveling (like a priest)or fleeing (like an intellectual) to the 'other's' cause. 'Ourselves alone' will suffice.

Michael O'Meara, Ph.D., the translator of these pieces, studied social thought at the Ecole des Etudes Sociales en Sciences Sociales and modern European history at the University of California. His most recent book is New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe.

Intervju med Guillaume Faye

2006-03-02T05:59:00.000-08:00

För några dagar sedan läste vi ett utdrag ur den franske filosofen Fayes bok där han presenterar arkeo-futurismen. Idag får vi oss till livs en intervju med Faye.

Meet Guillaume Faye

What follows is my own (admittedly rough) translation of an interview with M. Faye:

I: I will begin by quoting you. In the review Études et recherches, fifteen years ago, you wrote that one can arrive at the point where "a world civilization desirous to stabilize history opposes its conservative will to the forces which it had itself released". According to you, are we there? The Occident, longtime passive witness of the ethnic invasion, America longtime imprudent accomplice of the Islamists -- do they still have the moral strength "to stop the course of history" when the clash of civilizations has passed from the stage of the "cold war" to that of the "hot war"?

F: One epoch terminates, another commences. One cannot foresee what will occur: what we know is that we are at a crossroads, we live the end of an age of European civilization. Civilization which has known three great epochs: the ancient, the medieval, then the modern which commenced about the 1850s. Currently we live the end of this last epoch because Europe is invaded by the very ones it had conquered when it is in full demographic decline. On the moral, mental, psychological level, all the European values have reached their conclusion, diluted in humanism and total egalitarianism. The Hegelian enough thesis that I defend is that this situation is provoking a world catastrophe which can in the end regenerate us. One does not regenerate oneself cold: one can metamorphose oneself only hot. The central question that one can pose in a dialectical manner is to know if this ethnic, ecological, ethical, etc, catastrophe that European civilization caused by its own decline will be the occasion of a regeneration or a disappearance. Currently we are colonized and this invasion is coupled with an incredible masochism on the part of Europeans themselves. Thus, only a terrifying crisis - that I wish, in this respect - can change collective mentalities, awake Europeans. In my new book, Avant-Guerre [Pre-War Years], I develop my thesis of "the Colonization of Europe", while going beyond, by transcending the European context. Because for me, now that we have come right to the clash of civilizations, we go towards the third world war!

I: The shock of September 2001 seemed to awaken the capacity of analysis of certain media. Then, quite quickly, Bush specified that he did not make war on Islam, and the great media --Le Monde or Télérama in France, Repubblica in Italy -- devoted all their energy to make Islam known to us, this religion of tolerance and culture, so near and so remote. Has censorship already returned?

F: This awakening was a shuddering, a flapping of wings. When Bush and Blair say that they do not make war on Islam, it is risible. Maybe we do not make war on Islam, but Islam makes war on us! It is not you who designate the enemy, it is the enemy who designates you! They knew very well that they declared the war on Islam, which besides is designated in Arabic by the same word as "Islamism": islamiya. There was thus a small awakening, but it is not very important. The war which Islam makes on us did not begin on September 11, 2001, but in the '60s. What is positive, it's that the Islamists went too far, too fast: it's the Arab mentality which wants that. They passed too quickly from the time of peace to the time of war, whereas they were underway to invade consciences. If they had been less pressed, nobody would have seen anything. No doubt, so that the eyes really open, there will be necessary a giant attack: but I do not believe that this will take place immediately, it is not in their interest to realize too much of it in the immediate future. It is possible that there be a period of calm. We are faced with a terrorism which does not depend on a true terrorist organization, but deploys itself according to the logic of a transnational war, in networks, and which goes beyond the sole capacities of a group like Al-Qaeda: Islam is a multinational, the war is not territorialized, nor reducible to the misdeeds of a single organization! The end of bin Laden will not solve anything at all because this last, simple sponsor of the jihad in spite of his posture of Prophet, had only made to applaud some acts that he undoubtedly had followed and financed, but certainly not organized directly himself!

I: Which strategy do you recommend for citizens who would like to prepare for the future conflicts? Some have said that you want to found your own political party.

F: It's idiotic! That would limit my audience. That goes completely against my current analysis, because I recommend a work in network. It is certainly necessary that there be parties to make agitprop. But the important thing is the network, on a European scale, without guru or bigwig! To found one more petty sect is completely counterproductive. My "party" is my secretariat and the many friends with whom I collaborate in all Europe. I do not want a label!

I: In the review Réfléchir et Agir, you recommended a "withdrawal" on associative action, following the example of that which the extreme-Left made. Could you develop this point?

F: It is not a "withdrawal", but a general-purpose strategy. One needs parties, publishers, associations, trade unions. It is necessary that there be in civil society a presence of our ideas. But all the forms of action are necessary: it does not do to want to make metapolitics against politics. All actions, political, cultural, should be connected by the same vision of the world. It is not a strategy of withdrawal, but of spreading out, comparable with that which the Trotskyists had -- who are today at the head of the State and of the Catholic Church! - from the '60s. The French national Right is undermined by the culture of defeat, petty bosses, gossip: the different groups of Muslims and Leftists can detest one other, but they have each and all the same enemies against whom they unite. Whereas for many people of our ideas, the enemy is at first his own political friend, for simple reasons of jealousy!
I am stunned to see that associative action has so little been used. There is no association which defends Europeans! Well, there is AGRIF, but they do few things, and they belong too openly to the National Front, which undermines their credibility: S.O.S Racism had known to camouflage near enough its infeudation to the Socialist Party! At least, the Left moves: look at Act against Unemployment, ATTAC or Right to Housing, which represent 5,000 people in France! People in our circles are for order, but they are disorganized and inactive, whereas the Trotskyists, in spite of their ideology, are organized people. It is necessary to move! I am struck by the poverty of the associative activity in our camp. I repeat it, there is anti-European racism and no association really stirs itself to get it talked about!

I: What do you think of this pro-Islamist drift that one observes in the French national Right, a drift often aroused by an anti-Americanism fed on ill-digested antisemitism?

F: This drift is recognized. They confound the enemy and the adversary: the adversary is that which weakens us, that is to say the United States, the enemy is that which invades us concretely: Islam and the Third World. The funniest thing is that it is I, among others, who, in the '70s, convinced this circle that one did not have to be deeply pro-American. All the obsessional anti-Americans of today were then pro-Americans! Giorgio Locchi and I, notably with my book Le Système à tuer les peuples, made Alain de Benoist topple over into anti-Americanism, who was an Americanophile before; to realize it, it is enough to re-read the numbers from before 1975 of the review Nouvelle École! Some suffer from an obsessional antisemitism, coupled with a kind of Stockholm Syndrome which makes them love the true enemy. The Muslims will not hold any liking of them for it: the French "identitarians" who perhaps admired the actions attributed to bin Laden will have their throats cut like the others! Islam is a religion of force which leads certain nationalist militants to prostrate in front of the conquering religion with the fascination of a colonized people. But even if they convert, which is already the case for some, they are always, as Occidentals, only second-class Muslims. Pro-Islamism in the nationalist Right is frequent enough. Plus these people are "nazis" in the most primary sense of the word, anti-Americans in the most idiotic sense of the term, and plus they are pro-Muslims, without knowing either America or Islam besides. They are fascinated by the neo-romantic illusions which they have of Islam. In circles which claim to be radical, there is an infantile reaction: these people are perhaps extremists, but not radical, because the radicals are those who go to the root of things. It is easy to tag "US go home" or "Long live bin Laden" in the subway; they risk less than if they were going to write "Islam out" in the projects.

I: As a journalist, which judgment do you give to the sociology of the current media? Does the "politically correct" find its roots in the Third-Worldism of the '50s and '60s, in communist engagement, or rather in May '68 and the years which followed?

F: It is a sequence; but I believe that it is the post-'68 period which weighed the most. Those who hold the media are people 50 years old, of my generation, who grew up in a neo-Marxist atmosphere. But one needs to know that there reigns among journalists a true Stalinian single thought: Marxism has ceded in this respect its place to Third-Worldism, then to immigrationism. To succeed socially, it is necessary to have a position which goes in the direction of the anti-racist, immigrationist and egalitarian software-ideology (as at the time of the USSR, where it was necessary to be pro-Soviet). Knowing that even people disapproving of it participate in this vulgate. Everyone sees the truth in the street, everyone except the current elites, who play ostrich. Some great journalists, totally of my ideas, signed the petitions for the "undocumented": they explained to me that if they had refused, their career was screwed. It does not suffice not to speak of it: one must claim to be anti-[white] racist, as it was necessary to be Stalinophile in the '50s. Charlie-Hebdo attacked Gérard Depardieu because he refused to sign! That did him no harm, because he is at the top. But a young actor would have seen his career cut short. One must know that many do not speak by conviction, but from fear: they want to be on the side of the whip hand. One must proclaim oneself anti-[white] racist, for immigration, etc. as in the XIXth century one must go to Mass every Sunday! That means Charlie-Hebdo, directed by "old schmucks," is the classic example of the "Stalinian rag and informer," a "media of thought-police and collaborators," the "freezing point of journalism." For Europeans to have a true awakening from the conformism and ethno-masochistic blindness of our self-styled "opinion leaders," we have need of a terrible crisis, which alone can give us the energy to defend ourselves.

Arkeo-futurismen

2006-03-02T05:56:00.000-08:00

Det händer inte ofta att man stöter på ideer som är helt nya idag, utan det rör sig vanligtvis om samma gamla tankegods som tuggats till leda av de politiskt korrekta, och av deras ofta lika hjärntvättade motståndare. Men ibland händer det ändå, och en sådan ide har som upphovsman Guillaume Faye, den franska högerns svarta får. Faye har som en av få lyckats skapa en fungerande syntes av de två bästa ideriktningarna i Västerlandet, nämligen Traditionalismen (som hyllar en svunnen människotyp och svunna, indo-ariska ideal) och Futurismen (som hyllar ständigt framåtskridande).

Fayes huvudtes är att den moderna världen, som bygger på egalitarianism och "individualism" (alltså kvantitet framför kvalitet), har uttömt sina möjligheter och ohjälpligt går mot sin undergång i en serie katastrofer (ekologiska, ekonomiska, sociala, etniska, militära). Det var aldrig en särskilt realistisk ideologi till att börja med, och nu står den inför en värld och en myriad problem den inte kan hantera.

Faye menar då att det är vår uppgift, vår plikt, att skapa nya värderingar och nya ideal som kan ta vid där egalitarianismen misslyckats. Jag skulle kunna skriva i timmar om hur arkeo-futurismen explicit uttrycker det många av oss anat länge, men eftersom jag har tvättid och inte vill förstöra er läsupplevelse gör jag inte det. Läs, och njut:

Guillaume Faye, born in 1949, was, along with Alain de Benoist, one of principal organizers of GRECE (Groupement de Recherche et d'Etude sur la Civilisation Européenne) and of the New Right, which he left 1986, reproaching his former colleagues for their increasing timidity and sterile intellectualism. Preferring to follow his own path as agitator and Nietzschean provocateur, he has recently published in rapid succession L'Archéofuturisme (1998), La colonisation de l'Europe (2000), and Pourquoi nous combattons (2001).

In Archéofuturisme Faye envisages, sometime within the next two decades, a large-scale civilizational crisis, provoked by what which he calls a "convergence of catastrophes." For the post-crisis world Faye proposes, in terms that at times recall the Italian Futurists of the early twentieth century, the construction of a European Empire founded on essential, archaic values and on a bold, aggressive exploitation of science and technology: hence the concept of "archeofuturism," the re-emergence of archaic social configurations in a new context.

It is probable that only after the catastrophe which will bring down modernity, its world-wide saga and its global ideology, that an alternate vision of the world will necessarily impose itself. No one will have had the foresight and the courage to apply it before chaos erupted. It is thus our responsibility -- we who live, as Giorgio Locchi put it, in the interregnum -- to prepare, from this moment forward, a post-catastrophic conception of the world. It could be centered on archeofuturism. But we must give content to this concept.

It is necessary, first, to return the word "archaic" to its true meaning, which, in its Greek etymon archê, is positive and non-pejorative, signifying both "foundation" and "beginning" -- that is, "founding impetus." Archê also means "that which is creative and immutable" and refers to the central concept of "order." To attend to the "archaic" does not imply a backward-looking nostalgia, for the past produced egalitarian modernity, which has run aground, and thus any historical regression would be absurd. It is modernity itself that now belongs to a bygone past.

Is "archaism" a form of traditionalism? Yes and no. Traditionalism advocates the transmission of values and, correctly, combats the doctrines of the tabula rasa. But it all depends on which traditions are transmitted. Not every tradition is acceptable -- for example, we reject those of universalist and egalitarian ideologies or those which are fixed, ossified, demotivating. It is surely preferable to distinguish from among various traditions (transmitted values) those which are positive and those which are detrimental.

The issues that disturb the contemporary world and threaten egalitarian modernity with catastrophe are already archaic: the religious challenge of Islam; geopolitical contests for scarce resources, agricultural land, oil, fisheries; the North-South conflict and colonizing immigration into the Northern hemisphere; global pollution and the physical clash of empirical reality against the ideology of development. All these issues plunge us back into age-old questions, consigning to oblivion the quasi-theological political debates of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which were little more than idle talk about the sex of angels.

Moreover, as the philosopher Raymond Ruyer, detested by the left-bank intelligentsia, foretold in his two important works, Les nuisances idéologiques and Les cents prochains siècles, once the historical digression of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has finally closed, with egalitarianism's hallucinations having descended into catastrophe, humanity will return to archaic values, that is, quite simply, to biological and human (anthropological) values: distinctive sexual roles; the transmission of ethnic and popular traditions; spirituality and sacerdotal organization; visible and supervisory social hierarchies; the worship of ancestors; initiatory rites and tests; the reconstruction of organic communities that extend from the individual family unit to the overarching national community of the people; the deindividualization of marriage to involve the community as much as the couple; the end of the confusion of eroticism and conjugality; the prestige of the warrior caste; social inequality, not implicit, which is unjust and frustrating, as in today's egalitarian utopias, but explicit and ideologically justifiable; a proportioned balance of duties and rights; a rigorous justice whose dictates are applied strictly to acts and not to individual men, which will encourage a sense of responsibility in the latter; a definition of the people and of any constituted social body as a diachronic community of shared destiny, not as a synchronic mass of individual atoms, etc.

In short, future centuries, in the great pendulum movement of history that Nietzsche called "the eternal recurrence of the identical," will in some way revisit these archaic values. The problem for us, for Europeans, is not, through our cowardice, to allow Islam to impose them on us, a process which is surreptitiously occurring, but to reimpose them on ourselves, while drawing upon our historical memory.

Recently, an important French press baron -- whom I cannot name, but known for his left-liberal sympathies -- made to me, in essence, the following disillusioned remark: "Free-market economic values are gradually losing out to Islamic values, because they are exclusively based on individual economic profit, which is inhuman and ephemeral." Our task is to ensure that the inevitable return to reality is not imposed upon us by Islam.

Obviously, contemporary ideology, hegemonic today but not for much longer, regards these values as diabolical, much as a mad paranoiac might see the features of a demon in the psychiatrist trying to cure him. In reality, they are the values of justice. True to human nature from time immemorial, these archaic values reject the Enlightenment error of the emancipation of the individual, which has only ended in the isolation of this individual and in social barbarism. These archaic values are just, in the Ancient Greek sense of the term, because they take man for what he is, a zoon politicon ("a social and organic animal integrated into a communatarian city-state"), and not for what he is not, an isolated and asexual atom fitted out with universal but imprescriptible pseudo-rights.

In practical terms, archaism's anti-individualist values permit self-realization, active solidarity and social peace, unlike egalitarianism's pseudo-emancipating individualism, which ends in the law of the jungle.

Excerpted from L'Archéofuturisme (Paris: L'Aencre, 1998). Trans. Irmin.