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.
Om skribenten: Joakim Andersen
