* * *
Of course, all these remarks on the ideological mistakes of the Nouvelle Droite do not mean that I am suggesting the adoption of a dogmatic ideological line. Simply, I believe that its ‘official’ doctrine is an impasse and that if it continues to be voiced it should be counterbalanced. A rather straightforward way for the Nouvelle Droite to regain credibility would be to launch debates. The issue of Élements on multiculturalism – a central problem – would have drawn more attention, had it been open to contrasting opinions. For the magazines and events of the Nouvelle Droite to regain strength, they should follow this strategy: first, raise crucial and politically incorrect problems; and two, elicit debate on various sides.
I believe the Nouvelle Droite has lost influence because of its establishment of ambiguous and incomprehensible ideological axes. Its members have been too close to academia, too sophisticated and too charmed by quasi-Leftist, pacifistic, utopian and integrationist debates. It is necessary instead to take a resolute stance and make a clear break with the system by developing a radical and revolutionary school of thought. We should be wary of false wisdom and false friends, of false acknowledgements, successes and – most importantly – false good ideas. Wrong ideas have the seductive elegance of decadence, not the ‘modest and simple harshness of truth’ (Nietzsche). An ideology can only prevail by setting itself in opposition to an already declining order.
The Nouvelle Droite – and mine is a very friendly exhortation – should draw new energies from Nietzsche’s ‘philosophy of the hammer’.
The Nouvelle Droite, or those who will take its place on the spectrum of ideologies in Europe, will only prove successful through the virtue of courage. If through the art of discussion and without any dogmas, they are able to develop a radical and politically incorrect thought, even through the use of current forms of expression and communication.
The Nouvelle Droite has not been a ‘victim of the System’ or of ‘censorship’, but of itself. Nothing is lost for those capable of rising again.
For today, as my friend Giorgio Locchi foresaw, we are entering the dark age of storms, the interregnum: a century of battle and steel, decisive for the future of the European peoples and their offspring – an age that calls for a tragic and combative ideology.
It is necessary for organisations to formulate efficient and dynamic paradigmatic ideas: original and daring ideas capable, like weapons, of averting incumbent threats. The exponents of our current of European thought must come together and adopt the optimism of pessimism: they must offer a will, an axis, for this great fatherland that is being built amid haze and pain. Like a sleepwalker driven by his self-assurance, half-conscious of the threats looming over him, in a chilly turmoil an empire is rising that does not dare yet to utter its own name; historical thunder that is being born amid the pains of childbirth: Greater Europe. Our only hope for survival.
An idea is well founded only if it conforms to a concrete historical perspective, only if it is the expression of a sincere hope.
New Ideological Paths
What follows are what I believe to be the axes and paths for an ideological regeneration, which I will define in more detail further on. Here are a few suggestions:
1 – First is what I would term vitalist constructivism, an overall ideological framework that unites an organic and daring approach to life with the complementary worldviews of Nietzschean will to power, Roman order and realist Hellenic wisdom. Leitmotiv: ‘a concrete voluntaristic thought that creates order.’
2 – The second axis may be defined as Archeofuturism: to envisage a future society that combines techno-scientific progress with a return to the traditional answers that stretch back into the mists of time. This is perhaps the true face of post-modernity, as removed from attachment to the past as it is from the foolish cult of ‘keeping up with progress’: the harmonious union of the most ancient memory with the Faustian soul according to the logic of ‘and’ rather than ‘or’. Intelligent traditionalism is the most powerful form of futurism – and vice versa. It is necessary to reconcile Evola and Marinetti, and do away with the notion of ‘modernity’ produced by Enlightenment ideology. The Ancients must be associated not with the Moderns but with the Futurists.
As the Nouvelle Droite noted, while the political and social structures of modernity are crumbling today, archaic ones are surfacing in all fields – a significant aspect of this phenomenon being the spread of Islam. Finally, the upheavals technological science –and particularly genetics – will cause in the future, like the tragic awakening to reality that is bound to take place in the Twenty-first century, will require a return to an archaic mentality. Modernism increasingly appears as a form of attachment to the past. Yet it is not a matter here of embracing classic ‘traditionalism’, which is tinged with folklore and yearns for a return to the past. Modernity has grown obsolete. The future must be ‘archaic’: neither modern nor attached to the past.
3 – Third axis: to envisage the death throes of the European nation-state and European revolution as the central political events of the Twenty-first century. This implies the need to jump on the wagon of unification if for no other reason than to correct its faults, even if – to use Lenin’s words – it is useful idiots who are building the EU. Great revolutions never take place in a linear and vaunting way, as dogmatic and romantic intellectuals like to think. The painful gestation of the unification of the European peoples in their shared land – extending at first from Brest to the Oder and then from Brest to Bering – is an underlying movement that conceals an imperialist drive. This represents a reaction to decolonisation, the demographic crisis and immigration, and is possibly the solution to many problems that currently appear unsolvable. Eurosiberia is what we must now envisage. The assumption behind all this is the idea that the Earth, a global village and interdependent habitat, cannot be managed – particularly for environmental reasons – by a range of different national actors, but must rather be directed by a limited number of ‘imperial blocs’: Greater Europe, India, China, North America, Latin America, the Muslim world, Black Africa and peninsular Asia.
No doubt, this is a still distant scenario. Yet, the role of ‘thinkers’ is to foresee the future. Today we must launch the idea of a United States of Europe.
4 – Fourth axis: to think about the fact that in the Twenty-first century humanity will face a convergence of catastrophes. I will further develop this essential point later on. When forced with their backs against the wall, human societies always react. A series of macro-lines of catastrophe are converging towards a breaking point situated somewhere in the early Twenty-first century: an environmental, economic and military apocalypse brought about by ‘faith in miracles’ – including the belief that ‘development’ can continue indefinitely without posing the risk of general collapse. The egalitarian civilisation sprung from modernity is now witnessing its last good days. We must now think about the aftermath of the catastrophe: we must already start developing the vision of an Archeofuturist world for the aftermath of the chaos.
5 – Fifth axis: to think about the conflict between North and South that is emerging – a possible third world war – and the role Islam may assume as the symbolic banner of revenge. This calls for a redefinition of the notions of the enemy and an objective threat: we must be wary of all erudite talk about the harmlessness of any ‘global Islamic front’ and tackle the issue of ethnicity, which may be added to the environmental and economic issues of the new iron century in the making...
In this view, we should stop always portraying southern countries, and particularly Africa, as the eternal ‘victims’ of the evil schemes of northern countries. The neo-colonialist martyr myth should come to an end. Each folk shapes its own destiny. We should have the courage to treat poor countries as responsible actors rather than victims: Africa’s misfortunes are chiefly caused by Africans themselves – we cannot continue to beat our chests and act in their place. The Nouvelle Droite must distance itself from the p
aternalistic post-colonial masochism of the entire European intelligentsia, be it of the Left or the Right.
6 – Sixth axis, related to the first: is the United States an enemy, i.e., a potential destructive invader, or an opponent, i.e., a debilitating rival on the cultural and economic level? Does the United States – ‘the only superpower for only twenty more years’,[30] according to Zbigniew Brzeziński – really represent the chief enemy? Is it more dangerous than the South? I believe we are now closer to the Russians – our former absolute enemies – than we are to the Americans – our former absolute friends; yet, by already seeing ourselves as Eurosiberians, we must envisage a strategy of agreement or conflicting cooperation with America against a major threat from elsewhere. A clear break must be made with the myth of the United States as an ‘invincible superpower’: the U.S. is powerful because Europe is weak. It imposes nothing on us by force, unlike what the former USSR used to do with central European countries. The American imperial republic is right, from its point of view, to practice soft imperialism. We must gain control of our own destiny: we must be capable of distinguishing our mortal enemies from a rival opponent and, in any case, adopt a policy of self-affirmation.
7 – It is necessary to focus on the epistemology of technique. Problems: are not computer science and genetic engineering about to explode the framework of hegemonic egalitarian ideology, by creating an abyss between what is real and what is desirable, between nature and ultra-nature? These are crucial questions that concern biology and computer science. We must resume the debate we broke off concerning biology, as transgenic techniques today make it possible to intervene in the processes of genetic transmission which until recently were exclusively natural phenomena ‘beyond the grasp’ of all intervention. We are already capable of creating farm animals without gestation, in incubators, and shall soon be capable of doing the same with human beings: by combining advanced computer systems with transgenic techniques, we’ll be able to program the gene pool and hence the abilities of ‘second-generation humans’. From corn to sheep and from sheep to humans. An additional problem: third-generation computers will enable the creation of a virtual universe, or simulated anti-world, that will look more real than the real world, with genuine and autonomous hyper-virtual and three-dimensional characters, for ‘computer intelligence’ is dawning. Those who contemptuously claim that these ‘are only machines’ are making a serious mistake. These new blows against anthropocentrism, delivered by man himself, remind us that technological science is the Faustian spirit in action. Is this a deadly hazard for man, a ‘diseased animal’ and evolutionary failure? Or is it a destiny that can be governed? Such are the philosophical questions that every intellectual movement worthy of this name must address.
8 – It is necessary to reflect on the issue of immigration, which represents a form of demographic colonisation of Europe at the hands of mostly Afro-Asiatic peoples (and not an ‘invasion’, as put by the demagogue Giscard,[31] the author of new regulations regarding family reunification).[32] Native Europeans are historically and objectively finding themselves is a situation not identical but very close to that of the American Indians and North African peoples in the Nineteenth century, when they witnessed the arrival of the European settlers who had left an over-populated continent. Three generations later, the colonisation of Europe represents a form of revenge against European colonisation. In organising a reaction it is necessary to shift the centre of the debate. This is not simply a cultural or socio-economic problem, as those discussing this issue would like to believe: it is a global anthropo-ethnic problem. It will be necessary to clearly emphasise this methodological distinction in the answer given (for or against) the real problem: are we to accept or reject a substantial alteration of the ethno-cultural substrate of Europe? The basis of intellectual honesty and the key to ideological success lie in the ability and courage to address the real problems, instead of attempting to avoid them.
9 – To envisage a two-tier global order, given the technological, social and environmental impossibility of extending the logic of ‘progress and development’ (i.e., ‘faith in miracles’) to the entire planet. Could we not imagine and foresee a scenario where most of humanity reverts to living in traditional societies that consume little energy, and are socially more stable and happy, while – in the context of globalisation – a minority continues to live according to the techno-industrial model? Might there be two parallel worlds in the future, the worlds of a new Middle Ages and of Hyperscience? Who would be living in each of these worlds, and in what numbers? All daring and creative thought must think the unthinkable. I believe that Archeofuturism, an explosive meeting of opposites, is the key to the future, simply because the paradigm of modernity is no longer viable on a global scale.
10 – In this perspective, it is necessary to reflect on the economic issue of autarchy for wide spaces (which may include Eurosiberia) and the moving beyond both socialism and liberalism, by reviving the idea of an organic economy of the Third Way that may be inspired both by genuine liberalism and genuine communitarian socialism. We must think about the ongoing transformation of economic systems into neo-feudal networks, and radically redefine the role of superior political authority, which must politically direct the economy, but not manage it. We must envisage great semi-autarchic blocs which may have different modes of production and consumption, and within which interlinked but diverse types of society and economy may exist. Could ultra-technological areas, connected to the global communications network, border with neo-archaic areas where the ways of life and production of traditional societies have been restored?
A current of thought is strong if it manages to pose crucial yet unexpected questions, if it acts in advance – particularly if it does so with a non-dogmatic language.
* * *
In order for an ideology of revolution and restoration to emerge in this age of great challenges, where vital matters are at stake and catastrophes loom near, it is necessary to reformulate the old notion of conservative revolution, which I consider outdated. All the young forces, which are so few in these videophonic times, must unite on a European scale and forget about parochial disputes, hierarchically defining – according to the non-exclusivist and polytheistic logic of and – the worldview that unites them and the doctrines that launch the debate. Ideology will follow later. Finally, it would be necessary to balance critical discourse on this interregnum period with a precursory, assertive and optimist discourse within our pessimistic view of the present, which may apply to the aftermath of the chaos.
The keystone of our current of thought is an agreement – of an historical kind – on the notion of Europe. All of us – each according to his dreams, analyses, and temperament – wish to move beyond the obtuse nationalism of Enlightenment egalitarianism, and contribute to build this macro-continental union of brother-peoples, preparing the idea of it for the aftermath of the catastrophe. All this – in conformity with an organic and democratic imperial logic – without forcibly conforming ourselves to others and destroying the historical heritage represented by our various languages and ethno-cultural sensitivities, which constitute Europe’s unique treasure. These are the words of Pierre Vial, one of the leaders of the Front National – a French nationalist party – and the founder of the cultural association Terre et Peuple, ‘This is the real purpose of our struggle: to fight for a rooted cultural identity which is both French and European, and which harmoniously combines the Greco-Roman, Celtic and Germanic heritages. Each of these is dear to us, for it is an aspect of one and the same civilisation. All those who are fighting to preserve this civilisation are our brothers in arms.’
We must become soldiers of the Idea again and in a flexible yet articulated manner federate all currents of thought, periodicals, books and associations following the same line on a European scale.
What struck me when I started reading publications from our ‘movement’ again – and this was only recently, because I hadn’t been interested in
such things for a while – was the existence in Italy, Germany, Belgium, France, Croatia, Spain, Great Britain, Russia, Portugal, etc. of men, magazines, movements, and associations that all adhere to a broadly similar worldview. But I was also struck by the dispersion, personal contrasts, and heated parochial spirit of some people.
A synergic movement of this kind that cuts across currents and tendencies, converging on the axial ideas I outlined above, will only manage to carve a place for itself in history if driven by provocative idealism rather than neutral intellectualism.
May my talented friends of the Nouvelle Droite benefit from these few words of advice to yet again find their path in history – perhaps they could start by changing their name...
[1]Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne, or ‘Group for the Research and Study of European Civilisation’. Founded in 1968 by Alain de Benoist, it has always been the most prominent group associated with the Nouvelle Droite, or French New Right.
[2]Éléments, along with Krisis and Nouvelle École, are the official journals of GRECE.
[3]Paris conferences.
Archeofuturism Page 5
