We should, however, resist the temptation to believe that industrial cultures will disappear and be replaced by cultures based on magic.
Technological science will continue to exist and develop, while acquiring a new meaning and ceasing to be informed by the same ideal. Global economic growth will soon clash with physical barriers. It is physically impossible to fulfil the ideal of progressivism: the spread of techno-scientific consumer culture to ten billion people. When this dream has faded, another will emerge. According to a scenario I would cautiously envisage (one at any rate far less unrealistic than endless and widespread economic growth in the context of either a world state governed by the United Nations or of a fragmented planet), the following three elements will coexist: globalisation, the end of statism and the collapse of civilisation worldwide (something which will be passively endured rather than consciously chosen). People preserving a techno-scientific and industrial way of life (yet driven by values other than those we have today) will coexist with people who will have reverted to traditional societies, possibly based on magic, irrational, religious, pastoral and neo-archaic ones with low levels of energy use, pollution and consumption.
Traditional Economies are Not ‘Underdeveloped’
Progressive thinkers will retort that what I have just suggested implies organising a sort of voluntary underdevelopment with gifted people consuming available resources above and ungifted people vegetating below.
This idea of underdevelopment is both stupid and unjust: it was invented by progressivism in order to argue that the industrial way of life is the only truly human and permissible one. Traditional rural societies not based on technology are not at all barbarous and ‘underdeveloped’. According to an inegalitarian and organic worldview, many ‘development axes’ exist – not just one. True ‘underdevelopment’, or more correctly true barbarism, is caused by progressivism: consider all the casualties of the industrial way of life, who, for a mirage, have abandoned traditional societies with low demographic rates to join the overcrowded megalopolises of southern countries, real urban hells. Besides, the members of traditional societies where little money circulates are neither ‘poorer’ nor less happy than New Yorkers or Parisians with all their modern conveniences, even if they may not have health care that is as good and have lower life expectancies. It should also be noted that the socio-economic fracture that is likely to take place in the Twenty-first century will not be the product of any intentional planning, but rather something imposed on humanity by catastrophe and the chaotic collapse of the present system.
But how can different types of society be made to coexist? Won’t those below wish to imitate those above and ‘develop’? Not necessarily: because on the one hand the failed attempt to globally extend industrial society and technological science will be remembered as a dark age (as Communism is today); and because on the other these neo-traditional communities will be pervaded by strong irrational or religious ideologies sanctioning their modes of life. Those who will preserve the techno-scientific way of life will be perfectly capable of living within a global economic system, albeit one not as vast in terms of production and trade as the one we have today, and hence less polluting – for it will only concern a minority of people. This minority will be driven not by the eschatology of progress, but rather by necessity born of will.
A Techno-scientific Economy is the Only Viable
One in an Inegalitarian and Non-universalist World
After the inevitable catastrophe that will mark the opening of the Twenty-first century, once the stupid celebrations for the year 2000 are over, it will be necessary to pragmatically plan a new world economy, with a spirit free from all utopias and impossible ideals and from all will to oppress or colonise the part of humanity that will have reverted to neo-traditional societies. The prevailing historical outlook will no longer be progressive idealism, but one based on a realistic, concrete, adaptable and unpredictable view of reality, nature and man. Voluntarism, the ideology of concreteness and the possible, is opposed to the idealism of contemporary global civilisation, which is based on the abstraction of unachievable goals. Techno-scientific and neo-archaic areas will share an inegalitarian and naturalist worldview: one informed by rationality in the case of the former, and by irrationality in the case of the latter.
Clearly, many will fear that the death of the ideal of progress and the new order of the world will bring an end to rationality and destroy both science and industrial production, thus setting back the whole of humanity.
It is a common misconception, however, that technological science naturally rests on progressive and egalitarian foundations. This is not true: the end of progressivism – with its dream of globally extending industrial consumption – does not imply the dismantling of technological science and the condemning of the scientific spirit. Technological science has been perverted by the egalitarian universalism of the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries, which has sought to extend its influence beyond all reasonable limits.
Those who will continue living in a global techno-scientific civilisation, albeit one of limited reach, will be driven by values other than the consumer frenzy, universalism and widespread hedonism of the ideology of progress and development.
This will not be difficult, as the foundations of science and technology are actually inegalitarian (life sciences), poetic and adaptable in an unpredictable manner. True scientists know that advancements can only be made by destroying previous certainties. Rationality for them is a means and not an end in itself. These scientists know that discoveries never automatically lead to qualitative improvements, and that technological experimentation implies the unexpected: increased risks, unpredictability and the opacity of the future. By contrast, in traditional societies the future is predictable, because history is experienced cyclically. Hence, in neo-traditional areas linear progressivism will be replaced by a cyclical view of history, while in techno-scientific ones it will be replaced by an unpredictable and ‘landscapist’ view of history (the ‘spherical’ and Nietzschean view promoted by Locchi, which was previously referenced). In the latter case, history will unfold as a landscape: like an unpredictable succession of flatlands, mountains and forests governed by no apparent rational order.
The above view of history and destiny brings greater freedom, responsibility and clarity to those who embrace it: for they will have to rigorously analyse the true nature of reality and the times, free from utopian reveries and conscious of the unpredictability of things; they will have to apply their will to the implementation of their project – the ordering of human society in such a way as for it to conform to justice as much as possible – acknowledging man for what he truly is rather than what we would like him to be.
The Neo-global Economy of
the Post-catastrophic Age
Another question must now be addressed: based on the premise that the two-tier world economy of the future will be a ‘globalised’ one, how are we to define the notion of ‘globalisation’ with respect to universalism? Can these notions truly be opposed to one another? Well, yes.
Universalism is a childish concept based on the illusion of cosmopolitanism. Globalism is instead a practical idea: global information and exchange networks exist, but do not concern humanity as a whole! Universalisation is the ambition to mechanically and quantitatively extend one way of life – industrial consumption and urban living – to all of humanity. Universality is perfectly compatible with statism, and egalitarianism is its driving force. Billions of human atoms are here asked to live according to the same rule: the one imposed by the reign of the market. Globalisation, in contrast, refers to a process of the spread of markets and companies across the world, and of internationalisation of the economic decisions taken by some central actors, without the need for universalism: globalisation is in fact perfectly compatible with the idea that billions of men everywhere may revert to traditional ways of life. On the other hand – and this is a crucial point – globalisation is equally
compatible with the construction of semi-autarchic blocs (autarchy for wide areas) on a continental scale based on different economic systems.
After the failure of economic progressivism and market universalism, a global economy may well come to light (and even reinforce itself) that will have no desire to envelop the whole of humanity and will only concern an international minority. This is a perfectly plausible scenario for the aftermath of the catastrophe: for technological science and the industrial market economy cannot be abandoned, as they are too rooted and already in the process of becoming global. But the idea of universally extending industrial society to all individual humans will have to be ditched, for it is unsustainable in terms of energy, health and the environment. The ‘neo-global’ economy in the aftermath of the catastrophe will certainly be global in its networks but not universal. The intrinsic inequality of this new economic system will help bring environmental destruction to a halt and restore what has been destroyed – thanks to its low level of energy consumption – and improve the quality of life of all peoples.
Make no mistake: the GDP of the world economy will fall considerably, like a deflating balloon.
One may object that this fall in the global GDP will dry up existing financial resources and make certain investments impossible because of the ‘loss of scale’ that will have occurred (as the industrial economy will only concern a fraction of humanity, markets and demands will undergo a sizeable contraction). To reason along these lines, however, is to forget that the new economic system will have freed itself from two considerable burdens: firstly, the substantial cutting down of pollution levels will reduce the huge number of external diseconomies,[171] with all their costs, and the burden of having to lend money to ‘developing countries’ will also have been removed (as the goal of developing these countries will have been abandoned altogether); secondly, the expenses related to state welfare will drop as most of the massive social investments that are currently being made will disappear, as they will have become superfluous given the return to a neo-medieval economic model based on solidarity and proximity.
Clearly, another solution might be envisaged: keeping universalism and persuading rich countries to lower their living standards and energy consumption levels in such a way as to preserve the environment, share wealth with the poor, and balance the industrialisation of ‘emerging countries’. According to this shrewd and logical perspective embraced by environmentalists, the solution would lie in more egalitarianism rather than less...
The above suggestion, however, proves to be an utterly idealistic and inapplicable one. Rationality is never what matters in history. Can we really imagine Americans spontaneously giving up their cars and accepting to pay double the amount of taxes to help the countries of the South? This said, in a scenario of the economic fracturing of the planet, wide areas and sections of the population within the industrial countries of the North could perfectly well revert to traditional forms of economy with low levels of energy consumption and subsistence farming.
An Inegalitarian Economy
What it is important to grasp is the fact that technological science has had devastating effects because it has been driven by the egalitarian ideology of universal progressivism, not because of any intrinsic shortcomings – as Right-wing traditionalists and dogmatic environmentalists believe. The techno-industrial model is now collapsing under the weight of disenchantment because it has been extended beyond all reasonable limits and has been fancifully credited with the miraculous ability to bestow a whole range of blessings. But actually, by its very nature technological science is something that only tends to concern a minority of the human population: for it is too energy-consuming for it to be greatly extended.
Clearly, do-gooders will accuse the above theses of promoting widespread exclusion. But this is merely another quasi-religious idea that stems from reductionist ways of thinking and the belief that it is morally legitimate to extend present developments to everyone.
Actually, the ‘exclusion’ of neo-traditional communities from the techno-scientific sphere would coincide with the exclusion of the latter from the neo-traditional world. We should do away with the prejudice according to which techno-scientific societies are more ‘developed’ than traditional ones. This myth of the savage is an implicitly racist one.
According to the scenario that can be envisaged on the basis of the aforementioned suggestions, neo-traditional communities would in no way be inferior or underdeveloped ones. On the contrary, they would conform to the rhythm of a different kind of civilisation, one no doubt superior to that of today. This inability to free oneself from the dogmas and paradigms of progressivism and egalitarianism, and to envisage different socio-economic solutions, plagues Western intelligentsia as a whole.
Pascal Bruckner,[172] for instance, in an article published in Le Monde,[173] starts off by noting the contemporary disenchantment with the failing idea of progress and by acknowledging the pernicious effects of the global spread of technology. But then he adds the following naive comment: ‘In contrast to what was hoped for in the Eighteenth century, technological progress is never synonymous with moral progress. Still, a guideline for action exists: the democratic values inherited from the Enlightenment, secular versions of the messianism of the Gospels and the Bible.’ What he means by this political cant is: in order to counter the perverse effects of the technological progressivism we have inherited from the Enlightenment, let us return... to the philosophy of the Enlightenment. What ideological idiocy! Bruckner fails to realise that it is precisely the progressive and egalitarian universalism of the Gospels, strengthened by Protestant ethics and the philosophy of the Enlightenment, that has led to the global spread of technological science beyond all reasonable limits through unsustainable growth – an engine out of control – when it was instead necessary to restrict the use of technology to certain areas.
Techno-science as an Esoteric Alchemy
Here’s another question: could it be that in envisaging and advocating this socio-economic model an attempt is being made to turn science and technology into confidential matters, something like alchemical formulas reserved for a minority capable of mastering them? Well, this is indeed the case. Technological science must be decoupled from the rationalistic outlook... and freed from the egalitarian utopia that seeks to claim it for the whole of humanity.
In a post-catastrophe scenario in which people have experienced the dangers wrought by an unchecked spread of science, technology and the industrial economy, as well as the harmfulness of unrestrained information exchange (excessive communications), it is not unlikely that we shall witness a return to an initiatic and quasi-esoteric view of technological science, aimed at protecting humanity from the risks posed by the epidemic, massive and unchecked spread of technology. The ideal would be for this techno-scientific civilisation – a high-risk civilisation, yet one intrinsically linked to the spirit of specific peoples or minority groups scattered around the world – to only be embraced by some people and thus remain esoteric. Technological science cannot be a mass phenomenon – an ‘open’ phenomenon. The planet rejects this prospect, which is only viable for 10 to 20% of humanity. Let some experience the natural wisdom and certainty of the reproduction of their species, of cyclical time, of rural or agricultural well-being in stable traditional societies; others, the undertakings and temptations of a global and historicised world. For some Guénon,[174] and for others Nietzsche.
5. The Ethnic Question and the European
An Archeofuturist Approach
‘They had their faces to the blinding sun. Their lips did not move, but their gazes were threatening. They did not shout like the enemy to give themselves courage. They slowly lowered their lances. The Spartans fearlessly advanced against the countless but terrified Persian ranks.’[175]
To my Greek friends and to Jason Iadjidinas, in memoriam.
Anthropology is the Foundation of History
The ethnic question, along with the environment
al, will be one of the most serious challenges humanity will have to face in the stormy century of iron and fire that awaits us. It primarily concerns Europe and, within Europe, France, which is undergoing mass demographic colonisation from other continents – a phenomenon whose magnitude and consequences media and political leaders are seeking to conceal.
The ruling ideology is based on one central dogma: that ‘the ethnic question does not matter’. It is always the same story: in the name of a false love of humanity, scorn is poured upon the crucial concept of ‘folk’.
Future historians will no doubt study this amazing phenomenon which, as an after-effect of colonisation, has been affecting Western Europe and France since the 1960s. In less than three generations, the ethnic substrate of these lands has been radically altered. Surely this should be of interest! Instead, it is only considered a secondary matter by the petty, inglorious princes who pretend to be governing us.
We would do well to read the essay by the Black American sociologist Stanley Thompson published by Boston University Press in 1982, American Communities. The author here attempts to evaluate the contribution made by each ethnic community to American society in terms of its ‘mentality’. The conclusion of this rather iconoclastic book is that on account of their ‘managerial wills’, ‘honesty in business’ and ‘pride’, Germanic immigrants contributed far more than the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish or any other immigrant group to strengthen the American imperial republic. The author rather sternly notes that in growing increasingly Hispanic – or more precisely Mexican – the United States will change its ethno-cultural foundations and in the long term possibly enter a phase of decline, in terms of ‘objective’ power, compared to India and China. The reading offered by this Afro-American and Germanophile intellectual is no doubt an incomplete and exaggerated one, yet it also contains much common sense: for Thompson realised that the basis of a civilisation and the destiny of a given culture are not sheer mechanical facts depending on economic organisation alone, but rather on things that have human and organic roots – which is to say, cultural and ethnic roots.
Archeofuturism Page 19
