Archeofuturism

by Guillaume Faye

  The philosophy of the hegemonic French intelligentsia of the Twentieth century will be remembered for its plagiarism (Sartre, Lévy), pathological altruism (Lévinas)[99] and fraud (Lacan and the structuralists).[100] It stands out for its use of abstruse language to convey ‘non-ideas’. This is why the excellent critical work on French philosophy written by Sokal[101] and Bricmont, Intellectual Impostures,[102] has stirred such controversy. Only the truth hurts.

  To face the future, what we need is an inegalitarian philosophy of will to power. We must return to Nietzsche again, this visionary against the Enlightenment. The revolution that is approaching calls for a new epistemology capable of doing away with traditional humanism. Through a return to archaic values we must envisage man no longer as a divine being removed from animal nature but rather as both an actor and material, someone who experiments on himself according to a Faustian logic.

  The Emasculation Process

  Advertising follows rather than starts social trends. Its aim is to sell, not spread new fads or ideas. In this respect, all advertising accurately reflects its age, for it is forced to be business-like, effective and capable of precisely echoing the spirit of the ruling ideology. In a popular mainstream magazine, an ad for luxury shoes set in the changing room of a gym shows a woman facing two naked Black athletes taking a shower, whom she is ‘dominating’. The opposite page has a T-shirt ad. The models, two European males, display an effeminate and markedly gay look. They come across as arty fairies with a languid, tired gaze. Find the mistake.

  The Responsibility Principle

  This is not a conspiracy, it’s something worse. It’s a kind of ‘logic’ – a form of collective resignation. Conspiracy theorists are wrong. A strong folk will not let itself be captured or crushed by the system by which it is ruled. All peoples are responsible for their own destiny. What we get is our own fault, not that of others. We are the actors and guilty of our own defeats. A folk is never the passive victim of its own cultural or ethnic effacement: it is its author and an accomplice to it out of resignation and an unwillingness to defend itself. The cultural hegemony of the United States and the gradual and veiled colonisation of France and Europe by the Third World are not merely the product of manipulation. We have let such things happen to us. Our folk had the means – the democratic means – to defend itself. But it chose not to. A ‘secret orchestrator’ has little power when faced by a folk determined to resist it with all its might.

  Archeofuturist Suggestions on Art

  Alain de Benoist’s magazine Krisis has dared launch a debate on whether ‘contemporary art’ is not in fact a kind of fraud. The media have immediately joined forces to denounce this crime of treason on the part of the ‘far Right’. Actually, everybody knows – although no one dares say so explicitly – that for almost fifty years now the ‘contemporary art’ supported by state subsidies and the media has amounted to nothing but academics (and snobbishness), and that it is now gradually collapsing. What a paradox: contemporary art, which through its creative power and vitality was intended to serve as a war machine against academia, is now drowning in the worst conservatism. It shares the destiny of Communism. It has turned into official art, art zero.

  The reasons for this are well-known: fraud and incompetence. In the early 1900s, an aesthetic ideology took hold that immediately gave its fruits: artists’ inspiration – their message – came to be regarded as more important than their technique and professional skill; knowledge of artistic rules and canons were seen as a form of ‘oppression’. Such was the myth of ‘the freedom of the artist’. Later, false inspiration gradually took hold: artists, lacking real inspiration and competence, achieved subsidised media success thanks to their connections – as was the case with Calder, Saint-Phalle and César among many others. Artists even stopped trying to ‘shock the bourgeois’: they only sought to prove themselves to be progressive and started repeating themselves over and over. By then, they had turned into subsidised finger painters. Recently, pieces of graffiti made by mentally handicapped children have been considered ‘masterpieces’. I personally devised the following hoax for the Echo des Savanes:[103] I painted some canvases before a clerk of the court consisting of daubs vaguely representing phalluses, one minute for each painting... These were then sold in a prestigious art gallery in Rue de Seine to stars of showbiz who enthusiastically admired them. Hoaxes of this sort had already been performed by negotiating a high price for ‘canvases’ that had been ‘painted’ by a donkey with its tail (Sunset on the Adriatic)[104] and by a female orangutan.

  Contemporary art has done away with the crucial notion of talent.

  Today, in the public sphere, a repetitive and far from creative sort of contemporary art based on sheer fraud coexists with a museum-centred worship of masterpieces from the past. This is typical of societies caught in an aesthetic deadlock. It is interesting to note that the system reacts to all criticism regarding the authenticity and quality of contemporary art with its anathema: ‘So you’re a fascist!’ This is proof of the fact that the system is perfectly aware of the worthlessness of the ‘artistic’ production it champions and of the burning failure of its politico-aesthetic model. As soon as this sore point is brought up, the system reacts with insults and threats.

  Even today, however, creative artists exist who shun the pretentious vacuity of official art: Vivenza[105] with his bruit, for instance; the sculptor Michel de Souzy; or painters like Frédérique Deleuze,[106] Olivier Carré, and Tillenon.[107] There are many such artists, but they are viewed with suspicion and alienated because they renew art through the principles of European aesthetics: by reconciling aesthetic canons and creative daring, meaning and beauty, technical work and inspiration.

  Official contemporary art (which should not be confused with ‘today’s artists’, who are often very talented but silenced) is closely tied to the system. Its aim is to cut the thread and break the lineage of the ascending trajectory of European art. It is always the same will to cultural iconoclasm in the attempt to strip Europeans of their historical memory and identity.

  The tactic adopted is a clever one: on the one hand, insignificant works are promoted in the media, usually the non-works of a nobody (after all, in the confused scenario of egalitarianism, where ‘everything is the same as everything else’, what is worthless can aspire to become art – the fouler and dirtier it is, the more worthy of admiration); on the other hand, a museum-like admiration of the past is elicited – of a fossilised and neutralised past – as a clever way of promoting sterile traditionalism. What matters is for the masterpieces of the past not to serve as a means for reawakening talent in the present or future. The aim is to destroy European artistic creativity, with its magnificence, aesthetic power and talent; to corrupt peoples’ taste by presenting the works of talentless individuals as works of genius; and to do away with all traces of any European aesthetic personality by severing the cultural roots of art. Such has been the often unconscious but always implicit strategy of the ‘masters of art’ for several decades now. This strategy reflects a form of envy (a feeling that, along with desire for vengeance and resentment – as Nietzsche understood well – has always played an important role in politics and history): envy of and resentment against the innate talent of European art.

  Part of this enterprise is the ridiculous cult of ‘primitive arts’, of which a naive man like Chirac has become a promoter. A primitive statue is considered as good as Michelangelo’s Pietà – isn’t that so, Mr. Pécuchet?[108] Here, too, egalitarianism clashes with common sense and reality, condemning itself.

  Genuine, unrepressed aesthetic creation has sought refuge in technique through an unconscious return to the Greek tradition of aesthetics as technè[109] and chréma [110](objective usefulness). It is the designers of cars, planes and objects who are producing artworks today. What do we prefer? A crushed Renault by that fraudster César[111] or a Ferrari signed by Pininfarina?[112] It may well be that people will soon grow tired of the false
masters of official art – this has already begun to happen with the decline of the FIAC (Foire International d’Art Contemporain).[113]

  Bourdieu, or the Impostor

  Bourdieu denounces the bombardment of TV[114] but reflects its ideology in his own thought. He is the self-proclaimed maître-à-penser[115] of the ‘Left of the Left’, which is to say of the New Left, without ever proposing any credible solution to the ultra-liberalism he sees as all-pervasive. Still, he doesn’t mind having his photograph taken for the media and to appear on that very same television he claims to hate. Bernard-Henry Lévy and Mgr. Gaillot[116] mustn’t be all that keen on this media dinosaur. He’s a funny character, Bourdieu...

  He once flirted with the Nouvelle Droite, in the early ‘80s, when it was quite fashionable. We would have lunch together at the Closerie des Lilas and discuss Nietzsche and the reversal of values. It was the anti-liberalism of the Nouvelle Droite that attracted him. But like all those of his kind – Parisian intellectual bureaucrats – Bourdieu wasn’t really interested in ideas. He was more interested in himself. Tragically lacking any theories, the new intellectual guru of a vaguely resuscitated far Left was only capable of countering the ‘hegemonic thinking’ of ultra-liberalism with another hegemonic idea: an outdated reissue of Marxist conservatism. Like the whole far Left, Bourdieu is incapable of formulating any analysis pertinent to the present social situation. Like many others, he illustrates the shipwreck of Leftist intellectuals. After having fooled themselves with their ideas, they are now sinking without any ideas.

  The Method of Dependence

  The tamers of tigers and other wild beasts do not use brutal methods such as beatings, punishment and privations to subdue their animals into submission. It would be too dangerous and complicated. The winning strategy is the carrot, not the stick. The animals become dependent upon useless but enjoyable rewards: sweet food or protein, petting, sexual favours, etc., after each act of obedience, so that their ability to rebel against their masters is weakened or annulled.

  The ruling system and ideology make use of a refined version of this method. They no longer send dissident citizens to labour camps – this method is outdated. Rebellion is now put to sleep and marginalised, not only by directing people’s attention towards irrelevant things (the football World Cup, etc.) through the classic strategy of intellectual stupefaction, but by adopting the method of dependence. The system makes civil society dependent by assigning rewards, advantages, privileges and useless gadgets.

  Like those given to caged wild animals, these are false advantages. We are led to believe that we are free when we are in fact prisoners, that we can move around faster on the grand tourers that cost us a fortune when we have to spend hours caught in traffic or at work to pay for them. We are dependent on the holidays we have to plan, on our TV fix, and on an ‘unrestrained desire for useless objects’, as Baudrillard has observed. This is a soft dictatorship, intended to make us forget about unemployment, job uncertainties, adulterated food, environmental degradation, and the gradual extinction of our folk. We are living in cages like animals in the zoo but are physiologically happy. We are Nietzsche’s ‘last men’, who gleefully thank their masters.

  The Reign of Arnaque:

  False Transparency and Forgeries

  In argot,[117] the word arnaque is used to describe a kind of ‘soft swindle’. The yellow line of actual swindle is not crossed but only touched. It is like failing to stop not at a red light but at a dark orange one. It is a sign of our times that, once chiefly confined to companies found guilty of ‘false advertising’, arnaque has now become one of the chief motors of advertising and the consumer’s drive. Today it is practiced by all businesses and reputable companies, and even by the state. So much for the theory – here are a few examples.

  Competing companies will reach a mutual agreement (the method of oligopoly) whereby they will produce short-lasting products that ‘must’ soon be replaced: car bodies that become rusty in under three years, components of audiovisual devices that break down after 500 hours of use, fridge compressors that give up the ghost after four years, jeans that become torn after twenty washings, etc.

  A ‘culture of arnaque’ has taken hold to which the state is largely contributing. A patent illustration of this: while experts had solemnly declared and sought to prove that in 1998 there would be a decrease in direct taxation and compulsory charges, just the opposite has happened: there has been an increase, making the economically disastrous fiscal and nationalisation policies of the state even worse.

  The other side of arnaque and deception is false transparency. People insist that they are being honest and concealing nothing both in politics and in agribusiness. This helps to establish false confidence. A few examples: food producers generally conform to the law that forces them to state in the case of each product whether it contains things such as emulsifiers, flavour enhancers, colours or thickeners. On the other hand, what few people know is that while the law has allowed the use of these additives – because of pressure from the agribusiness lobby – 50% of these substances have been found to be carcinogenic in lab animals; they probably are for humans too, if consumed on a regular basis. Yet, false transparency – the ‘There’s nothing I’m concealing’ approach – engenders suspicion. Only half the truth is spoken. ‘Yes, I do put E211 in the tomato sauce you buy’, says the producer; and because he admits it, you believe it isn’t toxic when it actually is.

  The media and television are the realm of deception and special effects: false live broadcasts, organised exchanges of favours, deceptive advertisements, the promotion of friends or people towards whom one is in debt, the rejection of all critique (whether cinematographic or literary), etc. Spontaneous ‘talk shows’ are actually produced like dramas with an official message to convey. The present audiovisual system leaves no room for spontaneity and truth, although it invokes these as its source of legitimisation. It can be stated without any exaggeration that news broadcasts today are far more censored, manipulated and counterfeited – and with far greater skill – than they were at the time of the ORTF[118] under de Gaulle. Patrick Poivre d’Arvor[119] is nothing but a puppet, as are the people of the Canal Plus[120] puppet show that represent him.

  Arnaques and deception: these are no longer practiced by small-time fraudsters alone: with amazing cynicism, they are also practiced by mainstream public and private institutions under the redundant banner of transparency. As explained by Primogine (the author, with Thom, of catastrophe theory), when a system gets to the point of justifying a through non-a, it is on the verge of collapse.

  The Logic of Hypocrisy:

  The Dialectic of Spoken and Practiced Morals

  Moral discourse has never been as exacting and rigorous as it is now. The system and its media preach against violence, racism, and chauvinism, for the rights of everyone, goodness, kindness, independent justice, universal love, equality, social justice, democracy, and ‘civil conscience’. A sermon worthy of a pious old lady.

  Reality, however, is radically different: political corruption, the collapse of social rights, the toleration of urban violence as well as that shown by the media, an increase in economic disparities and injustice (Leftist billionaires are the first to discuss social justice), the disappearance of solidarity among close people in the face of individualistic egoism, impunity for groups breaking the law, privileges accorded to professional categories that already enjoy protection, a growth of precarious jobs exploited by the public sector, etc.

  Things have always been so. Psychiatrists call it the ‘compensation effect’: the more a social system is defective, the more its discourse is aimed at praising the qualities it lacks. Immoral people speak in moralising tones. This is not merely a form of exorcism, but an attempt to make people forget: ‘They shouldn’t realise what is happening.’

  The central weakness of the system – and the ruling ideology – is that it cannot continue to lie for long. As U.S. Senator Gingrich[121] put it, ‘You c
an lie to a woman ten times and once to a nation, but you can’t lie ten times to a nation.’ In the long run, the absence of concrete results in the project for a global society cannot be concealed by means of empty countermeasures: intellectual stupefaction, the turning away of people’s attention, the numbing of minds, and dependence. Concrete reality is backfiring. People are asking for results, as despondency has its limits – and these are imposed by tangible facts: the lies regarding the fall in unemployment, economic uncertainty and anxieties, an increase in the poor despite the growth registered, an objective increase in insecurity despite all falsified statistics, immigration making its presence felt more and more, etc. Even the highly effective propaganda on TV, which seeks to give the impression that ‘all is going well’ and tries to demonise and criminalise those holding opposite opinions, will meet its end sooner or later. When the lion no longer has anything to eat, it eats its tamer. The lion in this case is the people.

  Negative Legitimisation:

  The Tale of the Big Bad Wolf

  Western democracies are failing to implement their utopia and so are denouncing an imaginary enemy. Politicians no longer say, ‘Vote for us, because we’ve got the right solutions and we’ll improve your living conditions because our solutions are the best.’ This is positive legitimisation. Politicians now are instead – implicitly – saying, ‘Vote for us, since even though we’re a bunch of good-for-nothings, bunglers and bullies, this is nothing serious: at least we can protect you against the return of Fascism. If it weren’t for us, you wouldn’t even have eyes left to cry....’ This is negative legitimisation. The redundant commemorations of Second World War events and the voyeuristic descriptions of ‘Nazi crimes’ with trials and denunciations which are being incessantly broadcast on the media over fifty years after they took place are all part of this strategy.