Archeofuturism
Page 16
Monte Cristo:[137] vengeance is the most accomplished form of political power. Just as in love, nothing gives us more energy than the desire for vengeance. It can last for centuries and will never disappear. Currently we are prey to the – perhaps unconscious – desire for vengeance of the peoples of the South whom we have colonised and who feel exploited and humiliated. Vengeance is one of the guiding forces of history. The First World War chiefly sprung from the thought, ‘Give us back Alsace-Lorraine!’ The fate of the Twentieth century was sealed when, following French defeat in 1870, Bismarck chose to re-annex these lands, which Louis XIV had conquered. [138]
A striking parallel can be drawn between emotional relations among individuals, political relations, and those among peoples.
The answer to all this cannot be ‘we’re wrong and you’re right: we are waiting to be assaulted – punish us, invade us’, as the dominant ideology proclaims; but neither can it consist of a hate campaign. The solution is to defend oneself ‘with a detached spirit’, to quote Demosthenes.[139]
Multiracial Society, Multiracist Society
At the cost of sounding repetitive, I wish to stress an important point again.
Recently, a news report on Libération[140] made the following distressing observation: in Brazil, a multiracial country with the most anti-racist Constitution of all, an impressive ethnic hierarchy exists and Blacks – with the exception of football stars (modern gladiators) – are considered the lowest of the low. Economic misery and social contempt: a sizable portion of the population is alienated through poverty, ignorance and crime. The brave journalist explained that, at the end of the day, apartheid South Africa was ‘less racist’ than anti-racist Brazil!
I know the United States well: with minor differences, the situation in this country is not far off from that of Brazil. Yet the article in Libération does not derive any practical conclusion from its observations, stuck as it is in its multiracial dogma. Its author believes in miracles and clings to his utopia, imagining that the situation might improve through ‘education’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘good will’. It’s always the same story: ‘If all the children in the world were to hold hands’,[141] as the song goes. The Leftist myth of education and prevention.
Egalitarian ideology has always despised the sociology of reality and human society as it is, was and will be. It imagines that the ‘spirit of the Laws’ knows no limits, and that decrees create reality. This dangerously naive outlook makes people stubbornly believe that a multiracial society organised according to anti-racist laws will be a harmonious one.
This is the worst of all egalitarian utopias. In history, ethnically heterogeneous societies have always been powder kegs. ‘Non-racism’ and ethnic respect can only exist among peoples living in separate systems as political entities. We have failed to learn this from the tragedy of Yugoslavia. Not one example in history exists of a multiethnic society that is not conflict-ridden, bitterly hierarchical and oppressive. But this lesson is simply ignored and dogmas prevail over experience.
Egalitarianism (just like ‘communitarianism’) imagines that ethnic differences can be confined to the private sphere by people coming together in the public, social and political sphere. This mechanistic belief has never been illustrated in practice.
In 1996, I met an avowed American racist – a wealthy ranch owner and J.R. type[142] – in Texas. He openly told me, ‘I do not understand why certain parties are seeking to curb immigration in Europe. All these immigrants will serve as a new class of slaves for you! All you need is an effective police force, like ours, to repress any riots.’ What can I say? Many racists dream of a multiracial society...
In the United States, a vast territory and a country of immigrants, multiracial society brings only limited conflicts. It will be different in Europe, where space is more limited and Islam is a growing presence. We are moving towards many years of ethnic wars with no certain outcome. After all, these wars have already begun...
The Need for Revolutionary Thought.
How to Define It?
The system is globally dysfunctional. No improvement is possible, for the ruling ideology – and not public opinion alone – is opposed to the idea. Incompatibility has emerged between this ideology and the practical solutions that would have to be adopted to save what might be saved. Today no partial and specific reform will suffice: the entire system must be changed, like an old motor which must be replaced, as its individual components cannot be repaired.
Any political party whose goal is not simply the career advancement of its members, but the salvation of its country, must cease thinking in reformist terms and embrace a revolutionary perspective. This can be described as a state of war. The ‘classic’ form of political opposition is where parties regard the power they wish to conquer as that held by their opponents and political colleagues; revolutionary opposition, by contrast, sees those in power as its enemies.
Two versions of revolutionary thought exist, as Lenin – following Machiavelli – had perfectly grasped. The first is the siege approach, which leads to failure. It is the strategy of the lion which ends up dying a brave death, pierced by lances. This strategy rejects all tactical alliances and temporary compromises in the name of a misleading notion of doctrinal purity. One sees oneself here as being under siege rather than as a conqueror. He leads the assault with gaudy red trousers, his moustache in the wind, only to be hacked down by enemy machine-guns.
The second revolutionary approach is attack. The means used here are subordinate to one’s end. This is the strategy of the fox which always manages to steal the hens at night. Those who adopt it are willing to sign alliances with useful idiots and turncoats, and know how to hide a sword under their toga to strike all the harder. They know how to lay ambushes and show patience and steadfastness, and to conceal their radical aims. They know how to make temporary concessions without forgetting about their genuine objectives, sustained by an iron will. They practice the art of deception which Nietzsche commended. Like good sailors, they know how to steer clear of obstacles and sail against the wind without losing sight of the harbour, their final destination.
The former revolutionary perspective is Romantic: it stems from our Germanic and Celtic roots. The latter is Classical: it stems from our Greek and Roman roots. The former perspective cannot lead to the seizing of power; but once power has been seized, it will find its rightful place once more.
The True Reasons for the
Demonisation of the Front National
There are many points in the platform of the Front National with which I disagree – particularly its European strategy, economic doctrine, and latent Jacobin nationalism. Still, as Baudrillard wrote – and this caused him to be brutally ostracised by the intellectual class and the media – the Front National is the only genuinely revolutionary party to have emerged after the Second World War. Its clear aim is to overthrow the system. We can always disagree on the tactics to be employed or on specific doctrinal points, but what matters is to share the same global view of things. Despite all its defects, tactical mistakes, internal quarrels, and ideological blunders and inconsistencies, the Front National has become something that cannot be ignored.
Why is it being criminalised by the intellectual class, the media and the self-righteous bourgeoisie? Is it because it is ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, ‘of the far Right’ and ‘anti-Republican’? Not at all. These accusations made by scared false virgins are only pretexts. No traces of racist, fascist doctrines are to be found in the political platform of the Front National; and on the other hand, its most embittered persecutors – including Jospin[143] and 50% of his Socialist ministers – belong to currents of thought that flirted with totalitarian Communism.
The true reasons behind the ostracism of the Front National are to be sought elsewhere. The Front prevents politics from going round in circles: first, by unmasking them and refusing to apply them, it breaks the rules set by the political establishment, i.e., those of careerism, based on
the pseudo-Republican pact between Left and Right, consisting of false contrasts and real complicity; second, it engages in politics where it had been agreed that one should only engage in business; third, it has ideas and elicits debate where the general consensus is that ideas are dangerous (for they create divisions and stir people’s conscience) and that the system based on widespread stupefaction of the masses at the hands of the elite of the society of the spectacle should not be called into question; four, it demands that the ruling power provide concrete solutions to practical problems, where it is evident that governments must ‘communicate’ and manoeuvre in order to be re-elected rather than ‘attain success to win trust’; and fifth, it breaks the law of silence and tells the king he’s naked by revealing catastrophic social and political truths.
To put it briefly, the Front National is being demonised not for any hypocritical moral reasons, but because it is too democratic and too political: because it poses a direct threat to the careers of influential politicians in institutional parties and various lobbies. It represents an enduring peril because it seeks to ‘win people’s trust’.
The Front National is not being demonised and fought against – often with hatred bordering on illegality – because it ‘threatens the Republic’; but rather because it threatens the pseudo-Republicans. It is not attacked because it promotes unacceptable values, but because it has some values, and this in itself is unacceptable.
While I do not agree with many specific points of its platform, I must acknowledge that the Front National represents the first political force in Europe to implicitly embody an idea that is deadly for the system: passing from resistance to revolution.
The false elites that have usurped the Republic are trying to gag and undermine the Front because it seeks to re-establish the moral contract between the people and its leaders. Hence, it is accused of being immoral. But facts will speak for themselves – the politicians and the media will not be able to twist them. So the only path open to the system is not to ban the Front National but abolish the people. It is already trying to do so. Immigration is one of its weapons, but it is a double-edged sword, for the system – and I will stress this once more – is forgetting about an essential player: Islam.
Machiavellian Principles for the Seizing of Power
Let us read Machiavelli again, whose works Lenin and Napoleon knew well. Public opinion changes: the people of today would hardly put up with the kind of solutions and therapies that could cure its illnesses. Today the very railway workers who are being attacked by ethnic gangs would be happy to join a demonstration against the expelling of illegal immigrants! The fickleness of quiet, cool times... But if things were to turn hot, in times of serious crisis, all this would be different. When people have their backs against the wall and are suffering piercing pains, they easily change their opinions. Any revolutionary party must realise that it will only seize power if a crisis or emergency occurs that will make people accept what is currently unacceptable. This will never happen in the lukewarm climate of a situation that is slowly rotting, where propaganda is capable of neutralising any revolt or the stirring of the public conscience.
A revolutionary party must present itself as a saviour. Should there be an upheaval, the ruling ideology would disappear along with its taboos, and this would be the right moment to stand in the gap it has created. Revolutionary parties should envisage their action as following from times of crisis and chaos. To be revolutionary is to reason like a surgeon, not a reformer. Reformers will prescribe painkillers or break the thermometer. Revolutionaries will recommend a surgical operation and a treatment to eradicate the illness once and for all. Revolutionaries don’t try to reform utterly diseased organic systems: they will change the whole regime, or – rather – transform it.
A revolutionary party should simply serve as a machine to seize power and exercise it as any other party would do. First of all, it should expect the first months of its rule to be stormy ones marked by much conflict. Hence, it should mentally prepare itself not to give in and be ready to shatter old principles, particularly as these will have been considerably weakened by the crisis and the emergency situation. Secondly, a revolutionary party that has come into power must create irreversible situations, which no loss of power could threaten to abolish. It must strike fast and hard – and this will be accepted, as the rules of the game will have changed. The old values and taboos will have crumbled. The party will have to play off the fear it arouses. Finally, even in this media age, it must put practical results before symbolic measures. The man of the street must concretely perceive the effects of the new political programme on his everyday life. The qualities required here are imagination and perseverance.
The danger any revolutionary power faces is to believe that the old rules of the game are still valid. Actually, everything will have changed in the aftermath of the chaos. It is often said that any such power will have to face ‘isolation on an international level’. But why should the international scenario itself remain unchanged? And besides, any precautions to be taken – as in the old world – will be of little importance compared to the crucial imperative of implementing the revolutionary plan. To quote Machiavelli, ‘The new prince must be determined and courageous above all.’[144]
The Left is neither Reformist,
nor Revolutionary or Conservative:
It is a Means of Reinforcing the System
Something evident that we should always bear in mind is the fact that, since the mid-Twentieth century, the Left has been feeding off the myth of revolution and reform. It passes itself off as being against the system, when it is the system. It passes itself off as being oppressed, when it oppresses.
The reforms promoted by the socialist Left, which reinforce the status quo, merely serve to further strengthen the influence of its own ideology. As for the far Left, which currently seems to be undergoing a renaissance, its role (like that of the Greens and the Communist Party) – now that the project of establishing a Communist society appears ridiculous – is but a more pronounced form of the socialist Left: to reinforce the ideology and structures of the egalitarian machine, particularly in its favourite field: immigration. The far Left serves to accentuate, accelerate and absolutise the trends in contemporary society, turning them into something definitive.
It is no longer a matter – as it was in May ’68 – of ‘changing society’, but of pushing egalitarian society to its very limits. The far Left has given up on the idea of drawing up plans for a different society. It no longer engages in anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois tirades; it doesn’t even have enough power of imagination to develop a new version of Communism (as the Frankfurt School[145] attempted to do). Its discourse is limited to the same old lament: ‘Let us proceed further along the path of egalitarianism!’
While criticising ‘exclusion’, it fails to suggest any alternative social or economic model. It has obsessively re-centred its doctrinal line on a moral question: helping immigrants – who are falsely regarded as the only outcasts – and the promotion of de-Europeanisation on an ethnic and cultural level.
The reforms promoted by the Left are mock reforms: nothing is reformed and nothing solved; what exists is simply reinforced – particularly our present crisis.
The Great Imposture of the Greens,
the Kings of Concealment[146]
In France as well as Germany, what is paradoxical about environmentalist politicians is that they engage in neither politics nor environmentalism. The political platforms of the Greens contain no real environmentalist suggestions, such as the transport of lorries by train instead of on highways, the creation of non-polluting cars (electric cars, LPG,[147] etc.), or the fight against urban sprawl into natural habitats, liquid manure leaks, ground water contamination, the depletion of European fish stocks, chemical food additives, the overuse of insecticides and pesticides, etc. Each time I have tried to bring these specific and concrete issue up with a representative of the Greens, I got the impression tha
t he was not really interested in them or that he had never really studied them.
Brice Lalonde[148] once discretely informed me that the true target of the Greens is nuclear energy, which they demonise as a sort of magic force and associate with the atomic bomb. Now, the Greens’ explicit goal of closing down all nuclear plants entails the reopening of all oil and carbon plants, which are far more polluting and dangerous (not to mention expensive). The fight against nuclear plants thus goes against environmentalism. The Greens are voicing few protests against the black sea of petrol and the carbon dioxide emissions by which we are engulfed, but go off as soon as the slightest nuclear incident occurs. The fact is, the Greens don’t dare take on the international petrol lobby, which are no doubt happy to cough up some dough to intensify the struggle against nuclear energy. The national nuclear lobby is a far easier enemy to face.
All energy sources are polluting to some extent, and at the moment nuclear energy is the least dirty among those that can serve an industrial purpose. It is extraordinary to think that, in order to replace the least polluting energy source of all, the Greens are willing (as in Sweden) to make further use of fossil fuels – the most polluting energy source. The five alternative and less dirty energy sources currently available (geothermal, solar, wind, tidal and hydraulic) are technically incapable of providing the number of megawatts required by an industrial country.
Like the far Left in the economic and social domain, the Greens are happy to simply criticise and demolish. No study or serious suggestion has ever come from their ranks as to how to improve the use of the aforementioned energy sources – which are extremely clean – or come up with new ones. Possible suggestions would include decentralising the production of electricity by installing underwater dynamos in all rivers – a contemporary version of watermills – or set up windmills along windy shores, a plan for which has been drawn by a Dutch-Flemish company.