Archeofuturism, page 12
In societies with well-established values, the ‘family’ and reproduction of the species, just like the transmission of essential values, are threatened by the emergence of the ‘pleasure principle’.
A society founded on order is perfectly capable of integrating parallel practices which only concern a minority of people. This is not a matter of being tolerant or lax, but of adopting an organic approach. On this point both the Right and the Left have been terribly mistaken, for both have adopted a monist logic of exclusion – that of ‘either... or’ – rather than pluralist values of inclusion – the logic of ‘and’. In an organic perspective two opposite principles can co-exist: the fertile and traditional family and deviances, the mother and the prostitute, the serene hearth and the debauchery of the brothel – all within a hierarchical order.
The homosexual lobby and intellectual Left are implicitly attacking the family model and the female role of the housewife, often giving proof of incredible hatred and intolerance. Conservatives, on the other hand, who have a mistaken and fossilised view of ‘tradition’, always take a puritanical stance.
We should instead revert to an archaic view of things by integrating debauchery and ‘orgiasm’ – which Michel Maffesoli discussed in L’ombre de Dionysos[91] – within the social order. The stronger the latter, the more easily can orgiasm unfold in its shadow, in secret, as was the case in ancient societies. This is simply a wise thing. The ‘order principle’ is in line with millions of years of laws concerning the reproduction of the species and the transmission of culture and values to one’s offspring. The ‘pleasure principle’ must be tolerated and hypocritically managed – for it is human and inextinguishable – yet without allowing it to become the dominating norm and become an order in itself. It should exist subordinately, surrounded by ‘social silence’. Does this constitute an apology of lies and hypocrisy? Well, yes. Have you ever seen human societies founded on transparency? Generally, they lead to totalitarianism. Brothels should be reopened.
The less orgiasm is displayed – the more it is virtually simulated through pornography – the stronger it is. The boom in the sex industry is merely a reflection of the sexual poverty of our age. As for adult movies, I have been ‘on the other end of the camera’ as an actor (why not?). I had a lot of fun, but felt sorry for the poor, frustrated viewers.
I defend orgies, parties and Dionysian pleasures, but only when these are subordinated to the ordo societatis (social order) on which they are based. The Bacchanals and Saturnalia of the ancient world... The stronger the social order, the more easily can the pleasure principle and orgiasm unfold in its shadow without being detrimental to social cohesion. Again: the more orgiasm is trivialised, mediatised and displayed, the more intense it becomes. Eros and Dionysus wither when they are shown each night on television. Quality debauchery needs silence and secrecy, i.e., modesty, which is the real motor of eroticism and sexual release. But the society of the spectacle and modernity, which invoke emancipation and liberation, are ultimately hostile to libertinism and sensuality, and to all forms of sexual refinement.
Here, as in all other spheres, a return to sexual joy and authentic sensuality will only be possible by reinstating archaic principles of order in the context of rigorously ritualised future societies. Archeofuturism...
Homosexuality,
the Demographic Crisis and Ethno-masochism
The problem today is that homosexuality tends to surreptitiously impose itself as a superior model: a more evolved and suitable alternative to heterosexuality, which is implicitly considered ‘outdated’. With the typical intolerance of his pseudo-libertarian current of thought, in a recent column in Journal du Dimanche [92] a talented intellectual and writer of the homosexual Left defended the idea of ‘civil partnerships’ (PACS), claiming he was offended by the fact that the Right denounced these as forms of ‘homosexual marriage’. In his hateful and bitter tirade against heterosexual couples, he described families as ‘small egoistical cells’ (‘Le chagrin et la honte’,[93] 11 November 1998).
What we are witnessing, then, is a reversal of the previous situation, where homosexuality was abusively repressed. Homosexuality, which ought to have remained within the private sphere, is now imposing itself as a value in the public sphere.
There seems to be a disturbing connection between the current demographic crisis, the emasculation of Western societies, and defeatism in the face of immigration and the macho values of Islam on the one hand, and the latent apology of male – and now even female – homosexuality on the other. It is as if, surreptitiously, because of ethno-masochism, everything European is being perceived as guilty of reproducing an age-old family, sexual and genetic model.
A few years ago, do-gooders attacked a natalist advertising campaign because it showed blond babies. In other words, European natalism is considered a form of racism – being oneself is an attack on others. Fertile European families are seen as guilty of biological imperialism. This is an incredible semantic reversal, typical of tyrannical and totalitarian ways of thinking.
It is not a matter of advocating any repression of homosexuality, of banning homosexual couples or socially penalising gay people; simply, the prospect of legalising of a form of ‘marriage’ for homosexuals would have a highly destructive symbolic value.
Why? Whether gay unions go ‘against nature’ or not is beside the point. Nobody cares about this – it is an endless, pseudo-scientific debate. The fact remains that marriage and legal heterosexual unions enjoy forms of protection and public benefits that are accorded to couples capable of having children, and hence of renewing the generations and thus being of objective ‘service’ to society. Legalising homosexual unions and awarding them financial privileges means protecting sterile unions. To put heterosexual couples, which perpetuate the population, and homosexual couples (whether male or female) on the same level is a sign of the pathological exasperation of individualism. It means mistaking desires for rights. It means scorning the collective interest and riding roughshod over common sense, a notion with which the French Left – the most stupid Left in the world – has been in conflict ever since 1789 thanks to its ideological hallucinations.
To legalise homosexual unions is to plunge into the general confusion denounced by Alain de Benoist, whereby ‘everything is equal to everything else’. Why not legalise marriages between human beings and chimpanzees, then? After all, if what matters are individual rights and desires, which is to say personal fancies with no regard for age-old bio-social realities... Progressivism is a form of infantilism.
Besides, gay couples usually don’t last long and don’t work very well. This is nothing strange: you cannot get away with defying the laws of nature – there’s a price to pay for all biological and ethnological anomalies. Let gays live their lives, be tolerated and respected; but let them not impose their norms like a tyrannical minority and claim privileges. As many psychoanalysts have observed – most notably Tony Anatrella,[94] who has reformulated Freud’s theses on the matter – homosexuality is a neurosis caused by immaturity. Increasing numbers of biologists believe it is simply a hereditary mental disease. Basically, homosexuals, whether male or female, are not emotionally happy. They suffer from their psychosexual illness and feel frustrated because they are incapable of conforming to socio-biological normality and balance.
Homosexuality today is a psychoanalytical problem. Like all minorities that have received some satisfaction and form of acknowledgment, homosexuals are furious that they are no longer the victims: they feel frustrated because they are no longer persecuted. They know there is much talk made about them but want more and more. They wish to make up for the disfavours made to them in the past by claiming infantile privileges – hence their aggressiveness, as a counterpart to their inner discomfort.
Having said this, let homosexual unions be legalised, with all the fiscal and matrimonial advantages this entails. As always, it will be the power of reality that will demolish this utopia. Sic transit gloria imbecillorum.[95]
The Primacy of Desire over Law
‘Sans-papiers’, illegal immigrants who infringe democratic laws, are allowed to remain in France thanks to the power of the media and minority pressure groups. Their desire thus prevails over the laws voted for by the French people.
Herein lies one of the paradoxes of the ideology of human rights: well-defended private interest overcomes the will of the majority. This opens the door to all mafias...
Lorry drivers, fishermen, pilots, the trade unions of teachers and students (an active minority), subsidised farmers and railwaymen all challenge the law with impunity and force the government to back down in order to defend their egoistical group interests. The media join in, and out of cowardice or careerism politicians give in and don’t move a finger.
Everywhere minority interests prevail over the law. What a paradox: the champions of the ‘Republic’ are signing off on the overthrow of the state subject to the rule of law. They do not realise that an end will be put to these disorders by adopting an archaic but very effective solution: tyranny, where the will of a tyrant takes the place of the failing legal system and the will of the majority, yet without yielding to private desires.
The above idea is probably shared by Jean-Pierre Chevènement[96] – but most likely nobody else.
The ‘Biolithic Revolution’ and the
Great Ethical Crisis of the Twenty-first century
A conflict will inevitably break out in the Twenty-first century between the great monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism and the secular religion of human rights) and the progress of technological science in the fields of computers and biology. In his book La revolution biolitique (Albin Michel, 1998), Hervé Kempf[97] argues that science is about to undergo a ‘transition’ comparable to the Neolithic Revolution, when homo sapiens passed from the hunter-gatherer stage to farming and agriculture, thus shaping his environment. We are now experiencing a second great change, in both biology and informatics. This revolution consists in the artificial transformation of living creatures, in the humanisation of machines (the quantic and especially biotronic computers of the future), and consequently in the interactions between men and robots.
Anthropocentrism and the unifying notion of ‘human life’ as a value in itself, which constitute the central dogmas of both monotheistic religions and the egalitarian ideologies of modernity, are entering into a sharp contrast with the possibilities offered by technological science, and particularly the ‘infernal’ alliance between informatics and biology. There will be a major conflict between researchers on the one hand and political and religious leaders on the other, who seek to censor and limit the use of new scientific discoveries – although they may not succeed...
Things such as artificial births in incubators; intelligent, ‘quasi-sensitive’ and quasi-human biotronic robots; chimeras (crossbreeds between humans and animals, a patent for which has already been filed in the United States); genetic manipulations or ‘transgenic humans’; new artificial organs that increase the faculties tenfold; the creation of hyper-endowed and ultra-resistant individuals through positive eugenics; and cloning – all risk shattering the old egalitarian and religious idea of man even more than Darwin and evolutionary theories have done. ‘Human factories’ are already being developed through the production of artificial organs, assisted procreation, function stimulation, etc. The creation of machines based on biological processes (e.g., neural computers and DNA microchips) is also not far away. The very definitions of man, living creatures and machines will have to be reformulated. Artificial humans and animal machines...
In the Twenty-first century, man will no longer be what he used to be. This will bring ethical confusion with devastating effects. There is the risk of witnessing a mental shock, a clash with unforeseeable consequences between two worlds: the new biotronic or biolithic view on the one hand, and that of the old ideas promoted by the great world religions and the modern egalitarian philosophy of human rights on the other.
Only a neo-archaic outlook will enable us to cope with this shock, because once – whether among the Incas, Tibetans, Greeks or Egyptians – it wasn’t man who was at the centre of the world but deities, who could take any living form they wished. The technological science of the future invites us not to dehumanise man, but to stop divinising him. Does this mean the end of humanism? It certainly does.
Genetics and Inegalitarianism
One of the central theses behind the idea of ‘Archeofuturism’ is the following: paradoxically, Twenty-first century technological science is driving modernity’s back against the wall, for it ‘risks’ rehabilitating inegalitarian and archaic worldviews. Here is a simple example in the field of genetics: the drawing of a ‘map of the human genome’, the study of hereditary diseases, the development of genetic therapies, research into brain chemistry, AIDS and viral illnesses, etc., are already starting to concretely reveal the inequality among humans. The scientific community is caught in a vice: how to obey the censorship of political correctness, giving in to the intellectual terrorism of egalitarianism while at the same time promoting scientific truths that may be therapeutically useful? A conflict will arise here, and a serious one too. Geneticists, sexologists and virologists are already finding it harder and harder to conceal the fact that one of the canonical myths of the religion of human rights – the principle of equality among population groups and the genetic individualisation of humans – is scientifically untenable.
On the other hand, it is clear that biotechnologies (e.g., assisted procreation, biotronic implants, artificial organs, cloning, genetic therapies, and the manipulation of transmissible genomes – technologies which are genuine forms of eugenics, although few would dare use this word) will neither be available to everyone nor covered by social security; moreover, they will only be applied in the great industrial nations. What is de facto a kind of eugenics will be offered to a minority which will witness an increase in its life expectancy: the height of inegalitarism has crept like a virus into the heart of modern egalitarian civilisation. Another embarrassing problem: how will anthropocentric humanists react when chimeras (man-animal hybrids) are created to be used as organ and blood banks or to engineer better semen or to test drugs? Will they seek to ban them? If so, they will fail. To face the global shock of future genetics we will have to adopt an archaic outlook.
The Notion of ‘Love’:
One of the Pathologies of Civilisation
Western civilisation began to grow considerably weaker from the day it started assigning an absolute value to a pathological feeling: love. This pathology has eroded both our demographic resources and our defensive instincts. It is a secularised Christian inheritance. Does this mean that hate must be the motor of conquering and creative civilisations? No. It is ‘love’, whether personal or collective, that represents a pathological and emphatic form of solidarity leading to failure and, paradoxically, hate and massacres. Religious wars and contemporary forms of fanaticism on the part of the monotheistic religions of love and mercy are proof of this. Even totalitarian Communism was founded on the idea of ‘love of the people’.
It is necessary to have (temporary) allies among nations, not friends. Among individuals, it is better to say ‘I am fond of you’ than ‘I love you’, and to engage with others according to the logic of alliance rather than the blind – and shifting – gratuitousness of love.
Love is absolute, hence totalitarian. Human feelings and strategies are changeable. Both in politics and in our personal relations, instead of the verb ‘to love’ let us use adopt a polytheistic range of verbs: to be fond of, admire, ally oneself with, come to terms with, protect, help, cherish, desire, etc. We should not have children as a gift we wish to bestow on the partner we love, but rather because we feel this person is worthy of breeding and perpetuating our stock. Today half of all marriages fail because they are based on an adolescent and ephemeral feeling that vanishes with the first gust of wind. Lasting marriages are based on plans.
The same is happening with parents’ education of their children. This is also failing because it is based on the blissful adulation of one’s offspring (these by-products of love), which undermines the legitimacy and authority of parents, perceived as loving sheep. Politicians are similarly doomed to failure because their ideology and actions are marred by residues of love – good feelings, do-goodism, humanitarianism, pity, masochism, and a misdirected and hypocritical altruism – instead of resting on the decision-making will of pursuing one’s goal to the very end, whatever the cost.
This civilisation, which has long been implicitly founded on the distorted notion of love, must one day return to the allegory of Don Juan, the symbol of anti-love par excellence. Archeofuturism.
Philosophical Debacle and Frauds
The absence of genuine philosophical values in this fin de siècle[98] of ours is illustrated by the popularity media commentators enjoy who promote hollow ideas, state the obvious and embrace hegemonic thought – people like Comte-Sponville, Ferry, Bernard-Henry Lévy, and Serres. Do-goodism with no metaphysics or spirituality, petty materialism, a childish return to the Enlightenment, hypocritical moralising and altruism, ethical virtuousness, ethno-masochism, xenophilia, kindness with ulterior motives, and irresponsible humanitarianism: all these mental attitudes are profoundly unsuited to our age. These weakening, emasculating and morally disarming values are misleading in a world that is growing increasingly harsh and which calls for just the opposite: for combative values. While we need a new philosophy of action, in this society of bovines we are fed the stale remains of the Eighteenth century philosophy of compassion, passed off as brilliant novelties and advancements of the spirit.
A neo-dogmatic philosophy, capable only of ‘communicating’ (propaganda), is masked as one of anti-dogmatism, freedom and emancipation, while it is only the academic harping on about obsolete ideas and a tool of intellectual terrorism.
