AGENDA 2030 - DAVOS FORUM - TRANSHUMANISM THREE CONVERGING TRENDS

AGENDA 2030 - DAVOS FORUM - TRANSHUMANISM THREE CONVERGING TRENDS 

(talk on 3 June in Madrid)

Ernesto Milà

Source: https://info-krisis.blogspot.com/2023/06/agenda-2030-foro-de-davos.html

Last Saturday, invited by the Juan Ignacio Association, I had the opportunity to give a short talk at the Espacio Ardemans. It was particularly interesting to greet friends and kameraden I hadn't seen for a long time and to know that they are all still standing and online. The talk was recorded, so I guess it will show up somewhere. This is the initial text which does not correspond exactly with what was said for reasons of time. I include the text with some references that can be found in the INFO-KRISIS blog itself in order to complete concepts, ideas, characters and situations that were impossible to expand on in the talk. These links can also serve as a reference of the elaboration process followed to compose this talk, which is no more than a synthesis of work carried out in the last year and a half.

Talk Madrid 3 June

AGENDA 2030 - DAVOS FORUM - TRANSHUMANISM
THREE CONVERGING TRENDS

For the best possible reading of this article, and to be able to refer to the articles in brackets, which are only available in Spanish, the reader should display the original and click on "articulo" to access the earlier articles by Ernesto Milà; only the articles numbered 1, 2 and 3 are linked directly in this text.

INTRODUCTION

Speaker's position: understanding our time. The worst thing that can happen to a human being is not to understand the time in which he or she has been given to live. And it is more frequent than it seems. Fascism is not of our time: it belongs to the first half of the 20th century and has nothing to do with postmodernity. (See Article 1- https://info-krisis.blogspot.com/2022/06/el-tiempo-de-los... - Article 2 - https://info-krisis.blogspot.com/2022/06/el-tiempo-de-los... - Article 3 - https://info-krisis.blogspot.com/2022/06/el-tiempo-de-los...)).

I am a film and TV series critic. Actually, it was through cinema that I came to H+. It was an ideology that was present in many films since 1968 when Kubrick filmed 2001 A Space Odyssey. Since then this cinema, sometimes confused with science fiction, has been thriving, so about five or six years ago, I became interested in its origins and, if you are interested in this approach, there is a lecture of mine on the subject that I won't repeat here.

I saw a logical linkage that led from the "counterculture" of the 60s, to the "new age" (See Article 1 and Article 2) that followed and from there, in the 90s, this new current was forged, the H+. (See Article 1 and Article 2) My first assessment was: "It's crazy", pure science fiction taken as positive science. Today I maintain the same attitude. It is H+ is madness... but it is madness shared by economic and technological elites, just as there were once Fabian socialist currents shared contradictorily by the Rockefeller and financial elites. However, H+ insists on one point: the role of science and technology in building the future. And the other two?

- The Davos Forum is one of many "meeting groups" (see article), bringing together representatives of the economic consortiums, the national political classes and the middle ground between the two, the media conglomerates.

- The 2030 Agenda, on the other hand, was born out of the UN and UNESCO civil service caste. And here it is worth stressing that these international organisations are not composed of representatives of each country to deliberate on peace, resolve conflicts and prepare for the future. That belongs to the "general assemblies", but that is only the tip of the iceberg. What is essential is to understand that behind these acronyms there is a civil service caste with its own project: ultra-progressive and ultra-humanist, "enlightenmentist" in the worst sense of the word.

Question: What do these three organisations have in common?

Answer: In undertaking social engineering projects.

Question: What for?

Answer: To adapt modern societies to the changes taking place and to direct them towards what each of the three organisations sees as the utopian framework for the future.

Here it is worth pausing for a moment:

A political doctrine is such when it is capable of elaborating a project for the future. To do so, it is necessary to foresee what the future will be like. If one is not able to foresee the future, one cannot operate on it, and therefore the best political project is doomed to failure. Some of us have understood this too late and this explains the failure of the organisations in which we have militated.

THE FUTURE ACCORDING TO THE H+ PROJECT

H+ is a new pseudo-religion. It has nothing of science (because there is no scientific method), it is not a philosophy (because there is no rationality), it has a lot of science-fiction, and everything of pseudo-religion, that is "false religion", "simulacrum of religion" or "caricature of religion" where "faith", emotionality, sentimentality and the belief in a "parousia of technology" are at its core. It is said that in Silicon Valley there are two religions: atheism and H+.

Transhumanism:

- Has its "precursors": the John the Baptists (the Huxley's, Galton, Darwin) (See Article).

- Has its "old testament": the Gothic novel, Teilhard (See Article), Fyodorov (See Article), science fiction, Aldous Huxley (See Article)

- It has its "Apostles": Esfandiary, Hans Movarec (AI), Marvin Minsky (brain-computer). Ray Kurzweil (The Age of Spiritual Machines), Max Moore (extropian, ALCOR), Nick Bostrom (LEE, Humanity Plus), David Pierce (Hedonist Imperative, abolitionist).

- He has his "dogmas":

1. Evolution is not finished.

2. Biology condemns us to death, but we want to live.

3. Technology allows us to stimulate and accelerate evolution.

4. The next evolutionary rung will be super-longevity, super-intelligence, super-well-being.

5. Will be achieved through AI development, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, robotics, 3D printing, cryonics, cryogenics

6. The aim is to create a human being 2.0. which, during the H+ stage, will gradually incorporate technology: biohackers, cyborgs,

7. The "biological stage" will be followed by a "mixed stage" or H+ and then a "posthumanist stage" or "postbiological stage".

8. Brain-computer connection via interface with uploading and downloading of data will allow the creation of a "collective cosmic consciousness".

9. It is not a matter of "believing in God", but of "playing God"; moving from homo sapiens to homo deus. Such is the final proposal (see article).

These dogmas and sacred texts, as well as the precursors, clearly indicate an extreme and almost senseless technological optimism.

In the same way that it was said in the Middle Ages that the "Demon es deus inversus" (in Spanish, more expressive than Latin, it was said that "the devil is God's mico"), today we can say that H+ is the extreme limit of anti-traditional subversion.

None of this would pass for anything more than an exotic originality, spread by Hollywood films, were it not for the fact that H+ associations and projects are funded by the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, etc. foundations and, recently, the president of the Davos Forum, Klaus Schwab, has joined this trend. (See article).

And this brings us directly to the Davos Forum.

THE DAVOS FORUM PROJECT

The "Davos Forum" or World Economic Forum, a Swiss-based NGO founded in 1971, aims to train and incorporate elites into its regional circles or cadre schools. It has offices in Beijing and New York. It collaborates with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is governed by 24 members, and its stated function is "engagement for the betterment of the world".

It is financed by contributions from a thousand companies (between 40,000 and 500,000 Swiss francs, more or less on a par with the euro). Each attendee at Forum meetings pays 4,500 euros for attending conferences and 9,000 euros for access to restricted conferences. It is a "big business" with an annual turnover of 5,000,000,000,000 US$/year.

It links three levels: 

- the world of money

- the world of politics

- the world of communication

It is not the only company of this type: Trilateral, Bildelberg, Club of Rome, Pilgrims Society, and dozens of others. They are famous for some studies or forecasts they get right. They are "world movers", but, in reality, they always lag behind the world.

An "anti-conspiracy" note: HETEROTELIA, different ends. Any project development is unpredictable, and usually the point of arrival never has much to do with the proposed point of departure.

What do people do at these meetings? They listen to conferences in the hope of learning about TRENDS and being personally prepared to face the future in the best possible conditions. They start from the assumption that these trends are shared by the most powerful men in the world and, therefore, it is worthwhile to stand in their shadow.

For example, the 24 members of the Davos Forum's leadership include

- David Rubenstein - founder of Carlyle Group

- Kristalina Georgieva - president of the IMF

- Peter Bradeck - former head of Nestlé

- Larry Fink - CEO of Black Rock

- Christine Lagarde - head of the European Central Bank

- Reif Groisman - President of MIT

As always in these cases, the important thing is not what is discussed in the sessions - some are broadcast on the internet and there are 500 journalists covering the event, 220 conferences over 5 days - but what is talked about in the corridors and the atmosphere that is breathed: they are the "great influencers".

We cannot dive into the ideas of the WEF in the framework of this talk, but we can situate 2015 as the starting point that interests us (see article).

- In 2015 an article was published in Schwab's Foreing Policy (Huntington) entitled The Fourth Industrial Revolution. It did not have the slightest impact, but the following year a book with the same title was published which was, at the same time, the theme of the Davos Forum meeting.

- In 2015, the consequences of the first major crisis of globalisation were still being felt. And it was a question of relaunching neo-capitalism worldwide.

- The basic idea is that all industrial revolutions generate changes in power relations and in the structures of societies, and Schwab's aim is to prevent technological change from bringing about abrupt changes, especially in the control exercised by traditional economic elites through democratic structures, political parties and international organisations.

- The First Industrial Revolution, the coal revolution, generated a new wealthy bourgeoisie that replaced the aristocracies and promoted the liberal model of economics and the party model of understanding politics. This was the era of the formation of nations.

- In the Second Industrial Revolution, that of the internal combustion engine and electric power, power passed to the large anonymous corporations, to the multinationals and to the era of the great imperialisms (USA-USSR).

- The Third Industrial Revolution began with the microchip and computers at the grassroots level. It coincided with the worldwide introduction of neo-liberalism and the period of US unipolar hegemony.

- Today, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is underway: this is where Schwab's work comes in. The characteristics of this revolution are:

> Development of the 3rd revolution, but at greater speed, in greater depth and in greater extension.

> It is characterised by what Schwab calls "converging technologies", namely: biotech - AI - nanotech. These are technologies that were born separately, but which inevitably tend to converge and synthesise in prodigious technological syntheses and revolutionise branches of medicine, genetics, pharmacology, communications and human relations with technology.

> It defines 3 megatrends:

+ physical (robotics, autonomous vehicles, 3D, graphene).

+ digital (AI, blockchain, internet of things, apps)

+ biological (ing.gen, personalised medicines, nanotech).

All this will mean that the technology that will emerge from the 4th Industrial Revolution will not be something separate from human beings, but will be integrated into them and will form part of us through implants, exoskeletons, replacement of body organs with artificial prostheses, etc.

> Schwab is not saying anything new: he assumes that the phantasmagorias of the transhumanist doctrinaires will develop as they propose, but he directs them towards the terrain that interests him as a businessman and chairman of one of the most influential corporate conglomerates: at one point in his book he argues that "In order to manage the 4IR, corporations will need to collaborate with states and global institutions". This implies:

- placing economic corporations on an equal footing with states

- limiting sovereignty and democracy by subordinating them to corporate interests.

- to achieve the ideal set out by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, i.e. 250 years ago, of giving free rein to free competition and the laws of the market without any limits or restrictions.

Schwab justifies this collaboration between indebted states led by corrupt politicians and corporate sharks on the grounds that the application of converging technologies will affect the entire global system.

He therefore proposes a series of measures:

+ "collaborative economy": harnessing new technologies to buy, sell, recycle, reuse, barter.

+ "stakeholder economy": in which companies give up part of their short-term profits to invest in the needs of society, a form of so-called "capitalism open to society".

+ "smart factories" through AI, on-demand production. This is what is called Factories 4.0. Companies will not be run by boards of directors and technicians who are slow to react, but by AI that will transfer consumer requests to production lines in zero time.

+ The "use of big data" to predict and guide movements and consumption.

+ "Disruptive" companies, i.e. companies created to satisfy new markets generated by new technologies.

+ Companies that have no assets but move everything: Uber, Cabify, FaceBook, AirBNB, etc.

Now, all these proposals are susceptible to criticisms that are very difficult to refute. For example:

- robotics will lead to the loss of millions of jobs, for example among supermarket stockers (an estimated 300 to 400 million people will be made redundant in this sector) or among taxi drivers and hauliers when autonomous taxis, drone delivery or driverless transport are implemented.

- the jobs that artificial intelligence will destroy will be far greater than the jobs it will create, which will always be high-skilled jobs.

- the social gap will widen between a minority - increasingly a minority - who will have access to personalised medicines, extreme consumption, life-prolonging treatments, etc. - and a growing majority who will live in a landscape that will oscillate between fear of losing what little one has and misery as defined in cyberpunk narratives: high technology and low living standards.

This will encourage spontaneous processes that can lead to:

- Social outbursts

- Economic crises due to globalisation

- Populist regressions and responses to neo-capitalism.

To this end, Schwab and the WEF propose:

1) Introduction of a social wage that guarantees the minimum subsistence level, but not much more.

2) Promotion of virtual universes to escape from the sad reality of everyday life.

3) Demanding a decrease in the world population.

4) Liquidation of the potentially dangerous middle class insofar as all the changes and revolutionary processes of the 20th century have come from it: it is not just a question of destroying it, but of threatening its security, atomising it, and crushing it through taxes and insecurity. In this way, it will be prevented from thinking about ways of reconstruction.

Until the January 2023 meeting, Schwab spoke in a completely different language from the H+: he used his ideas, his visions of a science fiction technology, but, unlike them, he did so in a... friendly, moderate, approachable and friendly language:

- friendly, moderate, close, and supposedly humanist language.

- used ecology and the "ecological responsibility" of corporations to emphasise its humanist aspects.

- It expressed itself with the resources of "positive thinking", and therefore deliberately concealed the more negative aspects of all these technological processes, or denied them with rather childish arguments.

However, from the 2023 Davos Forum meeting onwards, his discourse changed: he made an explicit endorsement of the transhumanist thesis (which earned him an angry response from Elon Musk via teleconference) and presented a much less optimistic picture of the economic situation than the one presented at the previous WEF meeting when he alluded to the "resetting of the economy". It was the result of international tensions that had blocked globalisation and split the world again into two halves in the wake of the Ukrainian conflict and also the product of a growing conflict between "old money" and "new money".

What is the problem that will arise?

The owners of the new technologies are those who, historically, at every moment, have imposed the rules of the game on societies: liberalism and democracy came with the first industrial revolution, the era of imperialism was the product of the energy revolution, the third industrial revolution imposed globalisation, and it was the big corporations who were the best placed and who imposed their rules (end of tariffs, deregulation) and the fourth?

It is clear that by the same rule it will be the big-tech companies that will impose their rules of the game.

In addition, there is another circumstance - which is what scares the big corporations - namely that companies in the technology sector, with less investment, fewer staff, fewer social security charges and smaller budgets, generate higher profits than conventional companies and have much more added value. They are practically independent of the banking system and are less dependent on stock market fluctuations than conventional companies.

Thus, we live in a moment in which the "old money" from the large accumulations of capital generated by generations of capitalist dynasties is in sordid competition with the "new money" generated in less than 30 years by the big-tech companies. (See Article).

This allows Elon Musk to compete with NASA and the ESA, or states to require the help of big-tech to call elections or to manage the very structure of the state.

Schwab is aware of this conflict and aims to avoid it by trying to find common ground. But he belongs to the "old money" clan and his colleagues, accustomed to predatory practices for generations, are unlikely to accept his thesis on "stakeholder economics", just as big-tech sees the CEOs of large investment consortiums as dinosaurs from another era.

However, the war in Ukraine has split the world in two, making the position of these two forms of Western capitalism even more difficult. What is coming out of China is the fusion between the state and technology companies on the one hand and, on the other, the fusion between the worst of capitalism (massification, consumerism, the dictatorship of conformity, illusory freedoms, inequalities) and the worst of communism (consumerism, massification, social control, the stifling of freedoms, materialism - it is not for nothing that Marxism is still a compulsory subject in universities).

All this creates a particularly worrying and conflictive picture for the next 30 years. But it augurs a pyramid-shaped society with a very small top that will have everything, and an exceptionally broad base that will only know precariousness and to which virtuality will be offered as an alternative.

Schwab is among those who believe that widespread conflict would be deadly to civilisation and would generate destruction inconceivable even in the most destructive wars of the 20th century.

And this is why, from January 2023, his two key orientations adopted at the last meeting of the Davos Forum are:

- On the one hand, to take on board the assumptions of the transhumanist religion,

- On the other hand, it is in favour of weakening modern states as much as possible by transferring part of their sovereignty to international bodies and, on the other hand, by making companies collaborate with states in the political and economic management of communities.

This leads directly to the 2030 Agenda. Schwab already welcomed the efforts of the 2030 Agenda at the Abu Dhabi Summit.

THE ICING ON THE CAKE OR THE 2030 AGENDA

If you noticed, Pedro Sánchez did not wear the Agenda 2030 pin during the election campaign. It is normal: the project is increasingly discredited. While there is some consensus on some of the points it supports (climate change), there is far from unanimity on whether this change is "anthropogenic" as the Agenda suggests or a product of different planetary movements and cycles. Moreover, the introduction of the woke ideology and "gender studies", in an obsessive manner, have contributed to the tarnishing of this project.

Who is promoting the 2030 Agenda? The UN and its transmission belts (especially UNESCO).

It is worth dispelling a misunderstanding about what each of these organisations are.

Rather than "international bodies made up of representatives of the various countries" (these are only present in funding and in the General Assembly), they are civil service elites that emerged from stale nineteenth-century "world unification" projects (see Article 1 and Article 2). They have ideas of their own and aspire to be the embryo of a "world government". To this end, they assume that they must carry out "social engineering" work to shape the society of the future to their globalist plans. One of these projects is Agenda 2030.

What is the origin of the 2030 Agenda (see article)?

- 2015 is the key year: several international meetings take place. At the meeting in Turkey, the G20 leaders signed the "agenda" entitled "Transforming our World: Agenda for Sustainable Development". Its text, with modifications and additions, especially generated by covid and its effects, is the current Agenda 2030.

- This document includes all the "fetish words" that are equally shared in the Davos Forum documents:

> Global Goals > Sustainable development

> Diversity > Anthropogenic climate change > Gender perspective > Resilience        

Gender perspective > Resilience > Empowerment > Governance

> Empowerment > Governance

> Inclusion > Equality...

- The 2030 Agenda replaces the "Millennium Goals", the UN programme drawn up around 1995: they are very different. No one can turn a blind eye to them. The emphasis is on global ecology and "sustainable development" (the fetish word of the "millennium goals" launched by the Club of Rome in its study on The Limits to Growth in 1972).

  The 2030 Agenda is made up of "17 Goals" and "169 Targets" (it was reformulated to take advantage of the epidemic and any goal was linked to covid: for example, it was said that the pandemic jeopardised the progress of the "gender perspective"... It was said that half of the workers could lose their jobs because of the pandemic...).

    In principle, the titles of the "objectives" give the impression of a harmless programme: "to end poverty", "to fight against hunger in the world", "to defend the environment", "to reduce inequalities", etc. No one in their right mind could be against these objectives. However, when one reads the texts of the 17 goals, one can see what they are aiming at. Especially in 4 points: "sexual and reproductive health", "gender equality", "education" and "anthropogenic climate change". The first point is an update of the old "Malthusian" theme (see Article 1 - Article 2 - Article 3) (to reduce the world population by all means), the second summarises "gender studies" and falls within this perspective, and finally, the third proposes an education by the state that educates in the ideology contained in the document itself. On the other hand, these three themes are always present in the other fourteen points, even to ridiculous extremes.

   

The idea that enjoys the greatest media interest is that of climate change. While Schwab outlines the issue, for the UN it is the central theme: anthropogenic change. Hence: clean, renewable, non-polluting energy, recycling. Based on debatable and unconfirmed statistics and data, or on "scientific unanimity" which is not so much (today there is not even remotely unanimous in the scientific community about the acceptance of climate change, let alone its causes and effects), it is assumed that it is a result of the action of the "human race" (meaning the "human species", according to Linnaeus' classification) on the environment: it is not at all possible that it is a result of the various movements of the planet, which have generated the previous climate changes, when the human species did not exist or when it had not reached a level of industrial development that could disturb the environment. Climate change has always existed and if it is so insisted upon today, it is precisely to justify neo-Malthusianism and measures to reduce births... especially in the "West".

    It is a programme written for the Third World much more than for the developed world, but the great contradiction is that it is only recognised in the developed world.

    In particular, reference is made to "strong institutions" on which to rely in order to "save humanity" from the climate crisis: the UN and its subsidiaries (UNESCO, WHO, etc.).

    From its "moral authority", the UN urges national governments to meet the 17 goals.

    There is no reference whatsoever to technical issues, nor to the world-changing processes that will take place between 2020 and 2030.

    The idea is to "save the planet". It is the greatest collection of do-gooder clichés that surpasses even the worst memory left by ZP.

    It promotes dietary changes (veganism), "responsible consumption" (sic), "zero hunger", "decent jobs", "clean and renewable energy", "sustainable, safe and resilient cities", "healthy ecosystems", "sustainable water" and "strong institutions" of which the UN is the "example".

Despite having taken care to provide scientific arguments and credibility through celebrity endorsements, the truth is that on the UN website dedicated to the 2030 Agenda one can clearly perceive the vulgarity, simplicity, superficiality, manipulation of language, with its subversive semantics, and the crude intentionality of social engineering that, in itself, belies any scientific and technical quality and depth.

What is the strength of the 2030 Agenda?

In that it is promoted by the UN, which aspires to be a structure superior to nation states (when, in reality, it is, as we have said, merely a clique of globalist officials). Using this "ascendancy" over states, the UN sends the guidelines of the 2030 Agenda to national governments, and these - especially centre-left and progressive right-wing governments in Europe - tend to take it on board and translate it into legislative measures. But this is only happening in the West (USA + EU), with much less impact in other countries, or even going completely unnoticed in others (especially in Eurasia: Russia + China).

A reading of Agenda 2030 shows that its drafters are prisoners of the globalist mythology born in the 19th century, to which they have limited themselves to adding fetish words and a few Wokist ideas (see Article 1 - Article 2), some from "gender studies", others from the neo-Malthusianism of these circles, and ideas about "anthropogenic climate change". But they contribute absolutely nothing on technological developments or on the changes that may be brought about in the future by new technologies. The Agenda 2030 document, far from being a product of "rabid modernity", is rather a reiteration of nineteenth-century themes (world unification, world government, universal goodness, finalist values) to which have been added "sticky notes" summarised in the "fetish words" we have listed and opportunistic references to current affairs (to covid, for example) with the intention of "social engineering".

SOME CONCLUSIONS

1. So far what I explained in the talks I gave on this subject in 2022 (see article). But in just twelve months there are new elements. In June 2022, the Ukrainian conflict had not yet shown its consequences. Today it has, and that is what allows us to say: globalisation, as it was understood in the period 1990-2019, has come to an end (see article).

2. As a result of the sanctions imposed by the US on Russia and the positions adopted by all the countries in favour and against, it can safely be said that we are in the first phase of the Second Cold War and, on this occasion, everything suggests that it will not end like the first, but that it will be the US that collapses internally due to accumulated errors and/or external pressures (see Article). (see Article).

3. Neither the Eurasian bloc (China + Russia) nor the Western bloc (USA + EU) are homogeneous. Russia has a national project: to become one of the legs of a future multipolar order. China, which includes the worst of capitalism and the worst of communism, consumerism plus obsession with population control, aspires rather to world hegemony. In the Western bloc, there is polarisation between "ultra-progressives" and "neo-conservatives": the former obsessed with "gender studies", "anti-racism", "Wokism", "climate change", while the latter, having lost traditional structures, look with admiration at the sense of the state that is present in Russia today.

4. There is a growing polarisation between the two blocs, and within each bloc between the different positions, although it is true that the majority of the population is outside of the "culture war" schemes. And this for two reasons a) the positions are so antagonistic that any form of dialogue is impossible, b) the majority of the population is subjected to a process of neutralisation generated by social networks, streamings, mass entertainment, fear of the future and a general process of acculturation. Since the appearance in 1973 of Z. Brzezinsky's The Technotronic Age and Foucault's courses in the early 1970s, it has been clear that it was a question of moving from "biopolitics" (control of bodies) to "psychopolitics" (control of minds). This process is taking place all over the world today (see article).

5. The important thing to note is that the historical evolution of humanity has led to what Nietzsche called "the last man": the man-mass, devoid of identity traits, incapable of moralising himself, homogenised, standardised, turned into an alienated consumer and integrated producer, incapable of harbouring values and ideals other than those of simple hedonistic consumerism. It has even lost its purely animal instincts. It has even lost its sense of self, of community, and has adopted a "look", that is, a reflection of its personality that fits the dominant pattern. And nothing can be done against it: that is the dominant element in society, the average citizen, both in "Eurasia" and in the "West". (See Article 1 and Article 2)

6. This analysis, like everything we write, is conducted within the theoretical framework of "traditional thought" as enunciated by René Guénon in The Crisis of the Modern World and The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, and especially Julius Evola in the second part of Revolt Against the Modern World. This framework tells us that we are living in a period of transition between an old world that has not yet died and is unsalvageable, and a new world that is not yet on the horizon.

7. This is of strategic importance: we cannot solve the process of decline, there are no longer social structures strong enough to act as a "lever" and platform for a "righting". Therefore, the only possible strategy is the "salmon strategy": it is a fish that grows strong in the worst conditions in the ocean, then heads back to its origins, to where it was born to spawn: it goes up the river current, even more than 1,000 km against the current, overcoming jumps of up to 3.5 m. The journey is riddled with bears and other animals. The route is teeming with brown and black bears, otters, sea lions, bald eagles and more. Salmon can detect these dangers and avoid them, especially by recognising the faeces of these animals: they travel almost skimming the river beds, often at night... The best, the strongest, the ones with the most developed instincts survive. Translated into political terms, this strategy implies: clandestinity, catacombs, continuous training of cadres, selection of "the best", not "the most". Until when? Evola used Hugo von Hoffmansthal's verse which recommended "keeping vigil in the dark night, until you shake hands with those who are born with the new dawn". (See Article)

Thank you very much.