we know it will be obsolete;rnall states will recognize arnsingle, global authority. . . .rnA phrase briefly fashionablernin the mid-20th century-“citizenrnof the world”-will have assumedrnreal meaning by the endrnof the 21st . . . All countriesrnare basically social arrangements,rnaccommodations tornchanging circumstances. Nornmatter how permanent and evenrnsacred they may seem at any onerntime, in fact they are all artificialrnand temporary.rnTalbott’s ideology demands urgentrnscrutiny. The destruction of traditionalrnculture and community and its replacementrnwith a nomadic civilization in whichrnman will lose his substantial link with thernplace where he lives is neither inevitablernnor desirable. There is hardly any debaternon this life-and-death issue in today’srnAmerica. In Russia, however, the debaternis in full swing. Writing in the monthlyrnmagazine Moskva (December 1998), AndreirnAndreyev defined the issue with perfectrnclcirity:rnThe realisation of the “mondialist”rnproject demands thatrnnational communities shouldrndisintegrate. To the upholdersrnof this project the nationrnceases to be the inner substancernof the state. And thernstate, which constitutes thernnation’s external “integument”rnand lends it political form andrnthe status of an agent, must bernreplaced by a structure whichrnemerges under the same name butrnis indifferent . . . to the nationrnand easily transformablerninto an organ for outside management.rnThe state is nothingrnmore than a local structuralrnsubdivision of a global systemrnof management, which realisesrnthe tasks of this system withinrnthe territory entrusted to it.rnThis territory itself is elastic,rnwhich is normal in therncontext of this ideology: anrnorganization may amalgamate,rnbreak up, merge, and even disbandrnentirely any of its “divisions”rnor “departments.” Thernpromotion of unifying cultural,rnpolitical, and economicrnprojects is often defined asrnWesternization. That is onlyrntrue to a certain extent, sincernthe peoples of the West arernsubject to “Westernization” inrna specific sense of the wordrnjust like the rest, and oftenrnin defiance of their inner resistance.rnAndreyev is cautiously optimistic thatrnhistorical tradition will prove more powerfulrnthan the “massive informational-technologicalrnonslaught” to which traditionalrncommunities are subjected. But writing inrnthe same magazine in September 1998,rnVladimir Kutyrev warned that the outcomernis far from certain:rnMankind is faced with a newrnproblem as it stands on thernthreshold of the 21st century,rna global problem that is probablyrna synthesis of all othersthernend of culture. A true,rnresponsible grasp of thernessence and scope of this problemrnis a prerequisite for humanrnbeings in order for them to assessrntheir various activitiesrnadequately-whether such activitiesrnare instrumental inrntheir survival or, on the contrary,rncontribute to their extinction.rnKutyrev deems it possible that humansrnwill learn to live “without the clamps ofrnculture, without the feelings of guilt, conscience,rnwithout a sense of duty, withoutrnan ability for empathy.” That can happenrnif the individual follows the operationalrnrules. Personal well-being and social respectrnare determined by the degree of conformityrnwith a system whose mechanismrnis devoid of the requirements of moralityrnor the commandments of religion. The resultrnis death:rnJust like the death of an individualrn, the death of man as arngeneric being is not a momentaryrnact, it is a process inherentrnin life itself, one thatrnat a certain stage of developmentrnbegins to prevail overrngrowth. As history moves alongrnthe line “the savage-the barbarian-rnthe personality-the actor-rnthe factor,” man reaches arnpeak of maturity, one can justifiablyrnassume, at the personalityrnstage. This stagernlies between the living natural-rnsocial world and the worldrnof technology, the social-artificialrnworld. The witheringrnaway of personality, itsrntransformation into a “preoccupiedrnautomaton,” into an actor-rnthat is the first functionalrnphase of man’s death.rn. . . The second stage . . . ,rnman’s transformation into arnfactor of a socio-technologicalrnsystem, is more significantrnthan the transformationrnof personality into an actor.rnThis death is similar to clinicalrndeath; it is manifested inrnthe rupture between body andrnspirit rather than in theirrndisharmony and tension; it isrnmanifested, in fact, in therndisintegration of the specificrnintegrity of man. The individual’srnconsciousness capturedrnby technology is divorced, asrnit were, from the time andrnplace of his body’s life. Inrnvirtual reality, coordinationrnbetween information-based andrnphysical being is disruptedrnalong all personality parametersrn. Man can charge down arnhigh snow-clad mountain or embracernthe most beautiful womanrnon earth in his imagination;rnfunctionally he is physicallyrnimpotent.rnThe Russian author concludes in thernspirit of a seasoned Chronicles contributor,rnwhich he may yet become:rnThe starting point in thernstruggle of mankind for salvationrnis the idea of reorientationrnof its activities fromrnprogress to maintaining tradition,rnto efforts directedrnagainst becoming and for thernsake of being. That is thernessence of the conservativernrevolution described in philosophicalrnlanguage. In practicalrnterms, it must be expressedrnin defending the values of historicalrnman in the teeth of itsrnprogressivist reduction torntechnology and intellect. Thernsurvival of Homo sapiens assumesrnthe struggle for therneternal against the temporary.rn24/CHRONICLESrnrnrn