The following article was first published on the Council of European Canadians.
“The confusion goes so far that one stigmatizes with the most insulting names the great virtuoso of life (whose sovereignty of oneself constitutes the most marked contrast with the vicious and the debauchee). Even today it is thought necessary to disapprove a Caesar Borgia: that is laughable. The Church excommunicated German emperors because of their vices: as if any monk or priest could afford to discuss all that a Frederick II has the right to demand of himself. A Don Juan is sent to hell: it’s naive. Has one noticed that all the interesting men are missing in Heaven?”
Friedrich Nietzsche, in Posthumous Fragments
The contemporary crisis of the Catholic Church assumes two aspects. On the one hand, there is the spiritual gynecocracy in the nets of which the Roman Church has fallen: it is symbolically testified by the putting forward of the Virgin Mary onto a level equal (if not superior) to the Father in the contemporary liturgy; and, in terms of political and economic recommendations, it is testified by the socialism, the cosmopolitanism, and the ecologism of Pope Francis. On the other hand, there is the deflection of the feeling of guilt, which no longer plays in Western society its role of regulation of economic and domestic individualism—individualism that was formerly encouraged by the Church with the twin revolutions of the Popes Gregory the Great and Gregory VII—but which drives Westerners into a slow suicide of their race and of their civilization. And this with the ideological and militant complicity of the Catholic Church.
Added to this is the disarray of Catholics in a world where Providence seems to have become American-Zionist: a world where God seems to have abandoned the Catholic peoples, and where Americans and Israelis now seem to be the beloved nations of the Lord, the apple of His eyes. In this article, we intend to promote an archeofuturist renewal of Catholicism: a revival of the Roman Church, and of its discourse, on the basis of the archeofuturism from philosopher Guillaume Faye. Before going further in the definition of archeofuturism (and in our personal version of the notion), we can already state that an archeofuturist Catholicism would consist in reconciling domestic and economic individualism with these two Indo-European archaisms that are permanent innovation and the aristocratic-warlike ethos. Technically, it would mean returning to the Borgia and to the syncretism of the Italian Renaissance between Judeo-Christianity and Greco-Roman paganism.
I. The Catholic Church, in the nets of spiritual gynecocracy
By spiritual gynecocracy, one must understand an ideology of the nurturing and caring Mother, be this goddess explicitly mentioned or be the ideology in question limited to clarifying the mores and institutions that derive from such a cult. First consequence: equality, whether in a legal (with libertarianism), economic (with socialism), or ethnic sense (with cosmopolitanism); gynecocracy envisions human beings, not only as being all sons of the Mother, but as being equal sons. Second consequence: the hegemony of the productive and reproductive function, which means that in the scale of values, economy (understood as the production of goods required for material comfort or enjoyment in the broad sense) passes before war and sovereignty. Third consequence: ecologism, understood as refusal of growth and of industrial exploitation.
Precisions on spiritual gynecocracy
Among the different varieties of nationalism that have emerged in the world, since the French Revolution, most are very largely gynecocratic: an eminent example is the nationalism of 1789, which abolished rank inequalities (in favor of a motherly and egalitarian conception of the nation), but also Hitlerian nationalism or Soviet nationalism. This led Julius Evola to point out that, “The modern world shows a return of the themes that were proper to the ancient Southern gynecocratic civilizations;” and that, “Socialism and communism” ultimately prove “materialized and technological revivals of the ancient telluric, Southern principle of equality and promiscuity of all beings in Mother Earth.”
Evola added: “In the modern world the predominant ideal of virility has been reduced to merely the physical and phallic components, just like in the Aphrodistic gynecocracy. The plebeian feeling of the Motherland that triumphed with the French Revolution and was developed by nationalistic ideologies as the mysticism of the common folk and the sacred and omnipotent Motherland is nothing less than the revival of a form of feminine totemism. In the democratic regimes, the fact that kings and the heads of state lack any real autonomy bears witness to the loss of the absolute principle of fatherly sovereignty and the return of those who have in the Mother (that is, in the substance of the demos) the source of their being.”
Making ours the famous distinction by Julius Evola, we believe that this nationalism of the gynecocratic and egalitarian type is conceptually opposed by a nationalism of the virile and aristocratic type; we would add that this distinction comes within national-liberalism itself. The national-liberalism of the bourgeois and materialist type, that of 1789, is effectively opposed by a national-liberalism which defends the warlike and sacerdotal aristocracy, and which refuses the hegemony of economy in the field of values. This national-liberalism is the one we defend at the metapolitical level; not content with arguing for free enterprise and individualism (in the domestic and economic sphere), it defends the traditional nation, its warlike and sacerdotal order, against the gynecocracy of the bourgeois nation. As it stands, it remains unapplied and is still waiting for its time.
Among the great historical religions of the West, neither the sacerdotal Judaism of the Old Testament nor Talmudic Judaism nor Greco-Roman paganism nor Catholicism nor Calvinism are gynecocracies. So long as one takes into consideration its ancestral form (slowly codified and put into practice in the millennium posterior to Jesus Christ, and consolidated during the Gregorian reform), and not the deteriorated and falsified version that the Church is currently preaching, Catholicism is a virile and Aryan religion that venerates the figure of the Father; it affirms inequality in all respects, endorses the heroic and warlike virtues, advocates economic, cognitive, artistic, and technological progress. On this point, Catholicism fits with its Judaic parent but also its Calvinist offspring; Greco-Roman paganism proves equally virile: inegalitarian, heroic, favorable to progress and to the exploitation of nature. However, Catholicism currently finds itself in a crisis situation, insofar as it has become gynecocratic and has disowned its own Indo-European character: a degradation triggered with the Counter-Reformation and accelerated with Vatican II.
The Indo-European meaning of Trinity
The Indo-European tradition, brought to light by anthropologist Georges Dumézil, is that of a tripartite and hierarchical organization of society—under various forms, but always for the benefit of an aristocracy of priests and warriors. While sovereign authority (i.e., the supreme political authority) belongs to a member of the warlike caste or the sacerdotal caste, the sacerdotal caste always prevails over the warlike caste on a spiritual and otherworldly level; the power of decision and command, as well as the moral authority to decide on secular issues, is always incumbent on the warlike caste, but it sometimes happens that their exercise is conjointly up to the warlike caste and to the sacerdotal caste. As for merchants and workers, they are subordinated to the warlike and sacerdotal aristocracy—through force, taxation, and faith.
This tripartite hierarchy in the organization of society is accompanied by a twin tripartite hierarchy in the field of values: the warlike and sovereign functions pass before the productive and reproductive function, which means that warlike heroism (i.e., singling out oneself and fulfilling oneself through war) passes before production and trade; and that suprasensible intuition and magic pass before experimental knowledge. In dismissing priests and warriors (for the benefit of the bourgeois), and placing economy at the top of the values, the contemporary West has veritably broken with the Indo-European tradition; and in this regard, it has engulfed itself into spiritual gynecocracy, which advocates the hegemony of economy and which consecrates equality (whether in the economic or only legal sense). The Catholic Church, once guardian of the Indo-European tradition, has accompanied the rupture of the West with the Indo-European hierarchy in the functions and the social ranks; and it has accompanied this breakup movement by marrying, in turn, spiritual gynecocracy.
For nearly two thousand years, the Roman Church preserved the Indo-European tradition to the extent that it gave a spiritual validation to the warlike aristocracy and to the sovereign authority of kings and emperors. But also, to the extent that the Trinitarian God (the utterance of which comes from Tertullian in the third century after Christ) gives a symbolic translation to the Indo-European hierarchy—the sovereign function being reflected in the figure of the Father, the warlike function in the figure of the Son, and the productive and reproductive function in the figure of the Holy Spirit. The Virgin Mary, naturally absent from the Trinity, is implicitly associated with the productive and reproductive function, insofar as she gave life to the Son. The devotion towards the Virgin Mary in the contemporary discourse of the Catholic Church betrays the fact that the Church has espoused spiritual gynecocracy; in other words, it reveals and enshrines the overthrow of the Indo-European Trinity in favor of what may be called “the reign of merchants.”
From worship of the Virgin Mary to the orchestration of the great replacement
The hypertrophy of the productive and reproductive function is not the consequence of the stranglehold of multinationals over governments; to claim such a thing amounts to confusing the cause and the effect. The hypertrophy of the productive and reproductive function does not come more from the so-called spiritual desert of the West; the Christian religion has not disappeared, but has seen Catholicism losing its hegemony in favor of a new version of Christianity, a Christianity of the gynecocratic and bourgeois type. The Church has surreptitiously renounced Catholicism, and has endorsed the new Christianity as if nothing were wrong; it has distorted Catholicism and tacitly espoused the “democratic-humanitarian religion.” The spiritual hegemony of the bourgeois, the subjugation of sovereign and warlike functions to the productive and reproductive function, is symptomatic of this new religion of the West; it is not the fruit of the so-called decline of religion.
Prophetic, Vilfredo Pareto wrote at the dawn of the XX century: “The many varieties of socialism, syndicalism, radicalism, solidarism, tolstoism, pacifism, humanitarianism, etc., form a whole that we can to relate to the democratic religion, and which is similar to that of the innumerable sects which appeared at the origin of the Christian religion. We are now witnessing the growth and domination of the democratic religion, just as the men of the first centuries of our era witnessed the beginning and growth of the dominion of the Christian religion.” Egalitarianism (in the sense of the rejection of the Indo-European hierarchy), the contempt for virility and warlike honor, the cult of sacrifice, the fight against discrimination, the sanctification of studies and academic degrees, or the spectre of the warming linked to anthropogenic CO2, are so many incremental manifestations of the democratic-humanitarian religion; and the latter falls within the wider scope of gynecocratic spiritualities.
Spiritual gynecocracy means a cult of the nurturing Mother, and is systemically translated into equality (whether in the legal or economic sense), as well as into the anonymization of individuals who see themselves being reduced to mere cogs in the division of labor. In the contemporary liturgy, the emphasis on the Virgin Mary testifies to the spiritual gynecocracy in the nets of which the Catholic Church fell. The Trinity, which consecrates and expresses the Indo-European hierarchy of the three functions, has been reversed: with the emphasis on the Virgin Mary, it is the productive and reproductive function that is symbolically emphasized; and it is the Roman Church itself that bows to the “democratic-humanitarian religion.” It is not fortuitous that the most ardent promoter of the democratic-humanitarian religion that the Vatican has ever known is also the Pope who, this year alone , decided to include in the Roman calendar the memory of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The erection of the Virgin Mary onto a level equal, or even superior, to the Father in contemporary theology amounts to a tacit subversion of the Trinity—a subversion that has been taking shape since the Counter-Reformation, and which has only accelerated under John Paul II. “I would like to summarize in two words the sublime lesson of the Gospel of Mary: The Virgin is Mother, the Virgin is Model,” said John Paul II, at the Marian Shrine of Suyapa, Honduras, on March 8, 1983. He also affirmed: “The authentic devotion to the Mother of God is truly Christocentric, deeply rooted in the Trinitarian mystery,” in his book entitled “Crossing the Treshold of Hope,” from 1994. Convinced that his life was saved due to Mary’s intervention, John Paul II did not only forgive the Muslim who had attempted to assassinate him on May 13, 1981, the day of the feast of Our Lady of Fátima; the Pope donated the ball to the sanctuary of Fatima, where it is now inserted in the crown of the statue of the Virgin Mary.
With regard to the political and economic recommendations of the Holy See, the spiritual gynecocracy of the Catholic Church is clearly manifested in the ecologism, the socialism, and the cosmopolitanism of Pope Francis. The promotion of Congoid cardinals aims to prepare the native white people, so the European-Caucasoid people, to the great replacement. As seen by Steve Bannon, the Church is involved in the orchestration of the great replacement, not only by dogmatic adherence to cosmopolitanism, but by political calculation: it wants to import faithful Black-Africans to replace the European whites who are losing the Catholic faith. The image that many Catholics have of Israel—a small country that promotes cosmopolitanism in the world, but preserves its borders and the bio-cultural cohesion within it—is only a projection of the Vatican. It is hardly surprising that Trump, Orbán, and Netanyahu, but also Putin, are thought of as the chosen of Providence to defend the Christian Whites against the machinations of what the Roman Church has become!
II. The deviation of the feeling of guilt
Long before it enshrined the subversion of the traditional Indo-European hierarchy (in functions and ranks), the Roman Church already exercised a revolutionary action in Indo-European mores with regard to family and economy. The domestic revolution of Pope Gregory the Great, then the legal and economic revolution of Pope Gregory VII (that which is commonly called the “Gregorian reform”), led to Western individualism in the domestic and economic spheres: in other words, the nuclear and egalitarian family, and the modern economic law, on which is grounded the entrepreneurial, financialized, and globalized capitalism. In return for its promotion of individualism, the Church promoted a culture of original sin, or culture of guilt, which is henceforth misguided in the gynecocratic West.
Nuclear family, fruit of the rupture of the Church with Indo-European domestic mores
In The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe, published in 1983, anthropologist Jack Goody recounts the stages of the march of domestic individualism in Christian Europe. The Catholic Church, from its birth, had enjoyed gifts and donations allowing it to become a wealthy landowner; however, its greed had to deal with the domestic mores, which Jack Goody tells us “permitted, indeed encouraged, the practices of firstly, marriage to close kin; secondly, marriage to close affines or the widows of close kin (possibly by inheritance, of which the levirate was the extreme form); thirdly, the transfer of children by adoption; and, finally, concubinage, a form of secondary union.”
The Indo-European civilizations were based on sedentary agriculture, and therefore required established families and heirs: those customs were intended to promote the inheritance and conservation of land within a given family. In a letter to Archbishop Augustine of Canterbury in 597, Pope Gregory I forbade those four practices, which amounted to disfavoring the inheritance of lands and facilitating their acquisition by the Church. “It is estimated that one third of the productive land in France was in ecclesiastical hands by the end of the seventh century.” Over the next two centuries, growth was fast again. “In German lands, in Northern France, and in Italy the Church owns twice as much land in the ninth century as in the eighth. In Southern France, too, between the first and second quarter of the ninth century, Church property increases from 21 to 40 percent.”
To secure the implementation of its reform in the area of the family, the Church was led to support the independence of young people in the choice of matrimonial partners, in the creation of their own households, and in the establishment of contractual rather than affective relations with the elderly. It was also led to encourage love marriages instead of arranged marriages common throughout the Indo-European world. Thus the Church kickstarted individualism in the domestic sphere (understood as the empowerment and emancipation of the individual vis-à-vis the family); the nuclear family that we know in the contemporary West does not date back to the Industrial Revolution, it is the final product of the reformation of Gregory the Great in the Indo-European domestic mores.
From the X century, the enormous accumulation of land and wealth in the hands of the Church attracted both internal and external enemies. A considerable depredation of the lands of the Church was put into practice; a succession of attacks on ecclesiastical lands, especially those of monasteries, was conducted “partly by the State, partly by freebooters such as Normans, and partly by reprobate clerics who used the Church property for their own ends.” This is when Pope Gregory VII not only demanded priestly celibacy, but launched “the first of the great revolutions of Western history (…) [which was] against [the] domination of the clergy by emperors, kings, and lords and for the establishment of the Church of Rome as an independent, corporate, political and legal entity, under the papacy.”
Let us listen to Goody’s conclusion. “The Church’s insistence on consent and affection, as well as on the freedom of testament, meant taking “a stand against the power of heads of households in matters of marriage, against the lay conception of misalliance, and, indeed, against male supremacy, for it asserted the equality of the sexes in concluding the marriage pact and in the accomplishments of the duties thereby implied.” Duby describes these effects as “unintentional.” The result was to encourage the love match rather than the arranged marriage, the freedom of the testator rather than inheritance between kin. But these features, sometimes seen as definitive of the Western family (…) are surely intrinsic to the whole process whereby the Church established its position as a power in the land, a spiritual power certainly, but also a worldly one, the owner of property, the largest landowner, a position it obtained by gaining control of the system of marriage, gift and inheritance. Such factors are associated with the guidelines supposedly laid down by Pope Gregory I. (…) In essence they owe little to the later transformations of feudalism, mercantile capitalism, industrial society, Hollywood or the Germanic tradition.”
The culture of guilt, aftermath of domestic and economic individualism
The reform of Gregory VII was manifestly designed to protect the material interests of the Church! But it also allowed the economic translation of the individualism initiated by the reformation of Gregory I in the domestic sphere: at the same time as the Church established its political and legal unity, its supremacy for secular (and not only spiritual, otherworldly) issues, and its political independence vis-à-vis emperors, kings, and feudal lords, the Church-State laid the foundations of modern economic law, and modern capitalism (entrepreneurial, financialized, globalized). In his 1983 work, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, law historian Harold J. Berman enumerates the components of the institutional infrastructure that was implemented and promoted by canon law (in the area of trade and finance).
Namely, “The invention of the negotiability of bills of exchange and promissory notes; the invention of the mortgage of movables (chattel mortgage); the development of a bankruptcy law which took into account the existence of a sophisticated system of commercial credit; the development of the bill of lading and other transportation documents; (…) the invention of the bottomry loan (…); the replacement of the more individualistic Graeco-Roman concept of partnership (societas) by a more collectivistic concept in which there was joint ownership, the property was at the disposition of the partnership as a unit, and the rights and obligations of one partner survived the death of the other; the development of the joint venture (commenda) as a kind of joint-stock company, with the liability of each investor limited to the amount of his investment; the invention of trademarks and patents; the floating of public loans secured by bonds and other securities; the development of deposit banking.”
As for the interest-bearing loan, canon law elaborated a law about usury, which “developed as a system of exceptions to the [Old and New Testament’s] prohibition against usury.” Berman writes: It is wrongly supposed that Roman Catholic thought was fundamentally otherworldly and ascetic; in fact, in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries Roman Catholic theology broke away from the predominantly otherworldly, ascetic ideal which had prevailed earlier and which still prevails in much of Eastern Orthodoxy. (…) The Western Church of the late eleventh and twelfth centuries in contrast to the Eastern Church, and also in contrast to the entire Church both in the East and in the West, prior to the Papal Revolution believed in the possibility of reconciling commercial activity with a Christian life. (…) The secular activities of those engaged in commercial enterprise were to be organized in ways that would redeem them from the sin of avarice. The merchants were to form guilds that would have religious functions and would maintain standards of morality in commercial transactions. (…) Thus the church-state set an example for the city-state, and church law set an example for city law and for commercial law.”
The unleashing of greed (in the field of commerce and finance), and romantic love (in the domestic sphere), naturally followed the two papal revolutions in the field of family and economy. Besides, by promoting economic and domestic individualism, the Roman Church was to remove individuals from the influence of the sentiment that had been the traditional binder in Indo-European societies: shame. While guilt is essentially the affair of an inner dialogue with oneself or with God, shame is essentially related to the apprehension of the judgment by others; it was how the domestic and economic emancipation of individuals was to lead to their emancipation from shame. To prevent the social chaos that the immoderate outburst of romantic love and commercial and financial greed would not fail to entail, the Church was forced to find a substitute for shame: it was for this reason, in part, that the Church put forward bad conscience (rather than shame) to federate society.
While promoting love marriage, the Church forbid divorce (in line with the New Testament); besides, it demonized sexuality. While promoting economic life, the Church warned its faithful that, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” In doing so, the Church promoted a culture of original sin, which economist Deepak Lal, specialized in the comparative study of civilizations, also called a culture of guilt: at the same time as they saw themselves being encouraged and unleashed by the two papal revolutions, those two passions that were (commercial and financial) greed and romantic love saw themselves being boarded. At the same time as the influence of shame diminished in favor of that of guilt, guilt became the aftermath of domestic and economic individualism: it came to regulate the individualism that had followed the two papal revolutions, and which had shaken that traditional binder of the Indo-European societies that was shame.
Deepak Lal sums up the process as follows. “Facing the threat to its way of making a living from the primordial passions its promotion of love marriage had unleashed, the Church found a way to prevent this social chaos. First it separated love and sex. Then it created a fierce guilt culture based on Original Sin. The Church’s pervasive teaching against sex and the associated guilt it engendered provided the necessary check on the “animal passions” that would otherwise have been unleashed by its self-interested overthrow of the traditional Eurasian system of marriage [based on shame]. Thus, the social cement of Western society was provided by its Christian morality enforced through the moral emotion of guilt.
(…) It now appears from evolutionary biology that the economic behavior has been part of our makeup just as much as the other instincts and passions. This is Hick’s economic principle: “People would act economically; when an opportunity of an advantage was presented to them they would take it.” With settled agriculture and the need to regulate opportunistic behavior, social mores developed to rein in all these passions [including romantic love]. One way of looking at the twin papal revolutions that led to the rise of the West is to see them as removing these traditional restraints and substituting the powerful but ultimately self-destructive mores based on the concept of original sin. The concomitant unleashing of the instinct based on the economic principle has played an important part in promoting intensive growth.”
The deviation of guilt in contemporary gynecocracy
It would be appropriate, undoubtedly, to write a history of the commercial and financial activities of the European nobility from the angle of the Gregorian reform, which jointly engendered economic individualism and enshrined the “culture of guilt”: one would see how shame has lost its hold on the manners of the nobility (in favor of guilt), as the Church propagated economic individualism; and how the traditional reluctance of the nobility before finance and commerce was dispelled as guilt gained ground with respect to shame. One would also see how guilt has come to regulate the greed of the nobility in its practice of commerce and finance, this same practice which was encouraged by the decline of the influence of shame; and one would see how warlike honor, which rests on shame, has nevertheless incarnated itself in the economic life of the nobility (instead of being exercised only in military life)—until the bourgeoisie came to dethrone the aristocracy by implementing an egalitarian right.
The chivalrous ideal transposed to business, the puritanical and guilt-creating atmosphere, the primacy of the (nuclear and egalitarian) family and of the church, those are all traits that are often seen as constitutive of American Calvinism, and which are nothing but the long-run consequence of the twin revolutions of Popes Gregory I and Gregory VII in the Indo-European mores. The American society is an undeniably heroic society, praising the virile and conquering businessmen, but also the brave men spilling the enemy’s blood on the battlefield; however, the American society ignores the warlike and sacerdotal aristocracy (in favor of an egalitarian conception of law), this state of affairs contrasting with the unequalitarian soul of Calvinism for which God has His chosen among men, chosen who receive His grace and enjoy a mysterious protection and an exceptional destiny here below (in addition to seeing the doors of Paradise being opened to them in the hereafter).
The Gregorian reform has certainly led to the undermining of the Indo-European nobility (due to the surge of commerce and finance released by economic individualism); and the American society is certainly the quintessential model of a society that ignores aristocracy. The fact remains that the Calvinist world, or at least American Calvinism, generally resists spiritual gynecocracy better than the Catholic world does; and this, presumably because of the unequalitarian theology of Calvinism, which—to a certain extent—counterbalances within Protestant societies the socialist and cosmopolitan egalitarianism that characterizes the gynecocracy of the contemporary West. Let us add that Calvinism, in its doctrinal foundations, refuses to render any worship to the Virgin Mary, which seems to prevent all the better a gynecocratic drift on its part. It is not fortuitous that the two great leaders of the resistance of the peoples to cosmopolitanism, namely Donald Trump and Victor Orbán, are Calvinist.
A systematic salient feature of Western bourgeois gynecocracy—as much in Protestant societies as in Catholic ones—nevertheless lies in the diversion of guilt, which has ceased to be effective to regulate individualism in the sphere of the family: it is witnessed by the explosion in the number of divorces and stepfamilies, but also the immaturity of spouses and the abandonment of the elderly. The feeling of guilt is henceforth ineffective, too, to regulate economic individualism: at the same time as socialism is gaining ground (with the help of the bureaucracy of the European Union), greed henceforth proves out of control in Western society. Much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church, guilt is today little effective in regulating domestic and economic individualism; on the other hand, guilt is most ardent when it comes to bad conscience towards thugs and assassins, or towards non-native colonists.
While deploring the anarchic situation of the family and the immoderate character of greed, the Church encourages the judicial laxity and the anti-racism that are so many contemporary drifts of the bad conscience. The gynecocratic face that the culture of guilt henceforth assumes in Western society is also recognized with the ecological professions of faith, according to which modern industry (i.e., coal and nuclear) is necessarily guilty towards nature: responsible for all kinds of misdeeds including the depletion of resources, environmental pollution, or an excessive population growth. On this occasion, the Christian myth of the original sin towards God is transmuted into an original sin against Nature, which is considered a motherly and benevolent goddess that modern industry leaves literally raped. Let us also evoke the mortiferous and corrupted repentance that accompanies the sacralisation of the memory of the Holocaust, and that pushes the white man to let himself be “replaced” demographically and culturally (in favor of Congoid and Arab-Caucasoid colonizers under the banner of Islam).
The bad conscience towards deported Jews, which facilitated the establishment of anti-racism (and therefore, the implementation of the great replacement), cannot hide the vigor of the hate and jealousy that the chosen people continues to undergo: that is witnessed by the persecutions—coming from the UN—that the Israeli nation must endure day after day, and by the slanders that the Western press spreads to skew the public opinion in favor of Palestinians. It is also witnessed by the hypocrisy of the anti-racist jurisdiction, which claims to fight against anti-Jewish racism, but systematically or almost systematically spares and protects the Muslims who hold negationist speeches or commit anti-Semitic attacks. Among European-Caucasoids, the vivacity of hateful feelings and behaviors towards the Jewish ethnicity echoes the de-judaization of the contemporary (pseudo-) Catholicism, a de-judaization that we will see is culminating into the ecologism of Pope Francis: an archeofuturist Catholicism would remedy the gynecocratic discourse of the contemporary Church; and on the same token, it would reverse this very de-judaization.
III. Coming back to the Borgia to save the Catholic Church
In the definition by Guillaume Faye, to whom we owe the notion, archeofuturism consists in coupling archaic behaviors with the contemporary technology; beyond this minimum definition, many more precise acceptations are conceivable. Ours will be: Archeofuturism understood as reconciling the contemporary technology, but also economic individualism—the modern economic law, which is the foundation of entrepreneurial, financialized, and globalized capitalism, and which emerged from the legal and economic revolution of Gregory VII—; and domestic individualism—the nuclear and egalitarian family, which is the long-run effect of Gregory I’s revolution in the domestic sphere—; with these two Indo-European archaisms that are permanent innovation and the aristocratic-warlike ethos. That ethos is that of a society organized and hierarchized for the benefit of warriors, and priests, searching for individual fulfillment and individual recognition through their exploits.
Definition of archeofuturist Catholicism
In a few words, here are the tracks that we suggest for a revival of the Roman Catholic Church in an archeofuturist vein. First, to lift priestly celibacy, which would considerably solve the pedophilia cases, and would open the doors of priesthood to less devirilized individuals. Second, to reaffirm the Church as the heir of the aristocratic-warlike values of Pagan Rome (in other words, the heir of the Indo-European tradition); and the heir of the biblical call to subjugate nature and prolong creation: what may be called the divine anthropology of the Old Testament. Third, to admit the racial dimension of the Catholic faith, the fact that it expresses and strengthens—at the domestic and economic level—the white (i.e., European-Caucasoid) mentality, which is a deeply individualistic mentality, and which culminates into the Revolution of Gregory VII and into the long-term effects of the Revolution of Gregory I.
Here is how an archeofuturist Catholicism would come to solve the contemporary crisis of the Roman Church: in the first place, this archeofuturist Catholicism would reaffirm the aristocratic-warlike values and the Indo-European tradition against the spiritual gynecocracy of the contemporary Church, which has overthrown the Trinity and consequently validated the bourgeois order. In the second place, this archeofuturist Catholicism would come to dethrone the socialism, the cosmopolitanism, and the ecologism which henceforth impregnate the discourse of the Church; and that crown the gynecocracy in which Catholicism has let itself be carried along. An archeofuturist Catholicism would simultaneously reaffirm economic individualism (versus socialism); the need to defend the bio-cultural identity (versus cosmopolitanism); and the need to exploit nature and to complete creation (versus ecologism).
In the third and last place, this archeofuturist Catholicism would put an end to the deviation of the feeling of guilt in Western society and in the contemporary discourse of the Catholic Church. An archeofuturist Catholicism would circumscribe the social mission of guilt to the role that has been implicitly entrusted to it since the Gregorian reform: namely, the role of curbing greed and preserving the cohesion of the nuclear and individualistic family. Under those conditions, guilt would become again a simple tool of regulation of the individualistic mores in the domestic and economic field; it would cease to be the instrument of the civilizational and racial suicide of Westerners. At the same time, an archeofuturist Catholicism would reconnect with the Florentine equilibrium which consisted in counterbalancing, within the warlike aristocracy, the feeling of shame (on which the warrior’s honor is grounded) with the feeling of guilt (tempering the financial and commercial greed that the decline of shame let grow).
Coming back to the divine anthropology of the Old Testament
We have mentioned, above, this decisive aspect of the Indo-European tradition that is permanent innovation: innovation in the arts and techniques, but also in the knowledge of the world and the economy. “The Indo-European tradition of permanent innovation,” which is another formula that we owe to Guillaume Faye, culminates into the Promethean ideal of Greco-Roman paganism: the figure of Prometheus to the extent that it symbolizes the encouragement to technological progress and to the exploitation of nature. However, technological progress is here perceived as a transgression of the order desired by the gods: it means an infringement of the divine will, which is likely to arouse their wrath. The Indo-European ethos of permanent innovation also culminates into the divine anthropology of the Old Testament, by which is to be understood the Hebraic conception of man as made in the image of God, and as mandated to complete and crown the creative gesture of the divine.
Greco-Roman paganism encourages innovation and industry, but represents them to itself as a transgression of the divine will: in other words, an infringement of the order desired by the gods. For its part, Judaism conceives of industry and innovation as the object of the divine will; it sees them simultaneously as the manifestation of the divine nature of the human being and as the fulfillment of the order desired by God. The ecologism of Pope Francis does not only break with the Indo-European tradition of permanent innovation; it amounts to a de-judaization of the contemporary Catholic Church, a de-judaization that finds its culmination in the replacement of the biblical call to subjugate nature with the ecological call to dismantle modern industry. An archeofuturist Catholicism would remedy such a de-judaization by brandishing the Old Testament’s divine anthropology in front of the ecologism that has tacitly supplanted it (and which is nothing but an aspect of the gynecocracy that has replaced Catholicism itself within the Church).
As for the way in which the Old Testament presents man as the continuator of Creation, it must be understood that the act of continuance in question is worth in an abstract, cognitive, and not merely material sense. [i] Let us take this excerpt from the Genesis. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (…) he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” (…) God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. He called the expanse “sky.” (…) God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.”” In the spirit of this text, naming constitutes a sovereign right which belongs to those who are at the genesis of a given creation: to the parents belongs the right to name their children; to scholars, the right to name their new concepts and theories; to explorers, the right to name the new places discovered. Besides, naming means a way of crowning a given creation; it means the last stroke of the brush that completes a painting, the signature of the master.
Yet, the Genesis entrusts man with the task to give, precisely, this last brushstroke, and to complete the act of naming the Creation. As it is showed by this paragraph. “The Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” In those few lines, naming has a symbolic meaning that goes far beyond the mere fact of attaching names to things: naming means to continue the creation initiated by the divine; it means to complete the already existing world. This continuation must be understood as progress in the fields of economics, technology, and art; but also and more fundamentally, in the field of abstract knowledge, the act of giving new names to things amounting to that of creating new ideas about the world.
The exhortation of the Old Testament to science and to cognitive progress is all the better conceived when one keeps in mind the fact that God creates the order of the world, the intelligibility of the world, before the world itself. Thus speaks Wisdom embodied in the book of Proverbs. “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old. I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water, before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. I was there when he set heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep (…) Then I was the craftsman at his side.”
As for man, he is mandated to understand the order of the world, and more specifically, the Suprasensible Order that presides over Creation. The text continues as follows: “I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence (…) and delighting in mankind. Now then, my sons, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways (…) Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway. For whoever finds me finds life and receives favor from the Lord. But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.” It is hardly surprising that Jewish esotericism and Platonic philosophy met and harmoniously married—during the Italian Renaissance, notably. With the philosophies of Pico della Mirandola or Francesco Giorgi.
Coming back to the aristocratic-warlike ethos of the Catholicism from the Italian Renaissance
Harold J. Berman reminds us of how the divine anthropology of the Old Testament once permeated the Roman Catholic Church. “Christianity taught a (…) practical doctrine—that hills, valleys, forests, rivers, rocks, wind, storm, sun, moon, stars, wild beasts, snakes, and all the other phenomena of nature were created by God to serve man and were not haunted (as the Germanic peoples believed) by hostile supernatural deities, and that therefore it was possible for the wandering, warring tribes to settle on the land without fear. This was both preached and lived out in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries by tens of thousands of monks, who themselves settled in the wilderness, first as hermits and then in monastic communities, and who attracted many others to join them in tilling the soil.”
The divine anthropology of the Old Testament was also underlying the Gregorian reform, which not only established the Church-State, but laid the institutional foundations of modern capitalism. The acme of the Church-State assuredly coincided with the successive reign of the Borgia family—under the aegis of Pope Alexander VI—and Pope Julius II, at the crossroads of the XIV and XV centuries. Never has the Catholic Church regained with such ardor its properly Roman roots—the aristocratic-warlike ethos of the ancient Rome—as under the very largely pagan papacy of these two intimate enemies, Alexander VI and Julius II. The Church-State, born out of the Gregorian reform a few centuries before, then reaches such a glory that Nietzsche will not hesitate to write that there occurred “in the Renaissance a brilliant, uncanny reawakening of the classical ideal, of the noble method of valuing everything: Rome itself wakes up, as though from suspended animation, under the pressure of the new, Judaic Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called “Church”.”
It is not fortuitous that it was during the Italian Renaissance that the greatest treatise of heroism ever written in Western history emerged: The Prince, whose illustrious author, Machiavelli, had before his eyes the military exploits of Caesar Borgia and Julius II. It should be specified that the aristocratic-warlike ethos is not specific to pagan Rome: this ethos is properly Indo-European and also permeates the Old Testament, the Talmud, or Kabbalah (whose Indo-European origin is debatable, but which undoubtedly share the aristocratic-warlike ethos with Aryan peoples and were therefore incorporated within the Aryan Weltanschauung). It should also be specified that the Italian Renaissance did not only see flourishing the aristocratic-warlike ethos—in its properly Pagan and Greco-Roman form—in the persons of the Borgia or the Medici, but also Jewish esotericism in philosophy and the arts; and that the divine anthropology of the Old Testament inspired the shattering progresses of the Italian Renaissance in art, finance, technology, logico-experimental knowledge, and occultism.
In Human, All Too Human, the same Nietzsche wrote, fueled with admiration for Caesar Borgia and with nostalgia for a period that was actually Christian (and not only marked by the revival of pagan Rome, and by a deepened interest in Kabbalah): “The Italian Renaissance contained within itself all the positive forces to which we owe modern culture: namely, liberation of thought, disdain for authority, the triumph of education over the arrogance of lineage, enthusiasm for science and men’s scientific past, the unshackling of the individual, an ardor for veracity and aversion to appearance and mere effect (which ardor blazed forth in a whole abundance of artistic natures who, with the highest moral purity, demanded perfection in their works and nothing but perfection). Yes, the Renaissance had positive forces which up to now have not yet again become so powerful in our modern culture. Despite all its flaws and vices, it was the Golden Age of this millennium.”
It seems that the warlike and Indo-European Catholicism of the Italian Renaissance allowed the blossoming of the genius of Leonardo da Vinci in all its splendor; while Jansenist Christianity would mow the genius of Blaise Pascal, just as it was taking off. It is worth remembering how the genius of Leonardo da Vinci in engineering, art, and science was intimately a genius of war. Just as Cosmo de Medici’s genius in finance reflected his broader genius for war—war lived and understood, not only as a means of social ascent, but as a path of heroic achievement—Leonardo da Vinci’s genius as a painter and as an engineer blossomed through the services rendered to the great warlords of his time. A close associate of Cesar Borgia, Leonardo da Vinci earned after two years in his service the equivalent of the remuneration paid to Michelangelo for the works in the Sistine Chapel.
The so-called Tarot of Marseilles—which is, in reality, the Tarot of Marsilio Ficino—comes to illustrate both the scientific breakthroughs of the Renaissance (including the field of Suprasensible Intuition) and the Renaissance’s syncretism between Jewish esotericism and Platonic philosophy, to the extent that Marsilio Ficino’s cards borrowed as much from Plato’s metaphors as from the data of Kabbalah. A master of the Christian Kabbalah, Pico della Mirandola is represented by his disciple Michelangelo in the fresco of the Last Judgment (which covers the wall of the altar of the Sistine Chapel); Michelangelo’s Neo-Platonic Judeophilia is reflected in the twelve clairvoyants—seven prophets and five sibyls—sitting on monumental thrones in the decoration of the vault of the Sistine Chapel. It is more particularly evident in the portrait of Aminadab, the father of Na’hchon, whose name means, in Hebrew, “a prince of my people;” and who, in addition to sitting above the elevated area where the Pope occupied his throne, and sitting as a substitute for Jesus Christ (whom the Church saw as the only true “Prince of the Jews”), bears the yellow escutcheon that Jews were forced to wear under the orders of the Church. [ii]
In the end, our archeofuturist Catholicism, which reconnects with the aristocratic-warlike ethos of the Italian Renaissance, could be called a Catholicism in the vein of Caesar Borgia: the prototype of the “Prince” described by Machiavelli; but it could just as well fit under the patronage of Julius II, said the Pope-Soldier, who imposed himself both as the vicar of Christ and as the heir of Julius Caesar, chasing French and Venetians out of the Papal States. This figure of the Pope as a political leader, and a ruthless conqueror, enshrines and manifests the first of the spiritual truths: war is at the center of everything; this truth is known from Islam, Catholicism has forgotten it. Today, facing the Islamic barbarian hordes invading the old continent, it is time for us, more than ever before, to return to Julius II, the Pope of archeofuturism, who reaffirmed the aristocratic-warlike ethos of Pagan Rome, but also the divine anthropology of the Old Testament by making himself the protector of the arts; and besides, by letting Michelangelo paint the Genesis and defend Jews in the decoration of the Sistine Chapel.
An archeofuturist Catholicism would come to remedy the spiritual gynecocracy and the gynecocratic deviation of the culture of guilt, which emerged in return for domestic and economic individualism. Such Catholicism would not only reconnect with the Indo-European tradition in the hierarchy of ranks and functions; it would reconnect with the divine anthropology of the Old Testament, and therefore, with that other Indo-European ethos that is permanent innovation. Besides, an archeofuturist Catholicism would circumscribe the social mission of guilt to its traditional role, that of regulating economic and domestic individualism; while denouncing deindustrialization and the myth of anthropogenic global warming, and while calling for tempering (commercial and financial) greed and for preserving the cohesion of the nuclear and egalitarian family, this Catholicism would reconnect with the traditional aristocratic order—the primacy of priests and warriors.
When it comes to reconciling economic individualism and warlike aristocracy, an archeofuturist Catholicism is basically a Catholicism returning to the Italian Renaissance: a period which proved able to put into practice an elite of banker-noblemen; in other words, an aristocracy properly warlike and nevertheless active in finance and commerce. A period when the Roman Church affirmed itself as the heir of the Revelation of the Gospels, as well as of the warlike and heroic ideal of pagan Rome; and when, besides, philosophy, painting, sculpture, poetry, consecrated a happy marriage between Jewish esotericism and Platonic philosophy. While the divine anthropology of the Old Testament breathed the Renaissance’s progresses in art, technology, and science.
Pope Julius II on the walls of the conquered city of Mirandola
– Raffaello Tancredi, 1890
Grégoire Canlorbe is an independent scholar who has conducted numerous interviews with economists and social scientists for academic journals such as Man and the Economy, which was founded by the Nobel Prize winning economist Ronald Coase. His subjects have also included a wide range of renowned personalities such as Harvard’s astrophysicist Willie Soon, Yves-Saint Laurent’s co-founder and former President Pierre Bergé, Greenpeace’s co-founder and former President Patrick Moore, leader of the Alt-Right Jared Taylor, and former Czech head of state Václav Klaus. Besides his journalistic activities, he is the author of several metapolitical and philosophical articles; and is the Vice President of the emerging French party Parti National-Libéral (nationalist, archeofuturist, and free-marketist).
He dedicates his article to Guillaume Faye.
[i] The following analysis owes a lot to Tomáš Sedláček’s book Economics of Good and Evil.
[ii] The analysis of the Sistine Chapel owes a lot to Benjamin Blech’s and Roy Doliner’s book The Sistine Secrets.