A conversation with Richard Storey, for The Council of European Canadians

2gsjgnRrABUb4zYhgrB2BPEdMRNiHnWu8cSAeH6Pk1prKVACUsqDy9xYCGfpGpThi4tJo1w5Fq4Bi7VpwdSVdyfCyL3bggPDkvzzsdJmJVXKggXiCe  Richard Storey LL.M is a Catholic traditionalist, sometimes described as a medieval libertarian. His writing spans law, history, theology, and cultural criticism, and he is the author of The Uniqueness of Western Law: A Reactionary Manifesto. He lives in England with his wife and three children.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Ayn Rand’s notion that scientific racism is the worst form of collectivism has virtually reached the whole libertarian spectrum. How do you conciliate libertarian individualism and race consciousness?

  Richard Storey: Well, at once we need to first understand what we mean by libertarian. Most libertarians would believe they are libertarians because they are Austrian economists or because they are extremely individualistic, I would say, “hyper-individualistic”. That is not libertarianism. Libertarianism is only a theory of law, that’s it. What kind of law is that?  Well, it is the rule of law – a deontological theory of law. The law rules above everyone. The law is king of kings, if you want to put it that way. And so I think most libertarians do not even understand what the word means themselves.

  So, where does this more modern, secular libertarianism, which we are more familiar with, come from? It emerged from an Anglo-liberal, classical liberal background, inspired by figures like John Locke. It is very individualistic, of course, as anyone with a passing knowledge of Ayn Rand can see full well. And yet, even figures like Murray Rothbard, Jeff Deist, who is of course the current President of the Mises Institute, recognize and speak very openly about the necessity of family and of the groups into which we are born; they speak about culture, they speak about religion, and of course nationality – your territorial, ethnic group if you like. That is something you are born into as much as your family, your immediate family. Or at least it used to be.

  Of course, in cities, in the artificial environments we have been created for the past 2000 years, the situation is very different. Your family, or what you might call your family might just be a group of loose friends that you have, maybe who you meet at the café, or some people you see at work and, really, you do not have a great deal of interaction in your community, in your neighbourhood. So, many libertarians are now realising, through my writings, those of Frank van Dun and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, that the former intermediary institutions and communities between the individual and the state, which formed medieval society, were essential in preventing the rise of centralised, coercive states among European civilisations.

Continuer la lecture de « A conversation with Richard Storey, for The Council of European Canadians »

Why French nationalism should embrace Judeophilia and Zionism

  As thorny as the issue of the Indo-European character—at a linguistic, genetic, or ideological level—of the Jewish ethnicity may be, Judaism has been decisive in edifying, and enriching, the Aryano-Christian civilization of the white race.[i] Indeed, there is little doubt that Indo-European peoples have indulged in the cultural appropriation of the sacred texts of Judaism; and that the Old Testament, its myths and its conceptions at large, has played a role in Christian Europe not less determining than the Greco-Roman heritage at large. There is also little doubt that the aristocratic-warlike ethos (which intends to design society for the benefit of aristocrats searching for individual fulfillment, and individual recognition, through their military exploits) is not only common to all Indo-European peoples, but besides, characterizes the Old Testament and the other sacred texts of Judaism.

  An example between thousands of the happy marriage between the Indo-European Weltanschauung and Judaism is that of the coronation of the kings of France, the French royalty honoring David and Solomon and seeing itself as the continuation of the kingdom of Judah: this is how the hyacinth of the mantle worn during the coronation evokes the garment of the high priest of Israel (which represents not only the nation but the universe taken as a whole); and how the future king, during the ceremony, is given a ring that symbolizes the Catholic faith, but also a scepter and a hand of justice that refers to David. Concerning the celestial mantle, various kings and emperors were using it since the Ottonians: let us mention in particular that of Henry II, preserved in Bamberg and covered with embroideries which describe situations of the Bible and celestial constellations. Recognizing himself in the music-loving character of David, Louis XIV had the painting of David playing the harp (painted by Domenico Zampieri) installed in his apartments.

Continuer la lecture de « Why French nationalism should embrace Judeophilia and Zionism »

For an Archeofuturist Renewal of Catholicism

  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.

Continuer la lecture de « For an Archeofuturist Renewal of Catholicism »

Libertarianism, cosmopolitanism, and Indo-European tradition

11-19-18-10-1  The obsession of liberals [libertarians, either “classical liberals” or “anarcho-capitalists”] with condemning economic or cultural Marxism is a dead end. Saving Western civilization requires the wisdom to identify, the courage to name, the true contemporary enemy of the West: cosmopolitanism. Cultural Marxism is a sluggish expression, which may at best designate Gramsci’s doctrine that Marxists must, before attempting the Revolution, achieve cultural hegemony; as for economic Marxism, which is only a way of designating communism and planning, it subsists at the margin. Cosmopolitanism is the ideology promoted by the “global superclass,” according to the expression popularized (if not initiated) by Samuel Huntington: the world superclass consists of a transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people, whose gestation dates back at least to the beginning of the 20th century and whose constitution accelerated with the fall of the Soviet bloc. This article aims to elucidate the conceptual relations between liberalism [libertarianism] and cosmopolitanism; and will outline the contours of a new variety of liberalism: a liberalism simultaneously directed against bourgeois nationalism and against cosmopolitanism.

Definition of cosmopolitism

  By cosmopolitan ideology, one must understand, here, the ideology that rejects humanity divided into nations. As such, cosmopolitanism condemns the particular mode of organization that characterizes a nation, which confers on a group of individuals the identity and the unity of a nation. That mode of organization is the following: a relative genetic homogeneity, as well as cultural; a chain of social and juridical ranks that goes back to a sovereign political authority (i.e., the supreme authority within the government); a territory that is covered by, and which limits, this hierarchical and homogeneous organization. Cosmopolitanism attacks the sense of territory and therefore borders, by forbidding governments to defend nations against indiscriminate free trade or free immigration. It also attacks the juridico-political hierarchy of a nation, in advocating the sole income and occupation inequalities, or in defending a world government. Finally, cosmopolitanism condemns the genetic and cultural differences between nations: not content with advocating the relativism of values within each nation—the abolition of moral boundaries enacted within them—it praises the leveling of races and cultures.

It is a mistake to believe that the cosmopolitan elite cultivates the ideal of a humanity reduced to its animality. The ideology of the world superclass abhors, very precisely, these fundamental instincts of human nature that are the territory and the domination, the identity and the adventure, which are so many distinct expressions of the aggressiveness coded in our genome. The ideal that cosmopolitanism cultivates is actually that of a humanity in which the instincts of territory and identity, and thus the attachment to frontiers, are no more expressed; and of a humanity in which the instincts of adventure and domination, and thus the taste for competition and war, are no more expressed. A humanity deprived of its national and cultural rooting, but also, more fundamentally, of its biological rooting, that is the horizon of cosmopolitan ideology. In the field of values and moral boundaries, let us point out that the cosmopolitanism of the world superclass diverges from the pur et dur cosmopolitanism, in that the ideology of the world superclass counterbalances the call to ignore moral boundaries (on behalf of individual emancipation) with the concern for preserving and establishing the typically bourgeois values.

  Although the concept of “cosmopolitanism” was brandished for the first time by the Cynic philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, it is far from being evident that Diogenes (and in his wake, the Stoic philosophers) understood cosmopolitanism in its current sense of an ideology preaching the relativism of values and the leveling of races and nations. It may well be that cosmopolitanism in its classical sense was only the philosophy that everyone belongs—on a moral and bio-cultural level—to a given nation, and in a “spiritual” sense, belongs to the entire humanity as well: such a conception does not mean the rejection of nations. Be that as it may, what will concern us here will be cosmopolitanism as it is understood (and set up) by the world superclass; and it will be liberalism envisaged in its relation to the cosmopolitanism of the world superclass: a cosmopolitanism that advocates bio-cultural leveling and a certain moral relativism, but which remains attached to these properly bourgeois values that are the hegemony of economy, contempt for virility, the materialist approach of reality, and puritanical or feminist moralism.

The three faces of the equalitarian utopia 

  For the overwhelming majority of them, liberals (be they academics or simply followers of the liberal philosophy) refrain from denouncing cosmopolitanism and envision Marxism as the only enemy to fight: what is more, they indulge in cosmopolitanism at various levels, whether or not they use the term cosmopolitanism; and whether that ideological rally is conscious on their part or is so natural that it goes unnoticed in their own eyes. Is that situation the sign that liberalism is culminating into cosmopolitanism: in other words, that cosmopolitanism constitutes the logical outcome of liberalism; and that the endorsement of cosmopolitanism among liberals is, therefore, neither accidental nor contingent (but responds to a conceptual necessity)?

  Before we answer, it is not useless to highlight the kinship of liberalism, socialism, and cosmopolitanism: those three ideologies (or philosophies) are ultimately the three distinct manifestations of the same egalitarian ideal. Indeed, liberals, socialists, and cosmopolitans are enemy brothers, animated by a common passion for equality; even though it is a faith, an ideal, that they decline in three distinct ways: universality of law for liberals, equality of incomes for socialists, the leveling of races and nations for cosmopolitans. Let us add that liberalism, socialism, and cosmopolitanism—as they have unfolded since the French Revolution—also converge in their common adherence to the hegemony of economy in the scale of values. Such hegemony is not a wishful vow on the part of egalitarian ideals: as rank inequalities were dissipating (in accordance with the liberal ideal of equality in law), economy has gradually lifted itself—since the Revolution of 1789—at the summit of Western values; on the same token, the welfare state has gained ground (in accordance with the socialist ideal of economic equality), and cosmopolitanism itself has finally contaminated the intra-national mores and the relations between nations.

  Let us be clear about what makes the singularity of each of the three heads of the equalitarian hydra. The universality of law—or the equality of human beings with regard to the rules of law that must apply to them—serves as the fundamental value of liberalism: the essential propositions of that philosophy always boil down to some justification or affirmation of the value of equality, understood in its legal sense of the equal freedom of all and of the equal escape of all from coercion (towards their life and their goods). For socialism, it is equality in an economic sense, income equality and central planning, which serves as a fundamental value; and for cosmopolitanism, it is equality taken in a biological, cultural, and “communitarian” sense: the equality of men in the sense of their biological and cultural indifferentiation, and in the sense of their non-belonging to another collective than Humanity. That everyone be culturally and racially identical, and that no one be a member of a nation within Humanity; that everyone be a member of Humanity considered as a collective in its own right (and that he be a member of that collective only), and that the individual be released from the values and moral boundaries that his affiliation to one or other nation assigns to him; that be lifted everything which “thwarts” and separates individuals, that is the egalitarian creed of cosmopolitanism.

From classical liberalism to anarcho-capitalist cosmopolitanism

  In its chemically pure form, so to speak, liberalism merges with an anarchism that respects private property—and, in particular, the private ownership of the means of production. Knowing whether the “truth” of a doctrine lies in the extremist, radical branch of that doctrine or in its moderate, “pragmatic” branch, is an insoluble problem: it is a matter of arbitrary consideration, of “subjective preference,” to decide whether the authentic meaning of a doctrine lies in what its radical branch affirms (instead of what its moderate branch affirms). Therefore, it would be futile that we ask whether anarcho-capitalist liberalism is “truer,” more “authentic,” than so-called classical liberalism. But it is not vain to determine whether integral liberalism, in addition of being anarchist, is also a cosmopolitanism (out of logical and conceptual necessity). We will see that anarcho-capitalism only makes to exacerbate the cosmopolitanism already present in classical liberalism.

Continuer la lecture de « Libertarianism, cosmopolitanism, and Indo-European tradition »