This article was first published on Council of European Canadians (in an abridged version), on 30 March 2019
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.
In view of such cultural affinity between Judaism and the aristocratic-warlike ethos of European Christendom, and in view of the undeniable assimilation of Diaspora Jews (who blend in with the intellectual and economic life of hospitable nations, but without abandoning their biocultural originality), one may see the Jewish ethnicity as a borderline case among Aryano-Christian peoples. In this early twenty-first century, it is quite regrettable that both the Alt-Right and contemporary French nationalism persevere in their conjoint animus against Judaism; while each of those two movements delivers (every now and then) personalities claiming their attachment to the Indo-European tradition of the aristocratic-warlike ethos, all too often their supporters adhere to a common misconception of Judaism as a cosmopolitan and “parasitic” force towards Gentiles. As Vice President of the Parti National-Libéral (i.e., National-Liberal Party, nationalist, free-marketist, and archeofuturist), we intend to show why the Alt-Right, but also and more particularly French nationalism, should espouse Judeophilia and Zionism.
Cosmopolitanism (in its modern sense) can be briefly summed up as an ideology rejecting the political frontiers between nations, therefore forbidding them to defend themselves against indiscriminate free immigration or indiscriminate free trade; it also rejects the cultural and biological differences between humans, therefore preaching “multiculturalism,” moral relativism, and a generalized racial mixing. In the French nationalism of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, Jews have been traditionally envisioned as a “cosmopolitan race,” purportedly scheming to propagate their ideology everywhere in the world; they have also been considered as living according to cultural precepts (purportedly contained in the Talmud) that ask them to exploit and subjugate the other peoples and ethnicities. Both opinions, in addition to being wholly grotesque, have led French nationalism down a dead-end path.
Besides its hostility to Jews and Judaism, traditional French nationalism has also been in favor of statist economics. A new version of nationalism is slowly arising in France, which endeavors to conciliate the ideal of the nation with disinhibited free-market economics; and which is both committed to burning labor law and re-emigrating Black-African and Arab-Muslim settlers. Henry de Lesquen, the founder and current President of the Parti National-Libéral, ranks among the most prominent voices of the new nationalism in France; along with Karim Ouchikh (who rules the party Souveraineté, Identité, et Liberté, i.e., Sovereignty, Identity, and Freedom) and Renaud Camus (who coined the phrase “great replacement” and rules the Conseil National de la Résistance Européenne, i.e., National Council for European Resistance), he simultaneously advocates re-emigration and economic liberalization.
Concerning Judaism, Lesquen made a first step in the right direction in denying that Jews were intrinsically or exclusively cosmopolitan.[ii] Rightly, he praises Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as a spearhead, alongside Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, of the revolt of peoples against the cosmopolitan agenda of what Lesquen calls the “global super-class” (taking over the expression of commentator David Rothkopf). Yet, while claiming he is “neither anti-Jews nor pro-Jews,” and while stating French Jews are “French like others,” Lesquen still adheres to the traditional view according to which the precepts of the Talmud would be mostly parasitic and supremacist. As for Camus and Ouchikh, they praise Judaism as being part of France’s history; and call for defending French Jews against the attacks from Muslims protected by anti-racism, Camus stating: “Europe persists in expiating, or believing they are expiating, the horrors inflicted on Jews during the last war by importing onto its territory millions of people, who, as soon as they are here, have nothing more urgent than to inflict horrors on Jews.”
Senior officials and sympathizers of the PNL
in the company of Jared Taylor and his fiancée
– Paris, September 2018
Starting from the left: Daniel Conversano, Guillaume Faye,
Grégoire Canlorbe, Jared Taylor, Henry de Lesquen, Jared Taylor’s fiancée, and Olivier Piacentini
In view of their objective contributions to civilization, be it their pioneering contributions to quantum theory, their breakthroughs in nuclear science and computer science, their bioengineering inventions, or their microchip designs, it is hard to take the denunciation of Jewish parasitism seriously. As George Gilder, the acclaimed author of The Israel Test, wisely puts it: “In this age of information, when the achievements of mind have widely outpaced the power of masses and material force, Jews have forged much of the science and wealth of the era.” By contrast, those who like to think Jewish culture would be basically a culture of parasitism do not only dismiss what they owe to the Jewish genius; they imagine themselves threatened by the Talmud which they claim to be a racist (or supremacist) and parasitic handbook.
Thus it is not uncommon to believe the Talmud holds non-Jews for “beasts” destined to serve Jews as slaves; it is not uncommon, either, to envision as a proof of Talmudic suprematism the words of Ovadia Yosef (who was the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel from 1973 to 1983) according to which the sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews. Israel is naturally thought to be an apartheid state, oppressing the Arabs of Palestine. It is kind of ironic this strange set of beliefs, which does not spare the new “lesquenist” nationalism in France, has come to reach such fierce proponents of free enterprise and free markets. Far from preaching any social parasitism, the Talmud promotes the very values of individual responsibility, private property, hard work, and cognitive and technological innovation that have led to the rise of the West; and which Jews share with Aryans.
“Great is the labor,” the Talmud teaches, “for it honors the workman,” Nedarim 49b. And, “He who does not teach his son a trade teaches him to steal,” Kidouchin 29a. Generally speaking, the Talmud has inherited what may be called the divine anthropology of the Old Testament; Czech economist Tomáš Sedláček puts it best. As he writes in Economics of good and evil, “God hands over His creation to man in a somewhat incomplete state (one could almost say as a semi-finished product) and leaves man to put on the finishing touches and thus to complete the creation (…) A realization act on our part represents the creation of a construct, the imputation of sense and order (which is beautifully expressed by the biblical act of naming, or categorization, sorting, ordering).”
Eventually, “the key heritage” of Jewish thought lies in “the lack of ascetic perception of the world, respect to law and private property, but it also established the basis of our social net. The Hebrews never despised material wealth; on contrary, the Jewish faith puts great responsibility on property management. Also the idea of progress and the linear perception of time give our (economic) life meaning—and we owe this to the Old Testament times (…) We have a role as finishers of creation—both specifically, but also in a more abstract ontological meaning.” This is what we need to remember in the increasingly de-Judaized and de-Aryanized West, overwhelmed with spiritually mortiferous ideologies that condemn progress, science, capitalism, and the exploitation of nature. It is worth insisting on the fact that individual responsibility, private property, hard work, and cognitive and technological innovation are not an import from Judaism into Western culture: it is true those values were those of the Hebrews (both a “pariah people” and a pioneering people in finance, according to Max Weber), but they are values that the Aryans shared with the Hebrews and which they had drawn from their own background (far from drawing them from some foreign influence).
That said, the Old Testament, with its linear conception of time and its divine anthropology, actually played a catalytic role vis-à-vis the “Faustian soul” of the Aryans (to borrow the happy wording of Oswald Spengler).[iii] In addition to seeing itself being facilitated by the common presence of the aristocratic-warlike ethos among the Aryans and the Hebrews, the import of the Old Testament into the Aryan Weltanschauung did not only see itself being facilitated by the fact that the Aryans recognized their own economic and scientific mentality in the Hebrew Weltanschauung; but besides, saw itself reinforcing that same mentality among the Aryans, in the sense that—with the spread of Roman Christianity which did not give up the Old Testament—it has delivered them from the cyclical conception of time and from the perception of technological progress as an infringement of the order built by the gods. The Gregorian reform of the eleventh century, then the Calvinist reform, were decisive stages in the Judeo-Christian catalysis of the Faustian mentality of the Aryans.[iv]
A partial return to the spirit of Paganism, that of our Greco-Roman roots, will be unavoidable in restoring the traditional Indo-European status hierarchies (dissolved with the rise of bourgeois democracy) in the Western society; a return to the Hebraic Bible’s economics will be precious in safeguarding laissez-faire capitalism. And in order to maintain our economic supremacy (vis-à-vis the emerging Asian giants), which starts with getting rid of de-growth and Gaia ideologies, a reconnection with the Hebraic Bible’s divine anthropology—man made in the image of God, and mandated to subjugate nature and to bring scientific and technological change to a world in which time is linear, and in which progress is therefore conceivable—will prove inescapable and salutary. Hence the nationalist wave in France and other Western countries, if it is to spiritually and economically regenerate the West, should embrace Judeophilia.
Although Paganism—apart from the spiritual gynecocracies prior to Indo-European invasions—does not oppose cognitive and technological innovation, it does not conceive of man as made in the image of God; and does not conceive of time as linear. But let us be clear about the religious roots of contemporary ecologism. Far from a simple return to Paganism, as many so-called neo-Pagans believe and claim, contemporary ecologism combines the Christian myth of the Original Sin (which is no longer, here, guilt towards God, but henceforth guilt towards Nature), and the Augustinian incrimination of the desire to know and to dominate (which includes the aggressive knowledge by which we become the master and possessor of Nature, set up Promethean growth, i.e., based on nuclear power and fossil resources), to the cyclical conception of time in Paganism—according to which disasters, here demographic and industrial, must perpetually return.
It is hardly surprising that China, India, or Japan, as surviving civilizations of the classical Pagan world, are persevering in the path of nuclear power and coal, while the Christian West is sinking into ecologism and deindustrialization. In the same frame of mind, transhumanism proves very much in line with the Paganism of the East, while it runs counter to the anthropocentric and creationist sensibilities of the old Judeo-Christian world.[v] The West will be reborn from its ashes by developing into a Faustian perspective these two legacies of Judaism that are the linear conception of time, and the demiurgic conception of the human being: in other words, the conception of man as placed in a world in which time is linear—and in which progress is therefore conceivable—; and as mandated to crown the divine creation cognitively, technologically, artistically, and economically.[vi] May France pioneer this new Renaissance!
As for the purported supremacist and parasitic passages of the Talmud according to which non-Jews are (and should be treated as) “beasts,” they are nothing but another fake news about Judaism, dating back at least to the book The Talmud unmasked published in 1892. Those who still hold Israel for a racist state should consider the fact that an Israeli Arab from the town of Kfar Kana in northern Israel was recently appointed deputy commissioner; one can never stress this enough: there are neither apartheid nor legal discriminations in Israel against non-Jews, including Muslims. By contrast, Palestine is notorious for its state-sponsored anti-Semitism—not to mention the so-called “Palestinian cause” is only a way to advance the project of mass extermination of Jews that has been the one of Islam from the very beginning.
Going back to Ovadia Yosef, it is worth reminding the reader—regardless of whether one thinks the statements by Yosef ultimately lie in contradiction, or in line, with the content of the Talmud—that the clergy of any healthy and spiritually virile Indo-European people has always preached expansion, conquest, and domination: in a word, imperialism. Let us remember Pope Urban II’s speech at Clermont, in which he praised Franks as the people “upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist [them].” For now, far from having the pretension to subject their neighbors within an imperial Hebraica Pax, as the words of Ovadia Yosef (according to which non-Jews are born to serve Jews) may invite them to do incidentally, Israelis just aspire to live in peace on their territory—hence their highly emblematic decision to return Sinai to Egypt after having conquered it during the Six-Day War.
Meanwhile the United States of America has never been determined to take over from the British Empire. In spite of the economic and military supremacy they quickly acquired, Americans have always been reluctant to build a new world empire. They have preferred to evangelize the world and promote democracy and individualism, without ever coupling their warlike presence with the administrative structure of an empire; the consequences have been adverse, as exemplified in post-Saddam Iraq. Yet, until a hypothetical Pax Hebraica, and therefore the beginning of an Israeli imperialism, finally emerges in the Middle East, it is up to Americans to establish an empire (and thus peace) in the region. Now that President Trump announced his decision to withdraw US troops from Syria, the likelihood of the Trump Administration living up to the USA’s imperialistic duty is all the less plausible… unless he retains the services of a new Benjamin Disraeli.[vii]
At the bottom line, the tiny state of Israel may be called archeofuturist in that it combines its taste for contemporary high technology with an anachronistic revival of the nineteenth century’s bourgeois nation-state, in which equality of rights (under a democratic regime) is combined with race consciousness and ethnic homogeneity; and in which militarization and the ideal of facing death for the homeland counterbalance the call for economic selfishness within an extended division of labor. Hence Israel manages to be both a “start-up nation” and a militarized society. But strictly speaking, the Israeli nation will have achieved its archeofuturist molt the day it will abandon Rabbinic Judaism in favor of a return to the warlike and sacerdotal Judaism of the Old Testament. As Nietzsche almost foresaw, Zionism may well be a first step in restoring the Indo-European tradition of the aristocratic-warlike ethos… the latter being common to the Old Testament, Catholic Christianity, and Greco-Roman Paganism.
The Indo-European tradition, quoting the late French philosopher Guillaume Faye, is also that of permanent innovation; but without the Old Testament breaking with the cyclical conception of time, and endorsing a divine anthropology, Europe’s cognitive, technological, and economic development would never have reached the level that it has had. An archeofuturist Judaism—coming back to the Old Testament’s monarchy and warlike aristocracy, restoring a lineage of priests in the service of the Temple of Jerusalem, and reconnecting with the chosen people’s ruthlessness when they conquered the promised land or defied the Roman empire—may be the very fountain of vital energy Israelis need to unleash their warlike and economic power, and to catalyze their cognitive and technological innovation. In the context of this archeofuturist Judaism, if the Messiah awaited by Jews comes one day, he will most likely be a warlord rescuing them from the UN’s temporal captivity, and returning them the promised land in its entirety—the Palestine purged of Jordanian settlers.
The archeofuturist vocation of Israel should convince the Alt-Right and any nationalism in its wake to embrace Zionism. And as surely as Israel should espouse an archeofuturist Judaism, we believe the French nation—who so cruelly lost its aristocratic-warlike culture, and its position as elder daughter of the Church of Rome, in pioneering the rise of the nineteenth century’s bourgeois nationalism—should feel solidary with Israel and espouse an archeofuturist version of Catholicism. More precisely, it should come back to the warlike and Aryan Catholicism of the Italian Renaissance. We defend the Borgia’s heroism against the socialist and ecological cosmopolitanism of Pope Francis; we want to see a new Alexander VI, and a new Caesar Borgia, taking charge of the Church, lending a strong hand to the populist waves, chasing the barbarians, advocating the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating anything.
The judeophile and archeofuturist Catholicism we advocate could therefore be called a Catholicism in the vein of Caesar Borgia, by which we mean: a Catholicism that retains from Judaism the idea that man is made in the image of God (in a world ignoring the cyclical time and thus allowing progress), and therefore mandated to complete the creation (through scientific, artistic, technological, and economic progress), but also the refusal to devalue the bodily life and the world here below; and besides, a Catholicism which retains from the Gospel the message of compassion, but remains faithful to the aristocratic-warlike ethos of pagan Rome, the virtù in the sense of Machiavelli and Nietzsche…
[i] By proto-Indo-European people, we mean the people of the white (i.e., European-Caucasoid) race who brought their domination (through establishing warlike-sacerdotal aristocracies), but also spread their culture and their language, throughout the Indo-European world via mass migrations from the Pontic steppe (located in contemporary Ukraine). In view of the literary and archeological source, it seems their ideology was Faustian (i.e., seeking adventure and exploit, but also subjugating nature and enjoying the consumer goods allowed by innovation in industry), and aristocratic-warlike (i.e., conceiving society for the benefit of warlike aristocrats who single out themselves, and obtain a properly individual recognition, in their military and, by extension, cognitive and artistic exploits). Besides, it seems their phenotype was characterized by a net prominence of blue-eyed blondes.
By Aryan, we either mean this proto-Indo-European people (who owe the qualifier Aryan, by synecdoche, to the branch that invaded India); or the white man as shaped by the culture of the proto-Indo-European people: the Aryan race needing to be understood as the combination of a race of the spirit with a biological race (and the plinth of the latter constituting a precondition of the former). Until the bourgeois revolutions in the wake of 1789, the West was Aryan in its culture, the last two centuries marking a cultural (and even biological) de-Aryanisation of the West, which amounts to talking of the decadence of the Aryans.
[ii] Many fantasize about the cosmopolitan agenda allegedly intrinsic to the Jewish elites of American film industry: yet it was Jewish director Stanley Kubrick who unveiled the satanic and Masonic rites of the world superclass in his final work Eyes Wide Shut. Better, it was the Jew Harrison Ford, and the Jew Steven Spielberg, who paid tribute to the Christian myth of grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; and it was Jewish producer Mark DiSalle who launched these odes to the Aryan sweat that are Jean-Claude Van Damme’s first movies: Bloodsport and Kickboxer.
[iii] Oswald Spengler certainly had the happy initiative to elaborate (or at least popularize) the expression “Faustian soul” to qualify the Western mentality, he still failed to connect the Faustian soul with the proto-Indo-European aristocratic-warlike people—whose invasions from the Pontic steppe in the fourth millennium before Jesus Christ liberated Europe from spiritual gynecocracy and set in motion a culture based on virile exploit and the conquest of nature—; and accordingly failed to see how the Faustian (or Promethean) mentality was already permeating the ancient Greek or Roman society, Spengler stipulating an unwelcome dichotomy between the ancient soul (which he called Apollonian) and the Western soul.
The veritable decline of Western man does not boil down, as the bien-pensant Spengler believes, to a headlong rush into the technique, but to a weakening (if not an abdication) of the Faustian soul—in conjunction with the abandonment of the aristocratic-warlike soul. Until the bourgeois revolutions in the wake of 1789, the Western civilization kickstarted and shaped by the proto-Indo-European people (most often referred to as the “Aryans”) was both Faustian (or Promethean) and aristocratic-warlike in its worldview—hence the secular miracles the West has been responsible for since the time of Romans and Phoenicians. Although the Promethean soul has temporarily survived the extinction of the aristocratic-warlike culture, the West is nowadays on the verge of yielding to ascetic ideologies condemning consumerist enjoyment and modern entrepreneurial and organic-based capitalism.
[iv] Judeo-Christian civilization is an improper expression if one understands by it a civilization exclusively shaped by the Christianity inherited from Judaism—and a fortiori a civilization which is defined by the equality in law and the bourgeois (as well as multi-cultural and multi-racial) order supposedly inherited from (the Protestant version of) Christianity.
Judeo-Christian civilization is a proper expression so long as it is not used to deny the Aryan and aristocratic-warlike character of Western civilization, nor its character of a civilization of the white man: under those conditions, to evoke the “Judeo-Christian civilization” amounts to evoking the Aryano-Christian civilization of the white race, but in focusing attention on the aristocratic-warlike ethos common to (the Old Testament’s) Judaism and to the Aryan tradition (which prolongs itself in the Christianity of the Roman Catholic type); and on the taking advantage of the Old Testament’s myths (including David’s figure) to enforce the authority of kings and lords in medieval and Renaissance culture.
[v] Although Israel is part of the West, it does not belong to the Christian world: it is therefore immunized—to a certain extent—against the ecologism that springs from Christianity. For more about transhumanism and Paganism, we invite the reader to consult our conversation with Guillaume Faye for American Renaissance.
[vi] From all the peoples having inhabited this world, only the European-Caucasoid populations, and to some extent the East-Asian Mongoloid ones, have developed a Promethean economic mentality—by which we mean a mentality espousing industrial exploitation, cognitive and technological progress, and consumerist enjoyment.
While China was on the verge of an Industrial Revolution by the year 1000, the latter would only happen in Europe a few centuries later. Nowadays while Europe—in contradiction with its traditional Promethean ethos—is dismantling its nuclear sector and its fossil energy industry, both China and Japan are technoscience-based nations. In terms of group-selected behaviors, it seems that white Prometheanism is an individualistic Prometheanism, whereas “yellow” Prometheanism is holistic—Chinese and Japanese having been however able to import the legal arsenal of an efficient market economy which was discovered by European individualism.
[vii] For more about the strengths and limits of the British Raj, or about the deleterious effects of the US’s refusal to establish an empire, we invite the reader to consult our conversation with Deepak Lal for Man and the Economy.