The organization of a block of the type like the European, Aryan, and Roman block is the only concrete task of our future and the only object of a serious consideration in regards to a new law and a new ordering of the people. ~ Julius Evola

In this final installment of the essay, please note these points.

• Evola declares that Tradition is Roman, it forms a union with preceding traditions, with the Hyperborean tradition as its beginning.
• The Volk is a modern invention, opposed to Tradition. Its roots are found in Rousseau and the French Revolution.
• The life and traditions of early Germanic tribes is poorly documented, relying mostly on some comments of Tacitus, and the Eddas, which were preserved much later by post-pagans.
• However, since the Germans were Aryans, we can surmise about them, based on what we know of other Aryan civilizations. The Roman tradition, particularly that of the Middle Ages, is much more fully documented. Hence, that is where we put our focus.
• The State organizes the people and relates them to spiritual reality. However, this is not a superstructure whose purpose is only to aggrandize its leaders and oppress the masses, as some in the New Right believe.
• This orientation to transcendent values is a feature not only of the Christian Middle Ages, but also the authentic pagan traditions.
• Some civilizations may expand, creating a supranational organization. But this is not merely an administrative function, hegemony, or acting as the “world police”. Rather, it is to spread its vision of a spiritual, transcendental reality. Blocks of nations will arise, united by common transcendental values.

Finding it necessary, therefore, to draw a conclusion, only what refers to the polemic against an abstract juridical internationalistic normativism is acceptable in Keller’s ideas, after all, up to this point that is what the idea of State has assumed in certain cases in the modern world, in full settlement and against depersonalized “neutral” forms, deprived of a substrate of quality and true strength. The points of positive reference invoked by Keller against what are nevertheless as problematic as ever, and hardly acceptable from the point of view of a tradition, that we without difficulty declare to be Roman, in order to immediately add that it in its Romanity forms a unity with the traditions characteristic of every great past civilization, with that of ancient Aryanity at the head. In fact, as we said, this mythology of the Volk, of the people-nation as absolute source of every authority, is only a modern invention, that arose in Germany recently and that in Germany itself it now seems somewhat passé, through the same force of European events.

Keller’s and other’s efforts to relate it back to an ancient German tradition are artificial. We saw, as much, that Keller was constrained to condemn as non-German and “Romanizing” the very tradition of the Prussian State and to extend an analogy, he blamed the Medieval Empire. Perhaps he will be able to support himself on such a view of the primitive Germans. But such views interest us very little, because they cannot be authoritative: The “primitive” Germans are in fact only some isolated, dispersed and involute stocks of the Great Aryan tree, and we have to judge and understand their traditions on the basis of that which, in a rather more complete, precise, and documented form, present to us the great Aryan civilizations of antiquity, including the Roman.

In such ancient traditions, there are so many “myths”, but of a more elevated and real content than the modern myth of the “Volk”, which, as we noted, was essentially given to traditional and dynastic Europe by French Jacobinism and has a strongly collectivistic and anti-hierarchical flavor. According to our traditional point of view, the “nationalities” can exist but on a naturalistic plane, not yet political nor properly spiritual: in place of certain spontaneous forms of sensibility and of certain customs where, however, the primary element ends up being less the “nation” than the race. The centre and the indispensable condition of the nation as political and spiritual reality is instead the State. The State is not a mere fact of “power” or a type of abstract juridical superstructure, but an ethical and spiritual reality and a formative and discriminatory force. This force, in its turn, is connected both to an elite, to a race of leaders and to the prestige proper to them, both to transcendent, to a certain extent, values (which are not necessarily only those of the Christian religion: ancient Iran, ancient Rome, etc., teach it) that legitimate them, because there is true authority only as authority from above.

The formative power of such principles, after having unified and animated a “people”, can be projected beyond its borders and, in different ways, does not exclude those of war, can give rise to higher unities, i.e., supranational, but nevertheless well defined, and ordered by a determinate law: they are the “imperial spaces”. The “rank” that goes to assure to a given nation the supranational directive function cannot be measured in materialist, administrative, bourgeois pacifist terms, and as quasi-police for collective security and peace. On the contrary, it is adherence to already noted transcendental values and to the corresponding faculty of animating, transporting, making capable of energy and commitment, capable even of confronting tragedy and misfortune, which is the sign of such a superiority. The logic of the system does not then lead to its extension to every nation of the world, but to its limitations and particular zones, as blocks of nations, blocks united by the same chain of an “Order”, capable, where it occurs, of the same heroic unanimity of a “crusade”.

Leaving aside both universalistic and nationalistic myths, the organization of a block of the type like the European, Aryan, and Roman block is the only concrete task of our future and the only object of a serious consideration in regards to a new law and a new ordering of the people.

⇐ Part II