Highlights of point 7:
- The ideal is a virile and organic political unity
- This unity is fundamentally a spiritual unity
- The dignity and freedom of the human person is found in an organic society, not in individualized liberalism
- Evola rejected the Salo Republic because it excluded the Italian monarchy
- The spiritual environment must be created prior to the political and a suitable symbol created
The Carlyle quote is from Heroes and Hero Worship and is misquoted in Men Among the Ruins. This is the full quote:
The Valet-World has to be governed by the Sham-Hero, by the King merely dressed in King-gear.
If the ideal of a virile and organic political unity was an essential part in the world that had to be swept away—and through it, we also brought back the Roman symbol—we must then recognize the cases in which such a need deviated and was almost miscarried in the mistaken direction of totalitarianism. This, again, is a point that must be seen with clarity, so that the differentiation of the political fronts is precise and, also, arms are not furnished to those who want to confuse things after due consideration. Hierarchy is not hierarchism (an evil that, unfortunately, today at times tries to come back in minor tones), and the organic conception has nothing to do with a statolatrous sclerosis and a leveling centralization. As for the individual, a true surpassing both of individualism and collectivism happens only when men are face to face with men, in the natural diversity of their being and their dignities. And as for the unity that must prevent, in general, every form of dissociation and absolutization of the particular, it must be essentially spiritual, it must be a central, orienting influence, an impulse that, depending on the leaders, assumes very differentiated forms of expression. This is the true essence of the “organic” conception, opposed to the rigid and extrinsic relations typical of “totalitarianism”. In these fields the requirement of dignity and liberty of the human person that liberalism can conceive only in individualistic, egalitarian, and privatistic terms can be realized integrally. It is in this spirit that the structure of a new political-social ordering must be studied, in solid and clear articulation.
But such structures need a center, a supreme point of reference. A new symbol of sovereignty and authority is necessary. The delivery, in this regard, must be precise and ideological prevarication cannot be admitted. It is good to say clearly that here we are only talking about the subject of the so-called institutional problem; it is first of all about what is necessary for a specific climate, for the fluid that must animate every relationship of fidelity, dedication, service, disindividualized action, so that the gray, the mechanistic, and the oblique of the current political-social world is truly surpassed. Here today it will therefore end up with no way out when at the top it is not capable of a type of ascesis of the pure idea.
Both the less felicitous antecedents of our national traditions, and even more, the tragic contingencies of yesterday’s prejudice are, for many, the clear perception of the right direction. We can still recognize the inconclusiveness of the monarchical solution, when those who today can only defend a residue of the idea are kept in view, a symbol emptied and devitalized, which is that of the parliamentary constitutional monarchy. But in an altogether decisive way the incompatibility in relation to the republican idea must be pointed out. To be anti-democratic on the one hand, and on the other to defend “ferociously” (this is unfortunately the terminology of some exponents of a false intransigence) the republican idea is an absurdity that is the proof of it: the republic (we mean modern republics: the ancient republics were of the aristocracy, as in Rome, the latter of the oligarchy, often with the character of tyranny) belong essentially to the world that rose to life through Jacobinism and the anti-traditional and anti-hierarchical subversion of the XIX century. And to such a world, which is not ours, let it go. In terms of principle, a currently monarchical nation that becomes a republic can only be considered as a “degraded” nation. For Italy one does not play in the ambiguity in the name of a fidelity to Fascism of Salo, because if, for this reason, one should follow the false republican way, at the same time it would be unfaithful to something more and better, it would throw into the sea the central nucleus of the ideology of the 20s, i.e., its doctrine of the State in regards to authority, power, imperium.
It is necessary to conserve this doctrine, only without agreeing to level down and without making it the game of any group. The concretization of the symbol can be left indeterminate for now; the essential task is to prepare silently the spiritual environment adapted to what the symbol of an intangible elevated authority has felt and reacquired the fullness of its meaning: it cannot correspond to the stature of any revocable “president” of the republic, and not even that of a tribune or populist leader, the possessor of mere individual formless power, lacking every higher blessing, supporting himself instead on the precarious prestige he exercised on the irrational forces of the masses. It is that to which some have given the name of “Bonapartism” and that was justly recognized in its meaning not as the antithesis to demagogic or “popular” democracy, but also as its logical conclusion: one of the dark apparitions in the Spenglerian “decline of the West”. There is a new touchstone for us: the sensibility in respect to all that. Carlyle had already written: “the Valet-World has to be governed by the Sham-Hero” and not by a real Ruler.
logres, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn knew of Evola; in one of his works he mentions his name in a somewhat condescending manner pointing to his “paganism”. If you wish, I could try to find the exact quotation. However, I doubt that Kuehnelt-Leddihn was really familiar with Evolas writings.
The two had a decisive dissent: Kuehnelt-Leddihn was a fervent catholic and I do not have to explain Evolas conviction in this regard. On top of that, Kuehnelt-Leddihn regarded himself as a “liberal” (though in a Central-European sense, which does not have the meaning “left”, for Kuehnelt-Leddihn rather to the contrary), which I strongly doubt Evola would have done. Kuehnelt-Leddihn also was decidedly anti-rascist and anti-fascist, although anti-egalitarian and “right-wing”. I personally would recommend reading his books as a stimulating contrast to Evola.
A similar system still exists in China with the CPC’s cadre apparatus. Prussia’s Junker aristocracy is another good example of a sort of “aristocracy of merit”.
This statement by Evola is, I think, very handy both as a repudiation of totalitarianism and aspects of historical fascism, and a guide to what exactly was wrong with it. When we look at fascist movements, there is a very big pattern of trying to preserve traditional forms without adhering to the truths that the forms are meant to embody. For example, Italian fascism’s focus on the Roman Empire in its expansionist policy and “Caesarism”, rather than in its spiritual Tradition. Spanish fascism’s focus on the Catholic Church and the archetypal peasant, which resulted in the stagnation of many aspects of Catholic life in that country as the State used the Church as a justification for its totalitarian rule (writer Richard Wright reports that fornication among the Spanish agricultural classes was higher than in most other “liberal” European countries, a pattern that continues today in the American South with things like teenage pregnancy and use of pornography). National Socialism’s focus on the racial Aryan, and not the spiritual one.
It is of utmost importance to realize the steps in which a transition and reformation in ideas must go. The ideas by some groups to implement an “Imperium” in Europe or the West at this stage is nonsensical. The first great task is to enable individuals to grasp the truths of Tradition themselves and begin their ‘personal’ transformation. As these numbers grow, it may become possible to create bigger and bigger networks. Then, and only then, can one even begin the think about restoring Tradition at the level of society and State. It may be well for us to purge the idea of ever seeing these later stages in our lifetimes, for it would be better to die knowing that a rebirth is being carried out step by small step than to see a false Imperium created by those who cannot see that it is a form containing nothing.
Apeiron, apparently you are not familiar with religious trends in the USA. I was referring to the neo-Christians in North America who believe they will be lifted up into the clouds before the end of the world as described here, for example. There are many such believers in the USA. Not every Christian sect is “traditional” in its outlook.
The point is that there is no spiritual vision that can unify the West at the present time. Part of task pointed out in Point 7 is to see clearly the various movements competing for that vision.
I always resonated with the simplicity inherent in the spiritual unity of the true golden Imperium, everything else just falls into place almost with a non-rational(supra-rational) gnosical understanding.
“One of the dominant spiritual visions involves being raised up into the clouds; doesn’t make sense and is untraditional, yet it holds a lot of hearts and minds.”
Which dominant spiritual vision do you speak of here? Christianity, Judaism or Islam? Are these untraditional visions in your eyes?
Good points, Logres. I was speaking to someone a couple of weeks ago, who claims to follow the New Right. I asked about his (or their) vision. He envisions communities of pagans, practicing their own way, apparently like the city states of Ancient Greece. I asked him the a question, equivalent to what you mentioned about kings. How do you guarantee the “kings” won’t begin to battle each other and consolidate; especially since they want to be a “virile” (at least some do) and warrior society. I also pointed out that they would have no way to protect themselves against the dreaded “monotheists”, who would probably have the imperium in mind. Curiously, he tried to shame the monotheists for being intolerant; sounded just like a liberal.
As Evola points out, the spiritual vision comes first, the symbol to gather around. It will be a hard sell, since liberal individualism is so ingrained and anything else seems a threat to that willfulness that is called “freedom”. One of the dominant spiritual visions involves being raised up into the clouds; doesn’t make sense and is untraditional, yet it holds a lot of hearts and minds.
A meritocracy like the Mandarins is hardly possible now, as we know who will administer the tests, what answers will be deemed acceptable, and who will get “bonus” points. I suppose we are already, in a way, ruled by Mandarins, just not what Kuehnelt-Leddihn would have hoped for.
” Indeed, Kuehnelt-Leddihn observed that one of the weaknesses of the Right was its failure to failure to offer a utopia of its own as a counter to the utopias of the Left.9″ (Leftism Revisited)
Indeed, “Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was fond of pointing to the traditional Chinese civil service examination system as one reflecting the ideals of meritocracy. The scholars who comprised the Mandarin class were drawn from the ranks of those demonstrating superior skill and ability. This was not a hereditary class but one where even the lowliest peasants with remarkable talents could achieve self-advancement.”
Interesting that Ledhin (like CS Lewis) seems to have appreciated the possible directions “things might have gone”, but appeared powerless to actually articulate it. One wonders what might have happened had a more coordinated, concerted, and spirited effort been made to re-constitute the opposite of a Revolution, without falling into the Benoist (or similar) side-tracks.
I must say that Evola always surprises me with what a precise mind he possessed – once he says it, very often, it clears away a century of thought, and years of personal confusion:
“In these fields the requirement of dignity and liberty of the human person that liberalism can conceive only in individualistic, egalitarian, and privatistic terms can be realized integrally..”
This was exactly the same goal aimed at by Baron Ledhin, who (unfortunately) did not understand the abiding ideal of imperium – once the monarchs were all equal, the World Wars commenced, and they seemed powerless to stop it (though they personally wished to, at some level). I wonder if Ledhin knew of Evola? I’ll have to check…