SOLIPSISM - KALI-YUGA - RIGHT-WING ATTITUDE by Ferenc Buji
SOLIPSISM - KALI-YUGA - RIGHT-WING ATTITUDE by Ferenc Buji
(the following article is actually an excerpt from a longer essay taken from the link below. For those of you who are interested you can find this book in the library section in the "Righteous Living - Online" section) http://www.tradicio.org/english/solumipsum.htm
András László’s traditional Weltanschauung has three key issues: »solipsism«, »kali-yuga«, i. e. dark age, and the »right-wing attitude«.
Solipsism does not sound too well in the European history of ideas - it is made up of the Latin solum (»alone«) and ipsum (»myself«). In fact, there are several kinds of solipsism, but all of them originate from two basic types: ethic solipsism and ontological solipsism - or, from another approach, practical solipsism and theoretical solipsism. While ethic-practical solipsism covers sort of a super-egoistic attitude, ontological-theoretical solipsism - starting from the epistemological perception that every existing or seemingly existing thing is verified by experience - comes to the following conclusion: the empirical world exists only in experience, ergo in the experiencing subject. There is one point, however, that connects both versions of solipsism - this at the same time separates them from the solipsism of András László - namely, that both have the same subject: the individuum. The subject of metaphysical solipsism is not the self-confined individuum but the Individuum Absolutum, in which the individuum separatum is rooted. This final, universal Subject - who is actually I myself - in fact happens to be God himself: i. e., God is the final Subject of each and every subject, and, consequently only by this Subject can each and every subject be a subject in its own, particular form. Thus, there is an equality sign connecting God with my final Myselfness - God and Myself are related to each other as in microphysics when the corpuscular and the wave-like nature of electrons are compared: it depends on the way of contemplation what we call it. Just as Meister Eckhart put it: »the eyes with which I can see God are the same as those through which God sees me. My eyes and God’s eyes are the same eyes, the same vision, the same cognition, the same love.« In other words, this does not only mean that - thinking in the first person singular - God is after all the final, one and only Ego of my own existence, but it also asserts that the factual Myselfness happens to be the God of my own, actual identification. This is the strange situation that made King Sikhidhvaja say - as is written down in Yoga Vasistha - the following paradoxical sentence: »I have the honour of respectfully bowing my head to my own true Self.« However, this does not only mean that the roots of God and those of the individuum are the same (autotheism), there is another point, too, namely that there exists but one Being, the being of this Absolute. Consequently, it would be absurd to raise the question of other beings beyond this one and only one (theomonism): »The true being, i. e. the existence of God, is such a being that appears as non-being, while the imaginary being, i. e. the existence of the world is such a non-being that appears as existence« - says the Sufi Nasafi of Aziz exactly in the same sense as it was phrased by Plato, who thinks that the former »exists forever, and has nothing to do with the genesis«, while the latter »always keeps on coming into being but never exists.« So, solipsism is the logical conclusion of the coexistence of autotheism and (theo)monism - and this conclusion has been clearly and quintessentially defined by András László: »The heteron (the »different«) is the unrecognized auton (»myself«)«. It goes without saying that under such circumstances there is no point in referring to egoism and not even to traditionally interpreted unselfishness either. After all - as Ramana Maharsi puts it - »if one could recognize the truth that everything he gives to others is actually given to his own self by himself, what could one say then about moral men, about those who help others?! As everybody is identical with one’s own final Self, whatever you do to somebody, you actually do to yourself.« This also clarifies the fact that metaphysical solipsism is not simply a question of philosophical viewpoint, not just a matter of intellectual comprehension, it is a living experience obtained by fully going along the metaphysical path, and this very experience is the source of all metaphysícal schools - be they the Hindu advaita vedanta, the Buddhist vajrayana, the Muslim wujudi-school or the Greek-Christian neoplatonism - that are preoccupied, either implicitly, or explicitly, with the basic issues of solipsism.
There is one point, however, that lends a unique and particular trait to the solipsism of András László, and this is that he lays special emphasis on the basic importance of the so-called own-person. It is significant because the different forms of philosophical solipsism universally took and take the view that another person has the same right to see and interpret the world solipsistically as the given solipsist has - i. e. solipsism, as far as perception and reality are concerned, has got more subjects. It is clear that such a solipsism can be taken for solipsism only in a very relative sense, since it postulates many ipsum - or rather ipsus/ipse and ipsa (masculine and feminine ipsum) - and thus, solipsism itself would be hurt in case of each and every person, i. e. every person would make a hole in the balloon of solipsism letting out its air continuously. As opposed to the philosophical solipsism, of course, metaphysical solipsism of traditions had not made this mistake, yet it was András László who, by introducing the concept of the »own person« clearly defined the connection between the person(s) and the Universal Subject. Because one’s own person is not simply one person of the many but a basically different one from all the other persons. Not in the sense that this person is mine while all the other persons are not, but declaring that all the other persons belong to themselves (since in this case the number of one’s own persons would be equal to the actual number of existing persons, and the subject of their own persons would always be different). Instead of this, he makes us understand that all the other persons are rooted in one’s own person, and only through one’s own person do they belong to the final Subject of being. Thus, opposed to both the multitude of persons - and, in a certain sense, to that of the one-and-onliness (sic!) of the Subject - there is but a single own person - or to put it differently: there is but one ego: »mine«. The other egos are actually not I but you or he - i. e. the heteron (which is of course an unrecognized auton). Like the other persons, the own person is also part of the maya (= the universal enchantedness), but that particular part through which the entirety of manifestation, including all the persons - though not according to his own identification (see aphorism 290) - can return to Himself/Myself (atma). And as in every dream where the source and the creator of the dreamworld and of its characters is after all the dreamer himself, however this creating process is effected through the dreamer’s dreaming self, and, similarly, waking up can only happen if at first the dreamworld and its characters are integrated into one of the participating persons of the dream, the same holds for the awaken world together with its numberless persons can only be generated and return back to their source of origin through the own person - i. e. through my own person. Thus, the concept of »the own person« - both in the individual dreamworld and in the universal enchantment of being - becomes extremely significant, and it is easy to note that this solipsistic theory, in its entirety, invokes such a metaphysical practice whose essence is reductio itself, in the original meaning of the word - i. e. leading back. Because, he who wants to wake up has to »come back« to Himself, and once you have come back to Yourself, everything will return to you.
The second cardinal point in András László’s Weltanschauung is the doctrine of kali-yuga, i. e. the present dark age or in a wider sense the cyclic descent. Because metaphysical tradition takes a standpoint by which the constant descent of history is declared, and that the descent has just reached its nadir. In point of fact the reason for descent is due to the beginning’s superiority; as for the superiority of the beginning, the reason is the superiority of the Source: God - for essentially and ontically the farther something gets from its ultimate Source - the Non-manifested Manifestor - the lower it descends. Hence descent is a universal law of being which concerns the totality of existence as well as its particulars (for sooner or later everything perishes, deteriorates, disintegrates...) - and against which only free and conscious will is able to initiate a counter move. That is the reason why Tradition turns towards the past: not to the past but to the Source through the past, for Tradition does not regard old things as a norm but considers that norms are manifest in old things. Obviously modern men radically refuse this thought - and in fact the refusal of this very thought makes them modern. Because the essence of modernity is anti-traditionality, that is the opposition to tradition, and the basis of this agressive praxis is the theory that considers »old things« necessarily more worthless than »new ones«. This opinion - that is the irrational faith in evolution and progress - is in fact stucturally atheist because it implies that the beginning is inferior, and if there were something which were the source of the beginning it would be even more inferior. The logical analogy or the very opposite of tradition’s Metaphysicum Absolutum is the hypothetic Physicum Nihilum of modernity, the substantial root of our world, the materia prima, the potentia passiva pura. The god of modernity is Nothingness.
When someone says that »how can we speak about descent when the age of modernity shows an incredible progress both in science and technology« by this assertion he just proves what he wanted to disprove: for he regards mere material development (science, technology) as the standard for human progress; that is he regards something which is purely instrumental as a standard and in this way its value comes from only that purpose of which it is the instrument. In this manner progress in the modern sense cannot be regarded other than satisfying more inferior needs in a more superior way - and »if we spiritually valorize the jet-plane carrying a hundred persons we must realize that it is not of more value than a merry-go-round. Rather less« (Béla Hamvas). Naturally no one has the slightest intention of querying the progress in the field of science and technology, but the traditional school treats precisely these fields as something of slight importance in respect of the true object of humanity, and in this way it does not even attach crucial importance to deciding the problem of progress. Because the real object of humanity is not horizontal expansion in the human state but the vertical transcending of it: developing from human condition towards superhumanity and divinity - and the collectivum must be ordered by such principles which does not prevent but help this vertical movement of the individuum in being. On the contrary, modern man - as Werner Heisenberg put it - more and more resembles to a ship whose compass does not point towards the North Pole but its own »iron body« (cf. human-ism) - nevertheless we know that for Tradition the North Pole, the boreal region, and the North Star representing the hyper-boreal region with its immobility and axiality, represent exactly that extra-samsaric point from which the world can in fact be turned inside out.
It is not only here that constant descent is demonstrated but also in an area which exerts even more influence on contemporary man’s views and existential niveau (which is often in reverse ratio to material wealth) than technical achievements - and this is culture. Obviously the value of culture cannot be defined from a quantitative point of view: How many books on average does someone read in a year? How many performances is he allowed to attend? How many television channels can he watch? - and so on. The value of culture and the cultural niveau of any age are defined by that inherent quality which dominantly characterizes culture, and which inevitably leaves its mark on the totality of society. If we examine the dominant influence of culture, the insignificant minority, which has superior criteria when choosing what they give a role in their life, will be of no interest to us for the very reason that the overwhelming majority of cultural intelligentsia does not even belong to this cathegory! The decisive word is on the side of mass-culture. Mass-culture is a consuming-oriented ancillary culture and this mere fact alone would be enough to characterise its general niveau on the one hand and its general tendency on the other hand. In this mass-culture which desires to satisfy every level of aspiration the culturally unambitious essentially feeds on the same things as the connoisseur, even if there is an almost irreconcilable distance between these two cultural levels in the mode and fastidiousness of formulation. While the »popular« version of mass-culture appealing to the lowest instincts oscillates between stone-hard brutality and mawkish sentimentality - taking of course much care to give a place to crime or criminality - the »high« version of the very same thing almost in its every manifestation suggests the unreality, the non-existence and the absurdity of the counter-world and counter-values of the world depicted by the »popular« version - and it does this with increasingly greater efficacy and, at the same time and from a certain point of view with increasingly firmer grounding. Since modern man is not aware of beauty and noble in the classical sense any more (because these there is no roomfor these in the pragmatical consumer-informational world indeed) starting from his own principle he thinks that in fact such values do not even exist, they have never existed, and descriptions informing us about such things are nothing other than fairy tales.
It is obvious that a consuming-oriented ancillary culture could not serve the normal purpose of culture: it cannot be a supportive culture. On the contrary, it necessarilly generates constant inflation. And for the person who is able to see the cultural tendency of thousands of years from above it is doubtless that while archaic-traditional culture and art had had an exalting character, and the following culture and art had a reflective character, modern and particularly postmodern culture and art have a destructive character - not only when we examine their popular manifestations, but often when we examine their most excellent productions.
The third point, which is highly significant in András László’s philosophy and therefore must be touched upon, is the right-wing attitude. Traditionality is a complex Weltanschauung covering all aspects and levels of human existence. Nevertheless, we may well say that tradition as the world concept of ancient people, and traditionality as the approach of contemporary anti-modern people, has two pillars. One of these is spirituality, which being an instrument, a method, and a path at the same time, renders man surpassing himself towards his own ultimate divine totality possible; the other is politics in the widest sense, which organizes people into a hierarchically social and governmental structure. Spirituality bears the mark of Freedom, for its ultimate aim is to surpass conditional bonds, that is, to make man recognize himself as the Absolutum, the unconditional totality of being. Politics, on the other hand, is characterized by Order, the terrestrial reflection and image of the celestial world, the mission of which is to secure such conditions for the human world, both at the collective and at the individual level, which enable life to harmonize with divine principles; for the terrestrial Order must in all respects adapt itself harmoniously to the celestial Order. Accordingly, the normative goal of a society or a collective must always coincide with and serve the normative purpose of an individual. And it really happens every time, for as the sacred pervades all aspects of life in the ideal traditional society, thus consumption penetrates everything in the »ideal« modern society.
In the archaic era, or generally speaking, in the age of tradition, man lived, nearly spontaneously and without objectifying of any kind, according to what we can call a right-wing attitude in the original sense of the word. That which is called a left-wing attitude today, however, is hardly older than a few hundred years; it appeared in the late period of the disintegrating Tradition and since its appearance it has become increasingly dominant, gradually shifting the relative and actual political centre to the left (the absolute centre, of course, never changes). This kind of shifting to the left is still in progress in spite of the fact that every notable political party today is almost completely leftist. That which is considered to be a right-wing attitude today, or the party which defines itself as being on the right wing, can only very relatively be considered right-wing from the traditional point of view. The same refers to the present parliamentary right wing and ultra-right wing as well as to the ultra-right-wing movements of the first half of the 20th century, since they were - and still are - contaminated with left-wing ideas to such an extent, that if we had to designate their place between the absolute right-wing and the absolute left-wing attitude, they would all rather be nearer to the left-wing extremity than to the middle line of the two extremities, which is the absolute centre (see the illustration below).
The right-wing attitude in the traditional sense, therefore, cannot be identified with that which is called the right-wing attitude today, because the former, being much more right-wing than the latter, is a maximally right-wing attitude uncontaminated by left-wing ideas. The right-wing attitude does not belong to qualities and values which are optimally ideal, but to those which are maximally ideal. Therefore, the term »extreme-right-wing attitude« is in fact contradictio in adiecto, because the right-wing attitude cannot have extreme variations. Only that can have extreme variations which possesses an optimum-point and then swings over that point. Today what is called an »extreme-right-wing attitude«, if the term »extreme« can be applied to it at all, is extremist not because of its right-wing attitude, that is, not because it over-represents right-wing values, but because of other reasons (aggressive anti-left-wing attitude, violence, populism, demagogy, etc.).
ALA APC ARA
rla2 rc2 rra2 <-------------- rla1 rc1 rra1
[today] [in the past]
The relationship between the absolute right-wing and left-wing attitude
and the relative right-wing and left-wing attitude.
ARA: absolute right-wing attitude / APC: absolute political centre / ALA: absolute left-wing attitude / rra1: relative right-wing attitude in the early period of the disintegrating tradition / rc1: relative centre in the early period of the disintegrating tradition / rla1: relative left-wing attitude in the early period of the disintegrating tradition / rra2: the relative right-wing attitude today / rc2: the relative centre today / rla2: the relative left-wing attitude today / <---: the direction of the movement of the relative centre in history.
What are the criteria of the maximally right-wing attitude? Putting it negatively, it is the denial of any components of left-wing ideas:
be it democratism, i.e. the principle of people’s sovereignty which represents the dominion of quantity at the social level, and which can manifest itself in the form of bourgeois democracy (»government by the mob«-says Plato) as well as of communist dictatorship (which, owing to its lack of effect and its seemingly near-conservative nature, had to disappear from the political arena);
be it socialism which is but humanism at the social level, that is, a kind of »social narcissism« when society focuses on itself;
be it nationalism and internationalism, the aims of which are first to disintegrate the old order and then to form a new counter-order;
be it egalitarianism which disqualifies the individuals, or liberalism, the theory and practice of universal deprivation of values and ideas, which while announcing free competition among ideas maintains the position of an outside director for itself;
be it revolutionary ideology, whose fundamental principle is that if two factors are hierarchically arranged above or below each other, the one in the higher position will surely oppress and exploit the subordinate one, on account of which the latter is forced to resort to »revolutionary violence« in order to shake off the former’s yoke;
be it relativism, this par excellence samsarian theory, which aims at making every truth relative, except its own;
be it rationalism, which appears when the totally instrumental and essentially executive intellectual faculty (ratio) - knowing only the question »how?« - shakes off the »shackles« of the supra-rational intellect (intellectus), -which always considers a particle in relation to the whole, and which is only competent to answer the questions »what?« and »why?«-, and either becomes independent or directly enters the service of sub-rational powers;
be it secularized messianism, that is, utopianism (inseparable from both forms of the left-wing attitude) which the more systematically works for the sake of the »Noble Cause«, the more it tries to conceal the real nature of »the end of history« and the »woeful role of the last man« in it;
be it self-service religiousness, which, instead of lifting man up, is continually degrading the level of religion;
be it the squirrel’s-wheel of production and consumption, the only cycle known by modern man, which is forced to move at a more and more furious pace;
and finally we must not forget that both basic forms of the left-wing attitude go hand in hand with both materialism as dogmatic ideology (social democratism) and materiality as mentality (liberalism).
The left-wing attitude also manifests itself at the psychological level, for while the general aim of today is that instincts should be liberated and reach a dominant position, that inhibitions should cease, and that continuously increasing desires should search for newer satisfaction, what actually takes place is that what is supposed to stay down below and in detention is allowed to well up and rule (one of the most frightening word for a modern left-wing and post-Freudian person is »repression«). This principle having become the basis of 20th century psychology is but the invasion of the left-wing attitude into the sphere of psychology. The left-wing attitude, without exception, makes the most of the political conjuncture determined by kali-yuga, in other words, the left-wing attitude does not control changes (as is believed by certain theoreticians such as Friedrich A. Hayek), it only serves a blind mechanism. Generally speaking, the left-wing attitude - at least in its liberal, solely progressive variation - likes things to organize themselves, allowing them to follow their own ways (»self-adapting systems«, laissez faire), which of course results in continuous inflation, »nivellation« and the loss of values in every field, be it economics, culture, religion, etc. If, however, this process does not reach the desired pace, or if the given category has already reached its natural level and is expected to sink no more by itself, the left-wing attitude often tries to »organize« - but rather disorganize! - things, which process leads even to their further lowering.
Putting it positively, the pure right-wing attitude takes such a world concept as its starting point, at the summit of which is positioned God. Analogously, it tries to organize every field of life in such a way that it should be harmonious with this Principium Principiorum (cf. »Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven«), and adjusts the low to what is higher and what is higher to what is above it, continuing until it gets to the Supreme Being who is above all and ultimately determines everything. Thus, the right wing is theocratic in principle, according to which this divine dominion can only be realized by monarchical and aristocratic (feudal) political formations. At the point of intersection of heaven and earth stands the king, the man par excellence, who has fully realized the human character, not in the sense of given conditions but of possibility, and who is the embodiment of the central principle, which pervading the whole world »below heaven«, specifically manifests itself according to the given field. The right-wing attitude does not separate the State and the Church, the profane and the sacred spheres, because, essentially, they both point toward the same ultimate Point, toward their origin.
The slogan of the right-wing system in traditional society has always been Order based on a higher organizing principle (Sanskrit dharma). Tradition has always been aware of the fact that what the people or the masses need is not freedom but Order. As José Ortega y Gasset has excellently pointed out, inertia, and not the numerical majority of people makes mass the mass. The mass can always be mobilized. Knowing that, tradition has always been conscious of the fact that the people and the masses, being inert and consequently apt to sinking, have to be controlled from above. Obviously, if the maintaining power of Order weakens or ceases to be, the mass starts sinking by virtue of the force of inertia of its own weight (this is the »power« of the people: its own moment of inertia). Meeting with secular culture and civilisation, traditional people almost immediately start to go downhill and get ruined in the end, because the bonds, which have always held them relatively high up, break. This mere »reinlessness«, which was a characteristic feature of the transitional period between traditionality and modernity, has been crowned by the activation of special degrading forces in the modern, and particularly in the post-modern age.
This, naturally, never means that the traditional world has rejected freedom; on the contrary, only the traditional world held freedom in dignity becoming to its rank. Freedom, as a faculty and virtue, was the privilege of the few - the prominent people -, while Order was the task of everyone. The »ancient man« was aware of the fact that Freedom cannot be democratized, for virtus, manly virtue attached to high qualities in the original sense of the word, cannot, practically, be shared out. Freedom is not a basis to be provided for people but a faculty to be achieved. Neither the trade union, nor the Parliament, nor women’s rights movement can obtain freedom for people, because the freedom they secure is never a real freedom. The one who needs to be liberated is a servant; and a servant having been liberated is still a servant: a liberated servant. Only the winner is free; only the one who is able to control, and first of all, who is capable of self-control can be free. As self-knowledge is the basis of every cognition, thus self-control is the basis and crowning of every type of control. Besides Freedom, control is closely connected to Order, that is, choosing Order already implies Freedom, is an important step towards Freedom, for Freedom can only be gained by surpassing the realized and maximalized Order. It would be nonsensical to think that freedom can be realized without strength and power - or to be more precise, without personal strength and power -. It would similarly be unreasonable to believe that any other than the superior can be free; the inferior can never be free for the very reason that it is - even in the prime of its political power - always down below. Only that one can be free who is up above, likewise, maintaining power can only be possible from above.
What the left-wing/liberal masses consider freedom is but liberation and »breaking loose«: emantipatio. This is not the result of personal power and victory but of a deprivation of restraints - which even an external institute can carry out. While freedom requires power, breaking loose, on the contrary, requires weakness and reinlessness. The mass cannot maintain itself because maintenance always needs an inner controlling power; the mass can only be maintained from above: it lets itself go by nature. Therefore, when the controlling and maintaining power of Order ceases to be, the mass will come to the state of reinlessness. This is what liberation and »breaking loose« mean. The mass feels free only when it is released from above and it can at last abandon itself to the lowering force of its own weight, the ontological gravitation which always acts upwards from below and pulls down what is above. The freedom of the mass, therefore, is not the freedom of man having won over his own force of inertia so that he can ascend freely, but of man being in free fall. Thus, what is glorified as freedom today is the diametrical - and at the same time parodized - image of real freedom.
As Julius Evola has sharply noticed, a modern left-wing person is essentially drawn towards slavery and dreads real freedom. This is clearly shown by the fact that the reason that archaic times are considered to be the age of yoke and slavery is that modern man identifies himself with those who were inferior and not with those who were their superiors and free at the time. With surprising honesty, Francis Fukuyama, the celebrated theoretician of liberal democracy says the same by declaring the liberal citizen of today to be the spiritual descendant of the liberated slave, and indeed it can easily be detected in the self-interest paired with slave-mentality in the characteristic behaviour of modern democratized mass-man. That freedom does not pervade modern man’s lifestyle is clearly shown by the fact that under the term »freedom« he can almost only mean the freedom of choice - or in terms of politics - the freedom of election. For the freedom of choice in most cases - be it about political parties, goods or travelling goals - is but to choose the thing which has the most charm on man. In other words, in freedom of choice, man can »freely« choose the thing that is most fascinating for him. Therefore, during his »free« choice the average man nearly always infallibly chooses the greater slavery instead of the lesser one. The masses having been cheated »have their own desires: they infallibly stick to the ideology by which they have been subdued« - says Theodor W. Adorno, who cannot really be accused of being right-wing. It is far from freedom, not to mention free choice, when man yields to the strongest, the most attractive allure among several other ones. Freedom of choice, therefore, is the choice of the seemingly most favourable possibility, although a really free choice implies that man is not restricted to choose only from the offered alternatives but by rejecting all of them he is able to create new ones. The free choice of homonculi produced on the assembly line by modern liberal ideology can hardly go beyond the free choice of the man who can -freely - choose between being imprisoned for thirty days and paying a hundred-thousand forints fine. As far as political elections are concerned, the control of processes in modern democracy is not in the hands of the parties and politicians representing the so called persona of the frontal zone of politics and possessing only very little freedom of movement. It is in the hands of the background powers that are incognito, be they lobbies above the parties at any rank who enforce their will »from above«, or be they the so called »opinion-formers« who, by forming public opinion, do the same from below and who, therefore, make »democratic elections« a mere »play« that has already served for the illusion of the disqualified man’s freedom. Thus, freedom is almost unknown in the modern liberal world, and only on the rarest occasions does it become an issue at all. Instead of freedom, man chooses Tahiti or Haiti to be sun-tanned by the same Sun of God; Mercedes or Volvo by which he can go there; the political party which he believes will provide the greatest welfare, and so on. To sum it up, he chooses slavery instead of freedom, the greater slavery instead of the lesser on, the lesser freedom instead of the greater one, in a word, he chooses that which satisfies his increasingly material desires and which more and more embeds him in the »being-serviced = being-at-someone’s-mercy« dependence system.
Actually, the problem does not lie in the fact that freedom of election is the freedom to choose among the »superiors« (and usually the »superiors« who have been chosen rather compels the elector to do greater service and makes him more like a servant); the problem is that the thing which became the »master« of the elector does not serve the elector. One manifestation of this process is, as Gábor Czakó puts it, when man »proceeds« from the state of being subdued to people to the state of being subdued to things; or when, according to Adorno, instead of having matter imbued with soul (animism) they choose to have souls imbued with matter (industrialism). Zeno of Citium, the founder of the stoic school - contrary to the horizontal psychological typologies - classified people according to a vertical, qualitative typology into two groups: to the worthless and to the suitable, or according to another translation, to the vulgar and to the outstanding. But who are the worthless? In modern times the infallible sign of worthlessness is when man, rebelling against the tension having arisen between his own actual state and his higher state or possibility, doubts, lies about and »misinterprets« his higher state and lower it to his own level (depriving himself the chance of rising higher). The worthless in ancient times were able to live together with this tension and with their own inability to rise higher - which also proves their superiority to their offspring -, while the worthless today, setting out from their democratic »dignity« (Dignity for all!) and practising a specific form of the old revolutionary violence, pull down all they can see up above them to their own level. But the nature of worthlessness and vulgarity can come to light precisely when it is compared to suitableness, for the suitable are not those who are experts in, say, arts, professions or sports, but those who are suitable for and outstanding in surpassing themselves ad indefinitum and ad infinitum, who can win total freedom for themselves. They are described by the well-known guide of the shallow, the Arrived, the Buddha: »Look at the happiness of the Arhats! You cannot see any trace of desire in them. They have cut off the thought of »I am«, they have broken the net of illusion. They are motionless, beginningless, immaculate, real Persons, they are those who have become God, they are great heroes, the sons of Awareness, imperturbable in any situation, free of the compulsion of reincarnation, they are those who stand above their conquered »ego«, they have won their own battle in the world, they voice the »roar of the lion«; those who have woken up are truly incomparable«. But is there any hope of reaching freedom and surpassing - if not oneself - at least his own vulgar nature for one who makes himself vulgar together with millions day by day? Is there a more effective means of making oneself vulgar than by watching, listening to, reading, and doing the same as, that is, having the same cultural nourishment as hundreds and hundreds of thousands of others?
Modern spirituality strays to a very dangerous path if it has an aversion to, or rather, if it looks down on politics and believes in the incompatibility of spirituality and politics, of spirit and power, because apoliticism almost inevitably leads - unless the undifferentiated denial of politics is preceded by a sharp differentiation (cf. aphorism 445) - to being at the mercy of the background-radiation of the prevailing politics. In present-day Hungary this process manifests itself in an aggressive extreme-liberal »undifferentiationism«, which aiming at the disintegration of everything valuable and allowing radicalism only for its own use, deprives other approaches from their own radix, from their own root and from their vivid connection with their own source (which always results in the slow wasting-away of the given organism). Obviously, the spirituality that has come into being under the aegis of this political background-radiation will thoroughly bear the stamp of its characteristics and will lose its own which made spirituality what it was in the age of tradition, and which makes spirituality what it is in every circumstance. Accordingly, modern pseudo-spiritual man, instead of choosing a heroic spiritual battle, gives himself up to the drawing force of obscure and indefinable powers, and instead of rising higher he would like to abandon himself to something, although he does not know exactly to what. It is not surprising at all then that »meditation« in the thoroughly unmanly, self-service consume-spirituality is not the » battle royal« (Ramana Maharsi) performed by ancient man proceeding upon the spiritual path, but in fact relaxation. The »glory« of the modern age is that it has made meditation - which used to be the privilege of the most prominent people - one of the forms of relaxation available for anyone. As we all know well, when a fully materialized - too heavily-grown - man who has been cut off his higher life-context »starts to relax«, only the lowest point can set a limit to his sinking.
__________________ Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon
With people being more and more cavalier with the use of the word "fascism" to quickly dismiss the Bush II mafiya, or any other mafiya or negative expression of national or international gangsterism and megalomania, let's set the record straight.
Hopefully this essay will get the above mentioned morally trigger-happy but ignorant people to open their eyes, do their own research and draw their own conclusions, instead of the ones Socialist/Marxist-Leninist/Globalist massmedia are conditioning them to draw.
I know it's a big read but I warmly recommend all of you to read Evola's complete outlining of a few negative and positive aspects of Fascism.
If we are ever to learn from history, the study of these ideas are vital. Let's not be put off by disinformation, falsification of history and the deliberate corruption of words.
Political correctness is a Communist invention. Let's not fall in their trap!
<a href="http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id24.html">Fascism and the Traditional Political Idea</a>.
In 1964, Julius Evola, a few years after having stated at his trial in Rome 'I am not a Fascist nor, a fortiori, an anti-Fascist, I am a super-Fascist', published 'Fascismo visto della Destra' ('Fascism As Seen From The Right'), a critical study of Fascism on the plane of principles. Meanwhile, on a far lower plane of their own, using underhand methods corresponding to their intellectual level and gruesomely gory propaganda corresponding to their spiritual level, the representatives of what F.P. Yockey called the anti-Western forces, back in power in Europe for two decades, were busy demonising both National Socialism and Fascism, especially the former, and brainwashing the European peoples, while many of those who had adhered to the Weltanschauung of these regimes, either disowned it opportunistically or sentimentalised it idealistically.
Beyond idealisation as well as demonisation, Evola, imperturbably, was by this time in a position to achieve that work of discrimination between the positive and the negative aspects of Fascism, as well as of National Socialism, which he had started in the early 1930's in a series of articles which revolved around three main motifs. These were : (1) a re-assumption of the spiritual idea of Empire in the perspective of a united, hierarchical as opposed to federalist, Europe, that is a New European Order, led by Germany and Italy - the conditions of such unity and the means to reach it ; (2) a critical and detailed comparative analysis of National Socialist ideology and Fascist ideology, attempting to bring them together after having rectified them from a radical traditional point of view ; and (3) the examination of various more contingent questions of the social and economic order.
In fact, one of the greatest merits of Evola's political work on this subject is that of having shown that, contrarily to what is generally assumed nowadays, Fascism and National Socialism, as well as other contemporaneous nationalist movements, far from being mere products of modern times, were essentially based on the founding principles of European civilisation, as they manifested themselves in a much purer manner, for example, in ancient Rome and, later on, in the European societies of the Middle Ages. From this higher point of view, it becomes clear that Fascism and National Socialism cannot be regarded as at all similar to communism, but that, on the contrary, the former are intrinsically opposed to the latter, while the true 'twin sisters' are communist democracies and liberal democracies.
Evola does not invite us merely to an act of testimony in this work, but in accordance with his non-intellectualistic approach to reality, perfectly conscious of the problematic nature of the task to be carried out, he asserts that these perennial values, partly assumed by Fascism and National Socialism, need to be re-assumed, fully re-assumed, in order that a New European Order may be created on the ruins of the current Western world.
'Fascismo e l'idea politica tradizionale' is particularly important in this context, in that it can be considered as the pattern of 'Fascismo visto della Destra', and as a foretaste of it for English-speaking readers, since the latter has not been translated into English yet.
FASCISM AND THE TRADITIONAL POLITICAL IDEA
As is well known, 'neo-Fascists' is the word which is now used, both in the democratic and in the communist milieux, to designate those who, in Italy and elsewhere, are still standing up and fighting for a higher political idea. In a way, moreover, this designation has been accepted by these groups themselves. A situation not devoid of misunderstanding and danger has thus been created which often plays into the adversary's hand. Hence, among other things, the fact that people speak, in an obviously pejorative manner, of 'nostalgias'. As a matter of fact, the part played among the forces which we have just mentioned by what can be called mythologising is obvious : a myth has been made of Fascism and Mussolini, and what is focused on, in general, is a historically conditioned reality and the man who was the centre of it, rather than an idea which can be worthwhile in itself and for itself, independently of these conditionalities, an idea, therefore, which is not confined to a past as an object of more or less inane 'nostalgia', but on the contrary remains today well-defined and retains today all its meaning.
Let us be quite clear about this : as against the detractors, those who change their opinion, and the mediocre moral figures of our times, we do not repudiate the past, but acknowledge all the value which the Fascist period had in Italian history, and that which the National Socialist period had in that of Germany. There is nothing to be carped at. However, a Mussolini cannot be resuscitated, nor can the general premises which made possible the advent of historical Fascism and its development be restored. We must make it clear that we cannot content ourselves with this distressing acknowledgment, and that mere nostalgias and mythologisations will not fit us for the tasks which we are called to today.
As we have said, it is necessary not to give weapons to the adversaries. What is always peculiar to 'mythologisation' is 'idealisation', that is to say, the accentuation of the positive and the elimination of the negative regarding the object. Whoever, unlike the 'neo-Fascists' of the new generation, lived during Fascism and, therefore, had a direct experience of the men and of the system, knows that not everything was ideal. As long as Fascism existed, because it was a reconstructionist movement in motion with possibilities which were not exhausted, it was not right to criticise it beyond a certain point. Whoever, like us, supported an order of ideas coinciding only in part with Fascism (and with National Socialism), collaborated with these movements in spite of the precise consciousness of those incomplete or deviated sides, and did so counting precisely on further possible developments which hopefully would have eliminated them.
But now that Fascism is behind us as a reality of past history, our attitude cannot be the same. Instead of the 'idealisation' peculiar to 'myth', a work of discrimination is necessary : to distinguish the positive from the negative, to re-assume, to develop adequately and to assert only the positive. Moreover, therefore, the epithets 'Fascist' and 'neo-Fascist' should not be indiscriminately adopted. We should endorse and identify ourselves only with what was positive in Fascism, and not with what was not positive in it. It is only in this way that we can prevent ourselves from being easily out-manoeuvred by the adversaries, who find it naturally convenient, by means of a process opposed to that of 'idealisation', to make an opposite myth of Fascism, highlighting solely its problematic sides in order to be able to denigrate and cast odium on the whole thing. This process, let us note in passing, because we are not directly concerned with it, was applied with even more astounding success in Germany than in Italy : it is incredible how the younger German generation has followed in the most passive manner those who have presented the whole of National Socialism as a set of horrors and aberrations, giving to everything the same value, whereas, in Germany's case, the aforementioned discrimination, on account of the relations which Nazism had with a political tradition which was superior and prior to it, should have been much easier than it was in Italy.
Further, and in addition to the identifiably negative and the positive attributes, and because of their character as restorative or reconstructionist movements still in motion which we have just mentioned, these national currents contained various possibilities and tendencies not well differentiated, and only the future could have shown which would have prevailed, if the military catastrophe and the weakening of the peoples had not stopped everything. The general unity in Italy and in Germany did not exclude tensions of some importance within their systems. This demonstrates the illegitimacy of 'mythologisation' and the necessity of selectivity : Fascism cannot be assumed without distinction, as a whole. We have to know clearly what it is that we are declaring ourselves to be in favour of, among the possibilities which Fascism, like any analogous movement of yesterday, contained in an as yet undifferentiated manner. Besides, if we think of the two Fascisms, of that of the Ventennio and that of the Social Republic, united, surely, by a continuity of faith and 'combattentismo' (1), but very different in political doctrine because of the fatal force of circumstances, the necessity of choice will become even more obvious, as will the fact that the 'myth' only leads to misunderstandings and dangerous confusions.
A last consideration, more important than all those which we have just exposed : those today who want to fight the right fight must not give the impression that they are like those born since the events they idealise, and therefore with no direct experience of them, who think that only yesterday holds absolute truth. Here both the danger of 'myth' and the misunderstanding of those who speak facilely of 'Fascism' and experience no difficulty in being called purely and simply 'Fascists' become clear. There is, basically, a fundamental difference between those who have Fascism (or National Socialism for Germany, or similar movements such as the Spanish Phalange or Belgian Rexism) as their only point of reference, making their political and doctrinal horizon start and end in them, and those who, on the contrary, consider these movements to have been particular forms in which ideas and principles of a previous tradition re-manifested themselves and acted. The latter take these movements as bases not in themselves and for themselves or merely in terms of what was original and 'revolutionary' in them in a narrow sense, but rather in the sense that they incarnated these ideas and these principles in their own specific ways, more or less imperfectly, and adapted them to changed circumstances. Now, to assume this second attitude obviously means not only to acknowledge even more the necessity of the aforementioned discrimination, but also to declare oneself for the precise direction in which it must be made. This would constitute the fundamental proof of vocations. A great spirit of the past century, the Catholic and Spanish statesman Donoso Cortès, spoke of the times which were approaching for Europe, foretold by the first revolutionary and socialist movements, as those of 'the absolute negations and the sovereign assertions'. Those times have come.
A right-wing radicalism has to be opposed to the left-wing radicalism. But, more than that, the direction of the discrimination we have mentioned a short while ago cannot be doubted : beyond the 'myth', beyond nostalgia, beyond the mourning for the great man, fascism can be used as a base only insofar as it was a manifestation and re-assumption of the great European political tradition, of that which acted in a formative manner on the spiritual, political and social plane before the French revolution, before the advent of the third estate and the world of masses, before the bourgeois and industrial revolution and all its consequences and the sets of congruent actions and reactions which have led to Europe's current prostration, to all that threatens the definitive destruction of what little may still be left of the European civilisation and the white race.
The historical task of qualified men nowadays would be to assume as starting point the elements of that heritage which manifested themselves again in Fascism, and to complete them so as to free them from the deviant or even perverted inflections which had become associated with them and which were to some extent the effects of the very evil to be fought. Unfortunately, however, we have not even seen the beginning of this yet. If, among those who are still standing, there is a certain unanimity about what must be denied and fought, the positive counterpart is weak and fleeting, and the radicalism of a correctly formulated and consistently developed idea is as yet nonexistent. During all these post-war years, apart from loyalist or nostalgic manifestations and the activities of vague political oppositionist parties which show a very poor inner unity - in Italy, the MSI (2) is as fragmented as the monarchist parties - not a single book - not a single one - has been published which, leaving aside the myths of the man and of the system, worried about giving, in terms of a clear political doctrine and of a general doctrine of the antidemocratic and antisocialist state, sound points of reference. This is the vacuum which still exists on the side of the 'national' groups, no matter how good their intentions.
Having explained the gravity of the problem, it would be frivolous for us to pretend to solve it, on this plane, with what is possible in a short essay. What will follow must thus be considered as a simple outline, limited to a few essential points, in need, therefore, of being supplemented by a much vaster, more detailed and documented exposition. Here, we present merely a simple excursus, meant to fix some fundamental ideas present in Fascism which can be enhanced from a higher, traditional, point of view, and which, once separated from the rest and developed, can be used as a foundation of a true right-wing radicalism (3).
dea of the State
Fascism originated from a reaction, fueled mainly by the 'combattentistico' (1) element, against a crisis which was essentially the crisis of the very idea of the state - of authority and of the Imperium. Italy was still under the influence of the unfortunate ideologies of the Risorgimento period. It appeared as a secular state, where the Masonic influence was powerful, with a mediocre liberal government and a weakened, that is, a parliamentary and constitutional, Monarchy ; as a state which, on the whole, was deprived of a 'myth' in the positive sense, that is of a higher guiding and organising idea. That a nation in such conditions was not in a position to face the problems which the forces set in motion by the war and the post-war period presented, and to oppose the ideologies and the social suggestions of the imminent revolution of the fourth estate, was becoming each day more and more obvious. The merit of Fascism was above all to have rectified, in Italy, the idea of the state, to have set up the base for a strong government, asserting the pure principle of authority and political sovereignty.
In principle, in the fascist doctrine, all such ideologies as the romantic one, that of the society of nations, and the democratic one, were overcome, and a pre-eminence was accorded to the state, the dignity of a power by virtue of which the nation has a consciousness, a form, and a will and takes part in a supranatural order. The trinomial of the Ventennio Fascism, 'Authority, Order, Justice' reassumes undeniably the political tradition which created all the great European states. What is more, Fascism evoked again the Roman idea as higher integration of the 'myth' of the new political organism, and as the ideal for the assertion of the new type of the Italian man who was to have the power in his hands. All this is positive in Fascism, and its message, if a reconstructionist movement were again made possible for us or for Europe, would not need to be changed. We need merely to eliminate the deviations of the system.
Totalitarianism and the 'Ethical State'
The first of these deviations is totalitarianism. The principle of a central incontrovertible authority degenerates when it asserts itself in a system which controls everything and intervenes in everything, according to the formula 'Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state'. Such a formula can be proclaimed within a totalitarian Soviet etatism, given its materialist, mechanist and collectivist premises, not in a traditional system, which is based on spiritual values. The traditional state is organic, but not totalitarian. It is differentiated and articulated, it admits of zones of partial autonomy. It co-ordinates and makes subordinate to a higher unity forces whose liberty, however, it respects. It is precisely because it is strong that it does not need a mechanical centralisation. According to a happy formula, it is omnia potens, not omnia facens (W.Heinrich), that is to say that it holds an absolute power in its centre, which it can and must enforce when necessary - but it does not interfere everywhere, it does not substitute for everything, it does not want a barracks-style enlistment nor a levelling conventionalism, but free acknowledgment and loyalty ; it does not proceed to impertinent and obtuse interventions of the public into the private. The traditional picture is that of a natural gravitation of parts, or partial unities, around a centre which commands without compelling, acts through prestige and through an authority which can, surely, resort to force, but abstains from it as much as possible.
Whoever lived in the Fascist period knows the distance which unfortunately existed between the praxis of the regime and this ideal of the true state. What must thus be considered as an aberration of the system is the conception of the so-called 'ethical state', by which the atmosphere of the state is coarsened to that of an educationalist or a reformer and the ideal of the leader to that of an unbearable and invasive pedagogue. The relations which exist between the leader and his followers on a virile and 'combattentistico' (1) plane, which are based on free adhesion and mutual respect and non-interference in what is solely personal beyond what is objectively required for the purpose of common action, illustrate the opposite direction, which is the positive one.
So, all that in Fascism had the character of a state pedagogism and of a pressure not on the political objective plane, but on that of the moral personal life, must be rejected. A typical example among many : that of the so-called Fascist 'demographic campaign', odious even if it had not been based on an absurd principle according to which 'numbers are power', a principle contradicted by all known history, the 'numbers' having always been made subject by small groups of dominating peoples, empires having been founded by these groups and not by the demographic overflow of masses of pariahs and underprivileged pouring out onto the lands of the richer and having no other right than their poverty and their procreative incontinence.
One official, one of the brave defenders of Giarabub (4) did not get the promotion of rank which he was expecting, because, not following the imperative of the 'demographic campaign', he did not get married. Another, rightly, considered precipitate resignation from the army (5). Neither the 'totalitarian' idea, nor that of the 'ethical state', nor the control of purely personal life, should be re-assumed by the inheritors of Fascism.
State and Nation
We have already pointed out that the traditional principle of the pre-eminence of the state over what is merely people and nation asserted itself again in the doctrine of Fascism. This idea must be re-assumed and further developed in the direction of a precise ideal opposition between state and 'society', gathering in the word 'society' all those values, those interests and those dispositions which concern the physical and vegetative side of a community and which are linked to mere pacific living and are not organised according to a higher idea. The antithesis between political systems which gravitate around the idea of state and those which gravitate on the contrary around the idea of 'society' is fundamental. The latter comprise all the varieties of bourgeois democracy, of natural right and so forth up to socialism, the horizon of socialism too being limited to physical and collectivist values for the simple reason that it has as its only base the world and its economic processes.
However, a similarly degenerated idea of nationalism has not been clearly criticised and avoided by fascists : a nationalism calling on the mere feelings of fatherland and people, and associated with a 'traditionalism' which in Italy, on account of the very character of the previous history of this nation, could not have anything in common with tradition meant in a higher sense, but was limited to a mediocre conservatism of the bourgeois kind, 'priggish', catholicising and conventionalist. The aggregation of the nationalist group to the Fascist party, once power was conquered, contributed to this limitation of the revolutionary Fascist idea ; besides, there were the tactical reasons which led one to play on feelings easy to reawaken in the struggle against the left-wing currents. Now, we have to go beyond this, conscious of the naturalist and in a sense pre-political character which the feeling of fatherland and nation has, a pre-political character not entirely distinct from mere family feeling. We must discern what it is that, in contrast, unites a nation on the basis of an idea and of a symbol of sovereignty. It is all the more appropriate to consider this, when we note how easy it is to abuse the call for 'fatherland' and 'nation' through an empty and mendacious rhetoric : it can be seen nowadays, in the ostentatious patriotism employed for tactical and electoral purposes even by parties which in their essence tend not only to be anti-state but also to deny the possible higher content which can be gathered by a purified nationalism.
The great problem which, nowadays, given that the general conditions are fundamentally changed, is extremely difficult to solve practically, concerns the institutional system in which the principle of pure political and spiritual authority must be positivised. Various criticisms have been leveled, from various points of view, against 'diarchy', that is, against the coexistence of Monarchy and a sort of dictatorship in the Fascist period. Some people have thought they could recognise in the Fascist acceptance of the monarchic institution a misunderstanding or a fault by the revolutionary force of the Mussolinian movement. The truth is that, if a true Monarchy had existed in Italy, a Monarchy as a power and not as a mere symbol, Fascism would never have arisen, the 'revolution' would not have been necessary or, better, would have had the form of that 'revolution from above', with an abrogation of constitutional checks and balances, which is the only acceptable one in a traditional regime. Since, however, this was not the way things were, other methods had to be employed.
Turning from the plane of recent history to that of pure doctrine, it is not to be thought that 'diarchy' is a compromise or a hybrid ; on the contrary, it can have its traditional chrism. A 'dictatorship' cannot acquire a permanent institutional character. Ancient Rome admitted it in cases of necessity and so long as that necessity lasted, as an instinctive recourse which was not revolutionary, but was viewed with perfect equanimity as part of the legitimate existing order. We find in other traditional constitutions too dualities equivalent to that of the rex and the dux, of the rex and the heretigo or imperator (in the military sense), the former embodying the pure, intangible and sacred principle of sovereignty, the latter appearing as the one who, in stormy periods or in view of particular exigencies carried out exceptional duties in a perilous position which, because of the nature itself of his function, could not befit the rex. He was required, unlike the rex, to have the qualities of an exceptional and particularly gifted individual, since he was not to draw his authority from a pure symbolic non-acting and, so to speak, 'Olympian' function. Moreover, in less remote times, particular figures such as Richelieu, Bismarck, Metternich and, to a certain extent, even Cavour, to some extent played this role in relation to their respective Sovereigns.
I am speaking here on the abstract plane, the plane of pure principles. What happened in Italy in the context of Fascism and its crises cannot be judged simply in these terms. What may be said doctrinally however is that whether or not Mussolini had succeeded in discharging his principal function, analogous to that of the great loyalist chancellors, which began with the creation of the empire not for its own sake but as a service to the King of Italy, the hybridity of the Fascist system would still have been apparent in his populism, his acquisition of a prestige which verged on that of a Bonaparte or a Tribune, his prominence as a personality, and his democratic if not demagogic inclination to 'go towards the people' and not to disdain the adulation of the public (for which he was richly rewarded by them in 1945).
One point is very important for the task of discrimination in which we are presently engaged : it is hardly felt nowadays, but there is an insuperable difference between the 'sacred' authority of a genuine ruler and the authority based on the informal power, the capacities, and the skills of an exceptional individual, from the 'Prince' of Machiavelli to the 'caesarist' figures conceived of by Spengler at the obscure end of any 'civilisation', to rouse the emotional and irrational forces of the masses. In the traditional world people obey and are subordinates or subjects on the basis of a 'pathos of distance' (Nietzsche), to be precise because they feel they are before one who is almost of another nature. In the world of today, with the transformation of the people into a plebes and into a mass, they know at most how to obey on the basis of a 'pathos of nearness', that is of equality : they bear only the leader who, in essence, is 'one of us', 'popular', interprets the 'will of the people'. Ducism in an inferior sense, as asserted especially in Hitlerism, corresponds to this second, modern, and anti-traditional orientation. Today the forces which resist are very far from reaching the stage of consideration appropriate to those who see the conquest of the state as the possibility of a near future. So what we have said in this paragraph on diarchy and on the rest must be considered only as doctrine, outside any consideration on the present situation, men and things. Because, to look at reality, we would have to repeat what a great representative of the counter-revolutionary idea already said in 1849 : "Today kings who dare to call themselves such otherwise than by the will of the people there are none, and, if there were some, nobody would obey them", and, from this observation we would have to draw the conclusion that only empirical and abnormal solutions can be considered for a period which, in the Roman sense, can be called interregnum, a period whose end it is still impossible to foretell.
The Single Party
The idea of the single party and of the function peculiar to it represented, in Fascism, something hybrid ; the positive instance contained in it must be isolated from the rest and properly implemented. The true state, we barely need to say, does not know the partitocracy of the democratic and parliamentarian regime. But the idea of the single party is nonsense, because to say party means part, and implies therefore a multiplicity ; hence the single party would be the part which wants to become the whole, or in other words, a faction which eliminates the others without rising to a higher plane, precisely because it keeps on considering itself as a party. The Fascist party in the Italy of yesterday represented a sort of state within the state, a prejudice to a really organic and monolithic system. In the phase of the conquest of power it can have a vital importance as centre of a national movement. After this phase, however, its continued existence makes no sense. This must not be thought of as an argument for 'normalisation', in an inferior sense, with the related political and spiritual decrease of tension. The valid forces of a party which has asserted itself must remain in power in another form, becoming part of the normal and essential hierarchies of the state itself, occupying its key positions and constituting a sort of armed guard of the state, an elite which bears, to a high degree, the Idea. Then, more than of a party, we will need to speak of a sort of 'Order'. It is the same function which, in other times, the nobility had as political class : up to the period of the central European empires. As a very approximate form, we have the House of Lords in its original conception. Fascism maintained on the contrary the conception of the 'party' and there was a sort of duplication of the state and political articulations (militia next to army, federals next to prefects, Great Council next to parliament, and so on), instead of an organic synthesis and a symbiosis. This cannot be regarded as valid element of the heritage of Fascism (6).
Finally, the very conception of the Fascist party felt the effects of its origins, by lack of qualitative criterion : it was that of a mass party. Instead of making membership of the party a difficult privilege, the regime imposed it on almost everyone. Is there anyone who, at that time, did not have the 'card'? Who could afford not to have it? Hence the fatal consequence of outward, conventionalistic and opportunistic membership - with effects which appeared precisely at the moment of the crisis. Originally, in communism and in National Socialism itself, the conception of the party had on the contrary a much more exclusive character. To us, the positive point of reference, the positive counterpart of the concept of the single party, must be that of a sort of Order, serving as the spine of the state and partaking, to a certain extent, of the pure authority and dignity which gather at the peak of the state.
Corporatism and Autarchy
On the plane of principle, the significance of Fascism lies essentially in its political aspect : only secondarily in its socio-economic aspect, because, according to the traditional conception, socio-economic problems in the narrow sense cannot be absolutised beyond the place which is due to them in the scheme of a vaster hierarchy of values and interests. Nevertheless, on this plane, what remains valid is the Fascist imperative of fighting, in the first place, the system of incompetence peculiar to democracy, of substituting for it a principle of solidarity, energy and unity in a world which was and is feeling the effects of the deleterious influences of class consciousness, of partitism, of the regime of influential and incompetent political schemers, in addition to the antagonisms between monopoly capitalists, the markets and the forces of work in the liberal-inspired system.
In this respect, the corporative system, if judged on the basis of its direction and its fundamental requirement, represents undoubtedly another positive aspect of Fascism. This direction can be defined as that of an organic reconstruction of the economy through the re-assumption, on a gigantic scale adequate to the dimensions of the modern economy, of the spirit which, all things considered, was already the driving force of ancient corporations and, in general, the company units before they came to be compromised on one side by the deviations and the abuse of power of late capitalism, and on the other side by the Marxist intoxication which spread in the working masses. But a requirement of this kind in the praxis of the regime was only half carried out. In Fascist corporatism there were still remnants of class consciousness because - again owing to the origins of the movement, and even to the personal precedents of Mussolini - they did not have the courage to assume a clearly anti-syndicalist position ; the system even decreed legislatively the double formation of the employers and of the workers, a duality which was not overcome where it should have been, that is in the companies themselves, through organic original forms, but rather in inefficient and often parasitic state superstructures, shaped by a heavy bureaucratic centralism. We need hardly add that the Ventennio corporatism and the positions of the 'second Fascism', the 'socialisation', the confirmed and widened acknowledgment of the syndicate and the rest represented a step backwards and not a step forwards. If ever there was a step forwards and an example to keep more than any other, it was, in principle, the National Socialist legislation of work, which excluded trade unionism and showed how, on this basis, it was possible to come to an organic and efficient reconstruction of the economy, with the adequate satisfaction of the need of a 'social justice' which was correctly understood, and not according to a legalised demagogy (as nowadays in Italy).
So we can gather from Fascist corporatism on one side the principle of an anti-classist solidarity in the productive order, with an overcoming both of liberalism and socialism in an organic conception, on the other side the principle of a regime of competences, supposed to have also a political content through the Corporative House substituted for the democratic parliament of parties. What has been considered by some people as a fault, and almost as a stopping of the 'social revolution', of Fascism in this field must be regarded on the contrary to its merit. Fascism opposed the reduction of state power in the corporations to the increase of state power in the economy : this is the so-called 'pancorporatism'. The primacy of the political principle over the economy, which was to be kept in its normal condition of mere order of means, was recognised and asserted, and this must be considered as its positive message. If the absurd formula of the 'state of work' appears here and there, and if someone, led by an unhappy set of circumstances to have a certain authority in Fascism, was not satisfied with having put forward the corrupt formula of the 'ethical state', but produced, in addition to it, the even more deplorable formula of the 'humanism of work', all this can be referred to the waste, the evanescent part of Fascism, not to its essential and valid part. This must be asserted today more resolutely than ever.
To turn now to another issue, this one concerning not just the national economy : the most varied contemporary circles are used to condemning the Fascist principle of autarchy. We cannot associate ourselves in any way with this condemnation. At the scale of the nations no less than at that of the person, there is no better good than liberty. It is well known that the concept of autarchy originates in classical antiquity, in the Stoic schools, where it was considered as an imperative of the ethic of independence and self-sovereignty ; to defend these very values, if necessary, the precept was to be abstine et substine.
The Fascist principle of autarchy is a sort of extension of this ethic to the plane of the national economy. If necessary, to maintain the general tone of life relatively low, but to be as free as possible from the ties of capital and alien economies, this is a sound and virile idea. When it comes to a nation with limited natural resources, like Italy, a system of autarchy and austerity within a balanced economy of consumption rather than of forced production and of the superfluous must be opposed to what we can witness today : an apparent general prosperity and a happy-go-lucky day-to-day life, and, beyond one's own condition, a dreadful debit of the state balance, an extreme instability, a progressive inflation and the invasion of alien capital - an invasion which nowadays bears the charming but hypocritical label of 'development assistance to under-developed areas'.
Russia and America
Since with these last observations we have moved from the inner doctrine of the state to international relations, we barely need to say that one thing that must be purely and simply re-assumed from Fascism, as a clear watchword, is opposition to both Russia and America, to both the 'East' and the 'West', according to the terminology which has become fashionable. Even if in different forms, these two 'societies' of nations, which pretend to be the leading nations, and, unfortunately, are so nowadays to a large extent, represent to the same degree anti-tradition and the denial of any of the higher values of the European heritage. Unfortunately, today, we cannot think of more than an inner, spiritual defence, for lack of the necessary base for a third military and economic bloc able to oppose in any way both perils on the plane of world politics. Inner defence, however, from Americanism as well as from communism, would already signify a great deal.
Beyond this, all is still indefinite. It even remains indefinite, in general, what can be done outside the plane of doctrinal orientation, after having determined what can be used in the Fascist heritage for a pure right-wing radicalism.
As we have noted, it is to the Ventennio Fascism that we have referred so far. Basically, we discussed exclusively questions of doctrine, and the second Fascism, that of Salò, to us, could be re-assumed almost solely according to this criterion. Too many contingent and unhappy factors, however, have affected whatever it possessed as rough outline of politico-social doctrine ; it lacked completely a period of maturation.
The value of the second Fascism lies on the contrary in its 'combattentistico' (1) and legionary aspect ; as rightly said by someone, it lies in the fact that, with it, perhaps for the first time in our history, an impressive number of Italians decisively chose the way of sacrifice, of defeat and unpopularity in the name of the principle of faithfulness to a leader and military honour. Its value lay, more generally, in the pure heroic will to fight even on lost positions.
On this plane - therefore, an existential and not a political plane - the continuity between the first and the second Fascism must be acknowledged, and the ideal instructions of the latter can be re-assumed. As a matter of fact, given the atmosphere and the forces which were prevailing both in Italy and in the world, to have the courage of 'sovereign affirmations', to have declared ourselves for a long time for the ideas which we have isolated as traditional potential content of Fascism can only mean nowadays to testify to the very vocation of the Northern fighters : to defend an ideal and keep the positions, even if they were to be lost positions, or better, even if it were to be doubtful that those who will stay awake during the night may meet those who will appear in the morning.
(1) Spirit of brotherhood and solidarity which linked Italian ex-soldiers in the aftermath of WW1 ('combattentistico' is the adjective of 'combattentismo'). (note of the publisher)
(2) In the aftermath of World War II, various neo-Fascist movements were founded in Italy ; the Movimento Sociale Italiano was one of them. It was founded by Giorgo Almirante, leader of the left-wing socialist-inspired, current of neo-Fascism, who, after having being supplanted by the right-wing of the party in the 1950's, led it again later on, until his death in 1987, when Fini, his 'protégé', took over ; due to bad electoral results in 1990, Fini was dismissed and replaced by Pino Rauti, who, in 1956, had left the movement to set up Ordine Nuovo on the basis of the ultra-conservative ideas of Julius Evola and is known in Italy to be one of the very few Evolian Italian politicians ; due again to bad electoral results, he was replaced, the year after, by....Fini, who, a few years later, was to publicly disown Fascism and Mussolini and is now a member of the ultra-liberal plutocratic coalition in office in Rome. (note of the publisher)
(3) We know very well the objections, to some extent legitimate, raised by some people against the use of the word 'right', both because of what is understood by this word in Italy nowadays and, more generally, because of the partitistic references - 'right' and 'left' - within a system such as the parliamentarian democratic one, which is to be rejected as a whole. It is therefore appropriate to make it clear that we use the word 'right' in a special sense, specifically as a designation of the orientation which, in the interregnum represented by the parties regime, best reflects what is superior to the parties and refers to the transcendent idea of state.
(4) Giarabub was an Italian oasis military post in the Libyan desert, which, during World War II, a group of Italian soldiers, besieged by the British, heroically defended, refusing to surrender, despite their desperate situation. (note of the publisher)
(5) Along the same lines, in Fascism, the preoccupation for 'petty morality' instead of 'grand morality', especially with regard to sexuality, with the corresponding measures of censorship and state interdiction. In this respect, it is good that people, especially the young, know nowadays that Fascism was not that different from the present puritan-like demo-Christian regime but rather differed from what was peculiar to German National Socialism.
(6) The presence of men of the party in many government positions during the regime often had negative effects, because of the confusion of planes. The indisputable merits which this or that Fascist might have had, in respect of his having been a squadrist or activist of the first hour were not enough, on their own, in the discharge of functions of the purely political, economic or cultural order, for which a competence, an experience, and a formation, which could not be expected of him, were necessary. From these interferences derived various weaknesses of the regime, and many cases of valid forces which found themselves obstructed by the bloc constituted by men of the party, having very few merits outside those we have just mentioned, occurred.
Political correctness is a Communist invention. Let's not fall in their trap!
The Neo-Cons and so called Capitalism in general are FAR MORE socialist than "fascist" or Capitalist by any measure.
It is a centralized powerful state populated by minions of a "controlling" ideology which has NOTHING to do with an efficient to and fro between the state and private capital and the producer and consumer.
It is Stalinist/Trotskyite/Leninist Empire building in the PUREST sense and should NEVER be mistaken for the true nature of so called "far right" fascism.
It is also known as "Power Mad" politics ending in chaos. Fascism tends towards order and i'll take the Right and tradition over the idiot Left and chaotic mayhem ANY day.
Long but good post. Print it out and read it over a day or two.
__________________ [size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]
Wow, Draken, you do make us read intensively. Mussolini was credited as having said, "Fascism is really Corporatism". I note Corporatism is mentioned in the above article.
I always stand by the assertion that labels are potentially troublesome. I like descriptions better. Is the 'fascism' you refer to more in line with Anthony Suttons wish for people to take personal responsibility for their problems?
Regarding Left/Right labels; we're all probably conditioned to be Left wing. Many 'right wingers' of the barking hound variety just want the way to be cleared for the elite to reign with no opposition. They see themselves as well served by their elite masters ("We need rich people to provide the jobs..." etc)
Katrina shows us how Left we all are, very few taking personal responsibility for their well being. And much of that is unavoidable because of the society we are in. We all rely on someone else, and that is necessary and healthy in a family situation. But why were so many people un-cared for in New Orleans? Many are too poor to survive in the NWO.
We have an economic system created by elites for their own enrichment at others expense. Hardly surprising when everyone else somehow surviving in the current sytem, is unable to cope in the NWO.
I suppose I'm talking about an elite, but definately not of the FINANCIAL type we have today. There are of course other - REAL - elites of a totally different kind.
Being rich doesn't make you a ruler. You're just rich, but have no idea about justice, truth, humility, etc.; no idea about Higher Principles a real, true Ruler is supposed to EMBODY, to manifest to the people, who would look up to a ruler like that. The people would get an example of honesty, humility, strength of spirit&mind, justice.
Of course there is an elite. But it's a totally different from what people think of when they hear the word "elite".
Everyone has at some point met a person who you simply listen to and not question, because you KNOW they know more than you and you would want to LEARN as much as that person is willing to share. You simply know this person is ABOVE you, in wisdom, knowledge, insight and spirit.
This is a person of the true elite.
It might be a farmer, a priest, a singing teacher, a friend, a relative, freind of the family - whoever. It might even be a down-and-out. You just have to look where you don't expect to find them. Today's "ruler" is nothing but a USURPER.
__________________ Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon