Thread 520733962

The right to rule does not come from the consent of the governed. It comes from above, from individual greatness, from living in the world of being and from representing the higher archetype of a leader. A person who embodies transcendent values and is a manifestation of the world of being has a divine right to rule.

Leaders are chosen by fate, by god, and derive the right to rule from higher transcendental realities

fascism and national socialism is therefore a modernist and liberal ideology deriving from enlightenment thinking. It concedes to decadence and materialism by using popular support and mass social movements to justify itself. A true traditional society is one that embodies transcendent values, and derives authority from the transcendent, and not from the masses. We need aristocracy, not political parties held up by plebeians. We need a king, not a puppet.

>>520733962 (OP)
based Evolian

>>520733962 (OP)
nice divine right you have there

>>520733992
If you don't realize that Evola was correct, then you did not become right wing for the right reasons
>>520734079
Surely at some level, you've rejected nihilism, or else you would not hold any conservative values at all. So why then do you recognize good and evil, but do not recognize justice?

>>520733962 (OP)
evola abused too much illegal drugs.
somebody coming out with the idea of 'spiritual racism' (an oximoron) cannot be taken seriously.

>>520733962 (OP)
Consent of the governed. Pah! If you could consent to be governed by another, you would surely not, unless you’re insane. If you’re governed by anyone but yourself, you are a slave to that governing power, unwillingly, but nowadays mostly unwittingly.

>>520734202
I don't agree with his idea of spiritual racism, but you must understand that this world of imperfection gains essence from a higher world of perfection. Each person has a level of awakening of varying degrees

A biologically “Aryan” person could be spiritually degenerate

A non-European could theoretically possess a higher spiritual type.

It's about closeness to the absolute

But historically, spiritual qualities became expressed and preserved through bloodlines, castes, and civilizations. So in general, different civilizations do possess a different spirit and essence on the mass scale

If japanese people had African culture, and African people had Japanese culture, there is something about that which simply does not feel right. And there's a reason for it

>>520734202
>>520734482
You see, the Jewish race has a spirit and the Aryan race has a spirit. These two spirits are deeply opposed to one another. It's a higher archetype which we draw our essence from.

It is possible on an individual level to align more closely to the spirit of another peoples

>>520734568
Case in point, Evola was heavily critical of the governments of fascist Italy and national socialist Germany for the reasons I've described in the thread

Yet he looked at Imperial Japan with great admiration, to him, they represented a people who had not yet abandoned a world of tradition where the unseen permeates every aspect of life. He also respected the Hindus, and the Aztecs, and respected Arabs as a spiritually strong people yet believed they were also declining along with Europe.

>>520733962 (OP)
>>520734136
>>520734482
>>520734568
>>520734721
even if he is in principle correct he is in practice wrong because the only people claiming privately or publicly to Divine Right are subhuman kike monsters and disgusting eurotrash royal mischlings who sold every one of their peoples out to the former Jewish party in exchange for children to fuck and blood money gelt to maintain their estates and to a lesser degree their oriental equivalents, and a popular political messiah like Hitler is the closest thing to a destined god-king that fate will grant us at this stage until the actual end of days. That fact means that you are a fart huffing retard clutching at Evola's coattails, and he himself was at least a little up his own ass and losing the plot, which is why Serrano said exactly the same of him when he would 'well, akshually' on race and Jewish questions and why the SS was extremely skeptical of his philosophical value.

>>520734812
Evola believed leaders gained divine right through embodying the transcendent archetype of a leader, not from the consent of the governed. It didn't necessarily come from birth right, which is not the same thing as divine right. Case in point, he saw Julius Caesar as being one of these great men. He himself was also heavily supported by the plebeians despite his "right to rule" not coming from them, it would not have been possible without their support.
>So why did he not extend this same logic to Hitler and Mussolini?
According to Evola, a “true” ruler must:

1. Embodied a metaphysical principle, not an ideology

2. Stand above the masses, not depend on them emotionally or politically

3. Act from spiritual authority, not popular politics

4. Be aristocratic in spirit even if plebs support him

5. Restore Tradition, not modernize it

6. Transform reality, not be shaped by it

Caesar fit this model to him because:

He wasn’t a product of the mob, he used the mob without belonging to it. He

Evola initially supported fascism when it seemed aristocratic, Roman, and hierarchical.

He turned on Mussolini because:

1. Fascism became populist and statist, not spiritual


2. It worshipped the nation, not a transcendent principle


3. It centralized power bureaucratically instead of aristocratically


4. It tried to create a “new mass man” instead of a new elite
His verdict on Mussolini was essentially:

> “A pretender to Caesarism without the sacred dimension.”

I really don't mind at this point. I just want honesty. Let someone come forward and declare himself the emperor without endless tiptoeing around the lies of democracy.

>>520734812
Here are some passages where he directly rejects Fascism and Hitler/Mussolini
On race
>Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race (1941)
>“What we must absolutely reject in National Socialist racism is the materialistic element… race cannot be reduced to a mere biological fact.”
>“The racial idea must refer to a reality deeper than the body… When it is limited to physical heredity it becomes a deviation, a dangerous counterfeit of the true doctrine. (Chapter 2, pp. 39–40)
On mass mobilizations
>Men Among the Ruins (1953)
> “National Socialism, instead of creating an Order, created a movement. A movement implies formlessness, procured enthusiasm, and an appeal to mass forces.”
>“The political man of our times does not stand above the world of the masses. He is of the masses and needs them.”
>“Fascism compromised with those forces that it should have dominated, submitting itself little by little to the middle class, nationalism, and collectivism.”
>“Instead of forming a new aristocracy, Fascism created a party, and the party became an end in itself.”
Ride the Tiger (1961)
>Neither Fascism nor National Socialism succeeded in overcoming the fundamental collapse of the modern world; both operated inside it.”
>“True sovereignty is impersonal, transcendent, and unconditioned. Modern dictatorships are personal, emotional, and conditioned by consensus, even when it takes the form of acclamation.”

From a practical standpoint, you are absolutely correct, but you have abandoned transcendent truth in exchange for the material world.

>>520735531
Transcendent truth is anon will die alone

Deal with it

>>520735613
>>520735613
I'm actually very successful with women and twinks alike, thank you.

>>520734391
You're already a slave to your own body kek, free will and choice are very loose concepts

>>520733962 (OP)
>A woman who is perfectly woman is superior to a man who is imperfectly man
No, that's a retarded quote.
This quote is another reason why I don't like him.

>fascism and national socialism is therefore a modernist and liberal ideology deriving from enlightenment thinking
Hurr durr we need to be more like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
I'd rather have Liberalism and Modernity if that is what Fascism and National Socialism is, because Christianity & Conservatism is lameduck.

>We need a king, not a puppet.
By this way of thinking. you're going to get a puppet king of the Vatican.
They'll sway Spiritual Sword > Temporal Sword, meaning the Church > State / Politics, thereby making a King an inferior to the Clergy.
Again, Saudi Arabia and Iran is what you want. You can look at those countries today and admire the Middle East like Rene Guenon did (he converted to Islam).

God likes sex with 12 year old girls.

>>520735264
>1. Embodied a metaphysical principle, not an ideology
Dumb qualification.
Embodying an ideology is pretty much the same thing.

>Stand above the masses, not depend on them emotionally or politically
Everyone wants to hold sway over the masses, don't believe that.
Christianity and Plato wanted sway over the masses; Plato in Republic thought he'd have to exile all men and keep the children to reeducate them.
Complain as you people will about populism, but that is needed, a leader who is in touch with the people and knows how to guide them. This disciplines the masses.

>3. Act from spiritual authority, not popular politics
In Christianity, Clergy is separated from any political authority.
A king is not a clergyman, but a secular office nonetheless (unless this is Anglicanism, but even then).

>Restore Tradition, not modernize it
>Transform reality, not be shaped by it
Traditionalists and other cuckservatives are the most reluctant to do anything; that's why Fascism is superior IMHO, because its immanentist view of the world promotes action in the here and now and not ivory tower intellectualism.
Like Christianity with its doomsday apocalyptic worldview, Aristocratic Traditionalists are the same always regarding the here and now as an age of decadence and waiting for the Kali Yuga to end.
It is the most useless and futile thing ever.
And it leads to people staying on church grounds and never advancing out to fix society and trying to improve people.

>He turned on Mussolini because statism
>1. Fascism became populist and statist, not spiritual
>2. It worshipped the nation, not a transcendent principle
Before High Church Clericalism, the Romans highly regarded Politics and State authority; Evola is just preaching leftover effects of Ultramontanism / Ultraclericalist contempt for Politics, which is rather an innovation compared to the Ancients who highly regarded their Fatherland and didn't make a doomsday cult New Jerusalem pretense against it.

>>520735838
>Hurr durr we need to be more like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
In practice, no, in principle, absolutely. The state should be subjected to transcendental values, and derive legitimacy from that world of being. The Islamic states do exactly this, despite it being a different expression of the absolute than other theocracies. Europe when it was subjected to the rule of the Catholic church is without a doubt superior to the current Europe, wouldn't you say so?

The problem is the modern church has itself been taken over by anti traditionalists

>>520733962 (OP)
I need to read this pastanigger. Where do I begin with him? What's his most representative or important work? What's the best Italian edition of his works?

>>520736356
>In practice, no, in principle, absolutely.
No.
The reason why I bring up Saudi Arabia and Iran is to de-mystify this bullshit, because you can find contemporary examples of what you'll get in the here and now.

>Europe when it was subjected to the rule of the Catholic church is without a doubt superior to the current Europe, wouldn't you say so?
I would take Fascism and National Socialism over Catholic Europe like I would take China and North Korea over Saudi Arabia and Iran -- nations lead by political minds is necessary.

>state should be subjected to transcendental values, and derive legitimacy from that world of being.
The state itself has its own transcendental value and has within its fruition the completion and total evaluation of all values of its estates.
This apathy towards the State is precisely the reason for Conservatism's inadequacy to address social issues... the apathy itself is leftover from Christianity's apathy: because Christianity is a doomsday religion, it seeks to escape to another Nation (The Church / New Jerusalem), but it doesn't seek to use that transcendetal value to transform and build a better city, but like I said just abandon it to ruin.
This is leftover from the Christian persecution of Nero and Dioletian: Christianity has always viewed the rest of society as alien, as the Other, as opposed to its own ends... So it never took the necessary political aims to improve society (which accounts for all the values of the citizens)... which leads to escaping to the churches or syangogues and letting society rot -- in fact, the more society rots, the more affirmed they feel in abandoning it and being apathetic.

>>520736476
Before you read Evola, you need a decent understanding of Plato's metaphysics, as much of his language like "world of becoming vs world of being" derives from the platonic world of forms.

But to answer your question, there can be multiple starting points depending on what you're interested in. If you are interested in his metaphysics and spirituality, and some of his political views, start with "revolt against the modern world". If interested in race and societal hierarchy, start with synthesis of the doctrine of race. Men among the ruins is written for a post war audience and explains his critique of modernity, politics, and society in plain language.

And if you want to understand this thread, read fascism viewed from the right.

Ride the tiger is considered his most accessible read to beginners, and revolt is a close 2nd.

"So that you may be the readier to defend the Constitution, know this: for all who have preserved their fatherland, furthered it, enriched it, there is in heaven a sure and allotted abode, where they may enjoy an immortality of happiness." -Cicero

"For nothing happens in the world more pleasing to that supreme Deity, who governs all the universe, than those gatherings and unions of men allied by common laws, which are called states. From this place do their rulers and guardians set out, and to this place do they return." -Cicero

"Exercise this soul in the noblest activities. Now the noblest are cares and exertions for our country's welfare." -Cicero

"But when with a rational spirit you have surveyed the whole field, there is no social relation among them all the more close, none more dear than that which links each one of us with our country. Parents are dear; dear are children, relatives, friends; but one native land embraces all our loves; and who that is true would hesitate to give his life for her, if by his death he could render her a service?" -Cicero

"Plato himself is for a Divine Power assisting in Human Politics… 'tis a remarkable passage that of his in his Meno. "We may as properly call Governors, or States-men, Divine, as we call those who give out the Oracles, or Prophets or Poets by that name; and we may affirm, that they have a Divine Illumination, and are possessed by the Deity, when they consult for the good of the commonwealth" –William Nichols

Aristotle / The State or Political Community Aims at the Highest Good
>But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.

The Ancients were better inclined towards the common good and saw the State as fulfilling the moral integrity of all citizens; we have made a pretense of morality against doing this, which is self-destructive.

>>520736476
>>520736921
Ride the tiger has a brief overview of his worldview and philosophy. It's considered a more personal read regarding to how someone with an aristocratic spirit should live in the modern decaying world.

>>520736921
Thanks, Anon.
Any recommendation about which particular edition should I read? I don't want to end up reading something censored by some prudish editor.

>>520736963
For the love of God, don't cite the Ancients without giving the reference. All classical Latin literature is properly cataloged and easily accessible online, and any man with a minimum of culture will want to check the Latin original instead of some dubious translation.

Christianity, in contrast to those Cicero quotes, doesn't highly regard the State as an ideal; it seeks to abandon the City for another City.
What is that City?
The New Jerusalem.

>“I am a Christian. He who answers thus has declared everything at once—his country, profession, family; the believer belongs to no city on earth but to the heavenly Jerusalem.”
St. John Chrysostom

This is a problem partial to Christianity in general. It doesn't regard the legitimate ends of the State and its fruition as its ideal... Even Plato said that Philosopher Kings should go back into the cave and work for the common good of their state (to avoid the sin of partiality against the common good, unlike the churches do).

You have to understand that every profession and office has its ends understood in the estate or household, the unity of the state captures the unity of all households and professions in its body, that is, the moral integrity of all its constituents... by abandoning this aim, we abandon the perfection of the lives of citizens and so we make moral pretenses against this fruition which means the fruition of the public as a whole and so we've made morality merely a game of talking and not perfection of the lives of citizens and their moral integrity...

>>520737011
Thanks, it seems a nice place to start. Also
>>520737089

>>520733962 (OP)
>We need aristocracy, not political parties held up by plebeians. We need a king, not a puppet.
Wasn't Hitler basically a God King of Germany once elected?

The whole party thing was just to make the transition from Democrappy to basically a Monarchy with the Führer being the supreme leader and ultimate authority. People proactively and voluntarily submitted to him because they felt his divinity. The only people defying him were salty libtards like Geschwister Scholl or Stauffenberg.

Fascism for its immanentism is better because it has equipped itself to mobilize the public and the totalitarianism is a byproduct of its immanentist values:

The immanentism of Fascism was a necessary step to counter the inactivity and apathy of Traditionalism and the Anti-Politics of the Ultra Clericals (who wagered a war of Church against the appropriate ends of State, committing to a most bastard partiality against the common good), because like High Church Clericalism used the New Jerusalem as a form of Anti-Politics rather than an idealization and fruition of Politics -- the Traditionalists used the World of Being and Ideas to abandon the fruition of ideas in the here and now... It was necessary for Fascism to form Actual Idealism with its immanentist values, that is, seeking to improve the here and now because of the apathy of the latter Traditionalists.

>>520736819
>The reason why I bring up Saudi Arabia and Iran is to de-mystify this bullshit, because you can find contemporary examples of what you'll get in the here and now.
I'm aware, and this argument might work against someone who is more nationalistic than I. When I look at Saudi Arabia, I see one of the last few countries that is still somewhat traditional. A population which generally sees their king as symbolizing divine authority. A country where morality and the supernatural is still seen as something real and tangible. Though I'm not a Muslim and Islam is not my preferred expression of the absolute, I respect them greatly.

You could use the same argument during Evolas own time period, by pointing at Japan.
>I would take Fascism and National Socialism over Catholic Europe like I would take China and North Korea over Saudi Arabia and Iran -- nations lead by political minds is necessary.
I disagree with the 2nd statement greatly. I'm ambiguous on the first one because catholic Europe was already beginning to decline when compared to the empires that came before. However when you look at events like the crusades, when all Europeans countries united in the name of something higher, there is greatness in that.
>This apathy towards the State is precisely the reason for Conservatism's inadequacy to address social issues..
I don't consider myself a conservative nor do I hold any apathy towards the state for the same reasons as conservatives. I simply think the state derives authority from something higher than itself. A traditionalist in the Evola-sense is not a conservative, it is someone who recognizes that traditional peoples believed in the transcendental and metaphysical as something which permeated every aspect of their existence, and we reject modern societies notion of that.

fascism practically is of course better than what we have, and would prefer it to now, but it also does not represent my true inner spirit

Fascism's outlook on the State is what should have been (if not for the futility of High Church Christianity in achieving these ends -- if not for its aversion to political society in favor of the Church).

Mussolini
>The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.
>Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, & the Fascist State – a synthesis & unit inclusive of all values.

Giovanni Gentile:
>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person.
>The State, for us, has an absolute moral value–as that moral substance whose function it is to render all other functions valuable.

Giovanni Gentile:
>A conception of integral politics, a notion of politics which does not distinguish itself from morality, from religion, or from every conception of life that does not conceive itself distinct & abstracted from all other fundamental interests of the human spirit

Mussolini:
>The State guarantees internal & external safety of the country, but it safeguards & transmits the spirit of the people, in language, its customs, its faith.
>Transcending the individual's brief spell of life, the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation.

Giovanni Gentile:
>Morality & religion, essential elements in every consciousness, must be there, but they must be subordinated to the laws of the State, fused in it, absorbed in it.

Mussolini:
>The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual & raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society.

Giovanni Gentile:
>Thus, its formation is a product of the consciousness of each individual, & thus of the masses, in which the power of the State consists.
>That explains the necessity of the Fascist Party & propaganda and of education to foster the political & moral ideals of Fascism.

>>520733962 (OP)
Aristocracy was destroyed by absolute monarchy and the monarchy was destroyed by liberalism. It's just not competitive in the real world. Fascism is the only political practice that can defeat leftists in the age of mass society. Muh "trad" ideologies are such a meme, grow up or go play another autism game from paradox

> It concedes to decadence and materialism by using popular support and mass social movements to justify itself
Not necessarily. It's just how it functions in the real world. Any political movement is religious-like anyway, even "modernist" "liberalism" if you scratch the surface so the point is moot.

>>520737452
>I simply think the state derives authority from something higher than itself.
Yes, that mode of being and its form -- which Christianity has turned against itself.

> A country where morality and the supernatural is still seen as something real and tangible. Though I'm not a Muslim and Islam is not my preferred expression of the absolute, I respect them greatly.
Crusades are overrated.
They fought in the Middle East -- turned their eyes away from making their countries a holy land, because they saw themselves as a bastard people grafted onto another nation's tree (the Jews and later the Church grafted them onto that Abrahamic Tree as Christians).

You also should consider that the State and the realm of politics is pretty high up there in terms of consideration: both Plato and Aristotle highly valued the Common Good of the State and worked towards its fruition.

The State Corporatist ideas of Fascism have their origin in Plato's Republic. The idea that the State should be a corporatist body and act as one personhood is what Plato advocated from Plato's Republic book 5.

Plato's Republic Book 5:
>And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.

>For example, if the finger of one of us is wounded, the entire community of bodily connections stretching to the soul for ‘integration’

>with the dominant part is made aware, and all of it feels the pain as a whole, though it is a part that suffers, and that is how we come to say that the man has a pain in his finger. And for any other member of the man the same statement holds, alike for a part that labors in pain or is eased by pleasure.”

>“The same,” he said, “and, to return to your question, the best governed state most nearly resembles such an organism.”

>That is the kind of a state, [462e] then, I presume, that, when anyone of the citizens suffers aught of good or evil, will be most likely to speak of the part that suffers as its own and will share the pleasure or the pain as a whole.” “Inevitably,” he said, “if it is well governed.”

>But we further agreed that this unity is the greatest blessing for a state, and we compared a well governed state to the human body in its relation to the pleasure and pain of its parts.”
…
>Then will not law-suits and accusations against one another vanish, one may say, from among them, because they have nothing in private possession but their bodies, but all else in common.

>So that we can count on their being free from the dissensions that arise among men from the possession of property, children, and kin.

Rousseau, for instance, accuses Christianity of separating Church and State:
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
Rousseau's criticism of Christianity
>You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship and its own gods?’

>My reply is that just because each state had its own form of worship as well as its own government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods

>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.

>However, as there was always a prince and civil laws as well as a church, this double power created a conflict of jurisdiction that made it impossible for Christian states to be governed well; and men never managed to discover whether they were obliged to obey the master or the priest.

>Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have tried to preserve or estore the old system–tired and failed, because the spirit of Christianity has won every time. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the sovereign and not essentially linked with the body of the state.

>Among us Europeans, the Kings of England have been made heads of the Church, and the Czars have done much the same.

>>520737585
>The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing;
It's actually also true even for the liberal state. Under the liberal state an individual gets his rights exclusively though the state and it's the state who turns what's essentially is a weird moving meatball from the "state of nature" into a social and political subject with rights.

>The philosopher Hobbes is the only Christian writer who has seen the evil and seen how to remedy it, and has dared to propose bring the two heads of the eagle together again, restoring the total political unity without which no state or government will ever be rightly constituted. But he should have seen that Christianity's domineering spirit is incompatible with his system, and that the priest's side of the divide would always be stronger than the state's. What has drawn down hatred on his political theory is not so much what is false and terrible in it as what is just and true…

>But this religion, having no special relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force they draw from themselves without adding anything to it; which means that one of the great bonds for uniting the society of the given country is left idle. Worse: so far from binding the citizens' hearts to the state, it detaches them from that and from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.

>Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied solely with heavenly things; the Christian's country is not of this world.

>But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic–those terms are mutually exclusive.

And Rousseau is right.

>>520733962 (OP)
>some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make

>>520737089
Can't help you with that, but I don't think he's as filtered as something like mein Kampf, it shouldn't be hard to find. Understand before reading that Evola was not advocating for any specific religion, his philosophy is more akin to something like hermeticism or neoplatonism where the absolute has expressed itself through different world religions which is why those ideas are important to understand as a precursor

of course yes some cultures are closer to the absolute than others

Do you mean a Spanish translation or Italian one?

For Spanish speakers, the Nuevo Arte Thor edition has strong credentials and is the one that's been used for a long time.

If you value readability, modern presentation, then the El Hilo de Ariadna edition is likely the better pick.

I've read that the El Hilo de Ariadna is a longer read, if that means anything

For original Italian, we should just have the original versions. Evola lived to be pretty old after the war.

>>520736819
>This apathy towards the State is precisely the reason for Conservatism's inadequacy to address social issues
I believe it's mostly tactical because the state after 1960s only means race mixing, gibs, feminism and homos

> Catholic church
> China
> North Korea
> Iran
> Saudi
All these suck ass

>>520737972
Fascism doesn't make this pretense.
Honestly, most people here would prefer Liberalism over High Church Christianity's pretenses -- (if they knew better, the Fascists back then who were closer to Liberalism and High Church Christianity knew the tension, Fascism sought to address both in a way).
Fascism is Modern Medicine for the Modern Mind -- it was made to counter these problems I have spoken of.
like Rousseau says, Christianity did indeed separate the idea of a City and turned it against the City itself -- it separated Church and State -- to the ultimate detriment of the State.
Christianity has always brandished these legitimate concerns of State and the being of the people as a kind of secularism and made them in fact a bastard people.

Giovanni Gentile
>Both Nationalism & Fascism place the State at the foundation–for both, the State is not a consequence, but a beginning.
>For nationalists, the State is conceived as prior to the individual.

Mussolini
>In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation.
>It is not the nation which generates the State
>Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.

Giovanni Gentile:
>For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis.

Gentile:
>Far from being the negation of liberalism and democracy (which even the leaders of Fascism have regularly repeated for polemical reasons) actually aspires to be the most perform form of liberlaism and democracy, in conformity with the doctrine of Mazzini, to whose spirit Fascism has returned.

>>520738121
>>520737089
Dont take my word for it though, I only just did some research on these editions in an attempt to help

>>520737972
You know, Aristotle said the same for Plato.
I assume you're thinking of De Jouvenel.

This De Jouvenel wrote scathingly–

>Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course.

-Bertrand De Jouvenel

<The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet:

Now Aristotle criticized Plato for atomization as well.
Aristotle to Plato - atomization "From being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an individual"
>since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men.

Aristotle's idea of a mixed constitution is a partnership of clans (the basis for Multi-Party Democracy today and the idea of Aristocracy you are talking about, the partnership of noble estates).
Plato advocated more unitary Statist ideals that Aristotle blames for atomization.

>>520738242
When fascists are talking about the total state they are actually talking about a practical problem of their time, of labour-capital conflicts and inability to resolve them without the state.

The state is everything is a platitude, it's like "let's have a business and make money", it doesn't mean anything without specifics.

>>520737792
>The State Corporatist ideas of Fascism have their origin in Plato's Republic. The idea that the State should be a corporatist body and act as one personhood is what Plato advocated from Plato's Republic book 5.
But where does the idea of the philosopher king play into this? It's a person who understands the higher forms, the good, justice. I find his perfect state much more closely aligns with Evola's. Plato's perfect state clearly exists as something which gains essence from the world of being. The philosopher king is just someone who embodies higher principles giving him a divine right to rule
>>520737950
This idea of Christianity separating church and state is very interesting. It comes from Russeau? Which book should I read to understand this more

>>520737972
>>520737624
I want you to know -- the view criticizing Absolute Monarchy, saying it went from Aristocracy to Absolute Monarchy to Liberlaism -- that's the Aristotelian view, the view of Alexis de Tocqueville and Bertrand de Jouvenel on Absolute Monarchy -- by and large that's an extension of Aristotle's criticism towards Absolute Monarchy and State Corporatism of Plato.

>>520734136
Evola is the final redpill

>>520733962 (OP)
The "right to rule" doesn't exist. There is no right to rule.

Plato Republic:
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.

Plato Republic:
>For factions… are the outcome of injustice, and hatreds and internecine conflicts, but justice brings oneness of mind and love.

Plato Laws:
>That all men are, so far as possible, unanimous in the praise and blame they bestow, rejoicing and grieving at the same things, and that they honor with all their heart those laws which render the State as unified as possible

Thomas Hobbes
>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.

Both Plato and Hobbes advocated a kind of State Corporatism, i.e. the State as an individual personality.

>>520735820
Still, man ruling nature is an inversion of the natural order, by definition. Man rules the animals, and the soil, and that's it, nature rules over man not the over way around, that's quite literally satanism.

Aristotle advocated political pluralism.
Plato advocated unitary ideals of politics.
This is where Centralization vs Decentralization really has its origins.

Aristotle / Since the nature of a State is to be a plurality
>Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men.

Aristotle / state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life.
And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life;
>These are necessary preconditions of a state's existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.

Aristotle Politics / Anti-State Corporatism / Anti-Absolute Monarchy
>For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens.

>>520733962 (OP)
Evola was a subversive freemason piece of shit

>>520737972
Liberal statism is an oxymoron anyway, all of these words have lost their meaning, it's more accurately pseudo-democratic totalitarianism.

>>520737972
>Under the liberal state an individual gets his rights exclusively though the state
Hm, depends.

At least in the USA, our founding fathers believed that human rights came from God, contrary to what liberals today will tell you. If you ask a Marxist, they will tell you it comes from the oppressed seizing rights for themselves and do not exist metaphysically, but that's clearly a non traditionalist view. In a way, both democratic human rights and monarchy is an expression of the divine, as humans *do* have transcendental rights and justice *is* a transcendental construct. But of course, monarchy is closer to the absolute and the warrior spirit >>520738693
Plato did advocate for something akin to corporatism, the difference is that the state is subject to the good and has a philosopher king

>>520738807
Plato advocated in Republic for State Corporatism like you see in Fascism and even yes Hobbes Leviathan.

Plato, unlike Aristotle, believed that the State and Household have the same science: if you know how to govern yourself and your estate, you are well on the way to having knowledge to governing the political state:

Aristotle denied this. Aristotle said Monarchy is only proper for an economic estate (household) but not political rule over the constitution (political / city) -- this is why constitutional monarchists want as little monarchy as possible, because they think it is only proper for private economical rule, so forth with the Hoppeans as well.

Aristotle writes in Politics,
>Now there is an erroneous opinion that a statesman, king, householder, and a master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state.

Aristotle:
>The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head:
>whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals.

Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city
>Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him.

>>520738752
Absolute centralism is obviously stupid, when the system becomes corrupted the entire social unit gets destroyed, it's just a sophistic excuse for plunder at the expense of the nation and always has been.

>>520738865
All forms of extreme statism in the modern world came from the french revolution, people don't know basic history.

>>520738552
>>520738467
It's just a historic fact sure. The thing is though, modernisation and atomisation is both such a competitive advantage and such an attractive prospect for the masses that it's just inevitable. For an average person modernisation and atomisation means you'd get relatively cheap manufacturing goods, a factory job you can choose and even a chance to join a union instead of being stuck in some labour duties for a lord.

>>520738928
That's your opinion, but these unitary political ideologies think otherwise.
Aristotle advocated political pluralism, denied State Corporatism, wanted a partnership of houses / estates, like multi-parties and noble houses.
Plato advocated State Corporatism which one-party states and theocracies fulfill, they seek to act as one mind, one personality.

The Cult of Personality in Fascism is to achieve a community of pleasures and pains that Plato advocated in Republic.

Race ideology itself is an extension of the community of pleasures and pains, except instead of dealing with private property -- it does deal with properties of persons (races) -- because race is another extension of "mine" and "thine" being out of whack, another race is "not mine" and for the black race "thine" is different, so a City is divided against itself like George Floyd dying and the city being burned.

>>520738865
The US is actually quite an old country and it's constitution does echo these older ideas. But it would still circle back to the state
> as humans *do* have transcendental rights and justice *is* a transcendental construct
Modern liberal idea at the surface at least is that people defend the rights of the weak because the rights of everyone depends on the rights of the weakest. It's not particularly transcended on the surface, it's just "I want nice thingie and these blacks want nice thingies so we should team up"

>>520739005
If it's my also my opinion that the sun rises and sets then I agree. A society that is run by dictate will prosper and collapse based on the quality of the dictates, and to assume the quality will always be high is like assuming the sun will always shine, and not preparing for a rainy day.

>>520733962 (OP)
And just where do you think the consent of the governed comes from?

>>520739140
Again, there's also Aristotle's water argument and food argument against the rule of a wise man over an assembly.

Hitler writes in Mein Kampf in his criticism of parliamentarianism:
>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?

Hitler criticizing the composite brain of entities like parliamentarianism and the Free Market / Decentralization's composite brain -- is a criticism of Aristotle by extension.

Hitler in Mein Kampf also describes his own disillusionment with parliamentary democracy. Many other people have been raised with a profound belief in the wisdom of statesmen: they are the experts:
>Yet all these, and many others, were defects which could not be attributed to the parliamentary system as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular. I still believed that if the German majority could be restored in the representative body there would be no occasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian State continued to exist.

>But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great economical importance and each representative had the right to have his say.

>That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought during several weeks afterwards.

>The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak German but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals, exhortations, and grave warnings.

>I could not refrain from laughing.

>Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.

>>520738552
>>520737972
Now thinking about that and my own thoughts on the god and man. I'm pretty sure the phrase "god created man" is more true than not but it depends on careful consideration of what "god", "created", and "man" means. Basically there is an irrational super-important source of subjective consciousness and the capacity to observe meaning. If you take that "god created man" and compare it with "liberal state gives subjects their rights" then it's quite clear that liberalism replaced the god with the state

>>520738858
Modern state and liberalism are basically the same thing looked from a different angle, you should read some history

>>520733962 (OP)
Evola was a xenophilic retard, hating his own. He is a mediocre author once you understand him, and an equally mediocre personality. Despite what he took himself to be, he was a status seeking narcy type, just like Schopenhauer, another that took himself to be a spiritually superior person.

To quote Tomberg:
>The way of Hermeticism, solitary and intimate as it is, comprises authentic experiences from which it follows that the Roman Catholic Church is, in fact, a depository of Christian spiritual truth, and the more one advances on the way of free research for this truth, the more one approaches the Church

>A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form.

>A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making this institution function.

Hitler continues to make some critical complaints about parliamentarianism:
>The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body.

>The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?

>Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent?

>Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice?

>Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered.

>Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?

>In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?

>What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?

>Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?

>In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?

>Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?

>Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?

>And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?

>Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?

>Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?

>But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?

>>520739107
It's simply unnatural for most men, most men are not ants, though some are, and let them behave like ants, the rest of them won't, the only way to achieve plato's dystopia is through this transhumanist "new man" ideal, historically attempted through eugenics, in the modern age attempted through technocracy, although i think only a mad man would want such a thing. Such regimes can exist for a short while, in opposition to nature, but they are short lived, even sparta was a flash in the pan, despite probably having the best chance at achieving this, and having many qualities that could be considered desirably, they were too slow, too tough, and too inhuman, man can steal fire but he cannot touch the sun.

Hitler continues.
>The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.

>The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.

>>520739366
>>520739433
>>520739461
>>520739497
Fuck off jew

>>520739484
Yes, you are right that men naturally aren't equipped for this degree of unity -- that degree of unity requires Machiavellian aim, an arbitrary power, like Hobbes advocated and indeed even Plato recognized the need for arbiters.
But just because they aren't always long-lived isn't a testimony that they don't have valid points, just that by accident of history seeking what is most ideal has its hardships.
To attain this degree of unity is necessarily added a bit of arbitrariness, that is why one-party states must ban the other parties.

>>520739571
I'm posting this to show OP why Hitler and Fascism are not the enemy.
Hitler defended the Aristocratic principle. He believed in the rule of a wise man over the assembly, unlike Aristotle and the composite brain of democracy.

>The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority–which means the dunder headed multitude–hate nothing so much as a superior brain.

>>520739341
>Modern state and liberalism are basically the same thing looked from a different angle
If you're going to say everything other than a monarchy is liberalism, there are many different models of organization, even in liberalism.
>>520739199
>they are like the greater quantity of water which is less easily corrupted than a little.
Fascinating, you could write a book on that subject alone. Thank you for posting some foundational philosophical concepts. I do find many of Plato's Republican concepts interesting and I think there's something to it, however I think the overarching idea behind it, the amalgamation of man into a single unit to be commanded by some 'wise' man, is insane.

>This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.

>One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude

>The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watch every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards which their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too long to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chance of getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to give up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they are hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants.

>The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate the more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of 'objectivity' in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising.

>There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.

>It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well informed deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are dependent on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according to the evil meaning it has today, can be put into effect. And by this method alone it is possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never be brought to account for his actions. For under such circumstances none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can be laid at the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the evil genius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole.

>>520739632
I would prefer to see it was a pattern of the natural order rather than an accident of history, but perhaps thats just my preferences talking.

LMAOing at your life, nigger

Adolf Hitler concerning Austria's political situation:
>Among the institutions which most clearly manifested unmistakable signs of decay, even to the weak-sighted Philistine, was that which, of all the institutions of State, ought to have been the most firmly founded--I mean the Parliament, or the Reichsrat (Imperial Council) as it was called in Austria.

>The pattern for this corporate body was obviously that which existed in England, the land of classic democracy. The whole of that excellent organization was bodily transferred to Austria with as little alteration as possible.

>There it was that Vienna encountered the first difficulty. When Hansen, the Danish architect, had completed the last gable of the marble palace in which the new body of popular representatives was to be housed he had to turn to the ancient classical world for subjects to fill out his decorative plan. This theatrical shrine of 'Western Democracy' was adorned with the statues and portraits of Greek and Roman statesmen and philosophers. As if it were meant for a symbol of irony, the horses of the quadriga that surmounts the two Houses are pulling apart from one another towards all four quarters of the globe. There could be no better symbol for the kind of activity going on within the walls of that same building

>The 'nationalities' were opposed to any kind of glorification of Austrian history in the decoration of this building, insisting that such would constitute an offence to them and a provocation. Much the same happened in Germany, where the Reich-stag, built by Wallot, was not dedicated to the German people until the cannons were thundering in the World War. And then it was dedicated by an inscription.

>I was not yet twenty years of age when I first entered the Palace on the Franzens-ring to watch and listen in the Chamber of Deputies. That first experience aroused in me a profound feeling of repugnance.

>>520739733
Liberalism is a program of creating equal and free economic agents mainly for the purpose of industrialisation. Socialism is just a form of liberalism where agents cannot make for-profit investments. Any sort of formal estates system, like titles of nobility in russian empire or apartheid, is not liberalism.

>I had always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution in itself. Quite the contrary. As one who cherished ideals of political freedom I could not even imagine any other form of government. In the light of my attitude towards the House of Habsburg I should then have considered it a crime against liberty and reason to think of any kind of dictatorship as a possible form of government.

>A certain admiration which I had for the British Parliament contributed towards the formation of this opinion. I became imbued with that feeling of admiration almost without my being conscious of the effect of it through so much reading of newspapers while I was yet quite young. I could not discard that admiration all in a moment. The dignified way in which the British House of Commons fulfilled its function impressed me greatly, thanks largely to the glowing terms in which the Austrian Press reported these events. I used to ask myself whether there could be any nobler form of government than self government by the people.

>But these considerations furnished the very motives of my hostility to the Austrian Parliament. The form in which parliamentary government was here represented seemed unworthy of its great prototype. The following considerations also influenced my attitude:

>Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the filth of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire (Note 6), the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.
- Adolf Hitler

>>520739925
No idea how you came to that definition. Historically Liberalism was tied to the enlightenment, which has a theist sect and an athiest sect, they weren't a monolith.

Honestly, I could talk here all day.
Go visit my thread on leftypol /siberia/ Royal Colony 13
https://leftypol.org/siberia/res/661722.html
OR visit 8moe's /monarchy/ board.
I don't want to blogpost all over this thread with my studies and citations/quotes.

>>520740165
I appreciate your posts

And still, despite all of the meaning, the constructs, the divine right, and most of all, the one faggot using a bot to copy&paste spam his ready-made Uncle Adolf bullshit, all it took was picrel to rip it all to shreds for eternity, so much so that even Karl Marx ended up being as pissed as every rightoid faggot ever could be.

>Literally who

Read, nigger.

>>520740472
Wow, so spooky.
(I didn't use a bot, all this was manually copy and pasted).

>>520733962 (OP)
Power is the only right to rule.
If one is more powerful than the many then he should rule, if not then the many should.

Real kings are not nonexistent but they are exceedingly rare and can not be created on demand.

>>520740472
Nietzsche is better

>>520740705
Agreed that kings aren't created on demand.

>>520734568
Based Jungian Brother.

>>520733962 (OP)
How do you embody what's transcendent? If it's by fate, then do they need to be born into fortune and influence? Do they need to be uber social chads? Or maybe someone's an underdog that attains enlightenment by some chance and gets a cool eye patch, that's a common theme right? Yeah, I don't think it'll happen if it's just some star alignment and no real path is followed. I think that merely acknowledging the 'transcendental' could make things worse.

I'm mostly here because I don't like Evola's criticism of Fascism.
I feel Evola's criticism of Fascism embodies all I dislike of the Traditionalist bloc, honestly.
I'd rather defend Fascism.
As a monarchist larper, I never liked the HIgh Church pretense of Church Sword > Political , the apathy towards the King's Kingdom and the lauding of Thomas Becket against Henry II, the continued apathy of High Church Clericalism to the King's Kingdom and the political ends.

As a monarchist, I deplore Becket era HIgh Church sentiment against the Monarchy, like i honestly deplore the way it Oscar Romero's portrait is used against Nayib in El Salvador.

Having seen the Cult of Thomas Becket used against the King and the portrait of Oscar Romero used against Nayib... I will never -- ever -- endorse the High Church mentality of Spiritual Sword > Political Sword.
And I'm more of Hobbes opinion of the unity of Sword and Crosier instances like this.

>>520741143
Nothing in Christianity is salvageable at this point, time to just move on

This instance with Nayib captures why I feel that way.

>>520740613
Still ridiculous.

>>520740715
Stirner is the step you take prior to reading Nietzsche. There is no point to attempting to actualise yourself as thoroughly as Nietzsche tells you to if you don't first realise how most of what you deal with in life is nothing but vacuous constructs that don't hold any inherent meaning or value. Nietzsche talks about it, sure, but Stirner beats it into your head.

>But muh Evola is le hecking guise who transcended Nietzsche!!111!!!+1!11

Evola is a faggot. He diagnoses some issues correctly, takes the right first few steps, and then does a hard 180 turn that would flip even a tank on its head by going "so akchully that's why you need to follow muh tradishun, embrace the spook and do as you're told because that's who and what you really are. pls believe I'm a baron and not a retard who wheelchair'd himself by going for a stroll during a bombing run."

He appeals only to those who enjoy the idea of what Stirner and especially Nietzsche propose but lack the balls to follow through with it, so instead of standing on their own two feet, they lean on empty constructs and bullshit.

Like Hobbes says, it was an era of apathy towards the King's Kingdom and Commonwealth -- and they didn't acknowledge preeminence of the King with regard to his State.

Thomas Hobbes / The people in general were so ignorant
>Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty
>or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth
>King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to

>>520733962 (OP)
Holy fucking retardation

>>520739690
Hitler was a piece of shit golem
Dictatorship is ungermanic and always will be
Kikes and brownoids will never understand

>>520741441
Hobbes has to be the most overrated political thinker in history, and that's a high fucking bar given the likes of Macchiavelli and Evola

>>520740960
pseud

>>520741567
I praise Hitler for smashing this god of Parliamentarianism.
Mixed constitutionalist attitudes I don't care for either. I hate multi-party democracy and political pluralism like Hitler does.

>>520741714
Parliamentarism is fine in an ethnically homogenous, European society
Long term, free White men will never accept anything else

>>520739334
Damn, clown world was a thing even during Hitler's time

>>520741842
Mixed constitutionalist sentiments lead to mixed societies.
Aristotle's society is like the caste system of the Spanish Empire and even encourages the introduction of foreign elements to complete it.
A superior idea of an ethnically homogenuous European society is being a great family with a people descended from their King, a cult of personality, a father and fatherland.
The pretense of free white men and Aristotle's mixed constitution is the ultimate conceit: all multi-party democracy does is make a community of kindred people into a community of strangers, into Republican and Democrat, plastic identities not worth while.
The North Koreans have a superior notion of State being a great family around their Leader and a kindred people.

We can advance beyond the voting booth, we can be more than Republican and Democrat, we can strive for a greater degree of unity.

>>520741842
It's not actually, it has bad incentives and cannot even defend itself against the left

>>520741567
Is every non democratic leader a dictator

I wish for nothing more than for Republican and Democrat, Tory and Labour, or whatever party to be violently stomped out -- so the people can no longer be as it were enemies to each other, so that a father and son no more will quarrel, so that people will no longer be split like a household divided against itself.

I hope for nothing more than a Caesar to come out like a demigod in the marketplace and dismantle all these political parties -- so that we can live for more than discussing the most trivial political issues that multi-party democracy feeds us like scraps off the table.

You'll of course say it is a state of slaves to achieve this unity, but I see it as a family bond being established, by eliminating all the parties and binding the citizens closer together -- it is a great boon.

Hesiod: The Wisdom of Kingship
>All the people look to him as he decides between opposing claims with straight judgments. he addresses them without erring and quickly and knowingly ends a great quarrel. For this reason, kings are wise, because for people injuring one another in assembly, they end actions that call for vengeance easily, appeases the parties with soft words.

>>520742621
Well that's the proper pre-modern position of a king as a high judge between noble clans, not as a top manager of the state

>>520733962 (OP)
This quote is implying that an elected official that does his job well is better than a king that cannot do his work. Monarchism is dumb to slide into because the process requires mass bloodshed and enslavement. It's actually dumber than utopian communism because where communism at least strives to give the worker the full value of their labor, monarchist utopianism requires a mass lobotomy to sell you the idea that the value of your labor isn't meant for you and you need to be a slave. That same aspect of mass lobotomy being required is in utopian communism too, but it's understandably less severe, the reason you engage with the system, work in it, and benefit from it are more direct. Monarchism generally requires a retarded population that buys into a system of divinity that legitimizes power. Without that, /pol/ branded monarchism is more chaotic and even worse.

>>520743033
People need some system of divinity though

>>520734202
>criticizes the idea of 'spiritual racism'
>uses a memeflag

>>520733962 (OP)
>Perfect is better than imperfect
What a fucking retarded thing to say. Now show me that perfectly womanly woman.

>>520743013
No, that's the Aristotelian idea.
Just look at the dispute between the Pope and the Orthodox Bishops and it is the same thing.
It was also the same for Gaius Caligula and his vassal kings.
You probably have the Tocquevillist brain worm in your head: De Jouvene's words.

Absolute monarchists don't support Aristotle's idea of a partnership of clans.
I demand the preeminence of one ruler over the estates, and unity of a monarch prior to the estates-general.
...
It is De Jouvenel who advocates this idea (and probably spreads the Medievalist motif from Alexis de Tocqueville) of Aristotle's partnership of clans... This idea is fundamentally at odds with a preeminent Monarchy.

De Jouvenel / Monarchical vs Senatorial
>According to which of these two hypotheses is adopted, the conclusion is reached that the "natural" government is either the monarchical or the senatorial. But from the time that Locke utterly smashed up Filmer's fragile structure, the earliest political authority was considere to be the senate composed of fathers of families, using the word "families" in the widest sense.
>Society must, therefore, have presented two degrees of authority, which were quite different in kind.
<On the one hand is the head of the family, exercising the most imperious sway over all who were within the family circle.
>On the other are the heads of families in council, taking decisions in concert, tied to each other only by consent, submitting only to what has been determined in common, and assembling their retainers, who have outside themselves, neither law nor master, to execute their will.

This is the same idea that Aristotle says here:
Aristotle:
>The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head:
>whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals.
Absolute monarchists don't make this distinction between political & economical rule.

I have heard all of the Tocquevillist pretenses against Absolute Monarchy -- and I disagree.
I fundamentally reject mixed constitutionalism and the idea of one among equals.

De Jouvenel - Republic of Old
>The republic of old had no state apparatus. It needed no machinery for imposing the public will on all the citizens, who would have had none of such a thing. The citizens, with their own wills and their own resources – these latter small at first but continuously growing – decide by adjusting their wills and execute by pooling their resources.

>We do not find anywhere in the ancient republic a directing will so armed with its own weapons that it can use force. There were the consults, I may be told. But to start with there were two of them, and it was an essential feature of the office that they could block one another's activities.

>Only those decisions were possible on which there was general agreement, and, in the absence of any state apparatus, their execution depended solely on the cooperation of the public. The army was but the people in arms, and the revenues were but the sums gifted by the citizens, which could not have been raised except by voluntary subscriptions. There was not, to come down to the essential point, an administrative corps.

>In the city of old, no public office is found filled by a member of a permanent staff who holds his place from Power; the method of appointment is election for a short period, usually a year, and often by the drawing of lots, which was called by Aristotle the true democratic method.

>It thus appears that the rulers do not form, as in our modern society, a coherent body which, from the minister of state down to the policeman, moves as one piece. On the contrary, the magistrates, great and small, discharge their duties in a way which verges on independence.

>How was a regime of this kind able to function at all? Only be great moral cohesion and the inter-availability of private citizens for public office.

Bodin / A household or family, the true model of a Commonwealth
>So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed.

>>520735820
Nothing you’ve said addresses my post. I am correct, and you are a fool.

I have heard it a thousand times as an absolute monarchist about the Tocquevillist complaints against Absolute Monarchy -- and I have already explained thoroughly in my thread why I'm opposed to it -- it's Aristotle's idea, and it is opposed to a preeminent Monarchy, it is political pluralism, the partnership of clans that Aristotle purports is against Absolute Monarchy on pretense of the nobles like it is against State Corporatism / One-Party States on pretense of multi-party democracy.

>>520733962 (OP)
The governed cannot consent, because they are governed. Did you get a say when you were born to follow arbitrary rules set by the mob you were born into? Didn’t think so. Your consent is not asked for, nor will it be heeded.

Tocquevillism is a revolt of Oligarchy against Monarchy.
It demands the Rule of the Few over the Rule of One.
It's not monarchist at all. It is Oligarchist is spirit.
In words of the Herodotus Debate, Tocquevillists would side with
There were three who argued Otanes, Megabyzus, and Darius.
Darius for Monarchy.
Megabyzus for Oligarchy.
Otanes for Democracy.
The Tocquevillists are in the Oligarchist camp: They would side with Megabyzus over Darius.

Jean Bodin called the HRE at the time a kind of oligarchy of many princes -- against the monarchist maxim of Homer, "Ill fares the State of many masters, let one be lord, one be king."

Alexis de Tocqueville praises Germany over France; no surprise (he's an oligarchist and likes Oligarchy over Monarchy).

The HRE to these people, these ancap neofeuds, is just Aristotle's City on a Map, they love the partnership of clans, political pluralism, decentralization, etc.

>"The old European constitution was better preserved in Germany than France"
Tocqueville says,
>"Whenever I discovered in the old legislation of Germany" recounts Alexis de Tocqueville.

>>520743502
And that requires lobotomy to accept at this level. Before the trick was to have an uneducated population and discourage literacy. That's the classic rightwing tradition. Without it, you have people understanding where the value of their work goes and why. It's a fragile order that can't meaningfully survive.

>>520733962 (OP)
Things will never change until the intelligence agencies, underground military-industrial-complex lairs and defense contractor facilities are stormed and the glowniggers and parasites who work there are executed and the data they collect is leaked to the public so that the rest of these government assets, zogbots, mercenaries, glorified jannies and authority figures can be hunted down and exterminated.

>>520733962 (OP)
Thank you OP

Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different
>Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found.

>Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct.

Filmer continued:
>And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular.

>>520735820
Lol Francois has lost control of his own body. This is a Jewish result.

>>520735982
Do you believe God is Latvian? Lol

>>520733962 (OP)
Imagine claiming Hitler was not
>A person who embodies transcendent values and is a manifestation of the world of being has a divine right to rule.
You know the philosopher king actually does have concent of the governed because the philosopher king is awesome, people like Caesar, Hitler and many other kings from history had a very strong relationship to the plebs because with the help of the plebs you can keep the other members of the ruling class in line more easily, the best base for power is king and his loyal plebs

>>520745010
Humans without divinity would be like a bunch of computers working to produce more resources for more computers. Removing divinity is more of a lobotomy than embracing it.

>>520745407
God must be american, right?

>>520733962 (OP)
Ebola is a schizo

>>520734812
Exactly this. It's pretty obvious that the nobles have fallen from Grace, and Evola himself states the importance of sacrifice and rituals.
Sacrifice the old nobles and current ruling class/culture, dedicate the blood and fire to the Lord, and construct a new one. Just because the Nazi party was started by plebian masses, doesn't mean it couldn't have been sanctified through their victory. The Mandate of Heaven is timeless anyways, so if they had succeeded, it would have been justified

>>520745909
But it isn't removed, in this case it's installed with the purpose of supporting power as it conveniences the powerful. The current religious system says Christ is King and it's true. A system of shills peddling away from that simple truth and towards "Christ is king, but the representation of his divinity on earth is Bill Gates! We need to work for him and do as he says." The most generous thing that should be done to anyone doing that is laugh them out and never take them seriously again.

>>520735264
>Evola believed leaders gained divine right through embodying the transcendent archetype of a leader
well, he was evidently wrong, wasn't he?
if you're going that route, might as well go full mandate of heaven and kill the emperor every time gas prices go up because clearly God and universe aren't on his side

Fascism wasn't too far from that idea either...

Giovanni Gentile:
>So that the thought & will of the solitary person, the Duce, becomes the thought and will of the masses.

Giovanni Gentile:
>That Leader advances, secure, surrounded in an aura of myth, almost a person chosen by the Deity, tireless and infallible, an instrument employed by Providence to create a new civilization.

Mussolini in A Diary of the Will (1927):
>Yes. The State is that unitary expression, absolute will, of the power and of the consciousness of the Nation
>This executive power–is the sovereign power of the Nation. The supreme head is the King

Then Mussolini on his leadership doctrine for Fascist party members:
>Because in the subordination of all to the will of a Leader, which is not a capricious will, but a seriously meditative will, & proven by deeds, Fascism has found its strength.
>There should be no limits. We must obey even if the Leader asks too much.

>>520747139
It becomes more and more clear that he's speaking of a monarchist theory that, yeah, is easy to disprove and gets disproven constantly. The cope is that if things go wrong, then God isn't on their side and they aren't divine. It's like you need to find a leader and test them, and as long as things are okay, they are the divine leader, as soon as things get bad, you need to organize a coup and find a new replacement.

I hate to say it, but ever since the ruin of Christendom -- the notion of the Divine Right of Kings has been outclassed by these totalitarian ideologies.

Why would a king even be interested in High Churchism now when
1. It gives the clergy so many pretenses against him.
2. It just makes him look like a fool to all the modern people (just like people look down on Nicholas II and Charles I as fools for upholding High Church).

While Kings today are like hoary-faced eunuchs wrapped in High Church ceremonies and nothing else, communist leaders like Lenin and Mao are received by their nations like Prophets among men -- that whatever Divine Right was pales in comparison, just look at how Mao is portrayed and tell me it hasn't been totally outclassed for all that has been said.

Most contemporary monarchists wouldn't trust their Royalty to ride a fuckin' horse, but communists would follow their leader figures to the ends of the Earth.

>>520747766
>>520747139
All this is just a sign of the lack of faith and low confidence in a leader, so you immediately conspire to replace him.

It's because when it comes to royalty, you people lack that faith to move mountains.

People these days don't believe in kings -- they believe in statesmen, the experts, the advisers who think they are way smarter.

Notice, communists don't talk about overthrowing their own leaders... that's because they actually believe in those leaders.

Same for Trump: Trump supporters wouldn't dare even think to indict him, because they believe in Trump with their heart and mind.

With MAGA and Communist supporters, they have a commitment and loyalty because they've been convinced these Leaders know the way.

People today don't think Monarchy can provide for them or has any wisdom -- people in general have lost faith in Christendom as well, desu, and are half-hearted when they appear to be.

Monarchy consists in viewing the Ruler as a superior, not weighing your conscience against him because he has a kind of preeminence over your minds -- like how Christians wouldn't weigh their conscience against Christ himself, because they believe Christ to be a superior and their source of life.

Xenophon Cyropaedia
>“When the interests of mankind are at stake, they will obey with joy the man whom they believe to be wiser than themselves... You may see how the sick man will beg the doctor to tell him what he ought to do, how a whole ship's company will listen to the pilot, how travellers will cling to one who knows the way better, as they believe, than they do themselves. 'You would have me understand', said Cyrus, 'that the best way to secure obedience is to be thought wiser than those we rule?' 'Yes', said Cambyses, 'that is my belief.'

>“None quicker, my lad, than this: wherever you wish to seem wise, be wise.”

>“Well, my son, it is plain that where learning is the road to wisdom, learn you must, as you learn your battalion-drill, but when it comes to matters which are not to be learnt by mortal men, nor foreseen by mortal minds, there you can only become wiser than others by communicating with the gods through the art of divination. But, always, whenever you know that a thing ought to be done, see that it is done, and done with care; for care, not carelessness, is the mark of the wise man.

It is the same with you people.
You don't believe Kings have the wisdom, you don't believe High Church that backs Kings has the wisdom to guide society, you don't think royalty are genuinely our superiors.
Communists are lead around like a carrot on a stick because they believe these Communist leaders are like prophets, that they know the way, that they'll bring them towards a better end, like a physician knows the cure or a captain of the ship knows how to guide them.

When Dr. Fauci says "I am the Science"
They obey him, because like Xenophon says they think Fauci is smarter and the expert.
Like a Physician who knows the cure.

It's really the same with Divine Right and Monarchy -- it was to teach you people that the King is your superior and has a preeminence.
It's just that these days, it isn't enough to give a ruler a prophet like majesty over you.
Now that Christianity is extremely divisive, it's no real use to make the claim of divine right because it would be contested by so many parties and Christianity doesn't have much genuine faith from people like it used to.

Now dictators settle for political ideologies and totalitarianism because it is more effective.

>>520748214
But now it's not about success or divinity, but the fickle feelings of the masses. It's far from perfect, but you're making a sales pitch for four year term limits. It's all shallow and can't account for human skepticism, contrarianism, and cynicism. It tries its best by actively fighting against education and literacy, but that's just mass lobotomy, admitting that if anyone has the time and baseline education to think about it, it falls apart. This requires struggle, suffering, and subjugation as well as a way to ensure the only education they get is the "God wants Bill Gates to rule you" narrative.