A good attempt at formulation of the foundational principle for the Right Wing. There's more than a passing semblance to Platonic forms here, something that perhaps bears underscoring, to aid in understanding the format of ontological propriety(OP). I will hasten to add, that the format of the principle as enacted in the human species and our social way of living gives rise to the chicken and egg question about the formation of the principle, which is avoided here by positing the principle of the form being pre-existing.
Could it also not be argued, that the fundamental principle within OP will be hierarchy? The implicit cultural understanding of that term already encapsulates bulk of what the principle tries to represent, I will admit to it missing a lot of metaphysical context that OP underscores. Perhaps there is a disguised sense of "correctness" that one senses about social structures that leads one to subconscious leanings towards one way or another. If so, can OP bear that out in its definition?
I would posit that propriety itself is the fundamental principle in OP, with OP being the most fundamental principle to the Right. My train of thought is that Right and Left in their universal mode must be reducible to principles which are "uncorruptible".
The Left will do anything to achieve equality, but equality itself, in whatever form it takes, is their driving force. This mainly takes the form of being anti-everything: anti-tradition, anti-hierarchy, anti-capitalism, anti-work even, etc, but all of these are corruptible. There can be unequal anti-hierarchy, unequal anti-tradition, unequal anti-capitalism, etc; these are vehicles for achieving equality, but are corruptible. There cannot be unequal equality as principle.
Along the same lines, the Right will do anything to achieve ontological propriety, but that principle of propriety itself is uncorruptible. There can be improper hierarchies, there can be improper families, there can be improper traditions even, but there cannot be improper propriety, and all of these things are the vehicle for achieving propriety.
I would, however, agree that hierarchy is the one principle with an intimate relationship with propriety, however, because propriety is determined by an ontological hierarchy, but this is why we make the distinction that it is "ontological propriety", thus incorporating the ontological hierarchy in our consideration. To say "hierarchical propriety" would lead to certain problems that arise when one asks the question "proper according to which hierarchy?". This is avoided by specifying that it is the "grand ontological hierarchy of Reality itself", which itself is universal.
I would say that Platonic philosophy, along with every legitimate religious tradition, for that matter, is an examination and expression of ontological propriety and its metaphysical foundation, which is precisely why all of these things can be classified as examples of a Right Wing civilizational mode.
I would agree that these are all Leftward tendencies. Why would I agree this? Because if the further-most Right is defined by Ontological Propriety, and these ideologies do not affirm propriety in this manner, then they are a departure from the Right and are therefore a step towards the Left. They are also democratizing forces and they do indicate a progression towards human equality as well, in various forms.
Napoleon largely represented a Democratic-Aristocracy, spreading Enlightenment values across Europe to the effect that the Holy Alliance against him organized to reaffirm the values of Ontological Propriety in the face of this.
Nazi Party and Fascism also represented an equalizing force, only instead of at the global level, it was at the racial level in the former, and the national level in the latter. Leadership was meritocratic within the nation, and the nation itself was seen as superior to other nations, but there was considered to be no human differentiation within the nation; both movements actually had an emphasis on the working class of their nations, and when presented with an option to restore the old Aristocracy or at least establish a new aristocratizing principle - for example, when Evola gave his speeches in front of the SS - these ideas were dismissed as antithetical to their own goals, which ultimately is nationalistic human equality.
For Stalin, he initially wanted the Egalitarian Marxist revolution to be global, which makes him more semantically Leftist than the previous examples, however once he adopted his "Socialism in One Country" idea, which, by the way, sounds very similar to "National Socialism", it seems he just became another force like the previous two, albeit in a different format with his own racial preferences.
None of these uphold the true idea of Ontological Propriety as an ordering principle, by which a person of a particular ontological station has the duty of fulfilling that station in act.
So, to begin with, you are factually correct on everything you said here. Although I believe you have a myopic viewpoint on the issue, I do not mean that as an insult, you are clearly quite intelligent. everybody dances with the surety of their belies and view points so I'm noy knocking you intellect. all except 1, Evola's ideas being dismissed. Evola initially was critical of the Nazi government, but as the Nazis regime started to take shape he became MORE supportive overtime, not less, his book Pagan Imperialism is a celebration of the 3rd reich, explicitly. for example he writes in "men among the ruins" , chapter 8 "the concept of the order, and the elite"
published in 1953 mind you, its a post war analysis, “One can see in the SS (Schutzstaffel) an attempt to reconstruct, in modern terms, the structure of a sacred and warrior Order, evoking the idea of a 'militant elite' that would not be simply military in the narrow sense, but also spiritual in orientation.” chapter 8
"The SS remind one of the ideals once upheld by the Knights Templar, by the Jesuit Order, or by the ancient Indo-Aryan Kshatriya caste—organizations in which action was combined with asceticism and loyalty to a higher principle.”
“What mattered to the SS was not merely descent or blood, but the presence of certain inner qualities. The idea of an inner race, or spiritual race, was superior to mere biological determinism.”
"The SS was not simply a military body but an Order, bearing a spiritual character and aiming to create a new aristocratic human type."
And Evola was hardly dismissed by the SS. He was hired to teach Racial ideology for the SS. He also worked for the SD, and the intelligence service.
However thats the end of my historical notes, now to the substance.
When you say Ontological propriety I assume you mean hierarchy, aristocracy. The foundation of radical traditionalism.
and this is exactly why I brought up Napoleon. SO historically, the European aristocracy, going back to the Aryans, was a warrior system. Feudal Lords protected the commoners, by granting protection, he also carried the right to rule.
(further more, you seem to critique collectivism, yet anti-hierarchy, is radically individualist, and just so, at the extremes, individualism may be egalitarian or hierarchical (might makes right) and the opposite, collectivism may likewise be egalitarian or hierarchical. and the most important part, the crux-after mentioning it here I will set the stage and then return to it later to bring it all together- I believe the true ideological beauty of National Bolshevism is the switching of places and the synthesizing : Hierarchical egalitarianism.)
Its important here in my opinion, to read Kalergi, Practical idealism, because his ideology represents exactly the opposite of Radical traditionalism. He starts from the same set of historical facts, and even sees things in the same way, a contest between aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, hierarchy vs egalitarianism, tradition vs liberalism.
to Kalergi, the tale of the modern era, was the fight over who will rule in the new era. and in the end the Bourgeois merchant caste, replaced the warrior-aristocracy as the ruling elite. and he makes clear why. Nobles, were rural. they ruled over the countryside from theiir castles, stayed physically ready for war, and trained up, BY THE NATURE OF HIS LIFESTYLE, Guarding the land, and the people, and the marches/borders and enforcing the laws. These families, were warlike Germanic Barbarians who lived by the Sword, and took land by the Sword, and ruled by the Sword, they're courage was hereditary, which is why they passed down the right to rule.
However in pre-modernity, they became debased and lost their right to rule. Thats the Key issue here. aristocracy lost its position, they became degenerates. I mentioned to you Art. Martial, masculine neo-classicalism was the art of revolution. pleasure seeking Gaity through Rococo the art of the nobility.
And that returns me to Napoleon, he created a new nobility, of WARRIORS. a Warrior Elite to replace the degenerates. An Emperor of the Sword, to replace the old aristocracy of degenerates.
this is Syncreticism. this is NATIONAL/BOLSHEVISM.
And I'd like to explore the theory, ideological backdrop. Sorel, is the father of National Bolshevism. National Syndicalism. National Marxism. he was a Marxist, yet his call for hierarchy and a return to the past is perennial.
He asks the question in his work,if class war can take us into the past ?
Fundamentally, he believed that Revolution can revitalize society. He argues that the Aristocracy has been totally debased. just like Kalergi. in reflections on violence he speaks on the concept of propaganda of the deed, and the power of myth and rebirth. He suggests that the Society has degenerated, and he calls for return to hierarchy, as the end goal of CLASS WAR.
The Heroic, Warrior-Elite ruling caste, can be reborn however, what is akin to a spiritual aristocracy, that dwells among the Working class, proletarians and Peasants. So Revolution happens, a National, Egalitarian-feudalism is erected, the warrior-heroes of the revolution, found among the working class, he called this "the moral-aristocracy", these are revolutionaries so committed to communist Utopianism that they are capable of revolutionary action, and heroic deeds based on the strength of their convictions. the rejection of cowardice, and bourgeois comforts.
So this is a leftist, calling for an aristocracy, but believed the thing that would create this is class war, a revolution. This is Bonapartism. the Synthesis of revolution with reaction.
And a great modern example of it , is North Korea with the Juche idea. I am a member of the Korean friendship Association, KFA, and have studied the Juche idea thoroughly. The key point is the Leader Priniple, the Suryong. and the next is Songun, which translates to military first.
Under Juche, unlike traditional Marxism, the proletariat is not the revolutionary subject, and there is no dictatorship of the proletariat. instead the Military, and the revolutionary class becomes revolutionary subject. dictatorship of the proletariat becomes dictatorship of the military.
I agree with you that there is nuance in Evola's relationship with the SS, but ultimately my statement corresponded to this particular quote from the foreword of Revolt:
[At the time Evola was repeatedly on lecture tours in Germany, and he was observed by the SS, who kept a dossier on him in the Correspondence Administration Department of Himmler's personal staff. In this dossier document number AR-126 says of him:
'The ultimate and secret goal of Evola's theories and projects is most likely an *insurrection of the old aristocracy* against the modern world, which is foreign to the idea of nobility. Thus the first German impression, that he was a "reactionary Roman", was correct: His overall character is marked by the feudal aristocracy of old. His learnedness tends towards the dilettante and pseudoscientific.
Hence it follows that National Socialism sees nothing to be gained by putting itself at the disposal of Baron Evola. His political plans for a Roman-Germanic Imperium are utopian in character and moreover likely to give rise to ideological entanglements. As Evola has also only been tolerated and hardly supported by Fascism, there is not even a tactical need to assist him from our side. It is therefore suggested:
1 - Not to give any concrete support of Evola's present efforts to establish a secret international order and a special publication intended for that purpose.
2 - To stop his public effectiveness in Germany, after this lecture series, without deploying any special measures.
3 - To prevent him from advancing to leading departments in party and state.
4 - To have his propagandistic activity in neighboring countries carefully observed.'
In response to this report, a short letter of August 11, 1938 (letter no. AR-83), puts it laconically: 'Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler has taken note of the opinions expressed in the report on Baron Evola's lecture and strongly agrees with the ideas and proposals set forth in the final paragraph.']
I understand Evola's support for particular elements of particular aspects of Nazi organization, but he was not in full support of the regime before or after, and I'd recommend a few texts of his to back this claim:
-A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism
-Fascism Viewed From The Right
-Notes On The Third Reich
Again, history aside, the point here is really about the principle of the dichotomy.
You are making a common error with equating Ontological Propriety with anything whatsoever. I am not equating Ontological Propriety with hierarchy, aristocracy, etc.; it is also improper to suggest that the antithesis to human equality is some vague anti-human-equality that exists as various disunited principles in a negating reactionary opposition to the affirmative principle of human equality. Rather than hierarchy and aristocracy being equal to Ontological Propriety, it is such that these are derivative forms or expressions of Ontological Propriety, just as they could be expressed by the Leftist principle presupposing human equality.
I don't think you've expanded your frame of consideration enough to internalize the full implication of what this entails. This is a semantic differentiation, the operative principles here do not share semantics.
Both collectivism and individualism presuppose human equality in various forms, individualism just happens to favor the identity and development of the individual on his own rather than as part of a collective, valuing meritorious performance and an unequal distribution of resources as a result of historical processes, as opposed to the idea according to which resources are to be distributed by need. Human equality here is presumed from the outset, there is an equilateral moral value that every human being is presupposed to have by both of these systems, and in each of these systems there is nothing to do with human differentiation on the basis of an essential typology.
So here where you posit that Kalergi contrasts, for example, hierarchy and egalitarianism, this is a false dichotomy; it's possible to imagine a meritocratic egalitarian hierarchy, as egalitarianism itself presupposes equal rights of all human beings from birth, but does not presuppose anti-hierarchy. Likewise, it is possible to conceive of a Liberal order that abides by Traditional semantics, and thus upholds Ontological Propriety in its own way; it would just have to affirm Ontological Propriety actually exists, and reject the Leftist semantics of Egalitarianism or human equality from the outset as well.
The other issue is seeing history as a battle between ambiguously defined sides. Can all of history really be reduced to class warfare? I think not.
Beyond this, however, the problem I am seeing with the proposal you are making is that this is a political order that concerns solely the political field, and is legitimized by purely political referents. There is nothing in here about ontology whatsoever, these human types, if there are any at all, seem posteriorily classified along arbitrary lines of their performative works in the revolution.
The most proper political mode is that which does not merely have political referents, but ontological and principial referents. Is the political order a reflection of the Total order of Reality itself? If it is not, does it intend to be? If it does not, then it is already a flawed institution. The purpose of any civilizational order is not only to tend to its own temporal station, it is primarily to affirm Universal and Quintessential Truth through its own conditioned medium; it is to allow a participation in higher realities - spiritual realization - to those individuals who partake of it.
Without principial or ontological referents, all that can be said about whether or not one ideology is "better" or "worse" than another is by disunited and conflicting statistics that do not share a unified legitimizing criteria. Why would this particular system be any more philosophically legitimate than any other system?
The answer to whether or not a system is legitimate is not found in the *form* or *structure* of the system, but in the semantic basis in which the system itself has its highest referent and originating principle. A democracy rooted in Ontological Propriety is more Right Wing than an aristocracy rooted in material egalitarianism.
I suggest you also read a thread of conversation I've had with another fellow who is not entirely in agreement with my usages here to perhaps see some potential responses to other things you may bring up, and test your ideas against them. The thread is quite long but I think you will find it valuable.
Right yeah, at that point they would be correct. But inspired by the SS and Iron Legion in Romania. Evola's definition post war drifted towards "spiritual aristocracy", and a order of heroic-warrior priests as the new nobility. So his views were changed by the Nazis, and the SS. Not the other way around.
Because its obvious that the old aristocracy, and the old monarchies are debased and degenerated. They are not worthy of rule.
The feudal Lords of Europe earned the right to rule through heroic action. They threw down the old order (Rome) during the migration period. Just so when the Aryans first left the pontic-steppe they encountered more advanced civilizations. The cucuteni in Europe, the Harrappans in India, the Hatti,Aramaens, and Luwians in Syria.... they crushed them with military force, martial courage, and established the caste system.
When the old order becomes irredeemably corrupt, the universe demands the more worthy take power.
As Napoleon said " I did not steal the crown. I found it lying in the trash.... and picked it up with the tip of my sword"
Aristocracy, built on martial courage is the true tradition
Good job! The reason why there is ideological diversity on the right is because there is a diversity of ontological proprieties.
A good attempt at formulation of the foundational principle for the Right Wing. There's more than a passing semblance to Platonic forms here, something that perhaps bears underscoring, to aid in understanding the format of ontological propriety(OP). I will hasten to add, that the format of the principle as enacted in the human species and our social way of living gives rise to the chicken and egg question about the formation of the principle, which is avoided here by positing the principle of the form being pre-existing.
Could it also not be argued, that the fundamental principle within OP will be hierarchy? The implicit cultural understanding of that term already encapsulates bulk of what the principle tries to represent, I will admit to it missing a lot of metaphysical context that OP underscores. Perhaps there is a disguised sense of "correctness" that one senses about social structures that leads one to subconscious leanings towards one way or another. If so, can OP bear that out in its definition?
I would posit that propriety itself is the fundamental principle in OP, with OP being the most fundamental principle to the Right. My train of thought is that Right and Left in their universal mode must be reducible to principles which are "uncorruptible".
The Left will do anything to achieve equality, but equality itself, in whatever form it takes, is their driving force. This mainly takes the form of being anti-everything: anti-tradition, anti-hierarchy, anti-capitalism, anti-work even, etc, but all of these are corruptible. There can be unequal anti-hierarchy, unequal anti-tradition, unequal anti-capitalism, etc; these are vehicles for achieving equality, but are corruptible. There cannot be unequal equality as principle.
Along the same lines, the Right will do anything to achieve ontological propriety, but that principle of propriety itself is uncorruptible. There can be improper hierarchies, there can be improper families, there can be improper traditions even, but there cannot be improper propriety, and all of these things are the vehicle for achieving propriety.
I would, however, agree that hierarchy is the one principle with an intimate relationship with propriety, however, because propriety is determined by an ontological hierarchy, but this is why we make the distinction that it is "ontological propriety", thus incorporating the ontological hierarchy in our consideration. To say "hierarchical propriety" would lead to certain problems that arise when one asks the question "proper according to which hierarchy?". This is avoided by specifying that it is the "grand ontological hierarchy of Reality itself", which itself is universal.
I would say that Platonic philosophy, along with every legitimate religious tradition, for that matter, is an examination and expression of ontological propriety and its metaphysical foundation, which is precisely why all of these things can be classified as examples of a Right Wing civilizational mode.
in what way does the left have an identity in equality ? the nazi party, fascism, Napoleon, Stalin all should be considered men of the left.
I would agree that these are all Leftward tendencies. Why would I agree this? Because if the further-most Right is defined by Ontological Propriety, and these ideologies do not affirm propriety in this manner, then they are a departure from the Right and are therefore a step towards the Left. They are also democratizing forces and they do indicate a progression towards human equality as well, in various forms.
Napoleon largely represented a Democratic-Aristocracy, spreading Enlightenment values across Europe to the effect that the Holy Alliance against him organized to reaffirm the values of Ontological Propriety in the face of this.
Nazi Party and Fascism also represented an equalizing force, only instead of at the global level, it was at the racial level in the former, and the national level in the latter. Leadership was meritocratic within the nation, and the nation itself was seen as superior to other nations, but there was considered to be no human differentiation within the nation; both movements actually had an emphasis on the working class of their nations, and when presented with an option to restore the old Aristocracy or at least establish a new aristocratizing principle - for example, when Evola gave his speeches in front of the SS - these ideas were dismissed as antithetical to their own goals, which ultimately is nationalistic human equality.
For Stalin, he initially wanted the Egalitarian Marxist revolution to be global, which makes him more semantically Leftist than the previous examples, however once he adopted his "Socialism in One Country" idea, which, by the way, sounds very similar to "National Socialism", it seems he just became another force like the previous two, albeit in a different format with his own racial preferences.
None of these uphold the true idea of Ontological Propriety as an ordering principle, by which a person of a particular ontological station has the duty of fulfilling that station in act.
So, to begin with, you are factually correct on everything you said here. Although I believe you have a myopic viewpoint on the issue, I do not mean that as an insult, you are clearly quite intelligent. everybody dances with the surety of their belies and view points so I'm noy knocking you intellect. all except 1, Evola's ideas being dismissed. Evola initially was critical of the Nazi government, but as the Nazis regime started to take shape he became MORE supportive overtime, not less, his book Pagan Imperialism is a celebration of the 3rd reich, explicitly. for example he writes in "men among the ruins" , chapter 8 "the concept of the order, and the elite"
published in 1953 mind you, its a post war analysis, “One can see in the SS (Schutzstaffel) an attempt to reconstruct, in modern terms, the structure of a sacred and warrior Order, evoking the idea of a 'militant elite' that would not be simply military in the narrow sense, but also spiritual in orientation.” chapter 8
"The SS remind one of the ideals once upheld by the Knights Templar, by the Jesuit Order, or by the ancient Indo-Aryan Kshatriya caste—organizations in which action was combined with asceticism and loyalty to a higher principle.”
“What mattered to the SS was not merely descent or blood, but the presence of certain inner qualities. The idea of an inner race, or spiritual race, was superior to mere biological determinism.”
"The SS was not simply a military body but an Order, bearing a spiritual character and aiming to create a new aristocratic human type."
And Evola was hardly dismissed by the SS. He was hired to teach Racial ideology for the SS. He also worked for the SD, and the intelligence service.
However thats the end of my historical notes, now to the substance.
When you say Ontological propriety I assume you mean hierarchy, aristocracy. The foundation of radical traditionalism.
and this is exactly why I brought up Napoleon. SO historically, the European aristocracy, going back to the Aryans, was a warrior system. Feudal Lords protected the commoners, by granting protection, he also carried the right to rule.
(further more, you seem to critique collectivism, yet anti-hierarchy, is radically individualist, and just so, at the extremes, individualism may be egalitarian or hierarchical (might makes right) and the opposite, collectivism may likewise be egalitarian or hierarchical. and the most important part, the crux-after mentioning it here I will set the stage and then return to it later to bring it all together- I believe the true ideological beauty of National Bolshevism is the switching of places and the synthesizing : Hierarchical egalitarianism.)
Its important here in my opinion, to read Kalergi, Practical idealism, because his ideology represents exactly the opposite of Radical traditionalism. He starts from the same set of historical facts, and even sees things in the same way, a contest between aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, hierarchy vs egalitarianism, tradition vs liberalism.
to Kalergi, the tale of the modern era, was the fight over who will rule in the new era. and in the end the Bourgeois merchant caste, replaced the warrior-aristocracy as the ruling elite. and he makes clear why. Nobles, were rural. they ruled over the countryside from theiir castles, stayed physically ready for war, and trained up, BY THE NATURE OF HIS LIFESTYLE, Guarding the land, and the people, and the marches/borders and enforcing the laws. These families, were warlike Germanic Barbarians who lived by the Sword, and took land by the Sword, and ruled by the Sword, they're courage was hereditary, which is why they passed down the right to rule.
However in pre-modernity, they became debased and lost their right to rule. Thats the Key issue here. aristocracy lost its position, they became degenerates. I mentioned to you Art. Martial, masculine neo-classicalism was the art of revolution. pleasure seeking Gaity through Rococo the art of the nobility.
And that returns me to Napoleon, he created a new nobility, of WARRIORS. a Warrior Elite to replace the degenerates. An Emperor of the Sword, to replace the old aristocracy of degenerates.
this is Syncreticism. this is NATIONAL/BOLSHEVISM.
And I'd like to explore the theory, ideological backdrop. Sorel, is the father of National Bolshevism. National Syndicalism. National Marxism. he was a Marxist, yet his call for hierarchy and a return to the past is perennial.
He asks the question in his work,if class war can take us into the past ?
Fundamentally, he believed that Revolution can revitalize society. He argues that the Aristocracy has been totally debased. just like Kalergi. in reflections on violence he speaks on the concept of propaganda of the deed, and the power of myth and rebirth. He suggests that the Society has degenerated, and he calls for return to hierarchy, as the end goal of CLASS WAR.
The Heroic, Warrior-Elite ruling caste, can be reborn however, what is akin to a spiritual aristocracy, that dwells among the Working class, proletarians and Peasants. So Revolution happens, a National, Egalitarian-feudalism is erected, the warrior-heroes of the revolution, found among the working class, he called this "the moral-aristocracy", these are revolutionaries so committed to communist Utopianism that they are capable of revolutionary action, and heroic deeds based on the strength of their convictions. the rejection of cowardice, and bourgeois comforts.
So this is a leftist, calling for an aristocracy, but believed the thing that would create this is class war, a revolution. This is Bonapartism. the Synthesis of revolution with reaction.
And a great modern example of it , is North Korea with the Juche idea. I am a member of the Korean friendship Association, KFA, and have studied the Juche idea thoroughly. The key point is the Leader Priniple, the Suryong. and the next is Songun, which translates to military first.
Under Juche, unlike traditional Marxism, the proletariat is not the revolutionary subject, and there is no dictatorship of the proletariat. instead the Military, and the revolutionary class becomes revolutionary subject. dictatorship of the proletariat becomes dictatorship of the military.
I agree with you that there is nuance in Evola's relationship with the SS, but ultimately my statement corresponded to this particular quote from the foreword of Revolt:
[At the time Evola was repeatedly on lecture tours in Germany, and he was observed by the SS, who kept a dossier on him in the Correspondence Administration Department of Himmler's personal staff. In this dossier document number AR-126 says of him:
'The ultimate and secret goal of Evola's theories and projects is most likely an *insurrection of the old aristocracy* against the modern world, which is foreign to the idea of nobility. Thus the first German impression, that he was a "reactionary Roman", was correct: His overall character is marked by the feudal aristocracy of old. His learnedness tends towards the dilettante and pseudoscientific.
Hence it follows that National Socialism sees nothing to be gained by putting itself at the disposal of Baron Evola. His political plans for a Roman-Germanic Imperium are utopian in character and moreover likely to give rise to ideological entanglements. As Evola has also only been tolerated and hardly supported by Fascism, there is not even a tactical need to assist him from our side. It is therefore suggested:
1 - Not to give any concrete support of Evola's present efforts to establish a secret international order and a special publication intended for that purpose.
2 - To stop his public effectiveness in Germany, after this lecture series, without deploying any special measures.
3 - To prevent him from advancing to leading departments in party and state.
4 - To have his propagandistic activity in neighboring countries carefully observed.'
In response to this report, a short letter of August 11, 1938 (letter no. AR-83), puts it laconically: 'Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler has taken note of the opinions expressed in the report on Baron Evola's lecture and strongly agrees with the ideas and proposals set forth in the final paragraph.']
I understand Evola's support for particular elements of particular aspects of Nazi organization, but he was not in full support of the regime before or after, and I'd recommend a few texts of his to back this claim:
-A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism
-Fascism Viewed From The Right
-Notes On The Third Reich
Again, history aside, the point here is really about the principle of the dichotomy.
You are making a common error with equating Ontological Propriety with anything whatsoever. I am not equating Ontological Propriety with hierarchy, aristocracy, etc.; it is also improper to suggest that the antithesis to human equality is some vague anti-human-equality that exists as various disunited principles in a negating reactionary opposition to the affirmative principle of human equality. Rather than hierarchy and aristocracy being equal to Ontological Propriety, it is such that these are derivative forms or expressions of Ontological Propriety, just as they could be expressed by the Leftist principle presupposing human equality.
I don't think you've expanded your frame of consideration enough to internalize the full implication of what this entails. This is a semantic differentiation, the operative principles here do not share semantics.
Both collectivism and individualism presuppose human equality in various forms, individualism just happens to favor the identity and development of the individual on his own rather than as part of a collective, valuing meritorious performance and an unequal distribution of resources as a result of historical processes, as opposed to the idea according to which resources are to be distributed by need. Human equality here is presumed from the outset, there is an equilateral moral value that every human being is presupposed to have by both of these systems, and in each of these systems there is nothing to do with human differentiation on the basis of an essential typology.
So here where you posit that Kalergi contrasts, for example, hierarchy and egalitarianism, this is a false dichotomy; it's possible to imagine a meritocratic egalitarian hierarchy, as egalitarianism itself presupposes equal rights of all human beings from birth, but does not presuppose anti-hierarchy. Likewise, it is possible to conceive of a Liberal order that abides by Traditional semantics, and thus upholds Ontological Propriety in its own way; it would just have to affirm Ontological Propriety actually exists, and reject the Leftist semantics of Egalitarianism or human equality from the outset as well.
The other issue is seeing history as a battle between ambiguously defined sides. Can all of history really be reduced to class warfare? I think not.
Beyond this, however, the problem I am seeing with the proposal you are making is that this is a political order that concerns solely the political field, and is legitimized by purely political referents. There is nothing in here about ontology whatsoever, these human types, if there are any at all, seem posteriorily classified along arbitrary lines of their performative works in the revolution.
The most proper political mode is that which does not merely have political referents, but ontological and principial referents. Is the political order a reflection of the Total order of Reality itself? If it is not, does it intend to be? If it does not, then it is already a flawed institution. The purpose of any civilizational order is not only to tend to its own temporal station, it is primarily to affirm Universal and Quintessential Truth through its own conditioned medium; it is to allow a participation in higher realities - spiritual realization - to those individuals who partake of it.
Without principial or ontological referents, all that can be said about whether or not one ideology is "better" or "worse" than another is by disunited and conflicting statistics that do not share a unified legitimizing criteria. Why would this particular system be any more philosophically legitimate than any other system?
The answer to whether or not a system is legitimate is not found in the *form* or *structure* of the system, but in the semantic basis in which the system itself has its highest referent and originating principle. A democracy rooted in Ontological Propriety is more Right Wing than an aristocracy rooted in material egalitarianism.
I suggest you also read a thread of conversation I've had with another fellow who is not entirely in agreement with my usages here to perhaps see some potential responses to other things you may bring up, and test your ideas against them. The thread is quite long but I think you will find it valuable.
https://open.substack.com/pub/politicalperennialism/p/the-left-right-spectrum-worse-than?r=1xcpif&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=123730099
Right yeah, at that point they would be correct. But inspired by the SS and Iron Legion in Romania. Evola's definition post war drifted towards "spiritual aristocracy", and a order of heroic-warrior priests as the new nobility. So his views were changed by the Nazis, and the SS. Not the other way around.
Because its obvious that the old aristocracy, and the old monarchies are debased and degenerated. They are not worthy of rule.
The feudal Lords of Europe earned the right to rule through heroic action. They threw down the old order (Rome) during the migration period. Just so when the Aryans first left the pontic-steppe they encountered more advanced civilizations. The cucuteni in Europe, the Harrappans in India, the Hatti,Aramaens, and Luwians in Syria.... they crushed them with military force, martial courage, and established the caste system.
When the old order becomes irredeemably corrupt, the universe demands the more worthy take power.
As Napoleon said " I did not steal the crown. I found it lying in the trash.... and picked it up with the tip of my sword"
Aristocracy, built on martial courage is the true tradition