|Author: Andras Laszlo
For us ‘ultradesctro-conservatives’ with a traditional orientation, the strong and organic connection between the world view that rests on the principles of ‘Traditionalitas Spiritualis et Metaphysica Universalis Integralisque’ and the political right, or, in a stricter sense, the extreme right and within this the ultra right-ultra conservative, imperio-monarchist extreme right, is clearly obvious.
The prerequisite of a true affirmation of ‘Traditionalitas’ is to fully and decidedly accept the right and the prerequisite of being genuinely rightist, in turn, is to resolutely affirm ‘Spiritualitas Traditionalis’. In our circles this is experienced as truth and reality and -for us- this doesn’t need to be explained further. For those, however, who are only taking the initial steps towards ‘Traditionalitas’ and for those who already consider themselves rightist and are now approaching the true, pure right (ultradextroconservative extreme right), but haven’t reached it yet, or haven’t perfectly realized it yet: this connection, while it may make sense, is not fully obvious yet; what’s more, they may even consider our maximally resolute and unshakable affirmation of this connection to be exaggerated.
For a potentially deeper and more justified discernment and acceptance of the connection between these views, we’d like to outline a few points including their most fundamental theoretical basis. To do this, we must also say a few words about something that constitutes such an integral part of the world view of ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’ in the strict sense, that without it we can not even speak about ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’.
The ‘consideratio’ of the basic principles of ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’ is not philosophy but, with indisputable certainty, hyperphilosophy. This hyperhilosophy has (and indeed must have) a ‘propaedeutica philosophica’, well definable from the point of view of world-views. The most appropriate and accurate term for this ‘propaedeutico-philosophicus’ is ‘metidealismus transscendentali-immanentalis et immanentali-transcendentalis theurgo-magico-solipsisticus absolutus’.
The ‘philosophia metaphysica’ that adequately applies this view may be considered to be the culmination of philosophy. In terms of ‘hyperphilosophia metaphysica’, the situation is somewhat different: in this case this is the only valid school possible and various “schools” may, at the most, only depict its variations. Where philosophy culminates, hyperhilosophy begins in the sense of a continuous self-transcendence, which is meant to connect philosophy with Sophia.
Those who hold a solipsistic view posit that Existence may only be Conscious Existence and no other Subject exists beside my own Conscious Subject(ness). I, Myself, am the Conscious Subject of Conscious Existence, its Subiectum and its Conscious Actionalitas, i.e. ‘Realitas Obiectiva’ (that may only be considered in a conscious sense) exists through my own Conscious Acts. Ultimately, only I exist Myself and nothing and nobody exists besides My own Self.
Freedom, Dominance, Power, Order and Hierarchy are the basic words/basic terms (with a solipsistic foundation) of ‘both Traditionalitas” and right wing policitas with a metaphysical orientation. Philosophical and hyper-philosophical solipsism belongs directly to ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’ and indirectly to ‘Ultradextroconservativitas’. Exhibiting (significantly) different opinions in this respect means that one is seriously -if not fatally- confused regarding principles; such confusion likely extends to other, significant areas of principles-ideologies-views.
Beyond direct ideological preparation, an activist of party politics of course doesn’t necessarily need to have philosophicus-hyperphilosophicus education: first and foremost they need courage, endurance and the ability to fight. Right wing leaders, however, beyond what should be and what is expected from activists, must have such complex ideological education for which the mere knowledge of ideology in the strict sense is less than insufficient. They must possess a deep knowledge and understanding of politology, history, sociology, law, military science, economics, philosophy and theology on a level that is above and beyond mere receptive knowledge, a level that presumes the activate presence of productive-creative qualities.
Correctly understood ‘politicitas’ (‘Politeia’) presupposes an also correctly understood ‘apoliticitas’ (Apoliteia’) in the background, without the latter in the slightest way weakening political activities. This, however, is only possible, if behind and above both of these there is a level from which both of these in fact originate; this level is ‘metapoliticitas’ (‘Metapoliteia’). From this level (in a sort of downward direction) it is possible to open both in the direction of ‘politicitas’ and ‘apoliticitas’. It is possible and -as we noted earlier- it is necessary to open in both directions, we just need to decide -and we must decide unequivocally- which one should be (kept) at the forefront.
There is no doubt that in exceptional cases such a high metapolitical level may appear and subsist that the thought of an opening may not even come up. Such was the case of the supra-personal personality of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. This, however, let’s repeat it, is quite exceptional and – although it could definitely be exemplary – may hardly find a valid following.
The principle, metapolitical presence of ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’ precipitates in the political-social domain as the right. The right – this should suffice without additional clarifying attributes; it should, but, alas, it doesn’t.
It is normal nowadays that moderately decisive left-wing or contra-left wing parties that show some hardly noticeable, minuscule right wing tonality are generally denoted as “extreme right”; what’s more, even parties that follow an unequivocally left wing, liberal-democratic line are called “extreme right”, “fascist” or “nazi” by the extreme left in their crazed rampages.
Essentially, it is only the most extreme extreme right that is acceptable from a traditional point of view, but even here we need to make some distinctions. We can’t truly and without reservations accept those lines that, although defined within the realm of the most extreme extreme right, are infused by contra-left and especially extreme contra-left tendencies, adopting and maintaining leftist ideologies, methods and style elements and mixing them up with truly rightist-extreme rightist principles and objectives. (There were, there have been and unfortunately there most likely will be such lines in the ranks of the extreme right that are not only infused by extreme leftist ideologies, but are also prepared to enter into certain collaboration with any groups of the extreme left that are prepared to do the same.)
It is not only the most extreme extreme right that a traditional orientation – both in the political and social realm – claims but also a pure right/extreme right that is void of any and all contra-leftist contamination. This is what we may call ultraright – ultraconservative extreme right or ultradextro-conservative extreme right. This is not the right represented by Mussolini or Hitler or others, somewhat closely related to them. What we’re talking about is the radical adaptation of the pure and true right of Bonald, De Maistre and Metternich in the current era.
The most reliable, most significant ideologico-theoreticus of this right in the 20th Century, presenting the most comprehensive view, was Julius Evola.
The foundation of this ultradextro-conservativitas is clearly traditional and it may truly become a political world-view only based on a traditional weltanschauung.
This starting position also excludes that we, as far as we’re concerned, would clash at any time with any honest and serious -although not traditional ultradextro-conservative- line of the most extreme right, whatever nationality it may be. Quite the opposite: we’re aiming at friendly, comradely cooperation, at the deepening and extension of such cooperation. On the other hand -although we especially intend to cooperate with the ultradextro-conservative extreme right-, we don’t consider even the otherwise most respectful circles of the ‘Evolian’ wing of the traditional ultradextro-conservative extreme right to be the standard, especially an unquestionable standard, for us.
The life opus of René Guénon and -even more so- Julius Evola is absolutely indispensable for anybody who wants to see clearly in the realms of metaphysico-traditional and traditional ultradextro-conservative world views, but this is not about “following”, especially not in the current sense of the word. These personalities have provided so far the most enlightening standard for the Western world in respect of these world views and orientations and it would be nothing less than crazy not to take Them into consideration. It would be even more senseless to set Them in opposition to each other now, after their death. Alas, it seems that some don’t consider this to be such an absurd and senseless experiment and -although just quietly for now- they start to give voice to such views. What’s more, some go as far as -carefully- clashing Julius Evola the ‘philosophus’ with Julius Evola the ‘politicus-politologus’ or with Julius Evola the traditionalist in the strict sense. (Not to mention that previously, people in certain countries or even world – wide, who sympathized with ‘Traditionalism’ even to a small degree, were aiming to form the best relationship with each other, quite differently from the quarreling devotees of other spiritual, especially pseudo-spiritual currents; in this respect, the situation is quite different today: Guenonians stand in opposition to Evolians, but they also stand in opposition to other Guenonians and the same applies to Evolians, vice versa. These are naturally artificial, exclusively personal oppositions, without principle foundations.)
Although the opposing terms left-right developed at the end of the 18th Century in France, they may be projected back or forward in time, without limitation. These are not the best terms but we use them because we’re not aware of better ones. There was a time when everything stood in the sign of the right and everybody -at least almost everybody- was rightist. People who really mattered could only stand on the right. Both the Ghibelline / Hohenstaufen and the Guelf / Welf parties were rightist in the Middle Ages; we may only say that the right wing nature of the Ghibelline / Hohenstaufen party was more pronounced and unequivocal, more intense and more pure, but no deciding role was granted to the left in any of them.
We may say, correctly, that the political-societal projection of the meta-political reality of ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’ is the true right; what follows from this, however, is that the political-societal projection of the contra-metapolitical reality of the ‘Antitraditionalitas’ is the left. This seems obvious and can’t be up for discussion if we stay within the realm of sanity.
The political-societal world view of a person -as long as we’re talking about a human representative- who orientates himself (or intends to do so) according to the principles of ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’, even if he decides to give preference to apoliticitas, is almost necessarily right wing to some degree; yet, it almost seems to follow from this that he’ll still stand behind anti-traditionalism (antitraditionalitas) or behind the left, the contra-left or behind the right-extreme right with a contra-left contamination.
It is certain that there are many on the right or extreme right who are not in the least close to the type of person who orientates himself traditionally. The eventual decency of these men in general, or that they may be decent workers in or even fighters for the cause of the right or extreme right, may not be questioned; what may be questioned, however, is whether they see clearly in terms of what the true right is. We think that we rightfully suspect that they don’t see clearly in this respect.
This extreme ignorance makes it possible that extreme rightists should have an anti-traditional orientation. This is no doubt possible. What’s impossible is that people with a truly traditional orientation should be leftist. Is it possible that somebody-knowing the subject matter-, despite of all this, would declare himself a traditionist while in the same time, declare himself to be a leftist, too? Since this could be actualized, it is possible. If this was so in actuality, which is unlikely, we would still have to doubt if such person really grasped the essence of “Tradition” and ‘Traditionalitas’ in their true depth.
When looking at the issue from the context of certain principles, considering it from heights and depths and free from confusions, we may fully exclude the possibility that somebody who confesses a world – view based on the principles of ‘Metaphysico-Traditinality’ , fully knowing what left and right means, could be leftist; further, we may also foretell, that such a person will sooner or later become rightist, if he hasn’t already.
There exists a popular and dilettante conception according to which a truly spiritual man is absolutely apolitical, so much so that he doesn’t formulate any kind of opinion in any kind of political question at all. Such people, because there really are such people, are not apolitical but -almost without exception- coward and “careful”; they give up on everything so they won’t even formulate an opinion silently, within themselves since this may cause trouble to them and to their family. There are others who are able to constantly change their positions based on a low, opportunistic perspective so they can gain pathetic advantages. The previous type is different: they don’t want to lie, they don’t want to change their positions; instead, they opt for no position at all and they don’t formulate even a secret opinion. From a spiritual point of view this is not any less despicable.
A state of absolute supra-position is possible but this is infinitely exceptional; this was the case of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Otherwise even those who, through metapolitical motivation, choose being fully apolitical may have (and should have) a metapolitical weltanschauung and a political world view; this -by a traditional orientation- can only be right wing, in all likeliness extreme right wing in the sense of ultradextro-conservativas which one experiences in such a way that one doesn’t want to actively participate in the sphere of operative politics. And this, like this, is perfectly legitimate and acceptable.
Nobody has to be an active politician forced into an extra-marginal position – this is of course not even advisable. However, everybody who doesn’t live completely outside of all direct and indirect (even on several levels indirect) political relations should develop their own political position and world-view.
The view that one must be a centrist between the left and the right is a leftist view and it has nothing to do with the center. Centrality, axiality and polarity stand in the closest relationship with traditionalis dextroconservativitas and they can’t be related to a luke-warm leftism that doesn’t even grasp these concepts anyway. As we noted earlier, if we look back into the past, we can see the hegemony of rightism and the more we look back, the more this is so. The furthest past is almost completely purely traditional and, in this sense, that age stood in the sign and under the dominance of of the right. It was the age of King-Gods and God-Kings, the era of sacred Kings and Holy Empires.
Traditionalis dextroconservativitas has always been thinking in terms of Monarchies and Monarchs, perhaps their equivalents – both in the past and today. The ‘Führerstaat’ as a state form may only be considered acceptable on a temporary basis. If the reality of dynastico-successionalis monarcho-legitimitas can’t prevail for reasons that can’t be overcome or eliminated, then -temporarily (and this period may be quite long)- a Ruler or a Ruler-Governor must exercise unlimited rulership-power as head of state while keeping the monarchical state-form fully and perfectly intact. This principle should not be compromised even in the most extreme circumstances, maximum in the sense of accepting (with reservations) the short and obviously temporary phase of a restoration process.
When it comes to judging the most extreme right (but not in the sense of ultradextro-conservative extreme right) our position is rather ambivalent. On the one hand, we’d like to aim at a friendly-comradely cooperation and, beyond this, at a political-tactical cooperation, on the other hand we can’t hide our reservations that are borderline rejections when it comes to certain particularities. The reason for such reservations are the strong presence of the already mentioned contra-leftist or extreme contra leftist influences; the strength of these may vary, but their presence is never weak. Those who orientate themselves traditionally and thus approach the right are obviously not influenced by the contra-right propaganda of the left or by any argument against the right coming from the left. All such arguments should be disregarded.
We’re more concerned about whether the extreme right may be infiltrated by proletarian influences and if a proletarian mentality may prevail there. If the answer to these is a definitive yes, then we must consider restricting our initiatives that aim at widening and deepening our cooperation.
It is known – both from more and less reliable sources – that at the time of the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact friendly conversations started to develop between the communist and national socialist-Hungarist inmates in the Csillag Prison in Szeged (Hungary). The topic of conversations between these inmates, who were otherwise bitter enemies, centered around the near future, the time of possible reconciliation between them when the red color of the Hungarian flag, representing communism and the green, representing national socialism-Hungarism, would find not only peace in the white color, but an alliance against the then reigning feudal-capitalist Horthy system. Although this was not an official position of either party, it reveals a mentality that was wide-spread at the time and the residues of which we can still observe today: the pipe dream of the possibility of reconciliation between the most extreme extreme right and the most extreme extreme left.
With some exaggeration we should say that through the re-actualization of the early modern age we intend to re-instate the Middle Ages and the Antiquity after that and finally the prehistoric age. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but there is definitely truth behind it. We would like to restore everything that may actually be restored even if this actuality means only some fragments or only some partial achievement. In this respect we’d be satisfied even with the conditions of sixty-seventy years ago, although we’d be much happier if we could go back six hundred-seven hundred years not to mention six thousand-seven thousand or sixty thousand-seventy thousand years.
Traditional orientation may begin with nostalgia; in fact, it often does. The continuation, however, must gradually detach itself from the determining role of nostalgia and in a late stage even from its presence. We must be able to see all of the -mostly negative- characteristics of a given era. The approach must always be a calm critique. Both optimism and pessimism are unaryan characteristics, completely alien to a traditional orientation. We must exercise sharp critique in all cases, including the political ones without any trace of desperation or rage.
There were and there are people who think that power may only be dark and sinful (Bela Hamvas also subscribed to this view) not only in the advanced phase of the Kali-Yuga, but by principle and always. We consider this view to be fundamentally unacceptable. There is no doubt that in the Kali-Yuga, mainly in its advanced phases (especially with the 20th and 21st Centuries) power is possessed and usurped by Darkness; this is sort of obvious. But this doesn’t mean at all that Power and Dominance (Rulership) may not be based on true and real Supremacy. Theoretically they most definitely can, practically much less so, but even today this is not an impossibility. And if this is so -and we think it definitely is- , true and superior Dominance and true and rightful, legally possessed Power – void of all dark accents and infernal overtones has always been possible, in all eras; today much less so, but in exceptional cases it’s still conceivable. With time this possibility will almost completely disappear, but it is likely that it won’t be and in fact it can’t be lost completely, especially not on the level of possibilities.
Both the traditional weltanschauung and the ultradexgtro-conservative world-view is being marginalized in our World, even though the interest occasionally flames up towards them. These views, however, will never be completely eliminated and there are things we can do to sustain them and keep them alive to some degree, at least within a small circle. Precisely this is what we consider to be our task.