Tradition and the current age

Author: Andras Laszlo

Translation: PCC/LK

The terms Tradition and Traditionality convey an ancient, primordial spiritual knowledge about the Origin, the Beginning and the Non-beginning since the very beginning of the manifest existence of the world; Tradition sustains this timeless knowledge in time as a permanent, incorruptible spirituality. When we use the terms Tradition and Traditionality, this is what we mean and not what is typically meant by them in a conventional sense.

The other term we need to address is the present age in a broader sense and its relation to traditionality; here I need to refer to certain doctrines that deal with cycles and cyclicity. As we know, Hesoid speaks about Golden Age, Silver Age, a third one that’s called Bronze Age or sometimes Ore or Copper age and finally about Iron age that some authors, like Scaligero, call Lead Age.

This corresponds with a process of involution. When we treat certain doctrines, we often emphasize that in the manifest world we mostly don’t encounter evolution but, in many respects, a process of decline; actual superiority doesn’t correspond with a world defined by technocratism. Superiority means that we are, or rather that I am closer to my Origin, to my Beginning, to my Non-beginning, to the Spirit and to God and ultimately to Myself. In this sense we’re dealing with primordial factors (to use this word again) and these  refer to essentially more superior levels of existence which, in terms of epochs, often point to antiquity, even to archaic times.

In order to truly grasp this, we must posit the possibility of involution and regression – an admittedly unconventional position today; in other words, we must allow the possibility that, in the process of its unfolding, the world in many respects severs its ties with its divine and spiritual origin; it doesn’t get fully disconnected, but it’s shifting further and farther away from it while it manifests the very tendencies that drive it away from the essential, from the state of the Self, from the Divine, from God. Again: these factors, these powers and forces manifest themselves in the world and they do so with increasing strength and intensity. The stronger they connect to space and time, to consistency, to matter, the stronger and more intensely this shifting away from the origin takes place.

The world of tradition sustains sophia perennis, an eternal wisdom and knowledge on all levels of existence. Sometimes it becomes lackluster or gets out of sight but essentially it always subsists. When we talk about the world of tradition what we mean is a world where to a great extent traditional-spiritual principles prevailed. In the world of modernity the prevalence of these principles becomes minimal and it seems that life is unaffected by them; destructive, dissolving tendencies, powers and forces manifest themselves in existence, distracting man even more from the fundamentals and from superiority, from absolute supremacy, from the hierarchical structure of existence, from eternal values, exposing his mind, soul and spirituality to fully temporal contingencies.

When it comes to relating modernity to specific eras, we have ample opportunities at our disposal. We may date the moment of drifting away from the Spiritual to the 7th, 6th and 5th Centuries BC., and it is likely that in times before this it would have been impossible for materialistic and atheistic views to emerge. All spheres of life were permeated by spiritual powers, which were impossible not to notice and which thus focused attention on where the manifest world descended from, on unconditioned, pure Existence, on the Absolute. Obviously, the world of 2500 years ago still can’t be called modern, but something had already happened then and with the progression of time, if we look at the period of the lastest millennium, we can notice a definitive shake-up in terms of spirituality in the 1200’s and 1300’s. This was a period when strong influences had surfaced which diverted attention and views, as well as the powers these manifested away from the Principle of principles. This diversion of attention appeared to a large extent in Reformation where it’s impossible not to notice a contra-spiritual tendency; it also appeared in the “renaissance”, where the powers of death were much more prevalent than the powers of re-birth; it appeared in the phenomenon of darkening, which the anti-traditional mentality calls “enlightenment”, since this “enlightenment” is a pronouncedly darkening process from a spiritual point of view. The view that turned from God to Earth was called light. In our terminology this is a darkening process. We must recognize these preparatory tendencies in what we call modernity – and modernity is one of the synonyms of anti-traditioanlity and anti-spirituality. In fact, these tendencies were more than just preparatory in nature, since they had also carried that which was to a large degree directly related to darkness.

By modernity we don’t mean the technical nature of the current world, although it is related to it; we focus on something else. Modernity means a world without tradition, a world against tradition, a world without spirituality and against spirituality; it means forgetting Myself – to put it in first case singular- to forget my connection to the Spiritual, to the Essential, to the Unconditional, to the Absolute.

The modern world depicts a distance. From whatever point of view we may consider the modern world to be more developed than the world of previous eras, it never means a superiority based on essential factors. Rather, we must consider what human consciousness shifted away from, what we drifted away from and what I have distanced myself from; then it will become evident that I have distanced myself from the Essential. Whatever may I have gained in this age, is insignificant in comparison to the loss the world has experienced. The world has entered into an anti-spiritual age; it is not fully void of the spirit, but it is tendentially preparing for anti-spirituality. When did this happen? In many respects centuries ago, in many respects in the 20th Century, in many respects in the 21st Century. Consider the French Revolution which carried very dark tendencies, or the revolutions of the 19th century or consider the current Century. It would be correct to say that we entered this state in during WWI, perhaps at its conclusion, or that it happened during the time of the Bolshevik revolution or perhaps at the beginning of WWII or when it ended.  All these are adequate considerations.

Fact is that this process began long time ago and gradually, in the last century with increasing speed, has reached the state of existence that in the strictest sense determines our days;  the current age means the last 100-150 years since the characteristics that manifested themselves after the Second World War had already been present in a germinal state much earlier. Someone who is sufficiently alert to really give attention to the spiritual processes, can identify distinct stages in the darkening process every 5 years or so. The 1950’s for example were, in a lot of respects, much more terrible then the years afterward, but people still had a mentality that was hoping for change, hoping that the previous value system may be reinstated [translators note: this refers to the special situation in Hungary in the 1950’s.] It is precisely this mentality that becomes weak and that eventually ceases to exist in this world. As specific generations leave the sphere of human existence, we can identify, even withing the world of darkness, a very specific darkening process. Hope won’t die in the current age or in the future, but its perspectives are increasingly marginalized to eschatological levels only: hope may only have eschatalogical perspectives. It seems that the well known principle of Omnia vincit veritas may only be true in exchatalogical perspectives, that this unconditional truth could not prevail in the sphere of strictly earthly events. However, truth has a supra-temporal, eschatological validity and this always subsists, incorruptibly. Hope in the strictly temporal, historical sphere, on the other hand, is becoming weaker and dimmer and with good reason:  precisely because the truth is not prevalent.

The goals of a spiritually oriented man can’t be defined within earthly, worldly  pespectives; goals that are projected to earthly existence may only be transitory. If the objective is to reach the summit of a mountain – the summit being an analogy to the ultimate, super-human, transcendent goal -, earthly goals may only represent intermediary summits from which I must continue my journey. Even such worldly goals, which, although never equaled the ultimate goal, but were at least oriented towards it, have become hopeless in the age of darkness; when at least some values were still manifest, an adequate, hierarchical structure prevailed and people were in their proper place, performing the role they were born to do, irrespective of whether or not it was comfortable or pleasant. When  dark, let’s say satanic influences came to dominate the world, this meant first and foremost upsetting the fundamental order: confusing the order of hierarchical structures so that it was no longer possible to know what and who is superior, what are the functions of people, what must be done in order for earthly life to reflect a spiritual order.

Earth may only represent heaven to some degree, it can’t replace it; this representation is what disappears in the modern world or in the current age in a broader sense. This disappearance is a process, it has been happening for a long time and it will continue to do so, probably for a considerably long time. Whatever its outcome may be, true hope that points beyond the human world, toward transcendence, may only be rooted in me: in the fact that I am connected to transcendence, that my spiritual soul belongs to transcendence.

Whatever is possible, must be of course done in order to create order, knowing that this is not the ultimate goal and knowing also that in the Iron Age of Hesiod or in the Dark Age not only are all such hopes dim and constrained in general, but even the specific hope of realizing these general hopes to some degree, are more or less lost.

It is adequate to maintain hope for a better world, but the validity of such faith is conditional; the unconditional validity that never disappoints can’t be realized in Earthly conditions. The modern world tends to forget this and it can’t give attention either to Alfa or to Omega; it can’t orientate itself to the Origin, to the Beginning or to the Non-beginning; in fact, it is part of its nature that it’s not oriented to these. Some people may be oriented to these in some exceptional cases, but this is so extremely rare, that we can’t deal with them within the scope of general tendencies, be they prevalent or failing. It is likely that these cases have always been rather rare, but in the present age, although they still exist, they are extremely rare. I repeat: it is justified that one orientates himself and strives toward a better world. But only those things have incorruptible validity that are connected to the transcendence of earthly-human existence.

Not only was in the world of tradition such a transcendent orientation within the frame of earthly-human existence legitimate, everything was organized accordingly. By its natural dynamism, by providence and by conscious effort, the world was structured in such a way that it maintained, helped, strengthened and supported this spirituality, surrounding it with protective bastions, so to speak, and keeping it alive so that it could, even if not perfectly, significantly eliminate destructive tendencies. The world of anti-tradition, which is the world of modernity in a broader sense, stands in opposition to all of this. It inhibits, blocks, and limits true spiritual initiatives, while it fosters and supports the manifestation and prevalence of demonic, satanic powers, subordinates itself and others, as well as the world and the general structure of life to these. Yet, we must not forget that we live in this world, where observable (not in the sense of proof, but in the sense of manifestation) tendencies that accelerate decline, dominate. We may consider other worlds with more ideal structures, but we must stay pragmatic and can’t forget that we live in this one. With the dominance of destructive tendencies with must stand our ground in the earthly domain and find ways and possibilities for maintaining an orientation that doesn’t lose sight of the ultimate goal.

In this age, in the current age of anti-traditional modernity, in the domain of activities aimed at dissolution and destruction, in the general process of darkening, we may experience an undeniable challenge; we may. Since the greater the darkness, the bigger the challenge (and this is valid all the way to an extreme stage, beyond which not even this is valid anymore), the challenge we’re facing is stronger than it has ever been in history. In certain individuals, the greater the darkness, the bigger the need for the spirit. “Blessed are the poor in spirit” means that they recognize the world devoid of the spirit and a yearning for the spirit is burning in their soul.  They are poor in some respect and they want to eliminate this. What this means is an opening of the dimension of possibilities in the Dark-age. Facing the void and the challenge on the one hand, and a world filled with the power of darkness on the other. We must see this and face this and perceive this as a challenge: no matter how strong the powers of illusion, distraction and degradation are, I am going to face them. The stronger they are, the stronger my opposition will be since I am aware that if I don’t do this, I set myself up for a fall.

It’s not enough to realize that following an age filled with light we are now in a darker age, but we also need to see that we really are in this one and the paradigms of a bright past, although indispensable, are not enough for determining a future; for this we need to find possibilities in the current age even if everything seems to be against this, keeping in mind that there is always a way out even from the greatest or nearly greatest darkness: precisely when what we perceive, we perceive it in the sense of a challenge. Thus, in this sense, in this spiritual view, we must evaluate the relationship between tradition and modernity in a special way, recognizing that this relationship is atypical; however, the recognition of this must not result in tear-filled nostalgia for the past (however justified a nostalgia by itself may be) but it must awaken an inner mental and spiritual activity. The past may have pragmatic validity for the future and the present situation appears in the sign of the sharpest and most extreme challenge – as long as we’re able to perceive it with utmost awareness.

Source: tradicio

Posted in Principles | Tagged , | Leave a comment

René Guénon and the metaphysics of society

by Bela Hamvas (translation PCC/LK)


I. – René Guénon’s name should be well known by now. He started to work for the “Voile d’Isis” as early as the early 20’s. His first books were published around the same time. These works are among the most interesting ones of our times. The subject is always surprising, the tone is captivating, the thinking is sharp and quick, the conclusion sheds light on unexpected connections, the sense of truth is uncorrupted, the knowledge is so fascinating, rich and multi-faceted that once you understand its intent, you must follow it*.

These are all favorable conditions for the recognition of books. Yet, although the author brings up the most burning questions of our times, and he goes deeper than any contemporary thinker -with the exception of the Russian emigrants (Merezhkovsky, Ivanov, Berdyaev, Uspenskij)- more than 10 years has past since the publication of “Crise” and ” Autorité spirituelle” and he is still unknown.

It’s only Leopold Ziegler and Giulio Evola who have decidedly taken on a path, under Guenon’s influence, that sooner or later everyone must take on, or at least touch upon. These works are indispensable. He has a number of students, Andre Préau among them, whose Chinese commentary on the “Golden Flower” achieves on a few pages what three generations of scientists, in the span of 80 years-from Max Müller to Richard Wilhelm- couldn’t: to understand and explain ancient Chinese society. This work is also in opposition to C.G. Jung, whose “Golden Flower” comments should almost completely be ignored.

The group of ” Voile d’Isis” has taken on a grander and more significant work than all intellectual initiatives so far: to reconstruct the mentality of ancient humanity on the base of published and unpublished pre-historical scriptures. There is no doubt that these works have world-wide perspective. It is odd that researchers and scientists from the same field don’t seem to know about them. Based on his latest work, the otherwise very alert Keyserling doesn’t seem to be aware of this yet (Vom Persönlichen Leben). Geiger wrote his book (Die indoarische Gesellschaftsordung) after Guenon had already reached both Evola and Ziegler, but didn’t mention him. Hilko Wiardo Schomerus haven’t heard of him either, although it would have been useful for him for more than one of his books. It seems that German scientism possesses some kind of blindness, which doesn’t want to notice anything that is happening beyond the boarders of Germany.

In this case it is more than just about simple scientific achievement though. Guenon discards not only rationalist materialism and positivist pragmatism. Guenon turns against European scientism that has taken hold since the Middle Ages (Verwissenschaftlichung des Geistes, as Ziegler says) and that he considers to be the restricted, profane, inferior fragment of the human intellect, which he declares completely unreliable, and which he despises and refuses without reservations. René Guénon’s work seems to be appreciated as essential only by personalities like Evola and Ziegler who thoroughly scanned the whole body of philosophy and science of recent times, and couldn’t find one single absolute thought, a single solid starting point, one unquestionable truth in the whole span of 500 years.

What’s more, what could be an absolute starting point and truth in the Europe of recent times, could be found repressed, deformed, fragmented and pale with those who are labeled as daydreamers, enthusiasts or mystics by Science, and who were never taken seriously. In this regard Guénon’s work is similar to that of Nietzsche and -with some restrictions- to that of Scheler. This is why Guenon is considered to be the only and most defining intellectual step of modern times by those only, who after 20 – 30 years of work are disappointed in the whole scientific and philosophical efforts of modern man. There are of course only a few of such men today.

Guenon’s intellectual step, his consequentially defining thought is infinitely simple: Tradition.

II. – The whole thing will become immediately clear through the following example with gold. When the Spanish conquerors learned about the ancient native society in Mexico and the Yucatan peninsula, the close analogy between the ruler and gold may have been apparent. At that time however nobody understood this. Gold was not money, property, or jewelry or ornament in the current sense of the word. It appeared that all gold belonged to the ruler, no matter where it was found or wherever it was. The ruler, however, didn’t “use” it. According to scriptures, the Inkas were forbidden to touch any object that was not made of gold. Gold cutlery, plate, cup, stick, sword handle, club, throne, buckle, pin, button, sandals. No luxury, however, and especially no softness. There was correspondence between the ruler’s being, gold and the act of ruling itself. The same can be found in Egyptian, Chinese, Hindu and Middle Eastern societies, too. This heavy, dull-gleaming, magical metal in its sun like glitter meant ruling itself. But in a fundamentally different way as it is understood today. Ruling was not an activity, the continuous action of the power instinct. Ruling is a passive faculty, just like the sun is passive, it just is, yet its warm rays bring life. The activity of the ruler is no-action (Tao). Sun-gold-ruler, they are relatives; analogies, if not in an earthly, in a cosmic sense. Thus the Chinese ruler is the Son of the Sky, in Egypt Ra is the incarnation of the Sun God; this is known so in India as much as in Mexico. The fact that Tradition is understood the same way in any age, among any human race, even quite recently, is well illustrated by the example of Louis XIV, who called himself the Sun King. Sun is just another word for divine, because the sun is a god symbol. When gold only belongs to the ruler it means that the gold only belongs to the sun, which means that gold is the sun itself; all this is the analogy and the symbol of the center: God.

The important thing is this: gold doesn’t belong to the ruler, it belongs to God. Not one single flesh and blood man can declare the smallest piece of gold as his own. Profane man who wears or carries gold was considered to be sacrilegious in China, India, Egypt, Peru and in ancient Caldea. It was quite natural that such a man deserved to die. Because the one who hides one piece of gold for himself, he hides one portion of the light and sun which is for everyone, hides for himself a portion of power he is not entitled to. He claims something that belongs to the whole world for selfish and individual purposes.

There isn’t any crime lower or more wicked than this. Having the materialized sunshine hidden means he had disturbed the cosmic order, and disgraced the divine symbol. Gold is on the temple and in the temple, it belongs only to God, who radiates it to men. When the ruler is surrounded by gold it doesn’t mean that the metal is now his loot, just like neither ruling nor power is a loot for him. The king is just a symbol and a guardian. Phylax, as Plato says in Timaeus. And so is it taught by Tao Te Ching, the Veda, and Zarathustra, too. Every ancient tradition anywhere on earth from Peru to China unanimously knows that gold is sunshine, the ruler is the earthly manifestation of deity – standing above man, unreachable and untouchable. The royal symbol, the crown, the golden sun can be on the ruler’s head only.

To make the picture deeper, sharper and truer, a fourth motif must be introduced, too. This motif is time. The metaphysical reference of gold and time is quite clear from such connections as golden time, golden age, or “time is money”, where money means gold. Time’s equivalent is gold. If I need time from somebody’s life, I must pay for it with gold, because gold is the only thing that can compensate for lost time. People are not paid for their work but for their time; paying for results is the sign of the material way of thinking typical of our times. If I take away a day (sun) I must give the sun back. The sun is the master of time and also means time itself, and just like gold is condensed sunshine, so it is condensed time. Gold is materialized eternity. This is why it is expensive. There are minutes and hours for which you can’t pay -there are occasions when you don’t do something for any prize: “there isn’t enough money”, things you wouldn’t leave for “Darius’ treasures”. So are the four elements together: Sun, Ruling, Time and Deity. This is Gold.

Gold has come a long way until it got to where it is today: currency, back up for money (note: this article was written in the 1940’s), the jewel of women, stockbrokers, movie stars, cigarette case, the chain of pocket watches…came a long way: down. The king started to consider the metal to be his own. Simultaneously it wasn’t God, the cosmic Sun, the life sustaining transcendent Power in the center anymore. The king became man and was no longer divine Phylax. Gold has become his own private property. Loot and luxury. In the same time the cosmic divine light became dim and the golden age was gone. Why would it be a smaller sin if the king hides the gold from the world than an ordinary thief? When the first king put gold in his pocket, he pocketed the unlimited goodness and life giving power of the super human God-Power. He took a piece for himself and this way he broke the strength of the light that radiated onto everyone, and was sustaining the golden age. It became the king’s -individual, selfish, demonic, black magic-like. The uninhibited light stopped shining on life, and the earth became dim. Time got confused. This step is known by all sacred scriptures: by the Veda and the Tao Te Ching. It’s known in Egypt just like it is in Iran and Peru.

The second step is when gold slipped out of even the king’s hand and slid even lower, into the hands of the knights, in sanscrit: Ksatrija. Then it went even lower, when the vaisija looted it. At this stage it’s only money. Article of commerce. Now even the wife of the shopkeeper puts sunshine on her neck, they pay with gold for animal flesh, estates and carrots. Everything can be achieved with gold. It now belongs to the merchants. But it didn’t stop there. It fell lower, among the sudra, and bandits, the bumps; pirates started to kill for gold. It became the dream of the masses. The mob gained access to gold, and everybody can have the kind of crown they want. The only thing that matters now is who’s got more gold. The more one has, the more powerful, the stronger, the more excellent, the happier one is. Time followed suit: the era became more fragmented, darker and more excitable. Power went from the hands of aristocracy into the hands of the merchants and then to the masses. In the hands of the sudra (the lowest cast) gold is not a symbol anymore, it’s merely metal. They don’t realize that gold has lost nothing from its original nature, and even today it is just as much a sign of power, sun and divine power as it was in ancient times: materialized sunshine and the symbol of the Golden Age. But by being pushed into matter it has become evil. Everybody knows what gold fever is, -power fever, economic fever- the fields of Alaska, the mines of the Ural, the Spanish conquest, the safes of American banks speak volumes about it – the devilish springs of modern life, the wild desperation with which man chases after wealth -blood and gold-, all this shows that it’s about a demonized yellow metal, about profane power. But who dares to recognize the catastrophe in this bold, seemingly fantastical symbol?

This was the tale of Gold.

III- Guenon doesn’t tell this tale. It’s only an illustration to shed light on the Traditional way of thinking. Guenon discarded modern reason as the means of knowledge and learning and replaced it with intellectual intuition (intuition intellectuelle). He also discarded modern science and replaced it with Tradition. He didn’t base human knowledge on progress, but in the archaic man.

The first relic of Tradition is unknown. The oldest written works that we know are the Egyptian papirus, the Veda, the ancient Chinese works. But even before these there was a tradition, which was passed on verbally.

Guenon’s tradition, the realm of metaphysics, is perfectly above all interests and stakes, and is completely independent of everything that doesn’t belong to the realm of pure truth. This esprit traditionnel is the only legitimate base on which one can stand. The one who steps off of this base triggers a catastrophe for himself. There is only one knowledge: Tradition, and only one order: Tradition, and only one law: Tradition.

The modern age opines that, led by the idea of progress, it has reached heights never before reached by man. But modern times are the typical representation of esprit antitraditionnel. Science is inferior knowledge (connaissance inferieure) and it’s also illegitimate and profane. Current science is nothing but the fragments of ancient knowledge. Progress: regression de l’intelligence. The different scientific fields are the illustrations of pure traditional knowledge from a profane view point. The totality of modern knowledge does not have a basic principle – or it’s principle is nihilism. Reason, which could be the basis of this science, is mere negativity: the denial of intellectual intuition. Indisputable truths however can only be found with intuition; with intuition, which means infallibly. This intuition must not be confused with the one of modern philosophy. The intellectual intuition of Tradition is not rational but supra- rational.

We can see the same kind of confusion and lack of order in society as well as in science and in thinking. The foundation is missing. Tradition is denied. Tradition however is not despotism, not theory. It is the eternal foundation of human existence -the ancient knowledge, which is valid to all eras, to all people, to all races and to all societies. In the modern age it is believed that new truths may be concocted; truth however can never be new, because the Truth is not the product of the human mind -it exists independent of us, we can only discover it. But once we learned it, we can never deviate from it without punishment. The fact that today the Truth is judged from practical view points is simply ridiculous. The naturalism of the modern age, which fabricated this thought is actually the denial of metaphysics and tradition. The nature of the truth is metaphysical and it stands above all practical considerations.

IV. – As we can see from the paragraph about gold and the related remarks, Rene Guenon’s tradition is a universal and fundamental thought that has only one peculiar conceptual characteristic, and it is that it’s metaphysical. This means that historical philosophy, history, social sciences, world view, characterology, anthropology, all converge in one point. Guenon provides a universal foundation that, besides being metaphysical, also has a historical perspective. One important note: this metaphysics doesn’t belong to him, but to ancient humanity and to current humanity because this is the only, true, legitimate and absolute doctrine. Guenon’s knowledge covers everything that is fundamental in humanity: Egyptian, Iranian, Hindu, Chinese, ancient American, Hellenic and early Christian scriptures and notes. It seems that with his leadership all this seemingly sporadic and most heterogeneous thinking and knowledge is truly united into one whole, which is ancient knowledge and eternal, timeless tradition.

Tradition is: synthése compléte. Not a religion. There are numerous religions, but there is only one Tradition. All historical religions are the projections of one single tradition in particular races, nations, and ages. Tradition is the source and beginning of the intellect – teaching about existence, about order, man, society, history, religion and life. “Everything that exists and everybody who exists, the way they exist necessarily share universal principles and nothing is possible outside of this sharing of principles…these principles are eternal, unchanging and unchangeable, permanent “living realities” in a divine sense.

If you want to look at the specific part of knowledge of tradicitional metaphysics that apply to society you’ll find the following:

The order of tradition is that humanity must live in the same hierarchy as man does. It must be lead by the spirit, power must follow the spirit, economics must obey power, and matter should obey economics. These four life functions in society are represented by the four castes. Spirit is brahman, power is ksatrija, economics is vaisija and matter is sudra. The priest, the fighter, the merchant and the worker. The highest level of activity is that of the priests, because the spirit precedes everything and is above everything. The function of the priesthood is the conservation and teaching of Tradition. This tradition contains the laws of social organization and basic principles. Brahman deals with pure metaphysics. Not only the Indian but all ancient societies functioned this way. Guenon can list the parallels that support this fact endlessly.

The superiority of the priest was overthrown by the warrior. This is the era when gold is not in the temple anymore, it’s not assigned to God, because it’s no longer the symbol of power, light, eternity and the golden age, but starts to become human – it is becoming demonized: it gets weaved into fate and becomes a diabolical yellow metal, for which people start to kill and the fight; bloodshed and war begins. The golden age is gone. The knight, the noblemen, aristocracy and the warrior take center stage which means, that power steps over the spirit. The balance of spirit (as represented by supra rational intellect) and power breaks down: it’s no longer the spirit that determines what to do; power acts without previous spiritual determination. This is the beginning of the decline. With this, the denial of all transcendent principles became prevalent. Priests are the guardians of spirituality. To translate this fact to the language of society: the autorite spirituelle must be at the top. The warrior must not lead. The warrior only works and deals with power. This: pouvoir temporel. Les hommes, qui sont faits pour l’action, ne sont pas faits pour la connaissance. In a society that stands on traditional grounds specific functions must be filled by people who were born to fill it, being perfect fits. The priest should be a priest, the fighter should be a fighter. The priest is a spiritual man who knows the law and possesses transcendent knowledge. The warrior is a man of power who executes the law. Autorité spirituelle is spiritual authority: the observant type and function; the pouvoir temporel is execution and active power, the active type and function. The latter is subordinated to the former, just like the strength of the arm is subordinated to the thinking of the brain and the intellect (pouvoir temporel – une délégation de l’autorité spirituelle). If the act is not guided by spirit, it is evil and senseless (un vaine agitation).

The warrior had stepped forward and brought with him the fight: the metaphysics of war: this is the superiority of action over the spirit. With this act it disturbed all the lower castes and turned the traditional order upside down. This turning point in world history is the era of VI. Century B.C: Lao-ce, Kung-ce, Buddha, the last Zarathustra, Herakleitos, Pythagoras, the beginning of the historical era, the birth of modern man, the final disappearance of the golden age, appearance of revolution and hate, the break down of the castes, and the beginning of the crisis.

V. – Rene Guenon’s knowledge is much richer, his books’ content is much more significant and the thought of Tradition is much more universal than to even attempt to introduce his whole work. At this time it wouldn’t be possible anyway, although he already expounded the important aspects of Tradition mostly in his books about Hinduism. Laying down the foundation of the universal tradition however is still under way and its full completion cannot be expected in the near future. They say that Guenon now lives in Egypt with his students where he is researching the ancient Egyptian and Muslim tradition after having compiled and still adding materials from the Far East, Tibet, Iran, North Africa, the Celtic world and America. Following Guenon, Leopold Ziegler made a similar attempt to the unification of tradition with his “Überlieferung“. Finding connections will no doubt lead to a substantial view that may define an era.

A few more words about the present: today, according to Guenon, we are at the end of the Kali-yuga (dark age), when gold sinks into matter, becomes change (money), becomes smeared with blood and soil, which means that power and spirit, hierarchy and order – broken and humiliated- dissolves. Nothing follows this era. It is impossible to sink deeper. This is the apocalypse – which is acknowledged by the Vedas, the Eddas, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and the New Testament. Modern man doesn’t want to take this seriously – they say it’s fantasy, religion, vision. And by not believing what was known 10,000 years ago, they fulfill their fate. While science, with a petty automatism continuously talks about progress and the power of the human mind, politicized power is desperately fumbling for solutions, the confused mass is dreaming about world piece and brotherhood, traditional knowledge sees that the situation cannot be saved and a big epoch has been concluded.

The crisis has arrived – discernement des esprits- , as the Book of Revelations says: the good seed is separated from the bad one. The separation is the crisis itself. The path came to an end and now we must return to the beginning. Not everyone can return. Discernement des esprits means the separation of the fertile and infertile intellects. This is the purpose of the crisis. Fertile spirits head towards renewal. According to Guenon, we found the guide, which is the eternal Tradition. This will lead us back to the beginning, to a new start and to renewal. He doesn’t hide it in his book about the crisis that the end of the era, the judgement, the discernment, the separation will be terrible. There are only a few chosen ones. These are already very passionate about freeing themselves of the current false humanism, the false idealism of brotherhood, and to occupy their place in the hierarchy. This will be preceded by the restoration of the spirit of Tradition – c’est l’unique reméde du désordre actuel.

Society, like in all ages of vitality, the last time in the European Middle Ages, stops being a holding company or a labor camp, or a robbed mob and returns to the hierarchy, to human layers that correspond to human nature, no matter what it’s called: caste or class. It returns to the spiritually guided order, the foundation and essence of which has always been and always will be metaphysics.



Notes: These books were the following:

: Introduction générale á l’étude des doctrines hindous. 1921. – Le théosophisme: histoire d’une pseudoréligion. 1921. – L’erreur spirite. 1923. – Orient et occident. 1924. – L’homme et son devenir selon le Vedanta. 1925. – L’ésotérisme de Dante. 1925. – Le roi du monde. 1925. – La crise du monde moderne. 1927. – Autorité spirituelle et pouvoir temporel. 1929.

Posted in Principles | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

On some of the characteristics of the post-communist system

Author: Andras Laszlo Translation: PCC/LK

Following the natural sequence of decline, the rule of the brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas (and their  quasi-equivalents) “should have been” followed by the rule of the sudras and for a while it seemed that this had  in fact been the case: in countries dominated by the bolshevistico-communist reign of terror, the sudras, the sudra-equivalents and sub-sudras did have a leading, although not a defining role. This, not unexpectedly, more or less ceased to be the case after 1990-1991. While is some countries the communist systems continues to subsist, the general dominance of bourgeois intelligentsia has become commonplace.

This however, in our opinion, doesn’t mean that the representatives of a traditional orientation were wrong when they foretold that bourgeois would be replaced  by sub-bourgeois elements in power; essentially they were and may not be wrong, although they didn’t consider some references, relations, circumstances and metamorphosis with enough clarity.

The reign of the sudra-like elements of the proletariat and the peasantry concluded in 72, in some places in 45 years. However, this period was not defined by their dominion; they -especially the sub-sudras, the pancakas– were at the forefront, but actual power was exercised by a Jewish-freemason leadership from the background.

It was becoming obvious even for the least apt observers that the specimen of the proletariat, the infra-proletariat and the sub-peasantry were not only unable to actually exercise power, but they were fully incapable of fulfilling even their puppet leadership role.

The role of the bourgeois intelligentsia was already significant around 1960 and it continued to rise rapidly, until its declared “take-over of power” in 1990.

This didn’t mean a return to a previous stage; this may appear so only on the surface and only for the most superficial observers. What happened was that the rule of the pancakas, the sub-sudras has become complete. Certain pancakas (as opposed to the upavarnas) are capable of attaining and retaining pseudo-intelligence and corresponding qualities and applying them in practical areas.

The pseudo – bourgeois pseudo-intelligentsia of our days (possibly with a philosophiae doctor qualification) are repulsive monsters below the level of sudras who – besides serving subterrestrialis-infernalis powers- are “open” only toward voraciously and unscrupulously grabbing the most materialistic material goods driven by the lasciviousness of an infinitely inferior hedonism.

Today’s management type is a typical representative of the “guides” on the road to this infra-hominalitas. So we can’t talk about the return of even a depraved form of the bourgeois. The Western world subtly transitioned from the world of the depraved bourgeois to the world of bourgeois intelligentsia below the level of the sudras, almost unnoticed. While those who had lived behind the “Iron Curtain” did experience the transitional period of the sub-sudras in the form of the infra-proletariat,  the West encountered this only as a latent possibility.

We now find ourselves in a period dominated by increasingly inferior and demonic, in the same time increasingly pseudo-intellectual pancaka tendencies, approaching the conclusion of this particular cycle of the earthly-human world.

Source: Eszaki Korona, July 2005, page 45-46


Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment


*Bela Hamvas: Scientia Sacra II, Book 4: Initiation, 1. Hermes Trismegistus (Translation: PCC, LK)

Thoth God Image-yb522

Merely a couple of dialogues and a few fragments have remained from the Alexandrian era of the works the author of which is believed to be Hermes Trismegistus. Since the language of these fragments is Greek, it was initially believed that their author was an Alexandrian philosopher who’d lived at the beginning of our era, maximum one-two hundred B.C. . In regards their content, the general view is that we’re dealing with a typical Hellenic work; and a syncretic one at that. Syncretism in this case means that the author attempted to forcefully unite all the various spiritual currents known in the world at the time. A syncretic work is fundamentally different from a synthetic one; the former is merely the result of piled up materials, a patchwork at best; the latter is the result of actual unity.

This older viewpoint must be modified. Many, with Mead being the most significant among them, whose work – irrespective of his errors stemming from theosophy- is the most reliable one, consider the Greek text not only to be much more ancient, but specifically to be the translation of texts of an Egyptian initiation that dates back to the 4th millennium B.C.. It is likely that even through the Greek language and a terminology similar to the Gnostic one, the dialogues remained almost intact. Many philosophers were working in Alexandria at the time on collecting all the archaic memories of the world for the library. The agents of the library went all the way to China, India, Tibet, Iran, to the Caucasus; through their ambassadors, Alexandrian emperors used all their influence to acquire particular scriptures from foreign courts. These works were then translated into Greek and kept in the library. The living influence of the sacred person was already long lost and the spirit of the archaic age was guarded by books only. The mission of the Alexandrian library was to collect all the traditions of humanity in one single place.

We may assume that besides the names, the Greek text didn’t change anything significant of the original. The name Hermes Trismegistus is such a change. Hermes was originally a Thoth. The name Thoth symbolizes three things: Thoth was an Egyptian godhead; it was the name of the supreme priest of Egypt, like the Dalai Lama in Tibet, Zarathustra in Iran, Pythia at Delphi; finally Thoth was the name of the caste of the high priests and the name of those who gained initiation. After their initiation, the priest or the philosopher adopted the name of the godhead and they became Thoth because they actively represented the godhead among people.

If the translator did modify something in the text, he did this in all likeliness according to the spirit of the work to such a degree that we can trust the accuracy of the interpretation. Difficulties in such questions would still be resolvable; the Greek language which, similarly to the Egyptian one was a universal language, didn’t have problems producing excellent correspondences. If we had to translate Latin texts to French, Spanish not to mention to Italian, the difficulty would be incomparably greater, since we’d have to translate the universal Latin to the individual modern language, losing in the process what’s most important: universality. Universality in a given language means the ability to name everything that exists. Today we have languages only for diplomacy, for conversations, for literature – at the most. These languages have lost their universality, but most of all they’ve lost their ability to name the highest spiritual realities. Today we still have to name such realities with Latin or Greek words.

Regarding authorship: this is not significant at all. The dialogues were not authored by an individual in the modern sense, like modern texts are. Universality didn’t consider individual achievements: such a spirit was not willing to appreciate them or even to understand them. In Asia, where the spirit of tradition is partially still alive, this is still so. If a European traveler listens to beautiful ballad there, he asks what it’s called. When the opportunity presents itself, he’ll ask another performer to sing it, who complies; but the traveler is not satisfied. This was not what he had heard before. The Hindus explain that songs and poems don’t have a patented form in India like in the West. Although the performers may rewrite them, their essence remains intact. This rewriting doesn’t result in arbitrariness or unfaithfulness. This way, the Hindus assure the European, poems and songs may and do live for hundreds of years through oral tradition without their essence and spirit being changed at all.

The performance of the rhapsodies of Homer in Greece or that of Nibelung songs and of the Edda must have been similar. Back then, faithfulness was not external like the literal form today that goes by the letter, which so often loses the spirit entirely. In those times they were truly faithful and the rhapsodos earned his fame by being more authentic than others.

The type of originality that is so esteemed by the moderns didn’t make any sense back then. A particular work that made it to Alexandria was like a church that had been built by the ancient Greeks, then served as a place for Christian sermons and today belongs to the Muslims. The religions changed, the church has remained the same.

In most of the works that we inherited as that of Hermes Trismegistus the ancient spirit is in plain sight. The additional layer of Alexandrian Greek language that settled on the ancient spirit did not distort it in any way, similarly to how the Buddhist tradition didn’t distort the texts of the ancient Tibetan Bön or the Chinese T’ai I chin Hua Cung Chin.

The assumption that the texts were compiled by Manetho or some other Egyptian high priest may only have marginal interest for us; otherwise, this is not significant. We don’t know almost anything about Manetho thus it means nothing more for us than just a name.

More from Hamvas on the 13 verses of Tabula Smaragdina, alchemy and hermetic thinking: Tabula Smaragdina

Posted in Principles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

On Clemens Wenzel Lothar Fürst von Metternich Winneburg

Author: Dr. András László Translation: PCC (Laszlo Kovari)


There was an eminent and paradigmatic personality who, in the advanced stage of modernity, in the age of increasing and self-renewing, overt and covert, anti-traditional, left wing offensive, managed to remain internally unperturbed. In spite of all seemingly extreme or fateful hesitations, he managed to preserve the empire -where after the ruler he was second in command- and indirectly, also the allied empires where his personality  played a similarly significant political role.

In regards to the idea and factual reality of ‘Imperium’ or, in a stricter sense, ‘Imperium Monarchicum’, as well as all its possibilities, the name of Clemens Wenzel Lothar Fürst von Metternich Winneburg must be mentioned, at least briefly.

Metternich was ‘Außenminister’ (minister of foreign affairs), ‘Haus-, Hof und Staatskanzler’, (chancellor of the House, Court and the State) ‘President des Staatsrates’ (president of the State Council) in the empires ruled by the Habsburg-Lothringen dynasty, as well as one of four, in more than one aspects most significant ‘Ständige Mitglied der Staatskonferenz’ (permanent member of the State Conference). He received these functional-operative ranks successively, always keeping the previous ones.

The Austrian Empire was established in 1804, while the Holy German-Roman Empire ceased to exist only in 1806; even during this period prince Metternich enjoyed significant political influence and this only increased until 1814/15 and beyond. By the way, Metternich recommended to the Austrian Emperor and Hungarian Apostolic King Francis I in 1814/15 that he should -as much as this was still possible- reinstate the Holy German-Roman Empire and while keeping his title as Austrian Emperor, to retake his title, rank and dignity as Emperor of the Holy German-Roman Empire which he -based on realpolitical considerations- gave up in 1806. According to Metternich, with the disappearance of Napoleon’s influence from the European political-power structures, the opportunity presented itself to unite all German powers, ideally including that of Prussia; otherwise, if the Austrian Empire had been reinstated (through throne succession either by elections or based on primogeniture), it would have contributed significantly to achieving and balancing the political influence of Prussia. Unfortunately – and contrary to the general practice- Emperor Francis  had not accepted prince Metternich’s recommendation, thus it soon became irrelevant.

Metternich’s greatest achievement was perhaps the establishment of the Holy – Alliance. According to our knowledge, the basic idea (at the time in a germinal stage) for this con-national and transnational-supranational organization, whose judgment may only have been/maybe positive then and now, first had been conceived by Mrs. Krueder, the confidante of Russian emperor Alexander I, who immediately took it up, and after perfecting it to some degree, presented it to the Austrian emperor, to the Prussian king and to Metternich. At first glance, nobody liked the idea; both emperor Francis I and Metternich considered the idea in the given form as unfeasible and not serious, but they didn’t refuse it because Metternich already had a plan: that he’d give the basic idea of emperor Alexander I a proper perspective and that he’d make significant but subtle changes in wording of the plan so that that Alexander I would probably not notice it and thus everybody would in the end consider Alexander I as the founder of the Holy Alliance.

We can’t deal here in details with the Holy Alliance and its significance; it’s enough to note that it was indeed an almost perfect, flawless alliance. Its only imperfection was that it couldn’t be more of what it was supposed to be and the reasons for this came down to exterior factors. Its banal critiques that are generally extremely negative in tone and that lack any foundation in historic theory reflect antitraditional-antimonarchical-antiimperial-anticonservative, i.e. leftist manipulation and this is also indirect proof of the positive nature of the Holy Alliance both in regards its foundation and its details. Generally, the Holy Alliance is referred to nowadays -on a leftist and pseudo-rightist basis- as the most extreme ultra-reactionary alliance in its orientation, in terms of its goals and its essence and character. In regards to this we must note that the Holy Alliance, by its essence, didn’t represent a reaction but an autonomous actionality. Naturally, besides all this, it also had to be reactionary; this was unavoidable and they never intended to avoid this. In this respect it was indeed one of the most reactionary, if not the most reactionary alliance of history, in addition to its essential autonomous actionality – and this must always be  emphasized. This reactionary character -from a truly right wing point of view- is absolutely not negative, nor is it a mere necessity, but is truly positive. Of course, the left, the anti-left and the pseudo-right perceives and propagates this the opposite way, but the opinions and contra-opinions coming from this side are worth less than nothing in our eyes. We don’t underestimate how dangerous they are, but we will never accept that even a sparkle of validity or value may present itself -even as a possibility- in their opinions.

The Holy Alliance, which was originally supposed to be set up as a three way alliance eventually came to life as a four-way alliance. The founding core of  the Holy Alliance was formed by the Austrian Empire and together with it with the Hungarian Apostolic Kingdom, the Russian Empire (the Empire of the Czar) and the Prussian Kingdom. England actually joined the four way alliance, but not the Holy Alliance (which it didn’t identify with). The Holy Alliance, that was formed as a three way alliance and which in certain aspects expanded into a four way alliance (in regards England), was not deserted even in its three way aspect, considering that all of the European monarchies joined it with the exception of the Pope (directly, next to the Pope, the Papal State, the Apostolic Holy See and indirectly the entirety of the official Church). The Pope was supportive to and in agreement with the Holy Alliance, but was not willing to join it because the protestant Prussian Kingdom and the East-orthodox Christian Russian Empire were also members. (Regrettably, in this respect the earthly Head of the Holy Roman Catholic Christian Church deemed to be rather myopic.) Prince Metternich wanted to win over not only the Pope to join as a member, but he also wanted the Turkish Empire (Sultanship) to join the Holy Alliance in some capacity; he thought that it was not impossible to win over the Turkish Sultan to this idea. He was probably right, but he (would have) had to face the opposition of all Christian monarchies, so he didn’t take this further beyond putting out feelers and it was never seriously considered to actually persuade -in serious, official form- the Turkish Empire to consider the membership. Some (carefully) accused prince Metternich that he was not a faithful son of the Catholic Church. This, of course, was not true, but without doubt, he was far from any kind of bigotry. He was Catholic Christian, but even more so he was traditional – irrespective of whether he considered this himself. (From the right wing point of view, the fact that the Turkish Empire was left/stayed out of the Holy Alliance (in its diplomatic name: Sainte-Alliance) may have been/may be considered as a weakness of myopia.)

Alas, the significance of the Holy Alliance diminished over time. The true and significant occasion when the ideology of the regressing Holy Alliance could practically assert itself was the Hungarian revolution of 1848/49 that expanded to a civil war, which in turn expanded into an internal war (and the possibility of further expansion was also not excluded). On the request of His Excellency Franz Joseph I, emperor of Austria and (absolute legitimate) Apostolic King of Hungary,  Czar Nicholas I’s Empire of Russia – in the spirit of the Holy Alliance- was willing to assist in suppressing  the revolution that escalated into a domestic war; the military powers faithful to the Emperor-King would have been also able to repress the revolution but only through huge bloodshed and long standing chaos. Some people are fond of drawing analogies between this -in our view positive- intervention and the annexation of Hungary in 1944/45, ending between April 10-19, 1945 by enemy hordes, as well as the bloody defeat of the 1956 freedom-uprising and (the first, so far last and only true) freedom fight of annexed Hungary, once again by enemy forces in context of an attack as an act of war. This analogy is invalid and the parallels they are seeking follow false principles: In 1944/45 Hungary was not in war with the Russian Empire of the Czar, but with the basest horror-state and contra-empire in the history of mankind. Hungary was not annexed by Russians and the bloody suppression of the Hungarian freedom uprising and freedom fight was also not performed by Russians but by the Soviet Union and by Soviet troops. The differences are significant and we can’t speak about any analogies; drawing any kind of analogy is possible only

  • in the distorted idea-world of the representatives of liberal-democratism as well as the left-wing, pseudo-rightist, contra-leftist and extreme rightist circles (that  -good willed as they may be-  are infected by contra-left currents)  of social-democratism that intend to disclose bolsevistico-communism;
  • in the feeble minds of those, who succumb to the history-falsifying propaganda due to the lack of their intellectual faculties on the one hand and to the combination of their lack of culture and extreme gullibility, on the other.

After this necessary detour, let’s now return to the person of Clemens Wenzel Lothar Fürst (von) Metternich Winneburg (Ochenhausen). Prince Metternich found himself at a transition between the political types of the previous era and those of the modern world. He is undeniably a politician both in the modern sense and according to the criteria of the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries. Not only did he stand his ground by principles more than anybody in the 19th Century, but if by some miracle he was alive today, there would have been nobody more eminent than him also in the whole 20th and very likely in the 21st Century either. In this sense prince Metternich was unique: a perfect ‘real-politician’ and in the same time -and this is even more important for us- a perfect ‘ideal-politician’. Not only did he embody the perfect synthesis of these two basic political types that never manifest themselves together perfectly, he was more than this, more than the perfect unity of theses two perfect forms. Prince Metternich, while on the outside he perfectly adapted to his era within the confines of modernity (although not in today’s sense), according to his inner essence he belonged to a much more ancient era that represents eternity to a much larger degree. On the surface he was perfectly a worldly man, witty and verbose, but internally he belonged to the world of heights and depths. He knew how to be and how to keep quiet, but the Metternich-diplomacy, this highest diplomacy of subtle hues and tones was not a diplomacy of lies as that of later eras; in regards his essential level he transcended even the Talleyrand type of diplomacy of his own era (which he was similar to on the surface) by incomprehensible degrees of heights.

No politician with operative power since then came close to the level of prince Metternich. Prince Bismark, the chancellor of the German Empire -whose eminence has always been beyond doubt- may have approached him in certain areas, but when considering all aspects even he couldn’t come close to Metternich. There may have been some who, by possessing the same degree of power could have reached, perhaps even surpassed the political level of prince Metternich, but in the end, this can’t be decided with certainty. Perhaps Julius Evola -as the ruler of Europe- could have surpassed even Metternich in terms of consistent representation of metaphysical traditional principles in politics – but of course this can’t be decided with certainty either.

How close prince Metternich was to the above mentioned traditional basic principles is almost completely unknown. Traditionality, in Metternich’s era had not manifested itself in philosophical-metaphysical terms. Traditionality appeared -as a rightist, as an ideological rightist concept- only at one author: at Comte Joseph Marie De Maistre. Many similarities may be observed between the basic thoughts of De Maistre on the level of ideologies and Metternich’s practical/applied concepts, and the differences, although not insignificant, are never really fundamental. Metternich may have known the works of De Maistre and we may seriously assume that he in fact did known them. It’s possible that he’d considered many of De Maistre’s concepts unfeasible and he may have articulated many practical objections, but it is unlikely that he’d had fundamentally disagreed with the essence of the basic principles.

Prince Metternich proved his traditional, right wing and conservative character by his life and his political acts; he manifested an independent, autonomous action-proneness in all possible cases; he proved that besides this he was extremely reactionary (in that he always reacted to revolutionary movements with the utmost decisiveness).

The question may be raised if prince Metternich was really anti-Hungarian, as it is whipped into the minds of children and youth from the first grades in elementary schools until the end of university studies through base and demonic manipulations in terms of shaping opinions. Let’s state it categorically: Metternich was absolutely not anti-Hungarian: nothing proves or supports this. On the other hand, based on archive research and the examination of various credible memoirs we can consider it to be proven that he was – in his reserved, cool and distinctive way- Hungarian friendly.

Prince Metternich was the president of the State Council, he was state chancellor and the permanent member of the State Conference that operatively exercised the rights of the emperor-ruler. The president of this latter body was archduke – prince royal Louis and it counted among its members the crown prince archduke – prince royal Franz Karl, Metternich himself, as well as Franz Anton Graf (von) Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky who was responsible for internal affairs, more specifically he held the highest responsibility for police matters (approximately equivalent to minister of internal affairs). Those members of the State Council who held the highest responsibility for an open issue of a given department often appeared as non-permanent members. Normally the two archdukes always accepted Metternich’s proposals; in questions of foreign affairs and those concerning the basic interests of the empire fully, but in questions of internal and police affairs – despite the fact that Metternich had a voice in these and from the 1840s he did intend to voice his views more and more in these matters, the archdukes – in sense of some ill-conceived ‘balance politics” allowed too big of a leeway to the views (that directly or indirectly intended to oppose those of Metternich’s) of count Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky. Essentially, there were no fundamental differences between the views of Metternich and Kolowrat, but the fact is that almost all of the (mostly police) measures that were subsequently considered to be offensive and often attributed to Metternich were almost exclusively initiated by Kolowrat. We must note that these, from a right wing point of view can’t really be considered offensive. It is likely that in all such matters Metternich himself would have also launched measures, but these would have surely happened with much more sophistication than they ended up happening. Although count Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky was not as anti-Hungarian as he was later rumored to be, we truly can’t consider him Hungarian friendly, similarly to baron Kübeck who, although not a permanent member of the State Conference, was one of the often invited members of the State Council, responsible mostly for matters of finance.

Kübeck, Metternich and Kolowrat, although friendly and courteous on the surface,  were almost enemies in the background. This had almost no other reason than Kolowrat’s vanity who sort of considered it to be his responsibility to – through subtle methods- sabotage all of Metternich’s interventions in internal affairs and their becoming ordained through the signature of the Emperor. When the revolutionary insurrections broke out in Vienna and Metternich was forced to resign by the State Conference, almost all of Metternich’s previous positions were taken over by Kolowrat. The revolutionary mob, at least for a while, didn’t have any objections about this, since Metternich’s image as an enemy had already leaked to the “people” so they considered Kolowrat almost as revolution-friendly; they were of course fundamentally wrong about this, but retrospective we can rightfully resent count Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, first of all because due to his personal vanity and extreme ambition he sabotaged the ‘opus’ of Metternich who was incomparably greater and more talented than he was and this despite the fact that Kolowrate was otherwise a very talented, excellently trained and superior personality. So Metternich’s anti-Hungarian sentiments are nothing more than a pseudo and contra legend born out of evil inspirations similarly to those demented and stupid views according to which His Excellency emperor and king Franz Joseph was anti-Hungarian, which is of course completely false. It is also false that Feldzeugmeister Julius Jakob Freiherr von Haynau (military chief commander between May 30th, 1849 and July 6th, 1850) was anti-Hungarian. It is, however, certain that Julius Jakob Freiherr von Haynau, prince Metternich and emperor Franz Joseph I were all uncompromising opponents and enemies of insurrections and revolutions and the civil and domestic wars that resulted from these. This was not their flaw but their holy responsibility and from another point of view their highest virtue. Irrespective of what the open or covert left or their contra-left, invert variations think about all this, the true, traditional, radical conservative and the conservative ultra-right position may not defer from those outlined above in a qualitative manner either in details or, especially, concerning the essential provisions. And we say this not only due to our con-nationalistic and trans-nationalistic-super-nationalistic position but also due to our Hungarian and truly right wing and anti-leveling nationalism which has nothing to do either with the left wing or with the right wing or extreme right nationalisms that are contaminated by leftist and contra-leftist currents.

Metternich’s politics protected not only the Austrian Empire but -together with it- the Hungarian Apostolic Kingdom, as well. Members of the Habsburg Lothringen dynasty were not Hungarian or Austrian or German, nor did they belong to any other nations and of course they were not mixed either, but they were supra-national: Habsburgs and Habsburg-Lothringens; they didn’t have Hungarian blood,  they had Turul blood, Arpad’s and Attila’s blood (through the female line). The members of the House of Arpad and the members of the Turul dynasty were not Hungarians either: they belonged to the House of Arpad, they were Turul. Great dynasties are like independent nations, in a sense of supra-nationality. The concept of national kingdoms is an anti-traditional delirium. A true and anti-leveling right wing nationalism must and does accept all these; if not, than this nationalism is obviously pseudo-right, infected by anti-left nationalism and may define itself as purely right wing nationalism only because it simply doesn’t understand any of this.

The king is the king of the empire but he is also the king of the nation or nations that live in his kingdom. But not as an employee above the people and recognized by them as such, because the people and the peoples, the nation and the nations all belong to the king. The king has immeasurably more to do with the people and with the nation than anybody who belongs to the people and to the nation. The king doesn’t belong to the people or to the nation irrespective of how many of them he rules. He doesn’t, he can’t and he may not belong to any of them – because he’s their king. This denotes a connection that is infinitely more and that originates from infinitely higher and that works infinitely deeper than belonging to a nation by blood. A national king by blood – precisely by his contingent nature- can’t be a true king. He may be an excellent military general or political leader exercising royal rights but even in the most positive cases this is hardly more than usurpation. If there is no real king, then it must be the governor – ruler who stands as the head of the country or empire. This may be a legitimate solution as long as this person also has certain royal qualifications and an inner realization reaching in supra-national dimensions; being bound to the given people or nation is absolutely not a prerequisite, what’s more, this may be specifically disadvantageous and contra-inductive and ‘in concreto’ it truly is.

These thoughts lead rather far from our starting point, from the character of chancellor prince Metternich, but only seemingly, since these considerations correspond with Metternich’s ideology. The nature of metapolitics is such that it may open both towards politicality and apoliticality. If we wanted to open from metapolitics toward politicality, it would be impossible to doubt Metternich’s paradigmatic character; in the same token, Metternich’s character must be respectable also in the eyes of those who want to open specifically toward apoliticality. The character of prince Metternich remained -unquestionably- intact in all its aspects, in all circumstances. Such great personalities as He was, could and may have had -forgivable- flaws, but prince and chancellor Metternich -we can say without reservations- did not have flaws; if he did have some, these were probably so insignificant that they are indeed not worth mentioning.

The character of prince and chancellor Metternich (almost) perfectly corresponds with the paradigmatic character of the perfect statesman. The only reason why he was not fully perfect is because the signs of times manifested themselves also in His being although He was fighting against the very powers of his era and this significantly compensates against all related features. Metternich’s character serves as a leading example in the eyes of everybody with traditional and true, pure and unambiguously right wing orientation who intend to open towards politicality, but his character is highly respectable also for those who turn away from everything external, from all politics and intend to open only toward apoliticality because having a theoretical right wing orientation is valid also in such cases. The author of these lines -in addition to his other spiritual goals- defines it as his special mission to present historical personalities in their original light, who are close to the principles of traditionality. Such personalities include emperor and king Franz Joseph I, chancellor and prince Metternich, as treated above, Marshall and chief commander Alfred Fürst zu Windisch-Grätz, chief commander Haynau, but also those Hungarians faithful to the emperor, who fought in not insignificant numbers against the insurrectionist horde troops of Bocskai, Bethlen, Thököly, Rákóczi and Kossuth that triggered domestic, internal wars. This author is compelled to do this by his imperio-monarchist orientation and by his being a devoted Hungarian – by the recognition that the honor of Hungarians must be sought there where it is truly to be  found and not there where it was gambled away.



Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment