I’d be amiss not to comment on yet another exceedingly great post from our friend over at Gornahoor, Cologero, who draws on and analyzes the aristocratic thought of Edwin Dyga, Valentin Tomberg, and Timothy Sprigge. This is yet another essay that should be scanned by everyone of the rightist persuasion.
Discussed here are the differences between the Old Reactionary Right, and groups such as the ENR (European New Right), and why we should always endeavor to emulate the attitude and approach of the former rather than the latter. Essentially, today’s popular extreme rightist thought, particularly in countries like France, is in fact a Modernist revision, rather than one which has as its center point an understanding of ‘throne and altar’, i.e – the proper relation between the sovereign political power and spiritual authorities. This, as a concept is absolutely vital to Reactionary thought, for an abandonment on either side will lead either to abject fundamentalism or a kind of stealth Modernism which is merely anti-Liberal (good examples being National Socialism and Communism).
There has been a movement which advocates for an understanding of rightism beyond the school of Traditionalism and the desire for a return to throne and altar. While this movement has undoubtedly been astonishingly organized, its intellectual merit has been poor as compared to mainly online Reactionary critique which draws lines clearly from De Maistre to Evola and on to a blasting criticism of Modernity calibrated for the new iterations which have emerged in the aftermath of the Cold War. Here is a key line from the essay:
“The demotic essence, therefore, is atheistic, anti-hierarchical, materialistic. Since there are New Right movements that themselves are atheistic, anti-hierarchical, and materialistic, this just shows the power the modernity holds over some minds. Such movements as typically “identitarian”, often on a biologically racial basis, which then becomes the defining paradigm rather than Throne and Altar. That is because such movements are themselves demotic and therefore unwilling to acknowledge or unable to recognize the hierarchy within the group itself.”
“[…] as human beings we are free to deny God, but we are not free to do away with our need (because it is built into our nature) for something that is beyond us, that transcends us and provides the meaning of our existence. So, when people deny God, who is, as it were, the “vertical” transcendent, they start to look for a “horizontal” transcendent as a substitute. This horizontal transcendent is, pre-eminently, other people. Furthermore, as I said, since God is that which is most Other from ourselves, the more different other people are from us, the more they seem like God or fulfill the function of God in our psyches. Thus the worship of man devolves into the worship of other men, other cultures,other peoples, combined with a contempt for our own. This is the mystical cult of multiculturalism—the uncritical identification with the Other, whoever the Other may happen to be.”
Because of the necessity of a vertical hierarchy which reaches into an intangible ‘beyond’ rather than just ending in a Kim Jong Un-esque figure, rejecting such a necessity leads to all kind of problems, problems which have slithered out from the dirty rock which Liberalism has decided to peek under. Auster relates this primarily to the phenomenon of multiculturalism, correctly identified as a ‘horizontal’ form of worship, so this is another recommended read if you’re a fan of the relationship between Liberal ideological dogmas and national suicide.
“The mere omission (let alone contempt) of the great Being in any human endeavor brands it with an irrevocable anathema. Either every imaginable institution is founded on a religious concept or it is only a passing phenomenon.”
I would argue the same applies to currents of intellectual consideration and political action as it would to any grounded institution. In service of Tradition, it is an enduring principle that will be forever nourished through the Kali Yuga by the milk of a sacred truth that has been with us since our creation. In service to other motives, however well-intentioned, well-devised, even dressed up in the peculiar garb of degenerate pagan fragment and folklore lip-service, it will add its own entry to the list of regrettable mistakes last topped by the fallen regime of Benito Mussolini.
A good question to ask oneself in order to consider whether one traverses a mistaken or true path is to inquire as to how we view ourselves. At the deepest levels, are we visionaries, designers, engineers, revolutionaries? Or are we preservers, defenders, soldiers, survivors? The Old Right were only a category, so greatly shrunk by the onslaught of Modernism that they required some political label to distinguish themselves in the fallout. None claimed to generate an ideal for which it was noble to fight, for the ideal didn’t belong to them. They only gave voice to what, by then, priests and monarchs were too dead to give voice to, the World of Tradition. We are preservers of this legacy. We are defenders of this ideal. We are soldiers in the service of its Creator. And we are survivors of its enemy’s machinations.
Reactionaries are a thoughtful group. They enjoy research. They enjoy technical subjects. They enjoy deep questions of political philosophy and man’s relationship to superior and inferior forces. We must always remember however that we are not engineering anything new, at the level of forms. Our ideology exists in the true regal current of the world, it is woven into the very fabric of human life (as I have already argued), and indivisible from the Divine Realm beyond. All discussions are discoveries, not startup projects. Whether we’re talking about practical politics or meta-politics, always our guiding voices must be the wise dead men of the old world, and the fallen fighters of the new. The essence we seek is superior precisely because it already exists, tried and tested. It requires no creation, merely a fleshing out of current and form, and a wiping away of dust. The principles of throne and altar are not bound in constitutions or declarations, they are bound in the cosmic order, hence why our victory is inevitable. Let’s not be distracted by the so-called ‘New Right’. While they make some worthwhile arguments against Liberalism, we serve nobler forces than they do. Their interests, concealed or public, should always be subordinate to ours in whatever interaction exists.