Highlights of point 7:
- The ideal is a virile and organic political unity
- This unity is fundamentally a spiritual unity
- The dignity and freedom of the human person is found in an organic society, not in individualized liberalism
- Evola rejected the Salo republic because it excluded the Italian monarchy
- The spiritual environment must be created prior to the political and a suitable symbol created
The Carlyle quote is from Heroes and Hero Worship and is misquoted in Men Among the Ruins.
If the ideal of a virile and organic political unity was an essential part in the world that had to be swept away—and through it, we also brought back the Roman symbol—we must then recognize the cases in which such a need deviated and was almost miscarried in the mistaken direction of totalitarianism. This, again, is a point that must be seen with clarity, so that the differentiation of the political fronts is precise and, also, arms are not furnished to those who want to confuse things after due consideration. Hierarchy is not hierarchism (an evil that, unfortunately, today at times tries to come back in minor tones), and the organic conception has nothing to do with a statolatrous sclerosis and a leveling centralization. As for the individual, a true surpassing both of individualism and collectivism happens only when men are in the face of men, in the natural diversity of their being and their dignities. And as for the unity that must prevent, in general, every form of dissociation and absolutization of the particular, it must be essentially spiritual, it must be a central, orienting influence, an impulse that, depending on the leaders, assumes very differentiated forms of expression. This is the true essence of the “organic” conception, opposed to the rigid and extrinsic relations typical of “totalitarianism”. In these fields the requirement of dignity and liberty of the human person that liberalism can conceive only in individualistic, egalitarian, and privatistic terms can be realized integrally. It is in this spirit that the structure of a new political-social ordering must be studied, in solid and clear articulation.
But such structures need a center, a supreme point of reference. A new symbol of sovereignty and authority is necessary. The delivery, in this regard, must be precise and ideological prevarication cannot be admitted. It is good to say clearly that here we are only talking about the subject of the so-called institutional problem; it is first of all about what is necessary for a specific climate, for the fluid that must animate every relationship of fidelity, dedication, service, disindividualized action, so that the gray, the mechanistic, and the oblique of the current political-social world is truly surpassed. Here today it will therefore end up with no way out when at the top it is not capable of a type of ascesis of the pure idea. Both the less felicitous antecedents of our national traditions, and even more, the tragic contingencies of yesterday prejudice, for many, the clear perception of the right direction. We can still recognize the inconclusiveness of the monarchical solution, when those who today can only to defend a residue of the idea are kept in view, a symbol emptied and devitalized, which is that of the parliamentary constitutional monarchy. But in an altogether decisive way the incompatibility in relation to the republican idea must be pointed out. To be anti-democratic on the one hand, and on the other to defend “ferociously” (this is unfortunately the terminology of some exponents of a false intransigence) the republican idea is an absurdity that is the proof of it: the republic (we mean modern republics: the ancient republics were of the aristocracy, as in Rome, of the oligarchy, the latter often with the character of tyranny) belong essentially to the world that rose to life through Jacobinism and the anti-traditional and anti-hierarchical subversion of the XIX century. And to such a world, which is not ours, let it go. In terms of principle, a currently monarchical nation that becomes a republic can only be considered as a “degraded” nation. For Italy one does not play in the ambiguity in the name of a fidelity to Fascism of Salo, because if, for this reason, one should follow the false republican way, at the same time it would be unfaithful to something more and better, it would throw into the sea the central nucleus of the ideology of the 20s, i.e., its doctrine of the State in regards to authority, power, imperium.
It is necessary to conserve this doctrine only, without agreeing to go down and without making it the game of any group. The concretization of the symbol can be left indeterminate for now; the essential task is to prepare silently the spiritual environment adapted to what the symbol of an intangible elevated authority has felt and reacquired the fullness of its meaning: it cannot correspond to the stature of any revocable “president” of the republic, and not even that of a tribune or populist leader, the possessor of mere individual formless power, lacking every higher blessing, supporting himself instead on the precarious prestige he exercised on the irrational forces of the masses. It is that to which some have given the name of “Bonapartism” and that was justly recognized in its meaning not as the antithesis to demagogic or “popular” democracy, but also as its logical conclusion: one of the dark apparitions in the Spenglerian “decline of the West”. There is a new touchstone for us: the sensibility in respect to all that. Carlyle had already written: “the Valet-World has to be governed by the Sham-Hero” and not by a real Ruler.
⇐ Point 6 Point 8 ⇒