Desert Fox
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 10,584
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
Following are excerpts from a 3 part translation of Julius Evola's essay on the inherent anti-bourgeois nature of the historical Aristocracy, and the necessity for such in a truly Traditional and Conservative society. I recommend reading the essay in its entirety, which can be found in 3 parts here. Here i will focus on a few excerpts.
First, let's put into perspective what is meant by Bourgeoisie and Aristocracy here.
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Usually people confuse the two and consider them interchangeable. This is in fact wrong. This view stems from when one looks upon recent history of the last 2-300 hundred years; especially of that cliche image of snobby aristocrats and industrial Capitalists populating enormous ballroom dances and expensive cocktail parties of Victorian era England, as has been depicted in major films about that era, but this is in fact a rare and very recent example of history and is a depiction of a bastardized and degenerated form of the aristocracy.
Historically, the two have been at odds, as the origins of the aristocracy are within the Warrior tradition, whereas the bourgeoisie's are within the Mercantile/artisans. The inherent nature of the two castes (see here before jumping to conclusions about that term) is opposed, where the former is grounded in warrior ethics like Loyalty, Honour, and obedience to an organic Hierarchy, the latter is grounded within concerns pertaining to economics, like Capital and modes of Production.
The basis of the former is within Principles that are eternal and universally accepted as Truths. The latter, if not reigned in under the influence of the former, also has 'concepts' but which in every non-Liberal society were/are considered degenerated, like 'loyalty' to capital (money, wealth) and consumption, when in fact it is nothing but worship of one's own desires and greed.
The Necessity for & Inevitability of Elites
But why should we even need a Aristocracy? Isn't this an outdated concept?
By that same token one might as well ask why do we need elites at all? As Aristocracy = Elites, and all societies, even Communist societies, have elites, regardless of the 'equality' and 'democracy' mumbo jumbo espoused by communists/democrats/socialists/Liberals (all synonyms of more or less same egalitarian, individualist, materialist worldview).
Elites in egalitarian societies are elusive and behind the curtain, and most importantly a paradox as their very existence goes counter to the ideological narrative of egalitarianism; they are a 'surrogate aristocracy' as Evola calls them, yet it is an inevitability that there will always be elites as nature is hierarchical and not equal. This is both true in the physical as well as spiritual sense.
Here Evola refers to the work of the Italian Sociologist Vilfredo Pareto who came up with the theory of Circulation of Elites wherein revolutions are not the overthrow of one elite by the masses, but rather its replacement by another elite, as is stated of Pareto's theory in the wiki link,
It's not a question of 'elites or no elites?', but rather of 'what kind of elites?'. For as Evola states, "But with this we are still far from being able to speak correctly of ‘aristocracy’." Indeed, one elite replacing another doesn't necessarily mean it is a good elite in the Traditional and Conservative sense if its assuming power replaces a more organic and traditional elite such as that of the Aristocracy.
For example, in the so called "Russian" Revolution, after having purged the Czar and the nobility, the Bolsheviks themselves became a new elite class, and rather than it being a "dictatorship" of the proletariat, it became a dictatorship of Lenin.
Likewise, such a replacement can be a good thing if it means the return of an organic Aristocratic elite in the place of the degenerated elite.
Secondly, in line with the essence of the Aristocracy mentioned earlier (warrior ethos, which in itself entails a spiritual worldview) within the context of a conservative State, it would be a mistake to assume that a technocratic elite of experts would also be anything other than just another surrogate elite, incapable of filling in that void, as Evola rightfully points out:
Again, emphasis should be placed on the fact that the Aristocracy derives its essence from the eternal and universally understood warrior ethos; honour, loyalty, obedience to organic spiritual hierarchy, rather than an artificial hierarchy based purely on material expertise or accumulation of wealth and the ability to buy influence with said wealth. The former symbolizes submission to a spiritual authority and the dominance of the spirit over the base instinct which all humans share with the animal 'kingdom', thus rising above the rest of the 'herd' of humanity, whereas the latter is exactly the submission of the human to his own base instincts, ie consumption, greed, etc. The first is always in the minority while the second is always in the majority.
The Significance of Aristocracy
So what exactly is the significance of the Aristocracy within the framework of a Traditional and Conservative society as historically understood prior to the advent of the egalitarian world order represented by Liberalism and its various subsets, Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Parliamentarism etc.?
Here we must refer back to the importance of elites within any society and what role they play. This is best seen within the values these elites embody and how these values then permeate the rest of society.
Lets take for example the elites in Pakistani society, or for that matter the elites of all Muslim countries, whether civilian politicians, military dictators/generals, or even 'royal' families; what values are they trickling down to the rest of society? The answer to this one can see manifest itself within the abundance of social ills like corruption, the general lack of purpose/direction, decietfulness, oppression (to name a few) within these countries. Sure, one can argue that these leaders came from the people, and indeed that is the case and once again proves that you cannot leave the masses to choose their leaders, unless the masses are themselves exercising the selection process based on the eternal principles of a solid foundation above their own stomachs, but this is very seldom the case. In the above mentioned examples, the power these elites derive is not coming from above, from a superior spiritual authority, but rather it is derived from their lowest instincts, as well as from the manipulation of the masses of people who correspondingly represent the lowest instincts of a state. This is precisely what happens when a organic state structure based upon the hierarchy of the inherent nature of individuals (castes) does not exist; instead of order you have a state of chaos which is barely holding together, in which neglect and injustice prevails.
Here again Evola is referring to a warrior Aristocracy and the warrior ethos embodied within the members of this aristocracy which then permeate the castes below, thus bringing the 'social' (the mass of society characterized by its base animal-like instincts) under the dominance of the 'political' (warrior-ascetic values of the aristocracy, resulting from inner spiritual tension), similar to the Medieval warrior Orders such as those of the Order of Teutonic Knights from which the Prussian aristocracy originated and inherited its warrior code of ethics, the Knights Templars, or the Samurai of Medieval Japan who had a similar warrior code of ethics to their European counterparts despite the immense geographical distance between the two civilizations.
Caste, the 'Dirty' Word
There is a certain stigma attached to this word, mostly out of misunderstanding and ignorance. Castes systems existed in all ancient and classical civilizations. Though in some cases they were solidified with little to no social movement, and in other cases they were certainly degenerated and abused; mere skeletons of what was once a Just system of order. This is the problem with hereditary caste systems without limited social movement. It isn't always the case that someone being born into a specific caste necessarily means he will embody the principles governing that caste.
Limited social movement is necessary to prevent the stagnation of a caste system and thus its degeneration. Social movement will allow the replenishment of the Aristocracy with new members who are naturally (inner, spiritual nature) inclined towards the ascetic-warrior lifestyle, while the old ones, should they lose their essence and inner tension, would be deprived of their titles and relegated to a lower caste befitting their inner nature. As Evola rightfully indicates:
Is the Aristocracy Fallible?
There are examples within history where the aristocracy was subverted by the lower castes, in this instance the Bourgeoisie, after a prolonged period of degeneration as was seen immediately prior to the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution, where in both cases the aristocracy became deluded by Liberal ideals only after first becoming detached from its true essence & responsibility as a caste distinct from the others within the caste system, thus creating a ripe environment for unrestrained and unchecked Capitalism which then led to Communism/Socialism to spread among the disillusioned masses of peasants and workers, this being a downward trend toward the eventual demise of these societies.
This is a degenerated aristocracy unworthy of its title, and Evola is spot-on when he states:
Recent Historical Examples of Traditional & Conservative Aristocratic States
Earlier i briefly touched upon Prussia's Teutonic legacy and Imperial Japan's Samurai tradition. These two are examples of what a traditional conservative state existing under the guiding principles of a warrior aristocracy looks like within our recent modern history, particularly in the age of Capitalism and Communism.
As Prussia as a state and hegemon was neutralized at the end of WWI (although it can be argued that Prussia's warrior legacy was revived & carried on into the Third Reich), Imperial Japan continued to exist up until 1945, well into the industrial era of booming production, yet still maintaining stringent traditional values and warrior ethos through a somewhat more loose caste system.
Until Japan was subdued by overwhelming military means and finally surrendered, only then were Liberal (Bourgeois) values forced onto Japanese society by the barrel of the guns of the occupying American forces. In fact post-War Japan's constitution was written by an American Jewish Feminist, Beate Sirota Gordon, who inserted her cultural Marxist poison into the toxic mix that is now modern Japan's constitution.
Up until its surrender, Japanese officers and soldiers religiously read books like Hagakure, one of the earliest well known books on the Samurai spiritual guide for warriors, written by one of Japan's famous Samurai warriors of the Shogun era. Books like these were common within Japanese society and even mandatory reading in important segments of society.
![SocialClassesofJapan_1__576x546[1].jpg](https://defence.pk/attachments/socialclassesofjapan_1__576x546-1-jpg.597853/ "SocialClassesofJapan_1__576x546[1].jpg")
Japanese Caste System. Note that the
merchant/bourgeois caste is at the bottom
even below the peasants. Japanese held
merchants and money lenders in contempt.
Can a Conservative & Traditional State Be Established, Survive, & Thrive In The Modern World?
With the rise of a multi-polar world; with Liberalism being challenged everywhere on all fronts; with room for alternative possibilities now developing; the opportunities for a state based on a organic order under warrior-aristocratic ethos, to rise, present themselves, but only for those who are willing to take up these opportunities. Nations that wish to remain slaves of one global power or another, begging for aid here today and there the next day, while their citizenry continue to degenerate on all parameters, rather than play their cards wisely and maintain a sense of honour, will never fulfill their destiny and will perish like those nations who perished into obscurity and of whom no one even knows about today, and who were replaced by far better and stronger nations.
![mmo2f8yarlx01[1].jpg](https://defence.pk/attachments/mmo2f8yarlx01-1-jpg.597862/ "mmo2f8yarlx01[1].jpg")
@Nilgiri @OsmanAli98 @Taimur Khurram @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Indus Pakistan
First, let's put into perspective what is meant by Bourgeoisie and Aristocracy here.
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
"...aristos means "best" in Greek, ancient Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle used the word aristocracy to mean a system of rule by the best people—that is, those who deserved to rule because of their intelligence and moral excellence."
Usually people confuse the two and consider them interchangeable. This is in fact wrong. This view stems from when one looks upon recent history of the last 2-300 hundred years; especially of that cliche image of snobby aristocrats and industrial Capitalists populating enormous ballroom dances and expensive cocktail parties of Victorian era England, as has been depicted in major films about that era, but this is in fact a rare and very recent example of history and is a depiction of a bastardized and degenerated form of the aristocracy.
Historically, the two have been at odds, as the origins of the aristocracy are within the Warrior tradition, whereas the bourgeoisie's are within the Mercantile/artisans. The inherent nature of the two castes (see here before jumping to conclusions about that term) is opposed, where the former is grounded in warrior ethics like Loyalty, Honour, and obedience to an organic Hierarchy, the latter is grounded within concerns pertaining to economics, like Capital and modes of Production.
The basis of the former is within Principles that are eternal and universally accepted as Truths. The latter, if not reigned in under the influence of the former, also has 'concepts' but which in every non-Liberal society were/are considered degenerated, like 'loyalty' to capital (money, wealth) and consumption, when in fact it is nothing but worship of one's own desires and greed.
The Necessity for & Inevitability of Elites
But why should we even need a Aristocracy? Isn't this an outdated concept?
By that same token one might as well ask why do we need elites at all? As Aristocracy = Elites, and all societies, even Communist societies, have elites, regardless of the 'equality' and 'democracy' mumbo jumbo espoused by communists/democrats/socialists/Liberals (all synonyms of more or less same egalitarian, individualist, materialist worldview).
Elites in egalitarian societies are elusive and behind the curtain, and most importantly a paradox as their very existence goes counter to the ideological narrative of egalitarianism; they are a 'surrogate aristocracy' as Evola calls them, yet it is an inevitability that there will always be elites as nature is hierarchical and not equal. This is both true in the physical as well as spiritual sense.
"Already the fact that there exists such a term as ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ demonstrates the necessity of clarifying the meaning of the terms ‘dictatorship’ and ‘authoritarianism’. It is one of the merits of Pareto2 that he demonstrated the inevitability of the phenomenon of elitism, which is to say of a ruling minority."
Here Evola refers to the work of the Italian Sociologist Vilfredo Pareto who came up with the theory of Circulation of Elites wherein revolutions are not the overthrow of one elite by the masses, but rather its replacement by another elite, as is stated of Pareto's theory in the wiki link,
"The role of ordinary people in such transformation is not that of initiators or principal actors, but as followers and supporters of one elite or another."
It's not a question of 'elites or no elites?', but rather of 'what kind of elites?'. For as Evola states, "But with this we are still far from being able to speak correctly of ‘aristocracy’." Indeed, one elite replacing another doesn't necessarily mean it is a good elite in the Traditional and Conservative sense if its assuming power replaces a more organic and traditional elite such as that of the Aristocracy.
For example, in the so called "Russian" Revolution, after having purged the Czar and the nobility, the Bolsheviks themselves became a new elite class, and rather than it being a "dictatorship" of the proletariat, it became a dictatorship of Lenin.
Likewise, such a replacement can be a good thing if it means the return of an organic Aristocratic elite in the place of the degenerated elite.
Secondly, in line with the essence of the Aristocracy mentioned earlier (warrior ethos, which in itself entails a spiritual worldview) within the context of a conservative State, it would be a mistake to assume that a technocratic elite of experts would also be anything other than just another surrogate elite, incapable of filling in that void, as Evola rightfully points out:
"It is much more appropriate to Marxism and Bolshevism than to our Revolution to think that an elite of technicians, aiming at resolving purely material, social and economic problems, will conduct a collectivized humanity, over which they exercise control, toward a new Paradise, to such an extent that they can demand any higher recognition."
Again, emphasis should be placed on the fact that the Aristocracy derives its essence from the eternal and universally understood warrior ethos; honour, loyalty, obedience to organic spiritual hierarchy, rather than an artificial hierarchy based purely on material expertise or accumulation of wealth and the ability to buy influence with said wealth. The former symbolizes submission to a spiritual authority and the dominance of the spirit over the base instinct which all humans share with the animal 'kingdom', thus rising above the rest of the 'herd' of humanity, whereas the latter is exactly the submission of the human to his own base instincts, ie consumption, greed, etc. The first is always in the minority while the second is always in the majority.
The Significance of Aristocracy
So what exactly is the significance of the Aristocracy within the framework of a Traditional and Conservative society as historically understood prior to the advent of the egalitarian world order represented by Liberalism and its various subsets, Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Parliamentarism etc.?
Here we must refer back to the importance of elites within any society and what role they play. This is best seen within the values these elites embody and how these values then permeate the rest of society.
Lets take for example the elites in Pakistani society, or for that matter the elites of all Muslim countries, whether civilian politicians, military dictators/generals, or even 'royal' families; what values are they trickling down to the rest of society? The answer to this one can see manifest itself within the abundance of social ills like corruption, the general lack of purpose/direction, decietfulness, oppression (to name a few) within these countries. Sure, one can argue that these leaders came from the people, and indeed that is the case and once again proves that you cannot leave the masses to choose their leaders, unless the masses are themselves exercising the selection process based on the eternal principles of a solid foundation above their own stomachs, but this is very seldom the case. In the above mentioned examples, the power these elites derive is not coming from above, from a superior spiritual authority, but rather it is derived from their lowest instincts, as well as from the manipulation of the masses of people who correspondingly represent the lowest instincts of a state. This is precisely what happens when a organic state structure based upon the hierarchy of the inherent nature of individuals (castes) does not exist; instead of order you have a state of chaos which is barely holding together, in which neglect and injustice prevails.
"...one cannot contemplate a new Traditional and organic articulation of the State without setting before oneself the problem of persons, in a still higher sense than that implied by the conventional term, or by the nineteenth-century tastes of the ‘political ruling class’."
"...this idea grows clearer yet if only one bears in mind that we are not speaking only of ‘political’ functions and activities which are more or less connected to the administrative or legislative body of the State. We are rather speaking of the problem of a personal form of authority, which issues from the man rather than his office: we are speaking of a prestige and an example which, being common to a given class, needs must form an atmosphere, crystallize a higher style of life, and thus effectively give the ‘tone’ to a new society. We are speaking almost of an Order, not in the religious sense, but in the ascetic-warrior sense..."
Here again Evola is referring to a warrior Aristocracy and the warrior ethos embodied within the members of this aristocracy which then permeate the castes below, thus bringing the 'social' (the mass of society characterized by its base animal-like instincts) under the dominance of the 'political' (warrior-ascetic values of the aristocracy, resulting from inner spiritual tension), similar to the Medieval warrior Orders such as those of the Order of Teutonic Knights from which the Prussian aristocracy originated and inherited its warrior code of ethics, the Knights Templars, or the Samurai of Medieval Japan who had a similar warrior code of ethics to their European counterparts despite the immense geographical distance between the two civilizations.
"A typical aristocratic trait is the faculty of reacting from out of spiritual motivations, and doing so in as instinctive, direct and organic a way as the common man is capable of doing only with regard to that which closely touches upon his animal or passional life."
"
"
Caste, the 'Dirty' Word
There is a certain stigma attached to this word, mostly out of misunderstanding and ignorance. Castes systems existed in all ancient and classical civilizations. Though in some cases they were solidified with little to no social movement, and in other cases they were certainly degenerated and abused; mere skeletons of what was once a Just system of order. This is the problem with hereditary caste systems without limited social movement. It isn't always the case that someone being born into a specific caste necessarily means he will embody the principles governing that caste.
Limited social movement is necessary to prevent the stagnation of a caste system and thus its degeneration. Social movement will allow the replenishment of the Aristocracy with new members who are naturally (inner, spiritual nature) inclined towards the ascetic-warrior lifestyle, while the old ones, should they lose their essence and inner tension, would be deprived of their titles and relegated to a lower caste befitting their inner nature. As Evola rightfully indicates:
"If having a bourgeois soul gives one the right to carry an aristocratic title, it is clear that this title is no longer worth anything, that it no longer signifies anything; it is the instrument, not of distinction, but of confusion."
Is the Aristocracy Fallible?
There are examples within history where the aristocracy was subverted by the lower castes, in this instance the Bourgeoisie, after a prolonged period of degeneration as was seen immediately prior to the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution, where in both cases the aristocracy became deluded by Liberal ideals only after first becoming detached from its true essence & responsibility as a caste distinct from the others within the caste system, thus creating a ripe environment for unrestrained and unchecked Capitalism which then led to Communism/Socialism to spread among the disillusioned masses of peasants and workers, this being a downward trend toward the eventual demise of these societies.
This is a degenerated aristocracy unworthy of its title, and Evola is spot-on when he states:
"...it would be hasty to point to anything that even remotely approaches this within the salons and the circles of our so-called ‘high society’, a milieu in which every kind of creature gathers, every kind of ‘good name’, but, at the same time, also snobbism, internationalism and frivolities of every kind. Let us call things by their proper name: if there is any real antithesis to true nobility, it is constituted precisely by this ‘worldly’ and profane aristocracy, made up as it is by painted matrons and semi-virgins rushing from one tea party to the next, from one flirtation to the next; it is peopled by bridge-players and impeccable executors of the most exotic and ridiculous dances – a true vanity fair of every superficiality, gilded and cosmopolitanized to hide its intellectual vacuity and its spiritual scepticism – even when it opens its doors and invites to its luncheons and its cocktail parties the ‘brilliant’ literati, the novelist of the moment, the laurelled critic, the journalistic pontificator.
"Where is that hardness, where is that ascesis of power, where is that contempt for vanity proper to aristocracy, back when it was truly a dominant caste? What has become of that ancient Aryan title of the aristocrats, ‘The enemies of gold’?"
"Where is that hardness, where is that ascesis of power, where is that contempt for vanity proper to aristocracy, back when it was truly a dominant caste? What has become of that ancient Aryan title of the aristocrats, ‘The enemies of gold’?"
Recent Historical Examples of Traditional & Conservative Aristocratic States
Earlier i briefly touched upon Prussia's Teutonic legacy and Imperial Japan's Samurai tradition. These two are examples of what a traditional conservative state existing under the guiding principles of a warrior aristocracy looks like within our recent modern history, particularly in the age of Capitalism and Communism.
As Prussia as a state and hegemon was neutralized at the end of WWI (although it can be argued that Prussia's warrior legacy was revived & carried on into the Third Reich), Imperial Japan continued to exist up until 1945, well into the industrial era of booming production, yet still maintaining stringent traditional values and warrior ethos through a somewhat more loose caste system.
Until Japan was subdued by overwhelming military means and finally surrendered, only then were Liberal (Bourgeois) values forced onto Japanese society by the barrel of the guns of the occupying American forces. In fact post-War Japan's constitution was written by an American Jewish Feminist, Beate Sirota Gordon, who inserted her cultural Marxist poison into the toxic mix that is now modern Japan's constitution.
Up until its surrender, Japanese officers and soldiers religiously read books like Hagakure, one of the earliest well known books on the Samurai spiritual guide for warriors, written by one of Japan's famous Samurai warriors of the Shogun era. Books like these were common within Japanese society and even mandatory reading in important segments of society.
Japanese Caste System. Note that the
merchant/bourgeois caste is at the bottom
even below the peasants. Japanese held
merchants and money lenders in contempt.
Can a Conservative & Traditional State Be Established, Survive, & Thrive In The Modern World?
With the rise of a multi-polar world; with Liberalism being challenged everywhere on all fronts; with room for alternative possibilities now developing; the opportunities for a state based on a organic order under warrior-aristocratic ethos, to rise, present themselves, but only for those who are willing to take up these opportunities. Nations that wish to remain slaves of one global power or another, begging for aid here today and there the next day, while their citizenry continue to degenerate on all parameters, rather than play their cards wisely and maintain a sense of honour, will never fulfill their destiny and will perish like those nations who perished into obscurity and of whom no one even knows about today, and who were replaced by far better and stronger nations.
@Nilgiri @OsmanAli98 @Taimur Khurram @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Indus Pakistan
