We disagree on the slightly deterministic view of the direction the world is taking, but the article is overall good and a needed reminder of the top priority when even scratching the surface of metapolitics.

"The knight, Christian or Japanese, for his own nature opposes the bourgeois. It could not be otherwise for someone who bears an inner civilisation that is rarer and more advanced than the one of those who surround him."

- Henry de Montherlant, Le Solstice de Juin

There are then ideas such as that of "Nation", born in the late 1700s to the "Left" (to be up against the Throne and the Altar) and ended up to the "Right", but a kind of "Right" that, from the Bonapartist experience all through Saintsimonism and utopian Socialism (especially Sorel) to revolutionary Syndicalism, has always been permeated with social values. Fascism, for instance, was born from these values, even if they would have probably never been "triggered" in history without the tragedy of the false and unjust Treaty of Versailles of 1918.

- Franco Cardini

Right and Left*It has always been difficult, but it is by now impossible to seriously define what "Right" and "Left" are.

[...]

I will try to explain myself. "Right" and "Left" have a long and complex history, from the late 18th century to our day: and that the Right especially values the "person" where the Left favours the "individual" and the "masses", that the Right stands for "community" and the Left instead for "society" (Tönnies' famous dichotomy), that the Right favours "freedom" and the Left "equality" (or at least "justice"), that the Right stands for roots and nation and the Left for cosmopolitanism and internationalism, that the Right is "conservative" and the Left "progressive", are all plausible couples of opposites, but they ultimately are more effort than it is worth: and, in the concrete historical process, they are often disregarded and contradicted. Was Guevara Left wing, and perhaps even Stalin? Was Perón Right wing, and perhaps even Mussolini? [...]

As for me, to be honest, I have always felt "Right wing" exclusively in the sense that [was] taught [...] [to] me [by] one of my dearest teachers, Attilio Mordini, a traditionalist scholar, a Catholic and a Franciscan tertiary. To Mordini, being "Right wing" had a metaphysical, metahistorical and metapolitical sense: it meant, for every man, to be anchored to his own Tradition, the sources of which are always divine.

Mordini, a philologist and philosopher of language, taught that languages have origins, not "natural" and "human", but metaphysical and sacral; and that every Tradition is sacred and every people, every historically qualified human group must stay loyal to their own. Traditions converse without a doubt, and they all are bearers of an analogous truth, in fact homogeneous. But it is not up to men to find the key of this analogy, of this homogeneity: as much as it is not illicit to search for it with the instruments of gnostic or mystical wisdom.

The Traditions, all linked to each other, don't communicate horizontally among them, but vertically, in God. It was the same teaching of Nicholas of Cusa. In the Western tradition, loyalty to Tradition translated, historically, to loyalty to the hierarchical and solidaristic Christian values of pre-revolutionary Europe: thus in the opposition towards the two greatest enemies of it, individualism and the cult of money for the sake of money, of progress for the sake of progress.

The point is that , on the historical plane, at least from the half of the 1800s the "Right" developed, as the "place" of a political tendency, much like the calling to individualism, to the production and management of wealth, to the veneration of progress: money and progress felt not quite as a means but rather an end, although an end that by its own nature excluded any other end and did not even set a limit to itself. Individualism and the mechanism of production-profit-consumption as constant yet inexhaustible goals of mankind.

With respect to this liberal, liberist, progressive, materialistic "Right" (even if Christian in formal terms), the traditionalist Right cannot feel but as diametrically opposed: in fact, often far nearer to certain spheres of the Left, which propose goals that are at least superficially and apparently closer to it, as the respect for folk cultures, solidarity, social justice.

The King Christ of the Right and the "Socialist Christ" of certain spheres of the Left are alike at least to the extent to which it allows both to declare themselves in the struggle against the turbocapitalist Antichrist; and if the turbocapitalist Antichrist fascinates some historical Christian Churches, all the worse for those Churches.*

“We are not engaged in a ‘defense of the West’ but in a global struggle against it — against its democracy, progressiveness, and feminism.”

— Claudio Mutti (1978)

Similarly to Evola's worldview, Archeofuturism should not be seen as a blind and passive adherence to dead forms of civilisation, the distant past serving as an inspiration but not as something to replicate.

Our future civilisation does not need its aristocracy to wear purple and togas, it does not even need public sacrifices to Jupiter, or to Odin. Those forms are dead and gone. A future civilisation is not meant to be a costuming make-believe, a "LARP" of the "good old times".

What is to be taken from the distant past is not the forms, but the ideas and principles underlying what made those civilisations great. And starting from there, make something new, make something greater.

The element Archeofuturism really adds, that Evola somewhat lacked, is forward-thinking. Archaic structures are worthless if left to stagnation, innovation serving as a vital signs check for civilisation, an expression of will to power without which the aforementioned ideas and principles quickly become dust and ashes. Stoking the Flame.

That makes Archeofuturism the real antithesis to Modernity, which is simultaneously an abnegation of the traditional worldview and, seemingly paradoxically, of authentic innovation.

So let's recap.

1. We've discussed that our interest, is not Ideology, but the Heroic Quest for the Grail.

2. That the obstacles we face in the world, on a socio-political level, are not an "other" but insufficiency in our ability to exercise our Will - privations on our internal freedom.

3. That the Spirit of the Times compelled thinkers like Julius Evola, and other "Conservative Revolutionaries" to attempt to "deal with" ideologies such as National Socialism and Fascism, but that the Spirit of the Times has left those ideologies behind in history - that due to this, those of you who are "devout National Socialists" - stragglers of History - need to be "grabbed off the road" and shown the Transcendence of those ideologies.

4. We do this via the "Great Contempt" - which is the Heroic Imperative away from the ghetto of ideology. This Great Contempt goes hand in hand with the taking refuge in the Three Jewels. (Re-orienting yourself towards Heroic Transcendence).

5. The errors of Bonapartism, and the need for an Aristocracy who have actualized this Great Contempt - this being their qualifying mark as an "Aristocrat" rather than land, wealth, or material "power".

6. A basic summation of Caste and Race - transcending the National Socialist biological determinist views, and Colonial era misrepresentations of Caste. With stress upon the incompatibility with Modernist notions of "the Nation" against the Caste.

7. The correspondence between the individual and society - giving impetus of action towards a "Spiritual Revolution" of the individual (via the Great Contempt) - in order to serve as a new Aristocracy, and re-order society in the image of the Hegemonikon of the Aristocrat.

In short, a 'healthy racism' according to Evola is a hierarchy, not concerned placing oneself at the top out of vainglory, and not overly obsessed material components of race like 'blood' as if it has any meaning unto itself without being put to good use,…

In short, a 'healthy racism' according to Evola is a hierarchy, not concerned placing oneself at the top out of vainglory, and not overly obsessed material components of race like 'blood' as if it has any meaning unto itself without being put to good use, but a hierarchy of values and virtues, a hierarchy in which some may rise or fall depending on their actions and their relation to divinity.

The liberalized and secularized "white" is inferior to the traditional man of traditional culture - although we should note that as of today, there are no longer traditional Hindu, Chinese, or Japanese types around much; and in the latter two cases it is because of contamination by the liberal white.

A footnote by Julius Evola in the essay Negrified America

"A certain man of letters with intellectual pretensions...has deplored the 'racist' ideas expounded here, and has accused me, among other things, of self-contradiction, because while I stand against Negroes, I nonetheless respect Amerindians. He has no suspicion of the fact that a 'healthy racism' has nothing to do with the prejudice of 'white skin'; it is essentially a matter of a hierarchy of values, according to which we say 'no' to Negroes, to all that pertains to them and to all Negro contamination (the Negro races, in this hierarchy, are just above Australian primitives, and according to a well-known morphology correspond mainly to the type of 'nocturnal' and 'telluric' races, as opposed to the 'diurnal' type), while on the other hand, given what the white race has been reduced to in the age of colonial mercantilist expansion, we would certainly be willing to concede superiority over 'whites' to the higher Hindu, Chinese, and Japanese types, and to some Arab strains, despite the fact that they do not have white skin."