Enigma777

(Shame on you if you react emotionally to the title and don’t engage with the actual content) (Also, yes, I did use an LLM to polish the whole thing, but this is all my writing and my ideas) In the traditional Left-Right political spectrum, various ideologies are positioned at different points, possessing certain characteristics that place them either toward the Left, the Right, or closer to the center. On this spectrum, Communism is generally placed at the extreme Left, and Fascism at the extreme Right. Communism (in theory) advocates abolishing the state and social classes, replacing private ownership with collective ownership, unifying the working class across nations while rejecting nationalism, and establishing complete social equality through the abolition of hierarchy. Fascism, conversely, emphasizes a strong state with centralized authority, rigid social hierarchies, ultra-nationalism and militarism, and anti-egalitarianism grounded in an ethos of ethnic or racial superiority (or some other identity-based form of discriminatory hierarchy). Given this framework, wouldn't calling oneself a "Superfascist" mean that one advocates some extreme type of Fascism? In this essay, I argue: not at all. Here's why: The man who coined the term "Superfascist" (Italian: Suprafascista) was Julius Evola, an Italian philosopher, writer, and esotericist. Evola has a long history of controversial ties with twentieth-century Fascist regimes and is usually labeled a Fascist extremist himself. This characterization, as I shall outline here, represents a critical error of category. My purpose is not to defend Evola as a person but to outline the position of "Superfascism" itself. I ground myself primarily in Evola's philosophy, adding minimal innovation, merely attempting to present these ideas as clearly and accessibly as possible without sacrificing precision or accuracy. Before presenting the idea of "Superfascism" itself, it's essential to establish basic historical context and present a foundational history of political ideas. The division between "Left" and "Right" in modern politics emerged during the French Revolution in late eighteenth-century France. In the French National Assembly, supporters of the king who wished to preserve the monarchy sat to the presiding officer's right, while supporters of the revolution, who sought to abolish the monarchy and enact radical changes, sat to the left. The terms stuck: "left" came to represent progressive and socially liberal viewpoints, while "right" represented traditional and conservative ones. Notably, no one in mainstream discourse today supports absolute monarchy, making even today's Right-Wing Conservatives fundamentally Classical Liberals themselves—a fact often obscured by contemporary political rhetoric. After the Premodern period (the epoch before the French Revolution and the spread of Liberal Democracy), all major political movements and ideologies that swept the world became fundamentally disconnected from religious, theological, and metaphysical concerns. Instead, they focused on material or socio-economic issues as their ultimate concern. Liberalism, socialism/communism, nationalism—all possessed fundamentally materialist orientations to reality. Their metaphysics were disconnected from any conception of the Transcendent, replacing it with the material world as their highest preoccupation and as the object of the ultimate aims that should concern humanity and political organization. The main goals and concerns of modern political movements are as follows: Classical Liberalism emphasizes individual liberty, limited government, rule of law, private property, and constitutional rights. Socialism and Communism prioritize economic equality, collective ownership of the means of production, social justice, and the elimination of class systems. Nationalism focuses on national identity, cultural unity, sovereignty, and self-determination for the nation (often defined by shared ethnicity, language, or culture). Fast-forward to the twenty-first century: the Left's main concerns are social justice, equality, multiculturalism, environmental protection, and sustainable development; the Right's are free-market capitalism, upholding the neoliberal status quo, national and cultural identity, and economic growth and prosperity. We realize that all our modern political concerns are fundamentally rooted in materialism—in matters of this world alone. Contrast this with the Premodern worldview. Premodernism designates the period of history before the Enlightenment and French Revolution, extending as far back—in some definitions—to the earliest civilizations of the Bronze Age and the pre-Christian epoch. For thousands of years, despite vast differences in specific religious doctrines across civilizations, there existed a remarkable similarity in the structure and logic of political organization. A common thread of political thought runs from ancient Mesopotamia through to the Christian Middle Ages, representing what we might call the Premodern worldview. The premodern political worldview was rooted in a foundational belief in a divine, organic, and hierarchical cosmic order. Political organization was not primarily concerned with socio-economic matters but rather with mirroring and maintaining this sacred order on Earth. The structural organization of society needed to reflect this transcendent metaphysical order for the society in question to prosper and maintain relative peace and harmony. Notable examples include Pharaonic Egypt and Ancient Mesopotamia. In these societies, rulers held a divine mandate, often either being gods themselves or acting as intermediaries between the gods and humanity. This legitimacy was not subject to the consent of the governed. The political and religious spheres were not separate but merged into a single theocratic system. In Pharaonic Egypt, the Pharaoh was the living embodiment of the god Horus and was tasked with upholding Ma'at—the principle of cosmic Order, Justice, and Truth. Society was organized hierarchically to serve this purpose: the king at the apex, followed by bureaucracy and priesthood, and finally the masses. The Pharaoh and priesthood's main role was to maintain Cosmic Order through daily religious rituals, ceremonies, and wise rulership. In Ancient Mesopotamia, rulers were seen as stewards chosen by the gods to protect the people and the land. Early city-states were ruled by priest-kings who combined religious and secular duties. The goal of governance was to serve the gods and maintain their favor. In both cases, the primary function of rulers was not to achieve economic equality or individual rights but to ensure the favor of the gods, maintain cosmic stability, and secure the prosperity of the community as interpreted through religious myths and ritual. In these civilizations, chaos was seen as a great evil resulting from bad leadership and a breach of trust with higher powers—a punishment for breaking one's contract with the gods. Violating the fundamental moral order brought punishment in the form of chaos and catastrophe, while reestablishing such order and pleasing the gods (implicit moral order embodied as archetypes formed by the human imagination to represent transcendent, timeless Principles) restored social stability and prosperity. Other major civilizations—Ancient Rome, Confucian China, and Vedic India—could be mentioned among many others. This orientation toward political organization was widespread in Premodern times, at least as much as Liberal Democracy is today, if not more so. Fast-forward to the Christian Middle Ages, and we find a very similar metaphysical-political orientation as the norm. There were major differences in the content of specific religious doctrine compared to pre-Christian times, but the structural similarities are remarkably consistent. In the Christian Middle Ages, political authority was seen as flowing from God, as represented by the doctrine of "the Divine Right of Kings." The structure of power formed an interconnected hierarchy, often visualized as the "Great Chain of Being." The monarch was seen as chosen by God to rule. Feudalism extended the hierarchy downward: the monarch at the top, followed by nobles, knights, and finally serfs. All levels were bound by a system of mutual obligations, often framed in moral or religious terms. The goal was to maintain a divinely sanctioned social order reflecting the moral law established by God. The king was responsible for ensuring justice, but within this divinely ordained framework. Just as in Classical times and Bronze Age civilizations, the political world was not seen as separate from the religious and metaphysical one. In other words, the consistent political organization of Premodern times across civilizations was fundamentally theocratic. The vast majority of—if not all—major Premodern civilizations were theocracies, characterized by a specific worldview that considered the political and theological spheres fundamentally indistinct, as a sort of axiomatic presupposition. Now that we have established this context, let's compare the Premodern political worldview directly with post-Enlightenment, modern political ideologies. We can emphasize three fundamental aspects that reveal the qualitative differences: eschatological focus, legitimacy of rule, and social hierarchy. Regarding eschatological focus, premodern governance focused on aligning the earthly realm with a Transcendent, Divine Order and maintaining it through proper rulership and moral alignment, while modern political ideologies focus on optimizing the human condition—whether through individual freedom, collective ownership, or national unity—within an entirely secular framework. Regarding legitimacy of rule, premodern rule was legitimized by Divine Right, whereas modern ideologies derive their legitimacy from secular concepts: the consent of the governed, human reason, historical destiny, or social utility. Regarding social hierarchy, premodern political life was built upon divinely ordained hierarchies seen as reflections of fundamental, essential realities. Modern ideologies are generally based on concepts of human equality and economic or material well-being (though they differ on how to achieve it) or (in the case of right-wing movements) on hierarchies defined by race, ethnicity, or cultural heritage. Premodern hierarchies were seen as fixed because they were considered reflections of fundamental metaphysical Order justified through theological doctrine. Modern hierarchies, by contrast, are seen as man-made, relative, and therefore changeable or improvable (the idea of social progress). This concept of social progress was absent in Premodern times. The bottom line is this: across vastly different cultural and historical contexts, the central axis of political thought remained consistent—the belief in a Transcendent reality that dictated the structure and purpose of human society, around which every social function was ultimately oriented. The "state" was not a neutral, man-made machine for managing socio-economic affairs but a sacred instrument for enacting Cosmic Will. This consistent structural foundation provides a powerful contrast to the post-Enlightenment world, where that divine foundation was removed and focus shifted entirely to the human and material realm. We now return full circle to Julius Evola and Superfascism—and why I am a proud Superfascist. Evola's fundamental metaphysical worldview was grounded in Traditionalism (distinguished by the uppercase "T" from mere social traditionalism, which represents the preservation of traditional customs, folklore, and institutions). The term "Traditionalism" was coined and developed into a serious metaphysical-esoteric framework by the French philosopher and esotericist René Guénon, primarily as a critique of Modernity (what he called "the Reign of Quantity" over qualitative differentiation) and as a reinstatement of Premodern metaphysical Principles. Traditionalism posits that Modernity is an age of spiritual decay and degeneracy from previous epochs, having lost any sense of the Transcendent and the qualitative aspect of being. The rise of scientific positivism, rationalism and empiricism, materialism, and analytic philosophy are all seen as symptoms of spiritual decadence. The Traditionalist framework accuses modernity of having forgotten the meaning of Wisdom, Virtue, Insight, Beauty, and fundamental, immutable Transcendent metaphysical Principles. It identifies Modernity with what the Hindu tradition referred to as the Kali Yuga—a time of widespread spiritual decadence and moral corruption. The Traditionalist view posits that modern man has lost himself in what Plato called doxa (mere opinion concerning the eternally changing, contingent world) and forgotten episteme (Knowledge of the Eternal Forms, including ultimately the Form of the metaphysical Good). Proceeding from this framework and applying a Traditionalist critique to contemporary politics, Evola argues that all modern political forms and ideologies—while apparently contradictory (Communism vs. Liberalism vs. Republican Conservatism vs. Progressivism)—are fundamentally part of the same wave of spiritual decadence sweeping the modern world. This decadence has severed us from timeless metaphysical Principles and trapped us in the realm of merely socio-economic concerns. This emphasis on the social and economic spheres as the final frontier and ultimate goal of political action, at the expense of the Transcendent realm, is—according to Evola—an inversion of the fundamental natural Order of things, a profanation of the sacred, and the cause of the moral and spiritual problems plaguing the human type of Modernity, which he considers a "lower man" or essentially the Nietzschean Last Man (especially targeting this critique toward the middle and upper-middle classes, the "bourgeois" class, which makes economic stability, material comfort, and lifestyle balance its god—what stands at the top of its hierarchy of priorities). Evola, although highly involved with Fascist and ultra-nationalist movements of his time (which has led to him being utterly demonized in the academy), ultimately directed this same critique toward those movements and considered them as fallen and inadequate as other prevalent contemporary political ideologies. Where he saw Socialism and Communism as irredeemable corruptions of Sacred Order—guilty of reducing man to a mere socio-economic being, aiming at total comfort and utter equality, effectively erasing any conception of qualitative differentiation and abolishing the fundamental metaphysical Order of nature (which was essentially qualitative and therefore hierarchical)—he saw Fascism as a potentially redeemable movement because of its emphasis on hierarchy and centralized authority. He viewed the content of Fascism as too modern and decadent due to its focus on purely material qualities such as race, ethnicity, gender, national identity, and bio-physiological differences. However, he considered the structure of Fascism valuable—and the movement potentially redeemable—insofar as it could be used to reinstate a social order based on the Premodern values and orientations outlined above. To become a legitimate Traditional movement, Fascism would have to replace its purely material-biological standards of qualitative differentiation with metaphysical ones, effectively making it a potential framework for the restoration of a social order grounded in the Transcendent and the ineffable. Indeed, when Evola labeled himself "Far-Right" and claimed to be "on the Right of Fascism," he meant that he was even more radical in his ideals of preservation and conservation—not in ideological intensity or fanatical fervor (a common misrepresentation of Evola) but in the QUALITY of his orientation toward preservation, in the KIND of preservation he was advocating for, in contrast to what other Fascist thinkers and political officials were. When he criticized Fascism for being too "modern," he was in fact critiquing its biological racism, state-nationalism, and purely material standards of social hierarchy and organization. He admired the STRUCTURE and believed it could be used to redeem the movement, but was highly critical of the actual CONTENT of Fascist ideology. In the end, Julius Evola was a Premodernist, not a Fascist in the modern sense of the term. When he referred to himself as "Right-Wing," he did not mean the ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, totalitarian modern Right. Instead, he referred to the Platonic political ideal—the fundamental social-political organization that was the norm (at least in theory or ideal) in Premodern civilizations. He was a theocratic thinker, an upholder of Premodern values. What he sought to preserve were not merely contingent social forms but Eternal, Ineffable, Transcendent metaphysical Principles. He essentially advocated for a return to a Premodern political ethos, where what is Above—fundamental, timeless, and Transcendent—is valued over the contingent and temporal, and where social order and collective hierarchy are organic reflections of a broader cosmic order. And so, what it means to be a "Superfascist" is not to seek the preservation of such relative and contingent forms as historical Fascism sought to preserve, but rather to seek the preservation of timeless Transcendent Principles, the alignment of one's individual life with such Principles, and the organization of the human collective as a reflection of the fundamental metaphysical order which is rooted in those Principles; in Tradition, and not mere tradition. Such a social order is not totalitarian or tyrannical but rather organic, natural, and spontaneous, where every part (or individual) of the whole performs its proper, divinely ordained role in the hierarchical ordering of the collective or macro-organism, thereby maintaining harmony, cooperation, and Divine Order. Such is a Traditional society. Such is what it means to be a Superfascist. To be on the Right of Fascism. This is why I am a proud Superfascist. This is why I am a Right-wing radical.

Yes, you nailed it👏👏👏👏 Thank you sir. And yea, I am nuts, I am a Right-wing radical😱 LOVE IS SUPERFASCIST😂😂😂😂😂 But yea, Divine Order = Dharma, Tao, Rta, Ma’at, Logos etc etc

Look, this is getting ridiculous; as mentioned before, none of what was said called for “imposition” of anything. And I’ve also spent quite some time literally and explicitly differentiating “Superfascism” from historical “fascism”, making it clear it was a play on words that had essentially nothing to do with Fascism itself; it had more of a click bait and analogical function rather than an actually descriptive one. And although you’re making some good points, you’re mainly responding to a strawman of my argument, or what you think I am saying rather than what I am actually saying. You’re writing paragraphs grounded in false assumptions that I’ve already clarified previously. You’re not engaging my paradigm; you’re arguing with yourself, in your own paradigm, using your own premises against your own caricature of my position and you think you’re responding to me. Meanwhile you’re talking 20000 light years past my point. So a lot of what you’re saying is truly clever and accurate…but it’s addressing a point I am NOT making. Which makes this whole conversation pointless.

You are possessed by the devil.

You took “systematically addressing my arguments” a little too seriously, more than what I care to debate on here. But I’ll say this: Yes, I am somewhat familiar with Spiral Dynamics and such branches of evolutionary psychology and spirituality, and I do agree with what you’re positing here broadly. Again, what I am proposing is less a preservation of SPECIFIC social forms, but rather the specific KIND of orientation toward the political. I am NOT advocating for a return to medieval feudalism, Roman Imperial hierarchy, or some Hindu caste system; rather, I am advocating for the retrieval of the qualitative Principles which were inherent to those social systems and their reintegration into our times and present conditions. So it’s less about specific social organization and more about the place of the Sacred in the political. And regarding that, I am a Platonist, not a Nazi. I uphold virtue, wisdom, consciousness etc, not nations, race, ethnicity or whatever particular political identity. Plato and Hitler have nothing to do with each other(no matter what Popper might have to say about it). My ultimate assertion is that, Modernity, as incredible as it was in terms of technological progress and increase of horizontal(material, contingent, as opposed to Vertical or Transcendent) well-being, lost something fundamental to Premodernity. This was also Jung’s observation. Therefore, yes, humanity should move materially and technologically forward(not that we can stop that), but without marrying the Vertical to the Horizontal, the Sacred to the Profane, and overall reintegrating what was lost to Premodern times back into our modern consciousness at a collective scale, our times will always be decadent and spiritually rotten. Even though we can still save ourselves individually of course. We lost something fundamental and cosmically significant to Premodernity —> We can and should recover it at a collective scale if we don’t want more chaos, degeneracy and destruction —> this requires acknowledging the existence of timeless Eternal Principles that societies and individuals alike should strive to reflect and embody in their expression. This is the central thesis, loosely. Now, for social particulars, you might argue for some Integral Holarchy(Wilber) or a Global Democratic Conscious political order(Gura), and I have less of a say on those particular matters. They’re up for debate and we could ramble on endlessly about them. As far as I am concerned, I am skeptical of this utterly utopian order where everyone finds their “inner sovereignty” and become those wise, conscious, virtuous individuals; there will always be qualitative gradations and differentiation and the masses will always need an ordering hierarchical structure where philosopher kings preside over political affairs and the masses serve their proper role in this organic order. Now you could refute that forever, but that’s where I stand. If a “Wilberian” or “Guran” collective democratic political utopia is ever possible, then I am not opposed to it, but as far as I am concerned, this looks more like an improbable new age pipe dream. And I am quite the idealist myself. In any case, we’ll never see any of those “spiritual” political systems consolidate in our lifetimes.

ANARCHY😂😂😂🤦🏽‍♂️ Of course you’re biased against religion; you’re a radical Leftist Hey, it’s all love man🤧

1. I did not propose the authoritarian imposition of such an order. In fact, that would be antithetical to what I’ve laid out. Nowhere did I propose a martial, fascist political mobilization to impose such an order out of naive romanticism or ideological conviction. Rather, I recognize the need for such then establishment an order to arise organically, as did Evola in his later life. Whatever we may think of his involvement with the 20th century Fascist regimes, in the Post-war era, he was very clear in his writings that the “revolutio needed to happen through enough individuals cultivating the proper internal orientation (through consciousness work, esoteric/mystical initiation etc), so that, in future generations, those individuals could reach a critical mass and the social order could organically shift toward something more Traditional. Believe it or not, Evola was, in the end, opposed to authoritarianism as much as he was democracy. 2. This idea of a “Golden Age” does permeate Traditionalist literature, but as I’ve mentioned earlier in this discussion, it is better to conceive of this Traditional ideal as just that—an ideal, or a Platonic Form, or perhaps an abstract archetype. Premodern societies were seen as instantiating this ideal at a greater degree than modernity, modernity in fact representing the highest level of decadence, and being the era of history removed the furthest from it. 3. Again this has nothing to do with historical Fascism 4. And how’s it working living outside of those “projections”? Ask modernity 5. The doctrine of Ontological gradation of being and qualitative differentiation can be found across the vast majority of esoteric and mystical traditions through history. Collapsing everything into “those are regular people” misses the point entirely, and doesn’t address in any meaningful way the Platonic argument, or the Evolian one, or the Confucian one, or the Vedic one, or the Guenonian one. In proper philosophical discourse, you can’t just arbitrarily collapse an opposing set of propositions into a broad, generalized, oversimplified claim and assert it Ipse Dixit, then act as if that represents justified refutation. I laid out my arguments and presented great thinkers and entire civilizational models as support. Now you need to systematically address those arguments according to general rules of logic and discourse, not just collapse them simply because “it is so” So, it just seems like you talked past my entire point here. All the arguments in the world lead nowhere if we’re not speaking on the same level and are operating in distinct and irreconcilable paradigms.

With all due respect, this is such a crude, low brow, and naive take on religion that I don’t think you can even begin to engage with the ideas I’ve laid out in my text to any meaningful degree; you need to better understand the Premodern mind. Read Jung, Eliade etc

Here, free game for everyone; eat my children

Start by making a genuine effort at comprehension and come back around after buddy. Again, it’s a lazy oversimplification; you don’t know what you’re talking about.

To repeat myself, the word itself is not misleading, and it’s technical meaning has pretty much nothing to do with historical Fascism. Now, I will concede the Swastika part though😂😂😂 I’ll take out the Swastika for you but I am not changing the title, because I actually AM a proud Superfascist. If you’re not happy with it, you’ll have to take it down, but that would be a shame, and ACTUAL fascist censorship🤧 Update: Well, idk how to change the title, so that’s that

This is true in many cases, but here, it’s a lazy oversimplification.

Be honest? “The title is provocative click bait” is literally what I’ve said a few texts ago, I don’t hide that. BUT, the title remains true. I AM a Superfascist; if you actually read the text, I actually explain the meaning of the word. I explain it’s etymology and what it means, and yes, I do give it a technical term. In this sense, the title, although “click bait-ish”, is not misleading. Superfascism is NOT Fascism; it refers to a political orientation that is BEYOND it.

So insightful bro, I love how you provided this sharp, systematic, comprehensive essay in response to my arguments and contributed your own perspective to the discussion in a constructive manner. Keep it up man 👍

You watch Gura’s videos right? Here’s one for you:

Just say you can’t read x2 😂😂😂

First, I appreciate you so much for taking the time to read through it and seriously and genuinely engaging with the content. And yes, you’ve got the gist of it definitely. About the concrete vision of what it would “look like”, I’ll say it again, and you’ve said it yourself: “you are not actually advocating for the content of the premodernity but rather for structure, meaning it's not about for example, abolishing all technology and returning to ancient premodern ages in the literal sense”. This is essentially right. Therefore, I can’t sketch out a specific vision of what such a society would look like in terms of CONTENT, since I am more interested in the STRUCTURE. I can tell you it would be hierarchical, organic, spontaneous, ordered along an ontological axis of qualitative differentiation, oriented toward the Absolute, have Divine justification for rulership(i.e. Plato’s Philosopher Kings) etc, but the content of a society with such structure wouldn’t matter much as far as I am concerned. Transcendent metaphysical principles can be instantiated/expressed through different cultural forms, and unlike other Traditionalists, I am not fundamentally against technological progress or nostalgic for specific premodern social forms themselves. Now, “what exactly are these Principles anyway” is a good question to which the answer would utterly exhaust the bounds of a forum conversation. But I’ll say a few things briefly: -What I am calling for—a Traditional social order—is a collective orientation and structure grounded in qualitative ontological differentiation(not qualitative in terms of race or such qualities—I would consider such criteria as still merely “quantity”—but rather according to metaphysical-esoteric/initiatory qualities). In contrast, political power in the Modern world is based on *quantitative* variables: Capital accumulation, socio-economic status, voting power of the majority etc. Rulership is not based on qualitative distinctions anymore, but mere quantitative or contingent variables that are fundamentally, metaphysically and ontologically meaningless, or uprooted from the fundamental ground of Being. -The loss of this qualitative aspect of being has lead humanity to forget about the meaning of such qualities as Wisdom, Courage, (Transcendent/Divine) Love, Virtue, Discernment, Consciousness etc, effectively leading to a collapse of universal hierarchy; anything goes, quantity over quality; socio-economic concerns over affairs of the soul and the fulfilment of the human being. The Principles are the eternal Platonic Forms, of which the Ultimate is “the Good”. Hierarchical ontological and qualitative differentiation of Being is all over ancient philosophy, implicitly and explicitly. The rise of Scientific Positivism, Materialism, Analytic philosophy and other such subverting currents are the hallmarks of the what René Guénon called “the Reign of Quantity” To really grasp what I am referring to, one needs to be familiar with the Classical philosophical schools of thought, German idealism(to some extent), and the Western Esoteric tradition. An extensive study of the following would give one a foundation for understanding this framework: -Virtue Ethics(with en emphasis on the Ancient Greek concept of “Eudaimonia”) -Platonic political and metaphysical philosophy (Philosopher-Kings, Platonic Forms etc) -Neoplatonism -Kabbalah(especially the “Tree of Life” as a hierarchical “map of consciousness” and ontological gradation, which the mystic/initiate ascends, toward reunification with the source of Being that was “shattered” or “fragmented” at the creation of the universe) -Vedic metaphysics -Guénonian metaphysics and Traditionalism -Julius Evola’s political Philosophy Also, and finally, it is pretty self evident that a society which PERFECTLY instantiated the Eternal Forms probably never existed. Rather, such a perfect society remains as a sort of Platonic ideal itself, a star forever out of reach but toward which we can still aim at the best of our abilities. It’s not like societies either do or don’t embody those Principles, but rather, to what DEGREE do they do so? And here, we see modernity as especially disconnected from such Principles and “fallen” in relation to the Traditional ideal; modernity is seen a time of significant decline from this archetypal ideal.

The title is provocative click bait but I use it to actually articulate a certain esoteric political philosophy, making a case for Premodern orientations toward social organization. Also presenting Evola as a legitimate esoteric political thinker and presenting him on his own terms, knowing that he’s way too often misinterpreted and took out of context. I am introducing his ACTUAL political philosophy to people. I am sharing ideas, this is what this place is for. Wether it’s “useful” to people is not up to me and I don’t think it matters.

Yet another exemple of the decadence of Modernity. In the 21st century, technocratic capitalism and the attention economy are simply further degeneracy in this whole process of decadence. Just proves my point.

Far-Right*

Just say you can’t read

It WAS. Original doesn’t mean fundamental. Human collective organization evolves and unfolds along a certain Telos. Anarchism is disorder, scatteredness, inversion, chaos. Everything considered Profane by Traditional standards. Anarchy and chaos come to be sublimated/consolidate into higher order inevitably.

We have to be careful; this return to specifically Premodern social forms is NOT what I am advocating. Curtis Yarvin and those other right-wing reactionaries are proposing something vastly different than I am or that Evola was. This Dark Enlightenment nonsense is this crude reactionary movement that advocates for a return to contingent social forms; in other words, they are petty reactionaries, lost in the Horizontal axis of becoming, uprooted from any real metaphysical substance or Principle. The Dark Enlightenment guys are Neo-Fascists, and as I’ve already mentioned, I am NOT talking about Fascism here. Rather, “Superfascism” is a play on words that situates oneself to the Right of Fascism itself, rather advocating for Premodern Theocracy and political orientation, seeking to preserve NOT specific, contingent social forms(which represents content fundamentally), but RATHER, Eternal, Timeless metaphysical Principles that can instantiate themselves in a variety of vastly different socio-cultural contexts The Right wing tries to preserve contingent social forms. We, on the Right of the Right itself, seek to preserve timeless metaphysical Principles; the Forms themselves, instantiated in different contexts and structures through the ages. Guys like Yarvin are advocating for tradition, not Tradition. And also…those guys are capitalists and their concerns are fundamentally rooted in socio-economic matters, which is literally antithetical to Superfascism, or metaphysical Premodern Theocracy. The Dark Enlightenment movement is profoundly anti-Traditional. Also, yea, Anarchism is basically the antithesis of what I am proposing; it is an Modern aberration and represents the apex of chaos, disorder, and the subversion of the Sacred Order of Being. It’s Profane. It’s crude. Its uninteresting and unsophisticated. Tradition despises, and is fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism.

Yea, people in Canada (probably other western countries also but I can’t speak for them) are in this weird group think where everyone is wearing this social persona and being nice by convention; seems like very few people have actual personality, and it’s seen as weird to have one in public. Shame really, it’s a dead culture.

Here’s a polished and rigorous version of my original post; enjoy if you’re a nerd: Psychogenetic Development: A Tripartite Model of Ontogenetic Unfoldment Prolegomena: The Archetypal Structure of Psychological Maturation The trajectory of human psychological development follows an archetypal pattern encoded within the genome yet activated and shaped through environmental interaction. This essay proposes a tripartite model synthesizing the insights of Freud, Adler, and Jung into a coherent developmental framework corresponding to three successive stages of ontogenetic unfoldment: the Freudian Stage (primary attachment and instinctual relating), the Adlerian Stage (social adaptation and meaning-making), and the Jungian Stage (individuation and self-realization). Each stage builds upon and presupposes its predecessor. Pathology at any given stage creates developmental arrest, requiring conscious therapeutic work before progression to subsequent stages becomes possible. This model accounts for the observation that premature spiritual awakening—absent integration of earlier developmental achievements—inevitably results in what contemporary psychology terms "spiritual bypassing": the use of transcendent states to avoid rather than resolve foundational psychological wounds. Stage I: The Freudian Foundation — Primary Attachment and Instinctual Relating The Formative Crucible The first decade of life constitutes the formative crucible within which the fundamental patterns of psychic life are established. During this period, the child's nascent ego organizes itself in response to two primary factors: (1) the quality of attachment bonds with parental figures, and (2) the behavioral modeling of survival strategies exhibited by these figures. The attachment relationship functions as what Winnicott termed a "facilitating environment"—the psychosocial matrix through which the child learns the fundamental grammar of relating: to self, to others, to world. Secure attachment provides the ontological foundation for authentic self-expression; insecure attachment necessitates the development of defensive structures that fragment and distort this expression. The Mechanics of Psychic Formation Following the principle of psychic economy, the developing organism allocates its available libidinal energy (in Jung's sense of undifferentiated psychic vitality) according to the demands of its environment. In conditions of secure attachment, this energy flows naturally toward exploration, creativity, and authentic self-expression. Under conditions of insecure attachment, however, this same energy becomes bound in defensive operations designed to protect against anticipated environmental threats. These defensive structures manifest as what depth psychology recognizes as complexes: autonomous psychic formations organized around traumatic nuclei, each possessing its own energetic/affective charge and behavioral patterns. Common manifestations include the "nice guy syndrome" (defensive compliance masking underlying aggression), narcissistic defenses (grandiose compensation for core shame), and various anxiety disorders (hypervigilance stemming from early environmental unpredictability). The Principle of Projective Identification The mechanism through which parental pathology transmits to offspring operates according to what object relations theory terms projective identification: the child internalizes not merely the conscious behaviors of parental figures but their unconscious psychological structures. As Freud observed, the superego of the child is formed not from the ego of the parents but from their superego—the child inherits the psychological "karma" (in the Eastern sense of causal conditioning) of the parental generation. This transmission occurs through what we might term energetic imprinting: the child's malleable psyche conforms to the emotional field generated by parental complexes, much as liquid assumes the shape of its container. The internalized object—the psychic representation of the parent—becomes a permanent structural element of the child's personality, continuing to exert its influence long after the original relationship has ended. Archetypal Patterns of Pathological Relating Clinical observation reveals recurring patterns of parent-child dynamics that predictably generate specific pathological outcomes: Maternal Complexes: The Devouring Mother: Overprotection coupled with shame-based control generates dependency, infantilization, and failure to develop autonomous agency The Absent Mother: Emotional unavailability or physical absence creates core wounds of unworthiness and shame, manifesting as what Jung termed "anima moods"—chronic melancholy, addiction (as compensatory self-soothing), and difficulties in intimate relating The Persecutory Mother: Active psychological abuse installs internalized persecution, resulting in harsh superego formation and self-destructive patterns Paternal Complexes: The Weak Father: Failure to model healthy masculine authority generates difficulties with self-assertion, boundary-setting, and engagement with hierarchical structures The Absent Father: Physical or emotional absence creates what Bly termed the "father hunger"—desperate seeking for masculine validation and chronic feelings of inadequacy The Tyrant Father: Authoritarian abuse generates either identification with the aggressor (repetition of tyranny) or collapse into passivity and resentment The Internal-External Correspondence The axiom "as within, so without" expresses the fundamental law of psychic manifestation: the internal organization of the psyche determines the pattern of external experience. Because perception is inherently projective, the traumatized individual unconsciously re-creates the conditions of original trauma in present circumstances—what Freud termed the repetition compulsion. This creates self-fulfilling prophecies: expecting betrayal, one behaves in ways that invite betrayal; fearing abandonment, one clings in ways that drive others away; anticipating rejection, one preemptively rejects. The past thus perpetually reconstitutes itself in the present through the mechanism of unconscious projection, creating what Eastern traditions recognize as karmic loops—cyclical patterns of suffering sustained by unconscious identification with traumatic conditioning. Pathological Relating to Archetypal Principles The quality of relationship to parental figures determines one's relationship to the archetypal principles they represent: Relationship to Father (Archetypal Masculine/Logos): Maladaptive relationship to authority and hierarchical structures Difficulty with assertion, confrontation, and boundary maintenance Ambivalence toward competition and achievement Either hypervigilant defensiveness or collapse into passivity when facing conflict Projection of threat onto the world itself ("the world is dangerous") Relationship to Mother (Archetypal Feminine/Eros): Core shame and self-rejection Chronic depressive affect (what Jung termed anima possession) Addictive patterns as compensatory self-soothing Difficulties in intimate relating and emotional vulnerability For women: troubled relationship to own femininity; for men: idealization or devaluation of the feminine Summary of Stage I The Freudian stage establishes the foundational pattern of relating—the basic posture the organism adopts toward existence. This pattern, formed through the internalization of parental objects and their associated affective charges, operates largely outside conscious awareness yet determines the fundamental quality of lived experience. Insecure attachment fragments the natural flow of libido, binding psychic energy in defensive operations rather than creative expression. The degree of pathology present at this stage determines the magnitude of therapeutic work required before developmental progression becomes possible. Stage II: The Adlerian Transition — Social Adaptation and the Crisis of Meaning From Family to World Following the establishment of fundamental relational patterns within the family system, the adolescent encounters a second developmental challenge: social adaptation. Where the Freudian stage concerns instinctual life and primary attachments, the Adlerian stage addresses the individual's capacity to find meaningful place within the broader social world—to develop what Adler termed Gemeinschaftsgefühl (social interest or community feeling). However, this transition does not occur in a vacuum. The individual enters social reality already bearing the unresolved conflicts and maladaptive patterns established during primary socialization. Pathological object relations, unmetabolized trauma, and defensive character structures now manifest in the arena of peer relationships, romantic partnerships, educational institutions, and eventually professional life. The Genesis of Inferiority Adler's central insight concerned the universal experience of inferiority feelings arising from the child's objective smallness and dependency. In healthy development, these feelings serve as motivation toward growth and mastery—what Adler termed striving for superiority (not in the sense of domination but of self-actualization and competence). In pathological development, however, these natural feelings of inferiority become distorted into what Adler termed the inferiority complex: a pervasive sense of deficiency that resists amelioration through actual achievement. This complex emerges directly from the Freudian stage pathologies: the child who internalized parental rejection or inadequacy enters social reality pre-convinced of his own unworthiness. Paradoxically, some individuals develop a superiority complex—grandiose self-presentation masking underlying inferiority. This represents what contemporary psychology recognizes as narcissistic defense: the creation of a false self that compensates for core shame through fantasies of specialness. The Wound to Authentic Self-Expression The maladaptively attached individual approaches social reality from a position of fundamental misalignment with authentic being. The energy that should flow naturally toward creative self-expression remains bound in protective operations. The result is a characteristic pattern: inability to find genuine place in the social order. This manifests variously as: Social anxiety and avoidant patterns Difficulties establishing intimate relationships Inability to pursue vocational calling Chronic underachievement relative to potential Compensatory withdrawal into fantasy or intellectual abstraction The underlying dynamic is always the same: authentic self-expression feels dangerous because early environment punished or failed to mirror it. The individual therefore presents a false self to the world while the true self remains hidden, unactualized, and increasingly estranged. The Crisis of Meaning As social adaptation fails—as the individual finds himself unable to establish satisfying relationships, meaningful work, or genuine community—a predictable crisis emerges: loss of meaning and purpose. This is the existential dimension of the Adlerian stage, corresponding to what Frankl would later term the "existential vacuum." The severity of this crisis varies according to the degree of underlying Freudian pathology. Some individuals experience manageable depression and dissatisfaction; others undergo complete psychological collapse. In either case, the organism recognizes—however unconsciously—that current life trajectories lead nowhere, that the false self cannot sustain meaningful existence. Compensatory Solutions and Their Failure Rather than undertaking the difficult work of addressing root causes (disconnection from authentic self through unresolved attachment trauma), the suffering individual typically pursues what might be termed horizontal compensations: attempts to resolve vertical problems through horizontal means. These compensatory patterns include: Addictive behaviors: Substances, pornography, gaming, or other forms of numbing that temporarily relieve existential pain Identity politics and ideological possession: Substituting collective identity for personal development, finding pseudo-meaning through group membership Spiritual bypassing: Premature engagement with transcendent philosophies (Eastern religions, psychedelics, non-dual teachings) as escape from psychological work Intellectual inflation: Using philosophical sophistication to compensate for emotional underdevelopment; armchair philosophizing divorced from embodied practice Conspiracy theorizing: Projection of inner darkness onto external forces; the unconscious shadow externalized as hidden cabals or malevolent systems Self-help obsession: Endless consumption of personal development content without implementation; knowledge as defense against transformation These compensations share a common structure: they provide temporary relief from existential anxiety while systematically avoiding the underlying cause—unresolved developmental trauma and disconnection from authentic self. The Necessary Crisis Eventually—whether through the failure of compensatory strategies, psychedelic experiences that shatter defensive structures, or simply the accumulating pressure of unlived life—a personal crisis becomes unavoidable. This crisis represents what Jung termed the confrontation with the unconscious: the moment when the repressed contents of the psyche can no longer be denied. This crisis may manifest as: Acute depressive episodes or anxiety Existential despair and questioning of all previous values Psychotic breaks or dissociative episodes Psychosomatic illness Extreme life circumstances (relationship dissolution, career failure, financial collapse) From the perspective of the Self (in Jung's sense of the totality of the psyche), this crisis is not pathology but compensatory correction: the unconscious forcing consciousness to recognize what has been denied. It is, in the language of alchemy, the nigredo—the necessary blackening and decomposition that precedes transformation. Summary of Stage II The Adlerian stage represents the collision between developmental pathology and social reality. The mal-adapted individual, bearing unresolved Freudian wounds, proves incapable of authentic social participation and meaning-making. The resulting crisis of meaning drives compensatory behaviors that temporarily ameliorate suffering while preventing genuine resolution. This stage either persists unconsciously for the remainder of one’s life(complexes keeping their hold on the individual’s consciousness, repeating pathological patterns through Repetition compulsion) or reaches culmination in an unavoidable personal crisis—the psyche's demand for authentic transformation rather than continued compensation. Stage III: The Jungian Resolution — Individuation and Self-Realization The Descent: Katabasis into the Unconscious The personal crisis marks the threshold of what Jung termed the individuation process—the psychological journey toward wholeness through conscious integration of unconscious contents. This process classically begins with what the Greeks termed katabasis: descent into Hades, journey into the underworld. In psychological terms, katabasis represents the necessary confrontation with everything previously repressed, denied, or split off from consciousness. The individual must descend into the depths of his own psyche to encounter: The Personal Shadow: Rejected aspects of personality; qualities deemed unacceptable by ego-consciousness Complexes and Sub-personalities: Autonomous psychic fragments organized around traumatic nuclei Parental Imagos: Internalized representations of mother and father, now recognized as psychic structures rather than objective reality The Wounded Child: The traumatized core of personality formed during the Freudian stage Collective Shadow Material: Cultural and archetypal contents that have been projected outward This descent is necessarily painful. It involves what St. John of the Cross termed the dark night of the soul—the dissolution of previous identity structures and the experience of psychological death. All compensatory solutions collapse; all defenses fail. The individual stands naked before the totality of his woundedness. The Alchemical Operation: Solve et Coagula The therapeutic work of this stage follows the alchemical principle solve et coagula—dissolution and coagulation. This occurs in three movements: 1. Dissolution (Solve): The first movement requires the conscious recognition and dissolution of inauthentic structures: Defensive character armor False self presentations Internalized parental commands and prohibitions Traumatic imprints and their associated affects Compensatory identifications and inflations This dissolution occurs through what psychoanalysis terms working through: the repeated examination of patterns in various contexts until their structure becomes transparent and their energy dissipates. This is not intellectual understanding but embodied recognition—what Eugene Gendlin termed felt sense, the somatic dimension of psychological truth. 2. Exploration and Integration: Concurrent with dissolution comes exploration of the underworld: the patient, thorough investigation of one's actual psychological structure. This requires: Psychoanalytic archaeology: Tracing current patterns to developmental origins Phenomenological examination: Close attention to actual experience rather than conceptual overlays Shadow integration: Reclaiming split-off aspects of personality Complex work: Dialoguing with autonomous psychic structures to reduce their compulsive power Through this process emerges what Assagioli termed psychological synthesis: the gradual integration of fragmented parts into coherent wholeness. The energy previously bound in complexes becomes available for conscious use; the rejected shadow elements enrich rather than undermine personality. 3. Coagulation (Coagula): As inauthentic structures dissolve and authentic elements integrate, a new organization emerges—what Jung termed the individuated personality. This is not created but discovered: it represents the actualization of inherent potential, the unfolding of what was always latently present. The individuated personality possesses several characteristics: Authenticity: Behavior aligned with actual values and nature rather than internalized demands Integration: Previously split aspects now functioning as coordinated whole Autonomy: Freedom from unconscious compulsions and parental/cultural programming Vitality: Libido flowing naturally toward creative expression rather than defensive operations The Recognition of True Self Central to the Jungian stage is the differentiation between false self and true self (to use Winnicott's terminology). The false self is the adaptive structure developed to survive pathological environment; the true self is the authentic core of being that was forced into hiding. This recognition often occurs through: Dreams and visions: The unconscious communicating symbolic representations of Self Synchronicities: Meaningful coincidences suggesting archetypal guidance Peak experiences: Moments of alignment with authentic being that reveal the contrast with ordinary consciousness Therapeutic breakthroughs: Sudden insights that reorganize understanding of one's entire life trajectory The discovery of true self brings both exhilaration and grief: exhilaration at finally knowing who one actually is; grief at recognizing how much time was spent living inauthentically. The Ascent: Anabasis toward Actualization Following adequate depth work, the movement shifts from katabasis (descent) to anabasis (ascent)—from archaeological excavation to constructive building. This represents the actualization phase of individuation: the conscious embodiment of authentic self in actual life. This phase requires: 1. Dissolution of Remaining Inauthenticity: Through sustained awareness—what Buddhism terms mindfulness—the individual continues to notice and release habitual patterns inconsistent with authentic being. This is the ongoing practice of conscious choice rather than automatic reaction. 2. Embodied Integration: Psychological insight must translate into behavioral change. This is the critical distinction between intellectual understanding and actual transformation. The individual must: Establish relationships congruent with actual values Pursue vocational expression aligned with authentic gifts Develop lifestyle consistent with genuine nature Express previously repressed aspects of personality 3. Engagement with Personal Myth: Jung recognized that individuation involves discovering one's personal myth—the unique narrative arc that gives coherence and meaning to one's life. This is not invented but uncovered through attention to: Recurring dreams and symbols Life patterns and synchronicities Natural talents and inclinations The specific shape of one's wounds (which often point toward one's gifts) The Exhaustion of Ego-Desire Many individuals at this stage experience what might be termed compensatory fulfillment: the belated satisfaction of desires thwarted during developmental years. Having spent youth and early adulthood trapped in defensive structures, the newly liberated individual often pursues: Sexual exploration and relationship experiences Material success and financial achievement Travel and worldly experience Social recognition and influence This is not regression but completion of unlived life. The Eastern traditions term this burning through karma: the exhaustion of personal desires through their conscious fulfillment rather than their repression. Only by fully engaging these desires—by discovering their satisfaction and their ultimate insufficiency—can one genuinely transcend them. This phase represents the maturation of ego rather than its premature dissolution. The individual must become somebody before he can genuinely become nobody; must establish strong selfhood before authentic self-transcendence becomes possible. This is the resolution of what Wilber identified as the pre/trans fallacy: the distinction between pre-egoic states (infantile fusion) and trans-egoic states (genuine transcendence). The Preparation for Transcendence The completion of the Jungian stage—the achievement of individuation(there’s never really “achievement” here, merely thresholds)—represents the fulfillment of personal development. The individual has: Resolved developmental trauma Integrated shadow material Actualized authentic potential Established meaningful life in the world Exhausted personal desires through conscious fulfillment At this point, and only at this point, does genuine spiritual development become possible(the two will overlap, but the lower must take precedence before the higher until a certain threshold of development has been reached). Having completed the psychological work, having established and then transcended ego, the individual stands ready for what the mystical traditions term the Way: the path of genuine transcendence beyond the personal altogether. But this lies beyond the scope of the present model, which concerns ontogenetic development—the journey from wounded childhood to integrated adulthood. The spiritual journey proper begins where the psychological journey ends. Synthesis: The Developmental Arc The tripartite model proposed here describes a necessary sequence: Stage I (Freudian): Establishment of fundamental relational patterns and instinctual life; formation of core wounds and defensive structures. Stage II (Adlerian): Collision with social reality; failure of false self; crisis of meaning; recognition that compensatory solutions are insufficient. Stage III (Jungian): Descent into unconscious; dissolution of false structures; integration of authentic self; ascent toward actualization; exhaustion of personal karma. Each stage presupposes its predecessor. Attempting to bypass earlier stages—spiritual bypassing, premature non-dual teaching, transcendence without psychological foundation—results in what Wilber terms pre/trans confusion: mistaking pre-egoic states for trans-egoic realization. The model accounts for the observation that many individuals with early spiritual awakenings or mystical experiences nonetheless remain psychologically underdeveloped, their transcendent insights coexisting with neurotic patterns and relational difficulties. Genuine development requires sequential integration: the conscious working through of each stage before progression to the next becomes stable. Conclusion: Beyond Self-Help to Self-Actualization Contemporary "self-help" culture typically offers horizontal solutions to vertical problems: techniques for behavior modification, positive thinking, productivity optimization, and superficial habit change. These approaches—however useful for specific limited goals—systematically avoid the genuine work of transformation. Authentic self-actualization requires: Confrontation with developmental trauma (Freudian stage) Recognition of social adaptation failures (Adlerian stage) Descent into unconscious depths (Jungian katabasis) Integration of shadow and authentic self (alchemical solve et coagula) Embodied actualization in concrete life (Jungian anabasis) Conscious exhaustion of personal karma This is not accomplished through cold showers, dietary protocols, or motivational slogans. It requires sustained psychological work, often with therapeutic support, combined with courageous engagement with actual life. It demands what Ricoeur termed the "hermeneutics of suspicion"—the willingness to question everything one has believed about oneself—followed by the "hermeneutics of restoration"—the patient reconstruction of authentic being. The reward is nothing less than freedom: liberation from unconscious compulsion, recovery of authentic vitality, alignment of life with actual nature, and preparation for genuine spiritual development beyond the personal altogether. This is the promise encoded in the genome, awaiting environmental conditions that permit its unfolding—what the Greeks termed entelechy, the actualization of inherent potential. The journey is arduous. But for those suffering under the weight of unlived life, fragmented by developmental trauma, lost in compensatory solutions—there is no other way home.