A Case for Superfascism (Metaphysical Traditionalism)

[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. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Sincerity

[Elliott]

https://www.newsweek.com/who-curtis-yarvin-conservative-linked-jd-vance-wants-monarchy-2017221

"Who Is Curtis Yarvin? Conservative Linked to JD Vance Wants ‘Monarchy ...

Jan 18, 2025 · Curtis Yarvin, a conservative blogger who advocates transforming American democracy into a "monarchy," among other political theories,"

 

 

"https://www.nytimes.com

Elon Musk Consulted Curtis Yarvin, Right-Wing Thinker, on Third Party

Jul 9, 2025 — The two men spoke about Mr. Musk's push to create the America Party before the midterm elections. Mr. Yarvin has expressed support"

 

Far left is Anarchy, not communism. There are a huge number of anarchists, by the way.

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:44 PM by Elliott

[Enigma777]

16 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Who Is Curtis Yarvin? Conservative Linked to JD Vance Wants ‘Monarchy ...

Jan 18, 2025 · Curtis Yarvin, a conservative blogger who advocates transforming American democracy into a "monarchy," among other political theories, has

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.

Edited yesterday at 04:35 PM by Enigma777

[Elliott]

50 minutes ago, Enigma777 said:

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. 

Guys like Yarvin are advocating for tradition, not Tradition.

I was commenting to this

1 hour ago, Enigma777 said:

 

Notably, no one in mainstream discourse today supports absolute monarchy,

 

 

1 hour ago, Enigma777 said:

 

Quote

Also, yea, Anarchism is basically the antithesis of what I am proposing; it is an Modern aberration and the peak 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.

Anarchy is the natural order, it is what is original to humans. It exists in places today(the video I posted).

Edited yesterday at 05:19 PM by Elliott

[Enigma777]

Just now, Elliott said:

Anarchism is the natural order, it is what is original to humans.

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. 

[Elliott]

16 minutes ago, Enigma777 said:

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. 

Skip to 2:45

 

 

Edited yesterday at 05:00 PM by Elliott

[Schizophonia]

Find a hobby.

[Enigma777]

3 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Find a hobby.

Just say you can’t read

[AerisVahnEphelia]

39 minutes ago, Enigma777 said:

Just say you can’t read

no he is right, we got 6 seconds tiktok brain, make a point after 10 words, learn to sell your thoughts.

 

[Elliott]

I disagree with him, but I like the thread. There seems to be some voids to me(how his hierarchy is actually the divine one, and how Plato is superfascist....) but I appreciate the depth and oddity.

Edited yesterday at 06:11 PM by Elliott

[UnbornTao]

Right...

[UnbornTao]

Right...

[Enigma777]

40 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Right...

Far-Right*

[Salvijus]

 

2 hours ago, Enigma777 said:

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.

This would've been enough to make your point. Nobody has the attention span to read long ass posts, lol. 

Edited yesterday at 06:46 PM by Salvijus

[Enigma777]

9 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Nobody has the attention span to read long ass posts, lol. 

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.  

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, Enigma777 said:

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.  

You could've made that point in 1 sentence. 

[UnbornTao]

Is there something you want to convey that might be useful to people here? What is your reason for posting this thread?

[Enigma777]

6 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Is there something you want to convey that might be useful to people here? What is your reason for posting this thread?

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. 

Edited yesterday at 07:11 PM by Enigma777

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

So you are basically advocating for a society in which each individual naturally submits to a certain Divine Principles and order, so to speak, right? But 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, it's also not about worshiping God necessarilly, but about abiding by a certain transcendent universal divine principles? Would this be correct assesment? You are also not advocating for authoritarianism or monarchy necessarilly, or are you? Basically this is simply your solution for the cultural issues underpinning all the other issues, i.e. return to this sort of premodernism and regain a sense of collective purpose and cohesion. I.e. people would be basically free in your theoretical society, but naturally bound by the sense of their inner obligation towards these higher Principles?

The post was very long and reading it definitely was an exercise in willpower a little bit, but nowhere have you mentioned anything about the concrete vision of how would such a society look like, and what exactly are these Principles anyway? Would you be able to list them out? I have a hard time not to call BS on this one, but I like thought experiments like this, so I'd entertain it somewhat

 

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, Enigma777 said:

Just say you can’t read

It would not occur to someone normal to support fascism; It happens when you are particularly neurotic and bored and that you want an authoritarian force to organize your own enjoyment for you; to the detriment of others.

Fascism is about authoritarianism; you don't need to be a fascist to criticize modernity.