A Case for Superfascism (Metaphysical Traditionalism)

[Emerald]

11 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

In conclusion, I believe your diagnosis of our spiritual malaise is sharp and important. But the prescription of Superfascism, even in its purified, metaphysical form, risks treating the disease with a more refined version of the original toxin. The real work for our century is to build bridges to those higher values that don't rely on rebuilding the old, problematic castles of unchecked authority.

That's precisely my thought on this.

The current era does have a dearth of meaning... and that's by design in this period of the integration of the Rational Scientific Materialist paradigm. And there are a lot of difficult side-effects for individuals living through this time where the Materialist paradigm is seen as the only valid interpretation of reality.

But that's a feature and not a bug.

Fascism (and SuperFacism) treats the movement towards the integration of the Materialist paradigm as a problem that needs to be fixed where 'humans were once in alignment with the natural order but fell from grace into the state of degeneracy'... as opposed to this integration of rational paradigms as a natural but uncomfortable part of the process of human evolution.

It would be like if a lobster felt uncomfortable in the process of molting its exoskeleton and believed that the molting is unnatural... and to see it as a problem in need of fixing. So, the lobster would become a SuperFascist or Fascist to try to resurrect its previous exoskeleton as "that was the true and natural exoskeleton that I had before I fell from grace into this new degenerate exoskeleton."

But there are uncomfortable side effects that come with the "shedding of the old exoskeleton of meaning" to make room for integration of paradigms like moral relativism, post-modernism, deconstructionism, scientific rationalism, materialism, empiricism, etc.

And part of that has to do with the loss of the illusion of inherent meaning... and living in a society where everyone agrees about the absolute inherent meaning of things.

But the solution to those uncomfortable 'meaning-loss' side effects and resulting dearth of meaning isn't about chucking out the contemporary paradigms and fighting against the integration of the materialist/rationalist paradigms... and re-instituting old problematic systems where the meaning issue hadn't yet been realized because it was filled in by pre-rational archetypal projection... in lieu of empirical knowledge and processes for gaining empirical knowledge.

That's really the main epistemological issue with SuperFascism... even if it doesn't have some kind of oppressive social stratification (though in practice, it certainly would).

It's trying to solve a problem that isn't actually a problem but simply a natural process. And because that process is uncomfortable, they're viewing the discomfort as a sign that what's happening is unnatural, bad, and degenerative... when it's actually very much about the process of regeneration.

And Fascists and SuperFascists alike, tend to mix up regenerative things with degenerative things.... and to see regenerative things as degenerate... and degenerate things as regenerative.

Edited 7 hours ago by Emerald

[zazen]

Very interesting - I agree with the hollowing out of the vertical dimension. But what kind of structure are we talking of here? It can be structurally facistic even if the justification shifts from biology (quantity) to metaphysics (quality).

If it has a rigid hierarchy justified by metaphysics, obedience to that hierarchy as cosmic order, and an elite at the top who are above accountability - we have spiritual facism.

I think the issue comes from collapsing the vertical into the horizontal. The vertical dimension is something we are meant to orient ourselves towards - the North Star. But we don’t become the North Star or claim ourselves or the structure as it. Vertical principles can purify the people in power, but shouldn’t be used to justify the power they claim as “the cosmic / sacred order”.

There is divinity (oneness, source) and some sort of order in the universe that enables us to exist - but this doesn’t translate into divinely ordaining a particular structure or group of elites as such.  Legitimacy should remain institutional, not spiritual - no leader can claim metaphysics as political authority.

This doesn’t mean vertical principles or spiritual strength isn’t seen as a virtue or worthy trait for stewardship. It just means the structure of governance should account for selecting for it and removing anyone who fails to live up to it. It shouldn’t be rigid like the Hindu system of old where Brahmins ruled due to cosmic order ordaining them as the highest.

Civilization works when horizontal power is guided, limited, and elevated by vertical principles - in a healthy tension. This is abusing the idea of the vertical with the horizontal by claiming one impose itself on the other.

If the vertical is about principles and the horizontal is about the structure - then corruption happens if we collapse the two and pretend the structure IS the principle. Vertical truths are being used as horizontal justification.

You say we should be guided by transcendent principles - but if one of those are accountability or humility - then the structure would reflect that by having checks and balances. And a rigid structure in which one is beyond accountability due to being “spiritually higher” avoids that.

This is where secularism is corrective to any potential tyranny (even spiritual tyranny) but this doesn’t mean a society must be spiritually hollowed out. Secularism shouldn’t need to overextend itself to mean a secular society - which is what’s happened in the West as a overcorrection. The balance is a secular state + spiritual society = civilizational health.

The governance structure can remain secular to prevent tyranny and hold power accountable (which is principled) whilst the society remains spiritually alive by cultivating (culture) vertical principles. The important part is that the structure should prevent anyone from claiming divine authority over others - preventing the vertical from being weaponized.

Islamic civilization at its best actually struck this balance quite well. 

AI: ”Islamic civilization separated the source of moral authority from the machinery of governance. The spiritual realm — scripture, law, ethics, scholarship, and community norms — was carried by the ulema, culture, and society, not by the ruler himself. The ruler couldn’t claim to be divine, infallible, or metaphysically superior. His job was worldly: administering justice, managing taxes, keeping peace, protecting borders. Spiritual interpretation and moral authority were outside the state and distributed across independent scholars, jurists, and institutions. This prevented metaphysics from being monopolized by political power.

At the same time, the civilization remained deeply spiritual because the culture, ethics, law, and intellectual life were permeated by transcendence. Society was spiritually alive even though the state’s power was administratively grounded. The vertical (divine law, moral principles, spiritual purpose) guided the horizontal (governance, administration, institutions) without fusing into an authoritarian theocracy. In short: the state was practical and accountable, while society and leadership were spiritually oriented — a balance that kept the political structure flexible while keeping the civilization morally anchored.”

—————-

I think a key distinction to clarify this:

Transcendence ≠ Transformation

Transcendence is beyond form, ego, human limitation.

Transformation is what happens within form when we orient ourselves towards the transcendent.

We are shaped by the vertical - we do not become the vertical. If we were to become the transcendent (enlightened or just pure light), we would no longer be in form but in the formless. Transformation happens precisely because we remain in form - orienting ourselves towards the transcendent.

The key error is collapsing the vertical into the horizontal. Though the vertical is our source and we are not separate from it (conciousness, oneness, God) we are distinct from it. As long as we are in form, we can only ever trans-form within form, towards the transcendent that is beyond form. Form is a journey and relationship, whilst going back into the formless is a homecoming.

- The Vertical is the Absolute Reference Point (God, the Good, Truth). Constant eternal.
- The Horizontal is the Field of Application (the self, society, politics) in dynamic motion toward the reference point.

The moment the Horizontal declares "I am the Reference Point” the system shatters into either delusion (spiritual ego) or tyranny (spiritual facism). The moment it declares "There is no Reference Point” (secularised society) it drifts into relativism and nihilism.

If the vertical is about the North Star and the horizontal is about our transformation towards it - pathologies show up when:

- New Agers claim “I am the North Star” (spiritual narcissism)
- Evola/Theocracy claims a king or superbeing to be the North Star (tyranny)
- Hollow Secularism denies or ignores a North Star to exist (nihilism)

The healthy balance is orientation towards, not identification or denial of - the vertical.

—-

I was talking with AI about this and came upon this:

“Islamic metaphysics and political structure embody the distinction between transcendence and transformation with remarkable precision.

Tanzīh: God is beyond form

Preserves transcendence. No collapse into rulers, saints, or egos.

Tashbīh: God is near

Allows transformation. The human can be transformed toward the divine without becoming the divine.

Human beings reflect the vertical without ever embodying it.

We are in form. We can be shaped by the vertical, but never collapse it into ourselves.

Islamic governance mirrors this metaphysics:
    •    rulers are not divine
    •    scholars do not wield political power
    •    law is above all
    •    no caste of metaphysical aristocrats
    •    accountability is a sacred duty

Islamic civilization keeps transcendence above the political sphere —
while allowing society to be transformed by it.

This is the principle secular governance was trying to imitate:

Humility built into structure.
Accountability as a transcendent principle.

 Islam contains Tanzīh (God's incomparability) and Tashbīh (God's similarity). It provides a counterbalancing theological and philosophical framework.

· Tanzīh guards against the collapse. It ensures the Vertical remains Vertical. God is Wholly Other. No creature, no ruler, no saint, can be God.
· Tashbīh allows for the relationship. It makes Transformation possible. Because God is also "nearer to you than your jugular vein," we can know Him, love Him, and be shaped by His attributes.”

Edited 3 hours ago by zazen

[UnbornTao]