The Traditionalist Conception of State and Nation.

Well, things have been really really good for me lately. I got lucky, and whilst I hesitate to name anything an act of God, the sheer luck I experienced has honestly convinced me that someone somewhere is watching out for me.

That aside, I figure my next few posts are going to be a lot more conceptual and a lot less competitive/offensive in nature. Hopefully explaining reactionary ideas in a less angry--albeit less passionate--manner, if only because the confusion over them and what they stand for causes its own share of issues.

In his book, Men Among The Ruins, Evola outlines the traditionalist's understanding of The State in contrast to The Nation and that it is fundamentally understood in relation to spiritual principles in the traditionalist mindset.

To summarize, the nation is understood in a collective sense, as the people, the land they live on, and their history. This generally speaking leads to a kind of ethno-nationalism and racial support, one's people, as it's understood, is in one's blood: a Jew belongs to the Jewish people, an African-American belongs to the African-American people. Of course this doesn't always manifest itself on a purely ethnic basis, but the generally principle is that the closer the blood the closer the people: America could construct a "White" rather than purely WASP identity in part because there was at least the shared heritage of Europe (usually Western Europe) as a common basis, the mixture of people who in general looked similar enough, had some shared religion (though not without the age old protestant-catholic divide which took a while to overcome), and would be almost indistinguishable at a glance allowed for a degree of stability.

But that's getting sidetracked, the nation itself is attributed to the feminine principle, the principle of nation, soil, family. Customs and Traditions can be ascribed to the nation, generally maintained on some level by the women of the nation, so on.

By contrast, Evola considers the state to be a männerbund, a Germanic concept. In Latin it's comitatus, referring generally to northern Germanic Warbands with individual warriors swearing obedience to their chief. This however is not obedience to an alien force, someone who is foreign and separate on a base level from others, but rather it refers to obedience given to friends and family. To use an example: in the concept of family clans, especially in the Scottish Highlands, the warriors of the clan would pledge obedience to a chief, yet that Chief was part of the same family, they were obliged obey him, but it did not make him their "superior" in the literal sense.

Evola's männerbund concept relates on some level to the system of duties and obligations found in feudal societies, of peasants to their lord and vice versa, though it does not necessitate a return to Feudalism, on some level Julius Evola likely saw Fascism as a kind of psuedo return to form, even with it's totalitarian streak. The Nation and State are thus separate, yet complimentary concepts: The State exists to protect the Nation which births men that make up the State. It's the compliment of male and female, collectivism and and individualism, thus saying Fascism or Traditionalism is solely collectivist or solely individualist is mistaken, it's a complimentary fusion of both.

The State exists as a kind of "order" of individuals, the nation requires the collective to act with one purpose in unity, whilst the State lifts up those who excel into the upper echelons of the hierarchy, as one ascends the hierarchy they are also implored to develop themselves spiritually: the King must see himself not merely as the individual, but as almost embodying the essence of the nation, to go beyond the self and see the land as composed of his body and organs, we see this wonderfully in King Louis XVI who, with his last words, prayed his blood wouldn't fall back on France and pardoned his killers.

Yet with the upturning of the old order, we found that this conception of State and Nation was destroyed. The Merchant Class ascended into power, with their authority being derived entirely through pure material goods rather than spiritual development and physical strength. Democracy is the government of the merchants, as political power generally goes hand in hand with economic power, excepting the few occasions in which a demagogue ascends to reign, during which point the merchants use every resource at their disposal to undermine the state and destroy the populists, all to send an implicit message: it's their candidates or its national poverty.

Now it's generally the way of things, that when a country first throws off the vestments of tradition and embraces the "new order", there remains some degree of heroic individuals among the Merchant class: Merchants with a warrior ethos if that makes sense. These men tend to ascend, to become "captains of industry", they're the heroic merchant that Ayn Rand would write of, the people who take a desert and through great cunning, build a strip mall. Yet it's the habit of all things to decay over time, eventually the frontier gives way to townships, yet Merchants still need to make funds, so they chase frontier markets, and when the frontier disappears eventually merchants have a decayed kind of marketplace, the heroic spirit no longer exists and the act of making money becomes an increasingly ethereal thing, you don't see the creation of revolutionary kinds of factories and businesses, but rather the impression that money is just moved around and used up. The Stock Market is a perfect example of this kind of degenerated merchant mentality: it's a chaotic mesh of people far removed from anything based in reality, but rather real money being moved and lost because of an insane hive of individual voices either panicking or applauding something they think will make or lose them money. Millions are lost on a whim and general feeling rather than on a factory going up in flames.

We also see the rise of inhumanity in society: concepts like "the motherland" mean nothing to those who would sell their mothers into prostitution if it means making more money. Man is materialized and atomized, turned into a tool, a means of production, to be exploited and worked until the spirit and bodies of a people are broken, then you bring in new "models" from across the globe and repeat the process with them.

One sees no more horrifying a view of the world, than the "Post-National Country" which Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau celebrated Canada becoming not too long ago. What is The State if it does not belong to a single nation, other than a cabal of men ruling over a people that are not their kin and thus lack any reason to sympathize or fight for their interests? The idea is more horrifying the more you think of it: it is an order imposed on the nation by something foreign, something alien, something which does not belong to it: it's conquest by bureaucracy. Society is far removed from being ruled by men with heroic quality and heroic will, the concept of duty and obligations have been replaced with a more general rights, earned not through virtue but by filling out scraps of paper and paying fees in the form of taxes. The state without the nation is tyrannical and soulless, the politicians become an alien people far removed from even the most basic empathy for their people: they have empathy for the entire world, and thus have spread their love out so thin as to have love for no one.

An example: the "pro-immigration" side is in the absolute minority, the majority of people do not support policies such as a general amnesty for illegals, and the majority wants to see immigration curbed, not increased, yet the media, the politicians, all the institutions of the established order treat it as if it's the reverse: that those who have any semblance of nation are in the minority and are only motivated by pure xenophobia and stupidity. This is because these people are so removed from what is natural human political organization they cannot understand an American government springing from the people, but rather the people being economic objects meant to serve the state.

Anarchists however are no better, even Nationalist ones. A nation without a state, an attempt at pure collectivism will either be aborted before it's born, or compromises itself as heroic individuals naturally arise from the ranks to lead a sundry warbands. Antifa may think it's being clever by having "leaders without hierarchy", but all they've done is created the first foundation for the establishment of a state. A Nation without a State shackles the heroic will, the excellent individual, and leaves only a grey morass as a substitute. It insists there's no point in heroes, nothing worth striving for, nothing possible unless done by the collective: this is understood implicitly in the distinction people make of movies made to appeal to certain demographics. It's a materialist philosophy born from the Merchant class' understanding of the world, but mutated by Marxism and "Proles" to some extent: the Merchant and Politician both try to avoid holding any strong opinions, any sense of "exclusiveness" because theirs is the currency of the majority, of the quantity over the quality, angering a few to please a few does the merchant class no good, best to anger none and stir the great passions of none in order to run a successful business.

It's the difference between a birthday card and a classical painting: one was created by an excellent individual, the other was likely thought up in a focus group.

This also explains to some extent the Religiosity of Reactionaries: one cannot, they argue, have a state and thus civilization without individuals with heroic qualities, thus hero worship, striving towards ideals and great myths, are all part and parcel of reactionary thought. Reactionary thought finds itself in opposition to all political philosophies which are based solely on materialist principles and undermine heroic quality and spiritual development.