Dear xmt477,

I hope this message finds you in good health and before I list any of my disagreements and
responses to your previous message, bear in mind I do not write this with any ill-intent nor
animosity, and hope instead the words herein contained are of use to your betterment.

I have also decided to render this letter public, as I humbly believe that several of the
arguments listed are worth being considered by other people who may share in similar errors,
or just others who are looking for clues and patterns of reasoning with which to orient their
understanding in politics.

Now, I would like to take your two latest messages to me, and reply to them both in a single
response.

These being your 2 messages, for reference, I paste their links here.

1)
https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateFascism/comments/8i0pi6/when_oswald_spengler_condemne
d_nazism/dypil0b/?context=3

2)
https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateFascism/comments/8h5034/an_illustrationexperiment_why_d
ebate_is_an/dypj7h7/?context=3

It’s unfortunate you didn't address any of the quotes relayed in the thread. As the title and
introductory paragraph stated, Spengler's ideas on this point aren't readily known and they are
worthy of much more attention than personal disagreements between us. I'd like to invite you
to reflect on them seriously when you have the time. For now however, I will try to answer
your personal questions to me.

My only interest behind relaying said quotes, to answer your first question, is the same as the
one stated in my previous topic where I translated the interview introducing the 2018 book on
the History of Fascism by Frédéric Le Moal: To share resources and ideas worthy of attention
for people who may currently still be captive of the same delusions that plagued me when I
was an adolescent and in my early 20s, racialism and social Darwinism, which can only result in
stupidity and unhappiness given they lead a person away from the Truth.

Having recently decided to re-read my writings from the beginning of this decade, where being
a barely adult man I would spew terrible bile, mixing ignorance with teenage angst, and it
struck me how lost and misguided I was, a strong regret emerged in. As such, and having been
granted the possibility to improve my ways, I am now attempting to make amends by
hopefully guiding people who share in the errors I once had, into a more complete
understanding of ethics and politics that may allow them to avoid some of the miserable
consequences and stages I ran into myself. The pursuit of Nationalism, the pre-stage of
Globalism is folly and even if successful, would not in the least resolve the issues of Modernity,
but merely in the absolute best case scenario, return them to a previous stage that the world
has already lived, from the XVIII to the early XX Century.
I believe your second question is just a repetition of the first one, but you do address my
recent work decrypting the glaring deficiencies of the likes of the Alt-RIght. I stated in a
previous thread that I do so to illustrate in real time and for everyone to see, why engagement
in politics in the current times is completely futile, since all that can be found to supposedly
"go against the system" is simply the same bourgeois modernity, with a racial twist. I do invite
you to skim over the series of questions and answers that have been written in
r/DebateAltRight, and I am sure you'll notice quickly (as some others posters there have
replied to me) the obvious incapacity from their part to produce a consistent and anti-Modern
worldview.

As it pertains to your third question, I have also answered it before in another thread in this
sub (the one regarding the publication of the French book on Fascism). I am not French and I
no longer live in France, but my life was intertwined with France for a couple years, and Alain
Soral (a man I personally had the good fortune to meet face to face) was one of the first ones
to drag me out of the mediocre white racialist worldview I was in during my youngest years. I
do not have a stake in France, and while I am sympathetic to it in some ways (I do have
acquaintances living there as well), I am not personally vested in its political future. The reason
being of course as I stated in my first thread in r/DebateFascism, that politics of any sort will
irreparably fail at categorically repairing anything, and so I hold no expectations regarding the
fate of the French Republic.

In that same vein, I can then answer your fourth question. I am not doing anything for the sake
of "European nationalism". But on this point, I must also clarify something: I do not only find
the political struggle for it hopeless, but I fundamentally disagree with the very idea of
"European nationalism".

As it ought to be clear, I try to the best of my ability to abide by the spirit of Orthodox
tradition, the sole path available to me to oppose the high tide of decay and death that is
rapidly approaching that feels natural. In that light, I disagree fundamentally not only with the
Jacobin idea of Nationalism, as a romantic movement to mobilize all of society into an ecstasy
of violence and passion just like that of the Levée-en-masse of 1792; but also with the
construction of macro-identities that crush and replace the old customs and uses of each
people (whether in Europe or elsewhere).

Just like Revolutionary France deemed it proper to target regional languages for
extermination, as well as any sort of spirituality that didn't enshrine the new political order as
the apex of social living, what we may term 'Europeanism' is fundamentally speaking the slow
elimination of older identities to the benefit of the new artificial identity that had never
existed. Terms such as "European culture" would have been oxymoron a few centuries ago,
and they only exist today because the previous composing parts are slowly dying in their
particularity, just as the kulturkampf or the spirit of the Risorgimento in the XIX Century would
have wanted them to.

Still on your fourth question, I don't believe I ever termed Nazism 'evil'. While I'm not one to
shy away from condemning things for their immorality, I believe that political ideas deserve a
more subtle and comprehensive analysis, and thus far have addressed the errors of Volkist
nationalism not because of their moral deficiency, but because it is a political movement
birthed from delusions of the Romantic era (note how German nationalism is so tied to the
liberal revolutions of 1848, and displayed in the icon of 'Germania'), who lacks a real
understanding of hierarchy and serious politics, as Spengler’s quotes in my previous thread
explain, and ultimately cannot but fail to provide a cure to the symptoms of Modernity. It is
after all, too sick itself to be a cure.

Approaching your fifth question, which I believe to be a rhetorical device purely, I must say I
don't really follow what you publish. But I think you have a basic misunderstanding on this
point. Nazism and political forces favourable to a traditional world never have been, nor will be
neither united nor allied beyond the most immediate of circumstances. So trying to propose
verbal appeasement and pleasantry between us, especially in this time where the political
influence of either movement is long gone and over, achieves nothing and would simply result
in a lot of things that ought to be said being left unsaid.

Your subsequent paragraph also allows me to make an observation. Loyalty to 'a people' as
you term it, cannot be the ultimate source of authority or legitimacy. Said people can after all
only be good in as much as they obey something greater than themselves, that of course being
genuine ethics, and ultimately real spiritual transcendence. When said people do not do so, it
is only necessary to put the tribal allegiance into question.

I am very familiar with Nazi music, speeches and other sort of documents of theirs, as you
probably intuited already given that I was once in the same political stage you find yourself in
at the moment. And of course I do remember how the anthem puts reactionaries in a bad
light, in fact that line says that they are murdering the heroes of the people (read: The SA at
that time). But on this, I actually must call to your attention that it was not the Reaction who
committed systematic murder of the Sturmabteilung's ranks, but quite actually the very
opposite:

 The names of Edgar Julius Jung and Engelbert Dollfuss are but the two most salient
ones that died under the foot soldiers sent by Herr Hitler, without previous
provocation or response in kind either. Some, like Oswald Spengler who was simply
side-lined from the public sphere and had his books banned, or Arthur Moeller van der
Bruck who didn’t get to live to see his term, "III Reich", be unceremoniously stolen and
rebranded by the NSDAP to mean something else, fared better. But the routine
hostility towards members of the Conservative Revolution was commonplace. Even for
those that even tried to had a more supportive attitude such as Heidegger, being “too
Catholic” was seemingly a probem.
 Said hostility reaches its climax when the III Reich that is so dear to you, proceeded to
destroy one after one all the governments in Europe that could have at any point
represented a more serious possibility of opposing Modernity in traditional grounds
(even if of all of them of course had problems), while never once addressing seriously
the possibility of doing away with the United Kingdom, probably owing to Herr Hitler's
well-known Anglophilia and profound ignorance of the British Empire.
 The destruction of the aforementioned Austrofascism in Vienna, of the Sanacja in
Poland, of the Metaxist government in Greece, Operation Panzerfaust in Hungary
which eliminated Horthy's authority and replaced it with a mediocre parvenu like
 Szalasi, the elimination of the already highly constrained Vichy France can all be listed
here, and one could even add the considerations that were given at times in Berlin to
remove Francisco Franco in Spain and replace him with someone who would push the
country into the war alongside the Axis (Fortunately for Spain, joining that delusional
adventure was never a prospect).

In short, aside from the very pragmatic decision that was taken in the aftermath of the
Invasion of Abyssinia (product of Mussolini's incompetence in terms of foreign policy) to side
with the III Reich, none of the political models you have listed are structurally compatible with
German romantic volkism, and they cannot be reshaped to be so without side-lining the
structural differences and history of war between them. In short, we look for categorically
different things and unlike the 30s; there is no pressing external concern to pretend that is not
the case.

As it concerns what Fascism is and isn't, the bolded in your last paragraph, I believe a starting
point could be to take José Antonio Primo de Rivera's own diagnosis of it, who you cannot
fault for being a product of Reaction:

On German National-Socialism:

(February 17, 1935, at the Alhambra Cinema, Zaragoza)

It is necessary to examine with a lot of deliberation the two attempts [at totalitarian government]
essayed thus far: Italian fascism and German national-socialism, and point out the differences that may
exist between both ideological movements. The Italian movement is above all classical; it tends to the
classical. It operates subject to a way of thinking, to a framework of the mind. A brain is at work and the
result is projected onto a people.

The German case is entirely opposite. It starts from a Romantic faith, from a race's capacity for
divination. Hence it is fair to affirm that Hitlerism is a mystical movement, very much tuned to the
German psyche. Moreover Germany is not, as believe those fond of broad generalizations, the country of
discipline, despite appearing to be so outwardly. The Germans are a very special people. They sing very
well together in choral groups, they march to the same martial step; but every movement of indiscipline,
of rebellion in the world, reminiscent of Spartacus, originated in Germany

I believe we can agree with him on the fundamental difference in terms of conception of the
world between your ideology and Fascism.

I am also quite content to show the reason why I myself am also not a Fascist in the classical
sense either, in the spirit of fairness of course. For this point, I can for my part turn to Dr.
Antonio Salazar's own words, seeing as his, and Franco's for that matter (not fond of the
revolutionary nature of the Falange), understanding of politics more closely resembles my
own:

'Now obviously our dictatorship is similar to the Fascist dictatorship in its strengthening of authority, in
the war which it declares on certain democratic principles, in its nationalist character, in its maintenance
of social order. It is different, however, in its methods of renovation. The Fascist dictatorship is leaning
towards a pagan Caesarism, towards a new State which recognizes no limitations of legal or moral
order, which marches straight towards its goal regardless of hindrances or obstacles in the way.
Mussolini, as you know, is a magnificent opportunist where action is concerned. He turns sometimes to
 the Right, sometimes to the Left. Now he is fighting the Church, now he is making the Treaty of the
Lateran; next, a few months later, he is dissolving the Catholic associations. I see him as perpetually
drawn backwards and forwards between the elite he has created and the mob to whom from time to
time he is forced to throw a sop. Don't let us forget that Mussolini is an Italian, a descendant of the
condottieri of the Middle Ages! And dont let us forget his own origin, his Socialist, almost Communist,
upbringing. His case, then, is a wonderful case, but a strictly national case. He himself said: "Fascism is
just as much a purely Italian growth as Bolshevism is a purely Russian growth. Neither one or other of
them can be transplanted with any chance of life outside the country of its origin." The new Portuguese
State, on the other hand, cannot and does not attempt to escape from certain limitations of the moral
order which it deems indispensable as boundary lines in its work of reformation.'

Alongside with:

'Let us understand each other. I am not questioning Mussolini's work in the matter of morality. What I
say is that certain declarations and positions of the moral order are imposed by Mussolini on Fascism
and not by Fascism on Mussolini. He wishes certain things to be so, and he could not wish otherwise
without contradicting himself. On the other hand, the limits within which we Portuguese intend to work
are limits laid down by the most fundamental principles of the new Portuguese state, limits to our own
actions, limits on the actions of those who direct the state. Our laws may be milder, our lives less policed,
but our State is less absolute, and we never hold it up as omnipotent. Mussolini, I repeat, is a very great
man. But it is not for nothing that he is a child of the country of the Caesars and of Machiavelli!'

As you recall from the previous thread related to the freshly published French book on
Fascism, one of Frédéric Le Moal's most salient points was that in spite of denouncing the
liberalism of 1789, Italian Fascism couldn't but fail at also casting itself free from the
revolutionary and demagogic tendency of the Convention to consider itself the maker of a new
man (just like both Mussolini and the Soviets claimed to be doing), in clear rupture with the
past, and enshrining a false idol to the level that can only be reserved to God. Whether it is
Reason/Liberty, the force of History/the Proletariat, or just the State; whenever any principle is
taken out of its proper place and becomes the object of idolatry, only calamity and disaster
await the leaders and partisans of those system, as all the three cases I've listed exemplify.

For this very reason, I join Dr. Salazar's call for the State to learn that its administrative power
has to be submitted to something greater than its own, which is in short the fundamental basis
of the divine right of kings, or the lesser known yet completely equivalent "Mandate of
Heaven" maintained throughout all of Chinese Imperial history, until the blight of Western
modernism arrived by the hand of a band of men based in Hong Kong and Hawaii and
destroyed it.

However, and before any misunderstanding on this point is made, I am not in any way, shape
or form calling for the complete supremacy of the priesthood. This is the point where one
ought to part ways with Roman Catholicism and its inherent Guelphism, and for my part I have
found myself instead in full agreement with the actual Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church,
and its correct understanding of the holy role of the Emperor as centre of any sound rule. A
rule that however, and this cannot be stressed enough, cannot be predicated on mere political
or military force, but on serving a higher and representing genuine spirituality and sound
metaphysical principles, which are then impressed over society both through religion and
through material governance.

On this point, I am able to show you the concordance between the likes of Baron Julius Evola, a
common reference to reactionaries of different factions, and Fr. Seraphim of Platina (the man
who by God's grace showed my way to Orthodoxy and finally some clarity on the way to look
at the world).

During the early centuries of the Christianized empire and during the Byzantine period, the Church still
appeared to be subordinated to imperial authority; at Church councils the bishops left the last word to
the ruler not only in disciplinary but also in doctrinal matters. Gradually, a shift occurred to the belief in
the equality of the two powers of Church and empire; both institutions came to be regarded as enjoying
a supernatural authority and a divine origin. With the passage of time we find in the Carolingian ideal
the principle according to which the king is supposed to rule over both clergy and the people on the one
hand, while on the other hand the idea was developed according to which the royal function was
compared to that of the body and the priestly function to that of the soul; thereby the idea of the
equality of the two powers was implicitly abandoned, thus preparing the way for the real inversion of
relations.

http://www.juliusevola.net/excerpts/On_Catholicism.html

As such, the inversion Roman Catholicism did by enshrining the Papacy is an error, which
crystalized with the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.

Fairly similar to what Fr. Seraphim of Platina described, with different phraseology and value-
weighing of course but ultimately with the same conclusion, in his Orthodox survival course
here:

https://puu.sh/A1f5F/bf725ec96e.png

(Full document if you wish to consult, may be found here: http://orthodoxaustralia.org/wp-

content/uploads/2015/06/course.pdf )

The consistency of what I'm trying to convey to you, can be once again reinforced by the fact
that Fr. Seraphim Rose himself saw the parallel between the rightful rule of the Roman
Emperors, and that of the Chinese Emperors (being an ex-Taoist himself):

In Chinese piety, then, the Emperor occupies a unique place. In Russia and Byzantium, the name of the
Emperor was always written in upper case letters. You can see this in the service books of pre-
revolutionary Russia. The same thing was in China. Whenever the Emperor is mentioned, you have to
begin a line with his name. When you come to the middle of a line and come to name of the Emperor,
you have to go back to the beginning, even above the margin, to begin with him because he is the
central human figure. Such was the intense respect with which he was regarded.

At one time I was thinking that if! ever got my doctor's degree in Chinese literature, I was going to
write a paper comparing the Byzantine Emperor with the Chinese Emperor. There are many similarities.
In both Byzantine and Chinese society, the Emperor is to be the guardian of orthodoxy.

https://sites.google.com/site/phoenixlxineohp2/thechinesemind
Having established this, it then becomes clear what I am trying to do for the guys of
r/DebateFascism:

In a world where chaos and withering humanity are too obvious, it is at times too easy and
straightforward to jump into the failed attempts of the previous century to try to recreate,
even if just in one's mind, the supposedly steadfast and masculine aesthetic of the past and
entertain the belief that the current debacle of civilization can not only be survived by our own
human means, but we can even somehow reshape man into new heights.

This is folly, and is the very reason why Baron Evola's own work related to the Fascist system,
always highlighted criticism on the ultimately secular and mundane nature of power in
Mussolini's system, not anyhow tied to the transcendental level which is a requisite sine qua
non a system simply cannot be said to be fully legitimate and beyond the mere stage of top
dog warlord.

To overcome this theoretical error, I offer you my own experience and knowledge, as a tool
that may be of any use to grasp the topic I've tried to address through the body of this letter to
you. I am not a Fascist, correct, yet I believe that seeing as Fascism has irreparably failed in the
past and cannot be birthed again, everyone who tries to be a Fascist is doing a disservice to
himself. Thus, I just seek to tell people to aim higher than that, and attempt to answer the
challenge expressed in Fascism viewed from the Right.

I am afraid to say that you, on the other hand, in your current position would prone instead for
a lower common denominator convergence of Fascism with that which is already inferior to it,
German volkism, about issues such as immigration or cultural hedonism, which are only
accidental symptoms of a world dying on account of its soullessness and barren spirituality.
This is the real disease that has been carried around by Europe for practically a thousand years,
when the Schism of 1054 separated people from their correct religion, and later in the 1070s
when Pope Gregory VII humiliated and stripped Emperor Henry IV of his authority in league
with rebellious nobles, and undermined forevermore the Imperial basis of governance.

In the words of Tom Holland

“The foundations of the modern Western state were laid, foundations largely bled of any religious
dimension. A piquant irony: that the very concept of a secular society should ultimately have been due to
the papacy. Voltaire and the First Amendment, multiculturalism and gay weddings: all have served as
waymarks on the road from Canossa…”

Tom Holland, Millenium, 2008.

You cannot fix something this deep just with XX Century politics.

For this reason, all the way from my first thread in r/DebateFascism, I have strived to remind
people of this very fact, the impossibility of secular politics of a Western nature to ever provide
the ultimate solution they deeply crave. The human fibre present in our times means men in
our times, myself included for I cannot claim to be anything but yet another degenerate sinner,
are simply not good enough to create good government as godlessness is rife, and no good
government can ever exist without a solid spiritual imperial dimension.
This is something that is identified, once more, whether by non-Christian Julius Evola, or the
very pious Fr. Seraphim Rose (both of them incidentally being keen students of René Guénon,
a connection that cannot be glossed over), and they then suggest the only thing that can really
be done: In the absence of a world that is decent ever returning, the last task for men in our
times is to try to at the very least, save one's own personhood, one's own happiness, and one's
own decency.

Path of Cinnabar, the autobiography, has Evola describe his own book:

The following book I wrote, Ride the Tiger, partly returns to the issue of the 'worker', which it develops
and integrates. This book essentially sprung from the negative conclusions I had reached from my
experience and a realistic assessment of the present situation; its roots, that is, lie in my awareness of
the fact that nothing can be done either to bring about a significant change at the present, or to halt a
series of processes which, following the latest collapses, now have free rein. In particular, the incentive
for me to write Ride the Tiger came from various people who had followed the 'traditional' phase of my
career. These people had come to acknowledge the superior validity of a model of existence and society
based on those traditional ideals I had emphasized in my writing (especially in Revolt Against the
Modern World), and had sought to address the question of what might be done in a society and culture
such as ours. I thus felt the need to outline a different approach for such people. I argued that any
prospect of external reconstruction is to be abandoned, for it is unrealistic in the present age of
disintegration: rather, I suggested, what ought to be addressed is the purely individual problem, which is
to be solved in such a way that 'what I hold no power over, may hold no power over me.'

Such, then, is the problem I tackled in Ride the Tiger; yet not from Everyman's perspective, but from
the perspective of a given human type: the man of Tradition, the man who inwardly does not belong to
the modern world, and whose fatherland and spiritual homeland lies in a different civilization; a man,
therefore, who possesses a specific interiority.

http://www.juliusevola.net/excerpts/Ride_the_Tiger_-
_Written_for_the_Man_of_Tradition_Ready_to_Experience_the_Contemporary_Decline_of_t
he_World_of_the_Bourgeoisie.html

Turning our attention to Fr. Seraphim's Orthodox take, for comparison:

Truly, we are far more in need today of a return to the sources of genuine Orthodoxy than Blessed Paisius
was! Our situation is hopeless! And yet God's mercy does not leave us, and even today one may say that
there is a movement of genuine Orthodoxy, which consciously rejects the indifference, renovationism,
and outright apostasy which are preached by the world-famous Orthodox theologians and hierarchs, and
also hungers for more than the customary Orthodoxy which is powerless before the onslaughts of a
world refined in destroying souls.

Many young people today are seeking gurus and are ready to enslave themselves to any likely
candidate; but woe to those who take advantage of this climate of the times to proclaim themselves
God-bearing elders in the ancient tradition—they only deceive themselves and others.

Our times, above all, call for humble and quiet labours, with love and sympathy for other strugglers on
the path of the Orthodox spiritual life and a deep resolve that does not become discouraged because the
atmosphere is unfavourable. We Christians of the latter times are still called to work persistently on
ourselves, to be obedient to spiritual fathers and authorities, to lead an orderly life with at least a
 minimum of spiritual discipline and with regular reading of the Orthodox spiritual literature which
Blessed Paisius was chiefly responsible for handing down to our times, to watch over our own sins and
failings and not judge others. If we do this, even in our terrible times, we may have hope—in God's
mercy—of the salvation of our souls.

As well as:

Everywhere today the disease of disbelief has entered deeply into the minds, and most of all the hearts,
of men. Our Orthodoxy, even when it is outwardly still correct, is the poorest, the feeblest Christianity
there has ever been And still the voice of the Northern Thebaid calls us—not, it may be, to go to the
desert but at least to keep alive the fragrance of the desert in our hearts: to dwell in mind and heart
with these angel-like men and women and have them as our truest friends, conversing with them in
prayer; to be always aloof from the attachments and passions of this life, even when they center about
some institution or leader of the church organization; to be first of all a citizen of the Heavenly
Jerusalem, the City on high towards which all our Christian labors are directed, and only secondarily a
member of this world below which perishes.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frseraphimspeaks.aspx

If enough people did that, maybe, hypothetically, perhaps, one semblance of a political
initiative that is grounded in real spirituality could appear again. But until that thing happens,
don't count on it.

_____________________________________________________________________________

As it pertains to your second message, I believe that what I have mentioned before ought to
suffice to show that the very romantic, yet ultimately impossible, dream that the likes of
Nietzsche had (overcoming nihilism alone as man) can unfortunately not come to pass. For a
basic ontological reason makes it obvious enough: Man is not the creator of Man, and as such,
Man cannot be the “re-creator” or “improver”of Man into the fantasized Overman hope.

But don't take it for me; take it from a man whose youth was also spent cherishing that type of
hope expressed by Nietzsche, Weininger of Michelstaedter. Baron Evola himself:

http://www.cakravartin.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/Julius-Evola-Ride-the-
Tiger-Survival-Manual-for-the-Aristocrats-of-the-Soul.pdf

Ride the Tiger, page 37, has the whole chapter on it and you are invited to read it. But for the
sake of expediency in this letter, I will just highlight this:

https://puu.sh/Ajiie/6d36e8aa0a.jpg

I hope this letter is of any use to you, or whoever ends up reading it.

Best regards,
Jomurgand