I fear that I am one of your right-populists (even though I do not identify myself with the Right) who thinks the Silent Majority can still fix things; tilting at windmills, perhaps.
I still distrust any self-appointed elite, even Aristocrats of the Soul.
@Librarian of Caelano will probably groove on this piece.
I wasn't able to get into it without going too long, and I thinkj Guenon would probably agree, but I don't think it's possible at present to even have a "self-appointed elite" because, as mentioned, we do not even have elites properly speaking and cannot have them. We just have people with material wealth and power who are called elites. In Rome, Medieval Europe, and even into the 18th and 19th century, you could have an aristocracy that wasn't actually all that rich. Many accounts of nobles being in heavy debt and such or giving up their wealth temporarily for the good of the commonweal. Similarly, merchants could be quite wealthy but still didn't have authority like even the lowest nobleman. An intelligent, virtuous person today cannot just make themselves an aristocrat of society without being wealthy, and even then it may not be possible.
All this is to say that there won't be any self-appointed elite as long as things continue this way. Best case scenario is that "our guys" get rich and get in places of power. Otherwise, populist efforts are short-term and superficial solutions.
"In Rome, Medieval Europe, and even into the 18th and 19th century, you could have an aristocracy that wasn't actually all that rich."
I confess to a certain sort of sentimentalism for the penniless "landed gentry" of Edwardian Britain who couldn't afford the upkeep on their ancestral manses. Evelyn Waugh!
This is a great post, FR, great ideas explored and strong writing.
I think you would enjoy a 2019 post by European blogger Kynosargas where he castigated the short-sightedness of right wing populism, which he believes has six major deficiencies:
1. Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation.
2. Right-wing populists consider metapolitics irrelevant. They view our plight as strictly a matter of state policy, therefore solvable by the legislative and executive branches (which is understandable given point 1).
3. Right-wing populists do not command parliamentary majorities or sole governments – neither in the past nor in the present, nor likely in the future. They are always in opposition or dependent on coalition partners who are not right-wing populists.
4. The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible.
5. Right-wing populists offer no grand designs for solutions because they lack a positive alternative framework beyond “liberalism without foreigners” (which is closely linked to points 1 and 2).
6. Right-wing populists are objectively too slow even where they bring about changes. A critical comparison between the development of right-wing populism and demographics during recent decades clearly shows that this approach is impossible solely due to lack of time (ignoring points 1–5)…
Because of these issues, according to Kynosarges, "[Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing. The equation of our identity with the liberal state (e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany as the land of the Germans) inevitably leads to disappointments and at best to the realization that this state neither defends nor recognizes our identity, sometimes even destroys it. No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis…. Modernity can only be overcome with the experiences of modernity, not by an utterly impossible return to an earlier or pre-modern era. The profound change that is now necessary is not genuinely political but belongs to the cultural, metapolitical sphere. Such a counter-enlightenment or counter-culture requires – in contrast to the liberalist eclecticism of right-wing populists – a spiritual preparation for a new European myth that binds us to our oldest past and reconciles us with our future. Nothing less than such an attempt at European rebirth is our task and the most promising exit from political modernity."
Very prescient and accurate, I think. There's a reason I do not really identify with RW populism or even RW nationalism. It is clear by now that the populist Right is incapable of dealing with liberalism given that they've been handed defeat after defeat over the past 100 years.
The connection between Guenon's conception of modernity being governed, metaphysically, by 'quantity' and the need for liberal democracy to fundamentally attribute legitimacy to majoritarianism is interesting.
So, if we accept the premise that liberal democracies are of necessity governed by elites, that mirrors the modern notion that causation occurs from outside. 'The mass' (mass society) is mass (matter) which must be organized via external force (energy). That fits early modern physics.
This suggests the metaphysical account of causation is central to an understanding of modern vs anti-modern (Traditional?) politics, correct?
I think it is Evola who suggests that eaely modern physics and its subsequent developments were actually more influenced by early modern philosophy and materialism than the other way around.
Hi Lily, thanks for commenting! I do think it's worth asking if Catholicism has played that role. I do believe we'd be hard pressed to find an institution in the West which has done as much as the RCC or kept its identity and structure as well as the RCC even despite all its shortcomings. The fact it has stayed the course on several key issues both politically and doctrinally is impressive.
Most excellent. I’m Orthodox so come at the issue from that angle, but I agree with you completely. Tradition or death.
Heavy fuel.
I fear that I am one of your right-populists (even though I do not identify myself with the Right) who thinks the Silent Majority can still fix things; tilting at windmills, perhaps.
I still distrust any self-appointed elite, even Aristocrats of the Soul.
@Librarian of Caelano will probably groove on this piece.
I wasn't able to get into it without going too long, and I thinkj Guenon would probably agree, but I don't think it's possible at present to even have a "self-appointed elite" because, as mentioned, we do not even have elites properly speaking and cannot have them. We just have people with material wealth and power who are called elites. In Rome, Medieval Europe, and even into the 18th and 19th century, you could have an aristocracy that wasn't actually all that rich. Many accounts of nobles being in heavy debt and such or giving up their wealth temporarily for the good of the commonweal. Similarly, merchants could be quite wealthy but still didn't have authority like even the lowest nobleman. An intelligent, virtuous person today cannot just make themselves an aristocrat of society without being wealthy, and even then it may not be possible.
All this is to say that there won't be any self-appointed elite as long as things continue this way. Best case scenario is that "our guys" get rich and get in places of power. Otherwise, populist efforts are short-term and superficial solutions.
"In Rome, Medieval Europe, and even into the 18th and 19th century, you could have an aristocracy that wasn't actually all that rich."
I confess to a certain sort of sentimentalism for the penniless "landed gentry" of Edwardian Britain who couldn't afford the upkeep on their ancestral manses. Evelyn Waugh!
This is a great post, FR, great ideas explored and strong writing.
I think you would enjoy a 2019 post by European blogger Kynosargas where he castigated the short-sightedness of right wing populism, which he believes has six major deficiencies:
1. Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation.
2. Right-wing populists consider metapolitics irrelevant. They view our plight as strictly a matter of state policy, therefore solvable by the legislative and executive branches (which is understandable given point 1).
3. Right-wing populists do not command parliamentary majorities or sole governments – neither in the past nor in the present, nor likely in the future. They are always in opposition or dependent on coalition partners who are not right-wing populists.
4. The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible.
5. Right-wing populists offer no grand designs for solutions because they lack a positive alternative framework beyond “liberalism without foreigners” (which is closely linked to points 1 and 2).
6. Right-wing populists are objectively too slow even where they bring about changes. A critical comparison between the development of right-wing populism and demographics during recent decades clearly shows that this approach is impossible solely due to lack of time (ignoring points 1–5)…
Because of these issues, according to Kynosarges, "[Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing. The equation of our identity with the liberal state (e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany as the land of the Germans) inevitably leads to disappointments and at best to the realization that this state neither defends nor recognizes our identity, sometimes even destroys it. No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis…. Modernity can only be overcome with the experiences of modernity, not by an utterly impossible return to an earlier or pre-modern era. The profound change that is now necessary is not genuinely political but belongs to the cultural, metapolitical sphere. Such a counter-enlightenment or counter-culture requires – in contrast to the liberalist eclecticism of right-wing populists – a spiritual preparation for a new European myth that binds us to our oldest past and reconciles us with our future. Nothing less than such an attempt at European rebirth is our task and the most promising exit from political modernity."
https://news.kynosarges.org/full-speed-into-the-void/
Very prescient and accurate, I think. There's a reason I do not really identify with RW populism or even RW nationalism. It is clear by now that the populist Right is incapable of dealing with liberalism given that they've been handed defeat after defeat over the past 100 years.
The connection between Guenon's conception of modernity being governed, metaphysically, by 'quantity' and the need for liberal democracy to fundamentally attribute legitimacy to majoritarianism is interesting.
So, if we accept the premise that liberal democracies are of necessity governed by elites, that mirrors the modern notion that causation occurs from outside. 'The mass' (mass society) is mass (matter) which must be organized via external force (energy). That fits early modern physics.
This suggests the metaphysical account of causation is central to an understanding of modern vs anti-modern (Traditional?) politics, correct?
I think it is Evola who suggests that eaely modern physics and its subsequent developments were actually more influenced by early modern philosophy and materialism than the other way around.
Great work, Forest Rebel. Excellent, as always. God bless.
Wow, a Guenon article! So cool. Will read this later
Guenon converted to Islam.
Yes, I always found that quite disagreeable considering Islam is a false religion
So you’re Catholic? I always wondered who was Jesus praying to when God came to the world in the flesh of a man?
The person of the Trinity he called Father
Hi Lily, thanks for commenting! I do think it's worth asking if Catholicism has played that role. I do believe we'd be hard pressed to find an institution in the West which has done as much as the RCC or kept its identity and structure as well as the RCC even despite all its shortcomings. The fact it has stayed the course on several key issues both politically and doctrinally is impressive.