“Be radical, have principles, be absolute, be that which the bourgeoisie calls an extremist: give yourself without counting or calculating, don’t accept what they call ‘the reality of life’ and act in such a way that you won’t be accepted by that kind of ‘life’, never abandon the principle of struggle.”
— Julius Evola (via hierarchical-aestheticism)

(via meditationsonthepeaks)

“[…] Belonging to the aristocracy does not consist in benefiting from more privileges than others or in having additional rights, but in imposing greater burdens upon oneself, having a higher notion of one’s duties, feeling more responsible than others. Behaving in a noble manner, whatever class one comes from, means never being satisfied with oneself, never reasoning in terms of utility. It means the beauty of gratuitousness, of “useless” expenditure, the beau geste, the conviction that one could always have done better, that it is odious to boast of what one has done, that a man’s quality is tested by his ability to act contrary to his own interests whenever it becomes necessary.”

Alain de Benoist

(via olavsson)

(via meditationsonthepeaks)

“If nature is your teacher, your soul will awaken.”
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (via vandrare)

(via vandrare)

“I have been and still am a seeker, but I have ceased to question stars and books; I have begun to listen to the teaching my blood whispers to me.”
Hermann Hesse, Demian  (via hierarchical-aestheticism)

(via ridedatigah)

“Who has fully realized that history is not contained in thick books but lives in our very blood?”
Carl G. Jung, from “Civilization in Transition (The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Volume 10)

(via meditationsonthepeaks)

ARISTOCRACY, new aristocracy: Literally and etymologically, ‘the government of the best’. Second meaning: ‘The class of the best’. The problem is defining the ‘best’ and determining if it actually governs society.

For the Greeks, aristocracy was first of all a mode of government based on the rule of the nobles and the most competent. For Aristotle, aristocracy and democracy did not oppose, but complete and integrate one another according to the complementary logic of apparent opposites.

The idea of hereditary aristocracies is a constant in human societies…even in certain Communist regimes (North Korea), where hereditary power is practiced by a caste of pseudo-aristocratic parvenus, the apparatchiks. The notion of hereditary aristocracy should be treated carefully, for it can lead to sclerosis. A true aristocracy is founded not on the power of money, nepotism, or family filiations, but rather on character and ethics. Those who defend their people before their own interest, those who respond to real anthropological and cultural criteria: this is the criteria for defining aristocrats. An aristocracy has a sense of history and blood lineage, seeing itself as the representative of the people it serves, rather than as a member of a caste or club. Today every traditional European aristocratic family, without exception, has been wiped out or turned into an object of mediacratic manipulation.

To recreate a new aristocracy: this is the work of every true revolutionary project.

What are the qualities of a true aristocrat? Attachment to one’s people, who are served with courage, impartiality, modesty, creativity, taste, simplicity, and stature.

The figure of the bourgeois is very unlike that of the true aristocrat. The decline of European aristocracies, then their disappearance, came once they merged with the bourgeois dynasties. An aristocracy is not juridicially hereditary, for a hereditary aristocracy always decays, and eventually becomes extinct. Every generation of aristocrats, through their acts, must prove that they are worthy of their status. In an archaic and futurist inegalitarian vision of the world, aristocrats would have more rights than others, but also more duties. The principle of heredity is acceptable if it facilitates the selection of elites: that is, if it weeds out the incompetenet and helps incorporate capable newcomers. Today, the mere idea of aristocracy is incompatible with the dominant ideology. But every people needs and aristocracy. It’s an integral part of human nature and can’t be dispensed with. The question then is not ‘For or against aristocracy?’ but ‘What kind of aristocracy?’ 

The ‘nobility’ of today’s media is a caricature, a total renunciation of the aristocratic spirit, a bourgeois instrumentalisation of the tattered remnants of the ‘great families’. 

A true aristocracy embodies a people’s essence. It’s not formed by money, but in service to and in leadership of its people. Its rule is one of disinterest, courage, efficacy.

Every aristocracy, such as those we have in Europe, is bound to become confused with an ‘economic elites’ once it degenerates. What’s most needed today is the creation of a new European aristocracy. The only possible workshop in which such an aristocracy can be created is war. Aristocrats are born of war, which is the most merciless of selection processes.”

— Guillaume Faye, Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance

“Certainly, a clear line must be preserved by strict discipline, and on the other hand the men must know that everything is done for them that hard times permit. On the top of that it follows that, among real men, what counts is deeds, not words; and then it comes of itself, when such are the relations between men and their leaders, that instead of opposition there is harmony between them. The leader is merely a clearer expression of the common will and an example of life and death. And there is no science in all this. It is a practical quality, the simple manly commonsense that is native to a sound and vigorous race.”
Ernst Jünger, Copse 125: A Chronicle from the Trench Warfare of 1918 (via hierarchical-aestheticism)

(via daysineuropa)

“The men of the Freikorps were sons of the war, of the defeat and of the November revolution. They were direct relations of the ‘arditi’ of Fiume and of the ‘squadristi’ that emerged a little later in Italy, and embodied a very specific type of man, one that was never to be seen again. They were formed primarily by the trench warfare of WWI. The war had sifted out those men who were psychologically or morally broken by the ordeal, separating them from those who emerged from it stronger and harder than before. Jünger compared them to the old German mercenaries, whose only homeland was their flag. The war had abolished all social differences between them, equalising them according to standard that had nothing to do with civilian life. The rankings of class were replaced by one of daring and courage, and now they wanted to transfer this new hierarchy of values into the post-war civil society. In their own way, they were socialists. But their socialism was military and had nothing to do with the pursuit of security and material happiness. The only hierarchy they recognised was one of merit. They all shared the same faith in the power of the will and a frank taste for expeditious methods.
While they doubtless did not epitomise the entire essence of fascism and national socialism, they were a foundational element of those movements, in the sense that they embodied the most radical revolt of their time against the bourgeois world.”
Dominique Venner, “Le Siècle de 1914 (via hierarchical-aestheticism)

(via son-of-blackpignotebook)

dailynietzsche:

“A new nobility is needed to be the adversary of all rabble and all that is despotic.”

—F. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: Part Three, “On Old and New Tablets,” §11 (edited excerpt).

(via meditationsonthepeaks)

“However, there is a second possibility: one may conceive a realistic view and a struggle against the bourgeois spirit, individualism, and false idealism that is more radical than the struggle waged against them by the Left, and yet oriented upward, not downward. As I have said in a previous chapter, this different possibility is contingent upon a revival of the heroic and aristocratic values when they are assumed naturally and clearly, without rhetoric or pomposity: in retrospect, typical aspects of the Roman and Germanic-Roman world have already exemplified it. It is possible to keep a distance from everything that has only a human and especially subjectivist character; to feel contempt for bourgeois conformism and its petty selfishness and moralism; to embody the style of an impersonal activity; to prefer what is essential and real in a higher sense, free from the trappings of sentimentalism and from pseudo-intellectual super-structures—and yet all this must be done remaining upright, feeling the presence in life of that which leads beyond life, drawing from it precise norms of behavior and action.”
 Julius Evola (via heartbloodspirit)

(via meditationsonthepeaks)