Thread by @BasedHypnotist

Has anyone here read any Evola?

He says there are four components of man:

- undifferentiated energies below the individual personality (i.e. instincts)

- the system of biological processes

- the Will, which directs the body in space and time, and

- the spirit

He then says the natural order of human organization is based on those same four components. One’s place is based on the highest of the four levels he has attained.

Those who operate on instinct alone are in the lowest class.

Those who operate off of intelligence and awareness of the system are in the second class.

Those who can direct and supply intention are in the third class.

And those who have expanded into a supernatural level of existence, whose spirit has been elevated to dominate the other levels, are the highest class.

Evola says this corresponds to the Hindu caste system, but it is not just Hindu; he says Egyptian, Persian, Hellenic (Greek), and many more all naturally settled into this same pattern.

For example, medieval Europe classes were serf, bourgeoise, knights / nobility, and clergy.

So maybe part of the problem with communist or socialist societies is that this arrangement is, more or less, the natural one.

And when you try to elevate the serf to the same level as the knight, it just doesn’t work.

Or maybe it’s because we don’t have a proper spiritual class running things.

I’m not talking theocracy. Theocracy is when the knights and nobility class are religious leaders.

No, I’m talking literally those men who have transcended the world, like Plato’s philosopher kings.

Marcus Aurelius would be a good example, and George Washington.

Possibly Churchill or Abraham Lincoln. It’s hard to find good examples.

But I think the American system as originally written was deliberately designed to propel those men into the top roles. I think that was part of the point.

In contrast, th Chinese Communists decided that scholars and farmers were superior to warriors and merchants, and focused their society accordingly.

But that just doesn’t work, does it? The farmers require the merchants in order to motivate productivity and distribute goods.

And a nation with no warriors will soon be conquered by a nation with strong ones.

So communism requires a kind of “bourgeois nobility” at the top running things, because they can’t have any religion.

And that can’t work, or at least not for long.

Because it’s the wise, the ascended, who make the best decisions. The bourgeois want more money, the nobility want more power, and the serfs just want revenge.

But the wise, they do what’s actively right.

Addendum: you could possibly get a ruler from the merchant or noble class to act wise and aim for the objective good of the country at a certain advanced age when not much else matters to him but his legacy.