Evola, Mishima, and the Modern Right

I will begin by stating the obvious: the United States is in bad shape. Many have written about the cause of our current predicament and more, still, on the solution. I am not so arrogant as to attempt to do here what others have done much better than what I could hope to do, but there is enough pride in my ability to touch on what I have seen and give my two cents. I owe the inspiration for this topic to the article “Mishima and the Lost Position” from Man’s World Magazine.¹ The author discusses the suggestions offered by both Evola and Mishima in response to the world they found themselves in – a world contrary to their values. Perhaps it is because Francis Parker Yockey was fresh on my mind after recently finishing The Enemy of Europe (a post on that is forthcoming), but I was thinking about the reasonableness of their strategy and their various tactics.

Evola

The work representing Evola’s position is his book Ride the Tiger. In it, he argues that the Right should essentially wait out the storm (or Ride the Tiger) until the course of society has exhausted itself and given way to a different direction. This strikes me as being the pessimistic brother of Spengler (and later, Yockey), who viewed cultures as “organic” that have an inevitable rise, fulfilled purpose, and fall. The difference is that, at least, Yockey believed that the direction could, to a certain degree, be influenced. Evola, it seems, is suggesting a “wait and see” attitude and that we can only hope that the course is corrected, not turned onto a path that is just as bad – or worse.

But political laissez-faire serves only to empower the enemy. When Christianity left social institutions, their absence was inevitably filled with the pagan. Politics is action, meaning there must be intention behind its direction. Otherwise, it can be understood as an immovable force careening in whichever way it is set until it is reigned in. This is the way of Liberalism and corruption. Evola’s strategy of “riding it out” is not an option for two reasons. First, because corrupt politics is entropy. Self-correction is not in the nature of criminal polity and will only breed more criminals. This is also the second reason for rejecting this proposal: it is inaction. If the desire is to alter the course, then staying the course is contrary to the objective. Every great leader is great precisely for his ability to alter the state of things – to unify, to organize, to conquer. These are matters of will that are in contrast to the status quo.

Mishima

The interpretation of Mishima’s seppuku is that it was the articulation of an ideal for a future generation to carry on when the time is right. I see this, oddly enough, as a contradiction. On the one hand, it is full of optimism that one day things will be better, and there will still be men in the undisclosed future with the spirit to carry on the Japanese soul. Yet, at the same time, there is a feeling of defeat – that there is nothing he, himself, was able to accomplish apart from ritual suicide. If Mishima’s sentiment is extrapolated to the nation, it would result in a national suicide. The National spirit would be grieved that it had not lived up to its potential and so give in to defeat until a future time. What kind of example is that? A spirit’s desire is to live. Any future resurrection of National pride will only resent the past will that gave in to defeat before the spirits that sought its destruction.

The Modern Right

In the face of defeat to Liberal Bolshevism, we have begun to see some pushback. The resistance is both varied and scattered, but I have seen a common thread: parallel societies. Until the causes of the corruption are addressed, this seems to me to be the best option. If it is impossible to live honorably in our culture, if life itself becomes unconscionable, find those who are willing and band together to support one another in a society of good conscience, attacking the heart of the enemy all the while. There are different forms in which this is taking place. Gab, for instance, is a place designed to make connections with like-minded people and engage in commerce with other Christian right-wingers; more and more, families are buying land in order to be self-sufficient; various conservative groups are banding together to help each other out; homeschooling is becoming more prominent; and the Right has begun to (successfully) engage in boycotts. In short, where it can’t be changed, the Right is starting to leave the system. There is one burning question. Assuming this can be achieved and brought to complete fruition, is it sustainable? My belief is this. On a small scale, it is easier to accomplish. Thousands of small groups splitting off is more likely than the Right successfully seceding as one. The latter, however, can be better preserved. The smaller the organism, the fewer the supplies and means of survival. The entire Right banding together will never happen. We are too divided and at odds with one another. The Left is united while we are federated. Heartening as it is to witness the great “noticing” taking place, knowing our enemy alone does not solve the issue. If the answer isn’t to wait it out or tell future generations what actions they should take… what can be done?