Now it is time to consider a critique of equality and a justification for hierarchy within the context of my proposed intellectual framework for the right. There are many classic proofs for natural inequality, some as simple as pointing out that different persons have different abilities and thus person A and person B are not equal in the sense that they are not the same, others are more rigorous such as the following argument given by Julius Evola:
“An equality may exist on the plane of a mere social aggregate or of a primordial, almost animal-like promiscuity; moreover, it may be recognized wherever we consider not the individual but the overall dimension; not the person but the species; not the ‘form’ but ‘matter’ (in the Aristotelian sense of these two terms). I will not deny that there are in human beings some aspects under which they are approximately equal, and yet these aspects, in every normal and traditional view, represent not the ‘plus’ but the ‘minus’; in other words, they correspond to the lowest degree of reality, and to that which is least interesting in every being. Again, these aspects fall into an order that is not yet of ‘form’, or of personality, in the proper sense. To value these aspects and to emphasize them as those that truly matter is the same as regarding as paramount the bronze found in many statues, rather than seeing each one as the expression of distinct ideas, to which bronze (in our case, the generic human quality) has supplied the working matter.”1
For the Christian, and thus for our purposes, Evola needs correction when he says the aspects in which human beings are in some sense equal “correspond to the lowest degree of reality, and to that which is least interesting in every being.” As taught by Scripture and the Church, humans are made in the Image of God. Accordingly, that which is common to us is not simply a common species but a common inheritance from the Creator of all things. This does not necessitate a belief in equality, for the form (the soul) and matter (the body) of human beings are different in nature, liabilities and powers. What is common to us is indeed the most precious, but what distinguishes one person from another is their differences in form and matter.
We need to stop. What was just argued can be summed up as this: human beings are different. Nobody denies this, not even the most radical communist. The belief in equality is not the belief in the essential sameness of human beings. What is it then? Is it the belief that humans should be treated the same? No, for the spokesmen of equality treat children different than adults, people in positions of power different than those without, and family different than strangers. How these classes are treated can be positive or negative, but the treatment is unique and not equal. A may dislike, or even despise his father, but A’s dislike towards his father is radically different than his dislike for a friend or teacher who exhibits the same character flaws. Why? Because the dislike a child has for his father, presuming this dislike is not simply an act of rebellion, but stems from a genuine contempt for something like abuse, alcoholism, or neglect, cries out “you are my father and as my father you should treat me better.” There are expectations and responsibilities that the father has to his child, and it would be strange if the child held someone besides his father to the same expectations and responsibilities because the child is demanding that his father fulfill the role only he as this specific father to this specific child has. If equality means treating everyone the same, then no one believes this either.
This is strange. We are seeing that what is generally thought of as equality is not believed by anyone. Wait, there may be one more sense that is actually believed. Equality, according to this sense, means that we should not give preferential treatment to persons for reasons of race, sex, or sexual orientation. Note that I did not say “treated as the same”, because this would lead us to a similar situation as the last definition where a simple everyday example, such as providing maternity leave, would discredit a fairly flimsy definition. Using the phrase “preferential treatment” in conjunction with “for reasons of race, sex, or sexual orientation” should give us a relatively strong definition that would be embraced by advocates of equality. Yet, there a number of example in which preferential treatment of persons for reasons of race, sex, or sexual orientation would be acceptable to the advocates of equality. Two examples should suffice to show that even this formulation is not believed:
-Giving more financial aid to a student of color than a white student (preferential treatment) has been justified on the grounds that historically persons of color in America have been disadvantaged through racism and thus this aid is providing them support that they would normally have in the absence of historically disadvantages.
-The practice of firemen to evacuate women and children from a burning building first (preferential treatment), before the men, is not a practice the majority, if any, advocates of equality would seriously (read: through concentrated and constant lobbying and activism) try to abolish.
I am not claiming that the advocates of equality are hypocrites. No, what I am pointing out is the belief in equality does not exclude preferential treatment based solely on race, sex or sexual orientation (an act of inequality). Justifying this incongruence by saying “this preferential treatment is only done to reverse years of inequality and discrimination” is still an omission that there are situations in which unequal treatment is morally responsible, and if it is the case that until Christ’s Second Coming man will always discriminate against his fellow man, then there will forever be a moral justification for unequal treatment.
At this point you are probably wondering what is the point of being for, or against, a concept that no one really believes in. There is a point and a real advantage to being pro-equality, and it is organizational in nature. Group cohesion, vital to any movement, is easily achieved by instilling the feeling that “we are all in this together.” We are all equal, we are all fighters for the same cause, we are all brother and sister working towards the same goal. Since we are all in this together, any comrade that needs my help will get it immediately. Yes, there are some who lead and some who follow, but even though we follow our leader he is still one of us and simply has a different role to play. Equality is an organizational strategy that maximizes group cohesion, and has been shown to be effective in the French Revolution, the revolutions of 1848, and the communist revolutions of the 20th century. Even in 2021, the left is more cohesive than the right because of their belief in equality. The right, by emphasizing their belief in hierarchy, has tended to produce a number of self-styled aristocrats, furhers, or whatever LARP gets the dopamine flowing. Strategically, a belief in equality appears more advantageous than a belief in hierarchy.
Wait. If the left does not believe in equality, then this means they believe in hierarchy. So then, why does the right take so much time to defend the legitimacy of hierarchy? Why did Evola feel the need to life this pen and write an argument against the idea of equality? Arguments for hierarchy are always arguments about what kind of hierarchy should exist. When Evola is critiquing the idea of equality and then later advocates for a hierarchical society, what he is doing is framing the justification for hierarchy in such a way that produces a vision of hierarchy that he finds desirable. The question is not over the legitimacy of hierarchy as such, but over what types of hierarchy should exist.
Our intellectual foundation is that of Providence. From the existence of Providence we have derived an account of teloi, an account that identifies the teloi with the will of Providence. Later on we found that only by conforming to the will of Providence can sovereignty obtain and laws be legitimate. Justice requires, at least, the recognition of a thing’s nature, its telos, and the treatment of that thing in accordance with its nature. For justice to reign, there must be those who understand what the nature of things are and there must be those that ensure that things are treated in accordance with their nature; there must be a teaching capacity and an enforcing capacity. As we have said earlier, the nature of a thing is what Providence willed that thing to be. Knowing Providence, then, is a prerequisite for knowing the nature of things. The teaching capacity, then, will be one intimately familiar with Providence. While this is not the place to arbitrate between denominations, it will be sufficient for our purposes to say that the Church fills the teaching capacity. As for the enforcing capacity, the capacity that ensures that things are treated according to their nature, this is filled by the state. Moses and Aaron are the archetypes of these capacities, Moses was the political leader while Aaron was the religious leader. In the Byzantine Empire the Emperor worked in harmony with the Church, the former filling the type of Moses and the later filling the type of Aaron. A symphony of powers, or “capacities” in our terms, not a theocracy, was the political model and is our model for hierarchy. Above the citizenry is the Church and the state, both of whom fulfill different roles but are symphonic in their obedience to Providence’s will.
Okay, now we have our own vision for hierarchy, but did we not just say a minute ago that equality is a better organizational principle for a movement? Yes, we did. Hierarchy is a good way of organizing a society, but not a great way of organizing a movement. Equality is never used to organize a society, and, as such, is used to animate a movement that will eventually establish a new society in its own image. Although considerations for strategy and logistics will be the last installment in this series, something can be said about how the right, particularly a right founded upon Providence, can achieve group cohesion without adopting the belief in equality. Group cohesion could be formed through either, or better yet, both, a sub-culture or a common liturgical experience. In the case of the former, this worked out well for the early Alt-Right, which was much more a cultural and intellectual movement than a political one, but was too shallow to withstand a number of glowops and the urge to don the draping of national socialism. A deeper sub-culture would need to be formed, something that creates shared affections so deep that I can immediately identify with you within the first five minutes of us talking to each other. In the case of the later, there is something profoundly unifying about saying the same prayers, partaking of the same Eucharist, and professing the same faith. In my own life I have found tremendous unity in belonging to the Orthodox Church. Although the later option is the much stronger option for creating group cohesion, the right is too spread out across denomination lines that I am unsure of the feasibility of it coming together under a shared liturgical life. Perhaps only a small core of right-wingers is needed to effect significant change, as was the case in the neo-conservative revolution, and if this is the case then it is not outside the realm of possibility that this small core could come from the same liturgical tradition.
Evola, Julius. Translated by Guido Stucco. Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of A Radical Traditionalist. Inner Traditions Publishing. Rochester: Vermont. 2002. 135