POWER AND DOMINANCE*
Metaphysical tradition – as a world-view – presents a well defined position in questions that concern the problem of the spirit manifested in the world.  The way the spirit manifests itself, the way it prevails or recedes is tightly connected with the cyclicity in which man, nature, the world and mainly consciousness participates.
This permeates and determines the inner and external world of man except for the areas where man conserves his autonomy according to his metaphysical position. The presence of the spirit in the world is manifested as power and dominance. Dominance and power are fundamentally traditional categories; however, anti-traditional powers may modify these, creating a pseudo-form of power (an opposite form), giving it a direction that is opposite to the original stability and to the original movement of power and dominance.
The foundation of true power is ‚suprēmātia’, a superiority that may only be real spiritual superiority that comes from awareness of one’s metaphysical origin. The essence of this issue is the presence of ‘suprēmātia’. Without true ‘suprēmātia’ only pseudo-dominantia may be realized. In lack of spiritual supremacy dominance is not dominance and the power that is connected to this is usurped power. Dominance is different from power in that it stands above it and possesses it. Indian traditions address this in an ontological sense; they call power śakti (a feminine word) which corresponds to the magical power active in the world, while the possessor of power (śakti) is śakta (masculine word). Dominance comes from possessing power. The ruler has power and his sovereign being is based on true supremacy. He rises above other beings and people; his dominance that’s based on his supremacy can take full possession of power and sustain it. Pseudo-dominance can only keep the violent aspect of power, i.e. its most external form; it usurps power but not the totality of power, but only its lowest form, which is violence. No usurpation of power is imaginable that may extend to the full spectrum of power. Usurpation may only aim at the most external and the lowest form, aspect and methods of power.
The presence of the spirit in the world means the awareness of the presence of the center. Thus if the awareness of the center is not present in the world, the world is not spiritual. Spirit means center-awareness in the sphere of man and his world. It is the center and the axis that supremacy, as the culmination of dominance and power, must be based on.  By his essence, the ruler is motionless; he’s like the center and the axis. Operational power is always lower than the power directly possessed by the ruler. Directly possessed power aims at founding, moving and stopping. The ancient king (Jupiter Stator) means “Jupiter that stops”.  Stopper also means founder and mover: it moves and stops things; lays the foundation, creates a solid base and rules. The worldly equivalent – as primary metaphysical manifestation- of the spirit is monarchy, whereby at the top of the state there stands the king, the emperor or the monarch who actively possesses the  totality of power, without limitation. He holds everything in his hand that may be symbolized horizontally and vertically and that extends to these areas, and possesses them without limitation. Just as God possesses existence (being present in existence as the ruler of existence), is the king, the ruler, the monarch present in the earthly manifestation of existence. Traditionality must extend to the various areas of life and it must show the paradigms (patterns) according to which a traditional state may develop.

We must be aware that in the current age – not to mention the future – the possibility of such development is extremely minimal.  Traditional empires ceased to being spiritually permeated already around the 7th-6th-5th Centuries BC. There was some spiritual intensification in the Antiquity and the Middle Ages when traditional states were actualized (although not perfectly). The Roman Empire was a traditional empire; later the Eastern- and Western Roman Empire, also, just like the Western Roman Empire revived by the Carolingian dynasty, as well as the German-Roman Empire. Hungary was also a traditional state in the age of the Turul-dynasty -at the time of the rulers from the Arpad – House – in parallel to the German – Roman Empire of the Saxon and later of the Hohenstaufen dynasty.

These were conserved longer in the East especially when we consider the Chinese and especially the Japanese Empire, where the sovereign presence remained manifested until modern times. The highest form of monarchy is the God-kingdom when the godhead -as an Avatāra (that descends) appears in the world and occupies the position of the King of the World which in Sanskrit is Cakravarti, i.e. “the one who turns the wheel”. Only the one who is in the Center and who rises from the Center may be the “turner of the wheel” or the “lord of the wheel”. In a later stage the God-King is replaced by the sacred king whose mission is from Heaven. These are followed by kingdoms that are kingdoms by the grace of God. This is already a degradation but the spirit is still present, alive and active here. The forms that come after this already lack these powers and a state-form appears that demonstrably represents the non-manifestation of the spirit. They specifically represent not being the representatives of the spirit (of heaven, of transcendence). Such state form is the republic.

Although traditionalism is primarily not dealing with earthly domains, it also has a definitive position in questions of the world, since the world must ensure that people may return, reconnect to the spirit (to the origin). Thus the state bears the imprint of the spiritual world while in the same time being its paradigm in which the internal order of the spiritual world comes to expression, and which provides the pattern for man to build his inner and external world by.  Dominance, which is based on supremacy and which possesses power, may only be aristocratic, autocratic and theocratic. Autocratic means that the ruler has unlimited power and that this power is based on himself. Aristocracy means that the rulership of the best prevails. Theocratic means that aristocracy and theocracy draw their origins from the existence of the Godhead, and that in autocracy a divine principle is at work, and that the autocrat expresses a divine principle in all respects, and that aristocracy manifests the rulership of the best (most eminent)  based on divine dominance.

Theos means God, aristos means good, the best, the superlative of agathos,  auto means self. Theokrateia and theokratiā (theocratia), aristokrateia and aristokratiā (aristocratia), autokrateia and autokratiā (autocratia) are Greek and Greco-Latin forms. These constitute the foundation that enables the ascent back to the spirit. The rulership of the dēmos, of the people is dēmokrateia or dēmokratiā (democratia). “Democracy” would mean a degradation in comparison to the preceding stages even if a true spiritual authority manifested itself in dēmos; but ordinarily it doesn’t and thus dēmos is nothing more than a mass. Today all political lines want to speak in the name of democracy, their goal is its affirmation and exaltation. From a spiritual point of view democracy and democratism must be refuted, they have no raison d’etat. The Ruler’s one single responsibility – an inner one, not a principle to follow- is not to rule against the people. But he doesn’t have to rule in the name of the people because the people are immeasurably below the true Ruler.

We must define how traditional world-view (which concerns mostly spiritual spheres) manifests itself in the domains of politics and society. The unalienable political aspect of the traditional world-view is a political world-view which we call right-wing (dextrism) and from this follows the most radical right wing orientation. Democracy has no place in the radical right. When we talk about dictatorship, we must know what it means. Dictatorship means a temporary state; it means that the autocrat (the ruler) exercises executive power by giving orders, for example through a dictator. Temporariness is an integral part of dictatorship which may be negative or positive. The dictatorship of the proletariat or of cliques of certain circles and groups of people that lack any superior determination is not and may never be acceptable.

If a dictatorship doesn’t manifest the truly superior -but the opposite, the inferior- it represents the dominance of darkness, of skotasmokratiā. A dictatorship that applies terror and behind which skotasmokratiā prevails, must be refused. Such a dictatorship is left wing, similarly to democracy, liberalism and socialism. Terror and liberalism are left wing and so is terroristic dictatorship and democratism.

When it comes to societal-economical considerations, it’s obvious that socialism and especially communism are extremely anti-traditional. Communism is a political world-view that we may rightfully call satanokratiā, satanic dominance. Communism (Bolshevism) is the unequivocal expression of satanic dominance, and so is bourgeois democracy and capitalism on the plain of economics. Neither of these are traditional formulas. The last traditional phenomenon in the societal domain was feudalism – the original one that was still unspoiled by burgeoning money economics. The negative off-shoots of feudalism are always connected to the powerful unfolding of money economics; this is when for example the serfs are forced to work increasingly more than absolutely necessary. The essence of feudum is that everything belongs to the king, but not in a capitalistic sense but as his true royal possession. Whatever he grants becomes private property but not in a capitalistic sense. The land that was granted by the king as feudum may not have been sold because in the hierarchy of proprietary rights it belonged to the king. This process continued down the hierarchy (from a feudum a new feudum was created) all the way to the serfs that “owned” estates. The word serf originally didn’t have any pejorative meaning (it’s Latin form is jobbagus). Everybody was the king’s serf. The serf owned the property, it was his private property but not in a capitalistic sense, but in the sense of the hierarchy of property rights. It was his private property, but he received it in the form of feud-ownership, i.e. his private property was simultaneously the property of his lord and mainly that of the king.

The pure forms of feudalism prevailed in the 9th-14th Centuries; after this (with burgeoning money economics) the pure forms of feudalism became more and more obscure and they also took on characteristics that we may and should judge as negative. While capitalism is anti-traditional (state capitalism is even more so), feudalism – in its pure form – is traditional.

Leftism is always anti-traditional and rightism -if it’s truly rightism- is traditional. We must note that many right wing schools were infected by leftist elements in the course of history. We may expose strong leftist – actually contra-leftist- influence even in the far right currents and these (from this perspective) also appear to be anti-traditional. (In today’s political spectrum there are 53 parties in Hungary that are trying to manifest themselves; all these are, without exception, leftist. No matter how they define themselves, they are leftist because in each case they are related to some form of democracy and all democratisms are leftist. That from the point of view of MSZMP (Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party) all other parties are rightist or of the far right, we may simply ignore.)

There are two factors traditionalism considers to be indispensable. One is that feudalism must prevail, irrespective of the chances. The other is what may be called imperialism; since this term already evokes some confused, negative connotations, let’s call it rather imperiumism (“empireism”). If we take a look at Hungary’s history, after the Arpad-House died out, following the dominion of the Anjous, the following is characteristic of the Hambsbugs (the manifestations of the Jagellos and others were only episodic): Hungary was in personal union with the German-Roman Empire. The Kingdom of Hungary was never part of the German – Roman Empire, since the Hungarian king was a king with the rights of an emperor (unlike for example the Czech king) and he was connected to the German-Roman Empire (from the beginning of the last Century to Austria) through an “unio personalis”.

The Hungarian nobility had a much deeper feeling for the essence of feudalism than others in the German – Roman Empire. From this point of view the position of the Hungarians was much more traditional than the various parts of the other empire in the personal union. However, in the German-Roman Empire (later in Austria) people had a much deeper feeling for the idea of the empire and from this point of view this was more traditional. These two conditions (feudalism and imperialism) should have been in perfect synergy. Although the symbiosis of Hungary and the German-Roman Empire – in retrospective – may not be considered unequivocally positive, but the usual attitude that rejects the essentially positive aspect of the Habsburg Empire is completely false.

This personal union – although not perfect – was a form within Europe that we must not reject.

In connection with the spiritual manifestation of dominance and power, we must also speak of nationalism. Nationalism – not without antecedents – was born at the time of the reformation and it was unfolding more forcefully in relation with the 1789 French Revolution. This form of nationalism is anti-traditional and leftist because it is based on nivellation which always means leveling down. The essence of nationalism is that whoever belongs to the ‘nātiō’ is essentially of the same rank and it is precisely this that provides cohesion to the nation. Historically, nātiō used to mean various things; in Hungary for example, for a long time it meant only the nobility. Everybody was an inhabitant, a subject (rēgnicola) of the kingdom, but only the nobility and nobody else was part of the nātiō.

Internationalism may also be led back to the leveling nationalism that unfolded in the French revolution. The premise of one is that everybody is French, German or Hungarian, the rest doesn’t matter, this is what provides cohesion, the spiritual and all other foundation, this is what keeps the nation together.  If we continue the same train of thought, this may be extended to the entirety of humanity. Nationalism, however, also has a positive and rightist form. This nationalism assumes an internally structured nation; a nation that is structured horizontally and vertically; a nation that is differentiated, capable of integration and not aiming at livellation; a nation that is spiritually led from top to bottom, and that is spiritually oriented upward. This is what corresponds with right wing nationalism. Although in case of internationalism we can’t exclude a right wing internationalism, but this was and is being used by the darkest anti-spiritual and contra-spiritual powers to such a degree that cooperation with them from a spiritual point of view is impossible.

On the base of a restricted nationalism it is also not possible to strive towards the spirit. There is a spiritual trans-nationalism (or supra-nationalism) that unites based on principles that transcend nations. This takes on particular forms, like for example churches or orders that stand above nations (there is a radical party that calls itself trans-nationalist, however this has nothing to do with trans-nationalism, because it is a typical internationalist, cosmopolitan party formation.) True trans-nationalism and nationalism in the positive sense are connected by connationalism (a positive position on the side of national communities). Connationalism is based on the idea of nation-community as opposed to internationalism, meaning a simultaneous nationalism, i.e. the unification of nationalisms and nations.

Right and left are expressions that may be led back to the end of the 18th Century which originally referred to the positions of the representatives in parliament. The representatives of the conservative government parties were positioned on the right side, while the representatives supporting the subversion, on the left. The expression is not the best, but since there isn’t a better one, we can apply it thousands of years retrospective, to the current days or to the future.

If we want to name a truly right wing politician from the past 250 years who the most purely represented this ideology in the political domain, it must be Metternich, much more so than, for example Hitler or Mussolini. Metternich represented a right wing ideology that didn’t allow for any anti-left contamination. Due to the manipulative education system, for 99.9% of Hungarians the name Metternich rings as negatively as that of the basest criminal. This position is fundamentally flawed, even stupid. Metternich represented the almost completely pure traditional state ideal and never in his life exhibited one single anti-Hungarian sentiment. (Various careful and probing historical research unequivocally prove this.)

Sometimes in the Middle Ages and before, everybody and all currents were unequivocally “right wing”, since all currents were essentially traditional. Anti-tradition could only manifest itself on the peripheries, in the form of marginal forces. Differentiation may be made retrospectively; such was the case of the Guelfs and the Ghibellines in the Middle Ages. Guelf was a dynasty whose original German name was Welf, while the German equivalent of Ghibelline was Hohenstaufen. The positions of the two dynasties were fundamentally different. The Guelf dynasty fully acknowledged the pope’s primacy and supremacy above all. Their position was that the pope – if he wanted to- may become the emperor, but even if he’s not an emperor, he stands above him. According to the Ghibelline dynasty on the other hand, supremacy belongs to the emperor and the emperor -if he wanted to- could take over papal power, but even if he doesn’t, he still stands above the pope. This was well founded since there was a time when the German-Roman emperor was called Vicar of Christ – Vicārius Christī – while the pope was called Vicar of St. Peter – Vicārius Petrī -. This was the case for long centuries. Using current expressions, it’s obvious that both the Guelfs and the Ghibellines were “right wing” currents; this aside, the Ghibelline line was “more on the right”, because the ruler, according to the traditional conception, stands higher than the high priest. Priesthood always has something lunar about it. At the Aztecs, for example next to the king there was the main priest whose name was “Snake – Woman” and, although a man, he appeared as the wife of the king. In India, at the king’s side – the Rāja – there is Purōhita, the high priest, a brahmana who, during the ceremonies, despite being a man, related to the king as though he was a woman. This had no sexual connotations; it was simply the external manifestation of an inner rank. Although the ruler himself is a high priest, he nevertheless stands above the high priest. Even retrospective we can differentiate between stronger and weaker “right” currents while, using contemporary and last century expressions, both the Guelf and Ghibelline positions -as we noted- were “right wing”, together, as well as individually. When it comes to Hungary, both Koppany and St. Stephen represented traditional views.

There was a time when the powers of anti-tradition (although they existed) had only peripheral significance. They couldn’t penetrate man’s world, they couldn’t permeate it, but internally they were already at work invisibly; through decomposing consciousness they had achieved a lot, but they couldn’t upset the prevailing order yet. The states of the Middle Ages (although by far not perfect) were still nurtured and sustained by the penetrating power of residues that essentially meant the representation of tradition. Even in their residual state, these still dominated and (even in such a state) they could force the offensive forces aiming at subversion, to marginal and extra-marginal positions. Revolutions are fundamentally left wing. The 1648 English, the 1789 and 1830 French, the 1848 French and European, the 1870/71 French, the 1917 Russian and the 1918-19 European revolutions were all -fundamentally, extremely and more and more extremely- in the hands of the ruling powers of anti-tradition (skotasmocratic, representing darkness) and this is what they fully expressed. 1956 is different, we may not even call it revolution. It was an uprising for freedom and a freedom fight. What happened in Hungary in 1956 was not a left wing initiative; it can’t be connected to 1848, to 1918. 1956 was infinitely above these by rank, by honor and dignity, and by orientation. This doesn’t meant that in 1956 effective traditional powers manifested themselves – since such powers exist only sporadically in the world -, but its orientation corresponds to the orientation tradition would have taken this initiative. When the Bolsheviks called this counter-revolution they wanted to mark this Freedom-uprising negatively. If this was not concocted by the Bolsheviks, we may as well accept the ‘counter-revolution’ stamp, since counter-revolution -as fact, as possibility, as concept- always contains something positive. All in all however it’s more correct to stick to the terms Freedom-uprising or Freedom fight and under no circumstances should we confuse it with the manifestations triggered by dark forces that are concentrated in revolutions.

Viewing the facts, the events, the happenings and the tendencies of the past from the point of view of traditional politology, we may rightfully say that Hungary is still a kingdom today. From the side of powers only injustices happened in Hungary in the past 46 years. For 46 years the country was under enemy occupation and an enemy occupation may not produce national assemblies, governments, parliaments. Juristically (dē iūre) Hungary is still a kingdom where there has been an interregnum for 46 years, thus there is no legal head of state, no parliament, or government. The power in Hungary was de facto usurped by a power that stood in opposition with the interest of Hungarians, assisted by puppet figures. This was not changed by the 1990 “election” either, since the currently “elected” power is based on succession from the previous one and it originates itself from the previous one also. Similarly it’s fully besides the point what is accepted as crest: the one with or without the crown. Hungary’s crest is the crest with the crown and no legitimate organization has revoked this, since no such organization has operated since the beginning of the Soviet occupation. (The crest is the small crest with the crown; a middle crest with the crown may be used, as well, or a large crest with the crown, if it will ever be created. This one has only had drafts; it’s been being designed for centuries but it hasn’t reached a final shape, since it contained territories like Serbia and Jerusalem since the Hungarian king is also the king of Jerusalem and Serbia. The crest without the the crown is not a crest but a escutcheon. Even above the crest-shield of the counties of the kingdom there used to stand the crown, generally the crown with nine branches.)

At this time, the the chances for de facto traditional structures to emerge in Hungary or anywhere else in the world is immeasurably small. The chances are similarly small for the emergence of forms that are reminiscent of such structures. However, how much chance there is for restoration should not affect the principles themselves. What’s needed is the development of principle positions, while we may assume that in the life of a world that is becoming increasingly dark, there are relatively bright periods, so called lucidum intervals. In these cases it is not the original, traditional light that is awakened, but these are still relatively brighter periods in which restoration may at least be attempted, even if it may last only for 24 hours. If it may be realized only for one day and only partially, we should still live, act, operate, think and feel under the aegis of making this happen.

Political orientation, in comparison to spiritual orientation is secondary at most, but this doesn’t mean that this is not deeply and penetratingly important, for example from the point of view of the individual. It is characteristic even of high caliber people that they contain a confusion of principles, i.e. they lack an internal coherence. Karoly Kerenyi, someone who enjoys our respect to a somewhat lesser degree, made a good remark, namely that due to a confusion of principles, the man of our era – including people and their views who operate in science and in other higher areas – are ‘incoherent’, ‘incompetent’ and ‘inconsequent’.  If somebody considers himself spiritual but in the same time sympathizes with the political left, his internal integrity will unavoidably become compromised. The acceptance of all hierarchical setup is indispensable for traditionalism. If somebody considers meditation as a goal, but rejects the raison d’etat of hierarchies, he should also reject the ranking order of levels of consciousness since all hierarchies originate from the hierarchy of levels of consciousness: the world itself is the reflection of these.

If somebody says that all people are fundamentally the same, he can’t think this seriously and he has likely never thought this through earnestly. This is a very special position; one may sacrifice his life for such an ideology without truly believing that it is true. He may surmise that this should be true, but he doesn’t know why people should be equal. Life always belies this kind of egalitarianism, since the nature and spiritual level of people are to a large degree different. There are people on more or less the same spiritual level, but independent of this, egalitarianism has no actual foundation. Further: the principle of equality doesn’t represent anything morally good, anything that should be so because if it was so, it would be better. Precisely because this is not so, it follows that all leveling is based on sinking lower. Aiming at full equality in rights may lead only to equality in the lack of rights.

Dominance and power must come to expression organically. If a state is only a totalitarian state, it is not in the sign of traditionality. Totality must be supported by organicity, by the inner order of values that receives its powers from the spirit and from the domain above life. This order must be central and infused by the spirit and this center (from which this infusion originates) is in the same time the center of the goal which may be pursued by the community and the individual. Each and every single human individual carries in himself the status, i.e. the image of the state; if he doesn’t have such an image, then by confusing and darkening everything. Such a person may only strive towards such a state, i.e. towards the non-state. Current states are to a very large degree non-states and current societies are non-societies, as long as we use these terms in their original sense. From the point of view of the original ideal of state and society, current states and societies should be called masses, sets, apparatuses, inorganic organizations operating as tools for exercising violence. Traditionality is based on a true state and social ideal, one that is alive, which receives its life from powers of the highest order, which is organically and hierarchically structured, in which there isn’t and can’t be opposition between the individual and collective, and where everybody is in his place, everybody is oriented towards Heaven, i.e. everybody is progressing towards his higher or lower, but mostly more complete self.

* * *

One can’t find tranquility who lives among the people to pursue worldly goals, or the one who lives in isolation to pursue spiritual goals. Tranquility is achieved by those who live among the people to serve God.

* * *

Only by getting rid of the confused notion that the material world is real and important may one understand and fulfill his true calling.

* * *

Fear of death is born from people considernf the small part of life that is restricted by their own imagination to be everything.

* * *

We know the divine law from the traditions of all religions and from our consciousness, as long as it’s not disturbed by passions and pose; but we may know it also from experience if we apply it in life. All the requisites of the law that give imperturbable  salvation are in the same time the requisites of true law, as well.

* * *

We may consider somebody who is seeking wisdom clever, but if he thinks he has found it, he’s a fool.

Note:

Based on Andras Laszlo’s lecture in Nyiregyhaza, April 25th, 1990. Translation: PCC (Laszlo Kovari)