Political Prussianism as a Political Theory of the Right

The political myth of modernity is the vision of society as organized and based on the idea of ​​a social contract. This idea is the fruit of the English spirit and was articulated by Thomas Hobbes. If the paradigm of classical political theory was the city as founded on the natural order, Hobbes breaks with this vision and institutes the conception of political order as emanating from subjects who decide to freely enter into agreements among themselves and grant power to the political sovereign as a form of protection against the violent death that always lurks in the State of Nature.

However, the objective of Hobbes' political contractualism was to guarantee a solid foundation for political sovereignty sustained by the submission of the citizen to a power that he himself agreed to serve. This vision sought to keep alive the medieval feudal conception of sovereignty as a form of voluntary submission to a sovereign power. Hobbes sought a solution to the crisis of political authority that had plagued Europe since the end of the medieval period. However, Hobbes no longer appealed to a classical idealist vision in the tradition of Plato and Aristotle, but rather to the mechanistic approach and nascent materialism of his time. And it is this mechanistic vision that lies behind the Hobbesian conception of freedom as the absence of external impediments to a subject's action – a vision of freedom in essentially negative terms. Of course, Hobbes was a philosophical compatibilist and believed in the reconciliation of human freedom with the divine will, which would serve as a moral metric for what higher ends such freedom should seek. But the materialism contained in his thought became autonomous in relation to divine revelation, leaving only the notion of freedom as emancipation from any external coercion; this coercion ended up being represented by the figures of God, tradition, community, culture, etc.

In this way, a rationalist formalism is established that seeks to emancipate the individual from any transcendent bond. Freedom begins to be seen as a violent rupture in relation to everything that ties the individual to the past and to forms of collective belonging. Religion begins to be seen as oppression, as do tradition, culture, family, and sex. This is why the civilizational crisis that has plagued the West since the Renaissance has its origins in a vision of freedom as an expression of a cultural pathology – anything seen as an transcendent end to the individual is a form of totalitarian oppression. In this way, normality becomes illness, vice becomes virtue, ugliness becomes beauty, crime becomes order, and perversion becomes an expression of purity. Liberalism, and not “Cultural Marxism,” is the root of the permanent and dizzying cultural revolution that we have experienced since the emergence of modernity as a historical epoch.

But the liberal and formalist rationalism of the English spirit was not the only worldview that modernity produced on how to organize a political order. There is an alternative to the English vision of merchants and street grocers: the Prussian conception of the community as an army, as a people in arms – a warrior and heroic ethnostate.

Such a vision does not operate with a materialistic and mechanistic conception of freedom, but with an idealistic and sacred worldview, where freedom is the purest manifestation of a subject who finds in the need for duty and obedience the most solid foundation of his freedom. This is because the need for duty is the emergence in the consciousness of the subject of that which is the very substance of his freedom: a law that emanates from the depths of his heart as the immediate certainty of what destiny demands of him as a subject. Thus, for the Prussian conception of freedom - which we can see in thinkers such as Goethe, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Nietzsche, Spengler, and Heidegger - obedience, duty, discipline, rigor, and sovereign authority are not antagonistic to individual desires and will, but rather the recognition that such a particular will is unrealizable when disconnected from the destiny of a race, culture, and spirit. Thus, the foundation of freedom cannot be a contract, but military discipline and obedience in the fulfillment of our duty. Or as Goethe said, whoever wants to be free must begin by limiting himself.

Liberal freedom centered on the view of society as a contract tends easily to degenerate into libertinism and licentiousness. The only result of this can only be anarchy, as well as the extinction of a form of life and race. While Prussian freedom is the perpetuation and reverberation of individual freedom within the fabric of eternity, since it is capable of encompassing the individual will within the political community in such a way that both are reconciled and fully realized in everything that leads to the political and cultural greatness of the race. The artist and the warrior, as well as the philosopher and the poet, and even the artisan and the merchant, all work towards the same end: the production of something that is the expression of an individual destiny centered on the historical flow of a tradition and people. That is, beyond a subject merely realizing his personal freedom in the pursuit of natural pleasures such as sex and food, within a Prussian conception of freedom we have every vocation, activity and action charged with a transcendent and spiritual meaning: to serve and add to the spiritual glory of the culture of a race. This is why the militarization of society and of every activity transforms any activity into an expression of vertical heroism. The citizen ceases to be a passive subject merely exercising his freedom in a private sphere disconnected from the whole, but becomes a warrior of race and culture.

Such a spiritualist and Spartan conception of freedom is today seen as fascism by the mortal enemies of order and authority, the true foundations of freedom. Today's decadent and decomposing liberalism can only understand such a vision as an archaic form of social organization. However, the idea of ​​a militaristic and Spartan ethnostate does not seem to bother the leaders of the current liberal order when it comes to geopolitically sustaining the state of Israel. It is a curious historical irony that the political form most typical of Western man – a warrior community at the service of the political and cultural glory of its people – currently only exists crystallized in the state of Israel (it is no coincidence that Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, used the Prussian motto to refer to the newly born state in 1948: “A people in arms”); meanwhile, the West bleeds from spiritual wounds in a permanent state of slow cultural euthanasia, while at the same time employing all its military forces in the service of the militaristic ethnostate of Israel.

The most important task of Western man at the present historical moment is to restore the Prussian vision of freedom and a political order centered on the sacred, hierarchy, and on the existential condition of an individual as a warrior of his race and culture. It is an axiom of the human mind that every people has the right to defend their existence, culture and values ​​with the political form most suited to the preservation of their form of life throughout history. Liberal democracies centered on contractualist political models and a commercial spirit are incapable of offering Western man a political form capable of guaranteeing his existence in the plane of Universal History as a political and military protagonist of the global process. It is necessary for every Western man to transform himself into a political soldier and spiritual warrior of his race and seek to realize the political form most suited to the destiny of our people: a militaristic and sacred Empire, seeking to inscribe in the annals of human history the testimony of our undying drive for cultural and spiritual glory.