>>9481
>For the people becomes a monarch
This is downright insane and I do not care if he was speaking in parables. A plurality of many heads simply cannot behave like the coherent and upright single main kaput. With Aristotle's system you may only, in the best of circumstances, only reach half resolutions for all and every single possible issue in the city until one group emerges, gains greater power, and ends always winning the most, eventually allying with a second lesser one to perhaps beat the one other major contender, which is so typical of modern democracy. He may claim that all people are represented if this pleases him, they may be all more or less heard, but far from it all of them will be satisfied, because as soon as power is divided, then the constituent parts are given freedom by design to go their own way and favor their own desires, thus introducing aggravating rifts within the population. This opposition of forces becomes a game of neutering the extremes, a leveling of the whole and a reach for the median point in a planar struggle, whereas one imperator can force all these elements, whether they like it or not entirely, to aim upwards as a bundle of rays.
>Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain.
Was he dishonest or something? Did he really think Homer, in his own time and age, would repudiate the typical model of ruling that all men and women were accustomed to, whether the monarchy was hereditary or elective?
>Aristotle is opposed not only opposed to "many in one", but absolute monarchy (where the monarch has the pre-eminence of the entire state).
Whether it's a large state or a city-state, the one ruler would have a higher record of great accomplishments than of men of short mandates who had to constantly compose with varying competitive groups.
>Guenon was a freemason & holds it against Philip the Fair (who persecuted the Knights Templar, related to freemasonry) for the supremacy of political values.
Freemasonry and the intrigues about the different types of orders of Knights of the Temple has always been too hard a topic for me to decide for good on one side or the other, for a lack of sufficient facts. Some say that Philip allied himself with the Church to crack down on competition and seize the vast treasures amassed by the rather international proto-banking order. Others say that while the Templars started as Christians, they progressively drifted towards a silent anti-Christianism and opened themselves to a more creed-agnostic approach, of which Freemasonry would take more than just a slight inspiration to say the least. Libertarians would likely hate the Templars for having established the basics of a central bank, which is a really superficial criticism. Others will point out that they were not that powerful since they couldn't even defend themselves that well despite the vast amount of money they managed and the still large amount they directly controlled. Because they let the Middle East have an influence on them, they're hated as apostates by Christians. Others argued that they had nurtured an interest in Semitic Hermeticism that went far beyond what Christian scholars with an interest in the esoteric touched upon. As for well meaning Freemasons, if they still exist, they likely are completely out of their league now, infected with beliefs that have drifted much too close to Jewish Kabalism and which may have started around the days of templarism.
>That & I feel Julius Evola & any other aristocratic is easily persuaded to the views of Alexis de Tocqueville against Absolute Monarchy (which in turn is just the Aristotelian view, imho).
Evola? No, I don't think so. He certainly defended against Guénon the figure of a regal ruler who combined the secular and spiritual powers while Guenon always placed the spiritual above all else, which is the trend of those Abrahamists who fall into the spiritual escapism by detaching themselves too much from the worldly affairs. Evola had strong texts about imperialism, too much to be at the same time defending a diluted and divided form of political power with all sorts of checks and balances and on then, on the other hand, long for great changes that could only be brought by a strong emperor. His position on the opposition between the Guelph and the Ghibelline makes this very clear.
>HIGH POLITICS consists in the perfection of political virtue, which accounts for all estates, warrior and priest.
It would be even more accurate for civilizations that didn't have much of a large spiritual institution with its dedicated caste, even if there would have been a few specialists on the spiritual matters as much as there would be specialists of the martial matters. A good king would know how to surround himself with the best, as simple as that.
>Compare Natsoc or Fascist ceremonies & demonstrations in the past, what you see is HIGH POLITICS.
Absolutely. Especially the National Socialist ones, which unfortunately might have been badly named because socialism, to many, would be thought of as a secular sociological and economical method of state management, whereas on a purer level, a true socialism should encompass all aspects of life, including the spiritual, as it aims at serving society, which should strictly be composed of people bound in blood and faith.