When suprahumanism speaks in the received social language it claims to be, simultaneously, conservative (or reactionary) and revolutionary (or progressive) — for these terms, within the three-dimensionality of historical time, no longer indicate the opposing directions of time’s arrow. The reclamation of a mythical past coincides with a project for the future.
Furthermore, this explains why suprahumanist thinkers and politicians — when they are not fully aware of the historical consciousness animating them — are an ambivalent relationship to so-called ‘tradition.’ They continue to imagine the tradition to which they refer both exists and has significance independently of any choice they may make. An advocated ‘return to tradition’ is actually a choice ‘against the tradition’ affirmed in the social institutions and customs of the mass society in which they live and ‘for a tradition’ already lost or dead — or repressed and condemned to live underground.
The suprahumanist discourse is indeed mythical. Myth, within the suprahumanist worldview, is discourse conceiving itself as originative will. It creates its own language by feeding parasitically on another. A myth emerges when a historically new ‘principle’ appears within a social and cultural milieu that is already informed and conformed — primarily in its language — by an opposed principle. In order to speak the new principle must necessarily borrow from the pre-existing language — a language dominated by another principle, another logos — because it does not yet have a language of its own. Similarly, while employing this received language, the new principle must reject the ‘reason,’ or more precisely, the ‘conceptual dialectics,’ of the opposed logos.
The ‘opposed contraries’ instituted by the previous dialectics [Egalitarian dialectics are based on the following antitheses: Christianity/atheism, communism/capitalism, nationalism/internationalism, right/left, individualism/collectivism, reaction/progress, etc.] are no longer felt as such, but rather as unity and identity — at other times as mere difference, though not as opposition.
All this is evident in Wagner, and even more in Nietzsche —with his proposal to go ‘beyond the good and evil’ of Christian dialectics. Later it characterizes the mental attitude of those German thinkers and political movements included under the label of “Conservative Revolution”…
The ‘mythical discourse’ is, in its linguistic materiality, one from which the new logos is absent, as a principle identified with the new myth. The materiality of the language conforms to another principle and logos — hence, the ‘ambiguity’ characteristic of myth, remarked by a number of thinkers — without having nevertheless individuated its cause — and the ‘irrationality’ that would seem to define myth.
However, if the ‘discourse’ necessarily appears ambiguous and irrational, the myth — related to itself, to its own principle – is in no way so. Its own logos is present not in the materiality of language, but within those who speak and understand it. A myth presupposes the existence of men who, beyond language and discourse, have the means of understanding it. As Meister Eckhart observed: ‘This address is only for those who have already found its message in their own lives, or at least long for it in their hearts.’
If the myth appears to those who participate in it, as consciousness and will of origins, to those who remain ‘outside’ it seems an impossible return to ‘primitiveness.’
The entire suprahumanist field — in its artistic, philosophical and political manifestations — is imbued with this notion: of ‘overcoming the contraries’ or ‘negating the dialectics’ of egalitarianism; of recognition of ‘the people’ — understood in an anti-democratic way as an organic community, as the single and exclusive source of sovereignty; and, simultaneously, of the affirmation of aristocratic values or the cult of the leader. In other cases, heroic individualism and anti-conformism are admired, together with a cult of the community and its traditions. Authority and liberty are no longer considered as opposite poles of the same alternative, but rather as values that may be pursued simultaneously and with the same intensity. Nowadays, the same phenomenon may be observed — for example, in the title of Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism, where ‘futurism,’ as modernity and technology, is combined with the promise of a new beginning — one which is imagined with ‘archaic’ traits.By Daniel S. Forrest, Suprahumanism: European Man and the Regeneration of History (via radical-traditionalism)